SCREEN-L Archives

April 1995, Week 3


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Donald Larsson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 19 Apr 1995 10:32:23 CDT
text/plain (28 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
PSYCPAT inquires:
"To the post that equated seeing an animal killed on screen with seeing
it shrinkwrapped in the supermarket:  I have difficulty comparing killing
an animal for its meat  with killing an animal for some goal of cinematic
verite.  Could you clarify?"
I wasn't quite equating the two--yet you seem to be.  I was trying to make the
point that in certain films (such as the ones I mentioned), the point is
brought home that survival has often required the death of animals for our
sustenance.  The sacrifice of the pig in TREE OF THE WOODEN CLOGS is a
 difficultexample, since the pig is important to the family but they've come to
 the end
of all other resources.  In other films, such killings are simply a fact of
rural life.  Sometimes--as in Cisse's BRIGHTNESS--the killing is sacrificial.
I would suggest, as another post seems to say, that modern urban audiences often
find such scenes upsetting, yet think nothing of heading to Sizzler for a
sirloin or plucking some of Frank Perdue's best from the shelves.  See
 WALKABOUT(which I mentioned) where he crosscuts the aborigine's killing of an
(kangaroo?) with shots of meat in a market.
I hope that clarifies--though the intent of your question wasn't quite clear
Don Larsson, Mankato State U (MN)