cow killing - Hud (1963) Discussion

[–] wtl471629 16 years ago

I live in South Texas and unfortunately that is the way it would have been done at that time.

reply

[–] jprjr 16 years ago

I've been searching the internet to find out if the scene was an actual slaughter of sick cows or just a scene? The cattle seemed pretty scared/ startled and they were quite packed into the killing area. Anyone know the specifics of this scene?

reply

[–] RaneyMatt 15 years ago

There are no cattle injured or killed in the scene. You will notice that after the shot of their being corralled in the scratch-out, there are no shots of the men firing their rifles and cattle in the same camera frame; the actors are simply firing their blanks into an opening in the ground. There are some isolated close shots of cattle seemingly spooked, but there is never any sight of blood, or even cattle falling to the ground.

After the last shot is fired and echoed away, the camera takes a the scratch-out view looking up at the men, the sprayer, and the USDA men bringing in shovels and sacks of lime, followed by the starting and refilling of the scratch-out by the bulldozer.

Also, any research into the latest "Hoof and Mouth" outbreaks in Britain, Taiwan, Australia and elsewhere show that the lethal option is still the prevalent one.

One truly great thing about HUD is that it is actually shot in Texas; not some location or studio ranch in central California. Most of the exteriors were shot on the ranch of author Larry McMurtry's brother, just outside of Claude, which is southeast of Amarillo on US 287 (as the opening shots of Lon entering town portray).

reply

[–] I_Aint_No_Prophet 14 years ago

Really? I thought that I did see cattle falling over, which is what made me believe that it was possibly real, especially since it was before the days of the "no animals were harmed during the making of this film" disclaimer. I was really bothered by the scene, so I'm glad to know that they weren't actually shot.

"Why do you find it so hard to believe?"
"Why do you find it so easy?"
"It's never BEEN easy!"

reply

[–] sarasvati2000 16 years ago

Yes. Hoof and mouth is very contagious, and the cattle must be destroyed.

reply

[–] bonehead-53 16 years ago

Doesn't affect the horses used to herd them? Earlier in the movie they implied it might involve all the animals...

reply

[–] IloveMuggy 16 years ago

I couldn't watch this scene--it was just too disturbing. In the animal-rights culture of today such a scene would NEVER be included in the movie. Poor cows!!

reply

[–] Ammo08 16 years ago

Shooting them was very merciful. Hoof and mouth disease is a slow death.

reply

[–] rooprect 15 years ago

In the animal-rights culture of today such a scene would NEVER be included in the movie.

Hi, could you please explain that statement? I haven't seen this film, but I'm spooked by what you said. Are you implying that the film crew actually engaged in acts of brutality against the animals?

(Note: animal advocates (Humane Assoc, SPCA, Humane Society, etc) aren't against depicting brutality. They're against actual cases of brutality. For example, you could make a film about Michael Vick killing dogs, and as long as it's fake special effects, you'll get no complaints. But if you actually kill dogs on camera, that's where you get in trouble. Is that what you're saying happened here with the cows?)

reply

[–] noveltylibrary 13 years ago

they were cramped in terribly, and visibly spooked.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 10 years ago

"Are you implying that the film crew actually engaged in acts of brutality against the animals?"

From the way the scene is shot, it's obvious that no cows were actually killed - the animals act startled, a few of them are seen tip over, but for about 75% of the scene, the camera stays on the shooters rather than the animals supposedly slain.

However, there's another scene in the film that unquestionably qualifies as "real" animal cruelty - the pig rodeo thing where the actors tear at the animal's hind legs and jump allover them while the poor swine are clearly in great distress and pain. An ugly instance of zoo sadism.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] rooprect 10 years ago

Thanks franz, scenes where an animal is put in actual distress (or injured/killed) are too much for me. I know all the arguments like people eat animals, etc, but I feel like the human race can draw the line at killing for entertainment, at least. I don't know if you're from the USA, but rodeo is our version of bullfighting, only (supposedly) the kinder gentler version. I like your term "zoo sadism".

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mikekrit62 9 years ago

I love animals too, and the scene where the cows are killed is heartbreaking, but not just from the standpoint of the poor cows. You're watching someone's life work and passion being destroyed before their eyes.

It's sad that so many can get so worked up over the fate of the cattle, but fail to feel any empathy for Homer. He spent his whole life raising them, cross-breeding them, breaking his back to keep them healthy and strong. He could have done as Hud wanted and dump them off on the market, pocket the money and allow the disease to spread. Instead he did what was right and sacrificed his cattle so that hundreds or even thousands of other cattle didn't have to suffer the same fate.

It's a moment where Homer has his heart ripped out of him...again, and for the last time. There's really nothing left for him too lose, and it's too late to start over.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bebop63-1 15 years ago

No, it wouldn't affect horses. FMD affects only cloven-footed animals, eg., cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, deer. That was why the county veterinarian suggested inoculating some cattle and some horses to determine if the suspected disease was foot and mouth. If it affected the former but not the latter, then it was confirmed to be FMD. Otherwise, it would be some other disease. Unfortunately for the Bannons, it turned out to be FMD.

reply

[–] bonehead-53 15 years ago

Thank you. I had forgotten about this long ago. Guess I could have investigated FMD a little by myself, but I don't have any cows.

reply

[–] NecrochildK 15 years ago

I can say it was quite accurate. My dad was a veterinarian in employ to the state of Texas in helping eliminate the screw worm problem and as such he also was hired on as advisor for the movie Hud in keeping these aspects of the movie authentic.

reply

[–] RazzberryBeret 14 years ago

They only showed a extreme few close-ups of cows tilting over. There were no wounds and as mentioned here earlier, you never see the men firing their rifles and cows falling down together in one single shot. It's all cinematic cheating. Separate shots edited together to give the effect that it's all happening at once.

reply

[–] beaupeyton-1 14 years ago

Accurate except that disease hasn't been seen in the U.S. since 1929, so it's an inaccurate portrayal for the time period.

reply

[–] CorncobOBranflake 13 years ago

"Accurate except that disease hasn't been seen in the U.S. since 1929, so it's an inaccurate portrayal for the time period."

he brought the cows in from Mexico

reply

[–] bluefellow 14 years ago

The cows were not actually killed in that scene. Also, Melvyn Douglas did not really die during filming---but since this was a movie they staged scenes to make it look like those things happened.

"I don't want any Commies in my car. No Christians, either."

reply

[–] buckshot69 13 years ago

I live in KY but from what I've heard growing up that's what they do, then they burn the bodies.

To him mercy is passion With me it is good manners.You may judge which motive is more reliable

reply

[–] barjo4 9 years ago

I do not believe that any of us here would choose to work in a slaughterhouse. I shot one deer in my life when I was 18 and I never killed another - I am 70 now. Not sure if shooting cattle in a ditch is any less humane than the Indians running buffalo over a cliff.

reply

[–] liscarkat-2 9 years ago

Yes, but Indians can do whatever they want, because they're more noble and in touch with the earth.

reply