OK so i know they really killed that horse during the raid... but did they really set a cow on fire? I'm not some PETA loving d-bag but i still think that setting a cow on fire is just a tad bit brutal and unnecessary...
Richard Chesler: Is that your blood?
Narrator: Some of it, yeah.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Just a tad brutal and unecesary? If that cow was your daughter, would you still say so? I doubt it.
Yes, they really did set a helpless cow on fire. Apparently such sadists exist.
Boycott movies that involve real animal violence! (and their directors too)
I do not get the point of this response...
Richard Chesler: Is that your blood?
Narrator: Some of it, yeah.
[deleted]
It's been discussed on other threads, but just so everyone on this thread knows, the cow was covered with asbestos and was not harmed at all by the flames.
The horse is a different story; it actually was killed (shot in the head at the top of the stairs). The horse was taken from a slaughterhouse and was going to be killed in much the same fashion the very next day. Not arguing the morality of that, just clarifying the facts.
Oh, and the dog was not harmed at all. Man strikes the ground, cut to a trained dog lying down covered in fake blood. That one really should be obvious.
Gee folks you've watched a cinema masterpiece and have nothing to write about except for alleged animal abuse? This is why democracy sucks.
my vote history:
http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=27424531
Well, it is kind of important.
share[deleted]
So you don't eat meat that came from factory farms?
Or is the only issue *seeing* the torture/killing?
I try not to, yes. But what does that matter in this discussion? Just because something is happening somehwere else, does it mean we should accept and enjoy something wrong happening in here?
share[deleted]
The horse was not shot at the top of the stairs the horse fell down the stairs possibly breaking it's leg in the process, or possibly already had something wrong with it's legs at the top causing it to fall.
When it landed at the bottom it took two attempts to stand up each time writhing in agony and falling backwards, possibly it's rear leg hamstrings were severed.
someone then rushed in and stuck a stake through its chest in an attempt to get it's heart no doubt. Cut scene, we didn't get to see any more from how long it took the horse to die.
The cow,
No evidence I could see of any protective fire blanket, all I saw was a cow poured in petrol set on fire.
The dog, I could hope that it was just a healthy trained dog lying still, but the way it was flinching....??? either well trained or it was really beaten.
You are describing what you see in the film; I'm telling you how Tarkovsky, himself, described MAKING those shots. The horse was shot but did not die, obviously. It was a botched shot which obviously added much misery to the horses final moments. Again, not defending it, just telling you what Tarkovsky said about it. The cow was covered with asbestos, which is like a powder. I never said it was wearing any kind of protective coat. Nevertheless, asbestos, although now known to be a carcinogen, is a powerful flame retardant. The cow was not harmed, according to Tarkovsky, who never felt he had done anything wrong regarding animals and had no need to lie about it. The dog, it's so obvious and so simple to just NOT SHOW THE MAN ACTUALLY HITTING ANY DOG, and then tell a trained dog to just lie there, Tarkovsky was mildly amused that people thought he had actually hurt a dog!
shareI'll rewind, take another look then return to comment on all of them
shareHaving watched again, My opinion is that the horse could well have been shot just before the scene started. The horse was, from the start of the scene clearly unbalanced. It would appear not to have been shot in the head but in the body, so obviously would not have killed the horse instantly, and obvious that the horse would die a horrible death, let alone making it fall down stairs aswell.
The horse scene was a single shot but the camera pans left taking the horse out of shot before coming back right to the horse. In short, the horse scene is animal cruelty in it's most horrific form.
The cow was not covered in a blanket, Ive never heard of "Asbestos powder" and I challenge you to put "asbestos powder" on your head and then set your hair on fire with petrol, lets see how you like it. Someone said in this board on this thread or the other thread that the cow seemed calm and effectively was saying "the cow had a smile on her face" I disagree, the cow was in great distress with it's coat on fire, it's tail on fire, and it was running to try to escape (as you would expect a cow on fire to do). I don't believe there was any fire protection on the cow. Again amimal cruelty in its most horrific form.
I didn't rewind to the dog scene.
Tarkovsky IMHO would not admit to this cruelty, I would expect him to lie to protect himself, so saying "Tarkovsky said so" is to my mind irrelevant. The people who made this film were disgusting scum. There can be no justification for it, it didn't add to the film and if never included it would not have lost anything.
As said before, I'm not defending it. I agree the horse scene was animal cruelty and TODAY, in the USA, no film maker would be allowed to do such a thing, or would even think about doing it. I was just giving information about how it was done.
But as to whether Tarkovsky would admit to it, it was no problem for him. Notions of 'animal cruelty' are actually rather new. Back in the 70s, for example, if you wanted to beat your dog to death that was completely your own prerogative; a dog was merely 'property' and there were no laws to stop you from doing such a thing. And I'm talking about IN THE UNITED STATES! In Russia, I can only imagine the situation was even worse for 'animal rights'.
I don't think Tarkovsky specifically wanted to hurt animals, but in his mind they were props, objects. If he needed a shot for his film, he was going to get it. He took what he thought were precautions against hurting the animals unduly.
Even the horse was taken from a slaughterhouse where it would have been shot to death very next day. Yeah, killing a horse (even one slated for slaughter) to use in a film is cruel. I think so. But those were different times and a VERY different culture. But the horrificness of the shot is mainly because it was botched. If it had gone as planned, even knowing how it was done, most people wouldn't have too much trouble accepting it. The horse was going to die the same death soon anyway.
As to the cow, a 'coat' of asbestos doesn't mean a fabric coat. Asbestos is a natural forming fiber. When processed it has the feel of a fibrous powder. It can be mixed with a paste and spread over things. Look at the cow. You can clearly see that it is much darker on its body than on its head. That is the asbestos paste. And most importantly, CLEARLY the cow is NOT IN PAIN! It trots toward the door rather nonchalantly then, as it turns toward the camera, it TRIPS over some rope or piece of cloth, and that makes it stumble. But if it had FELT the flames it would have been jumping and bucking like a bronco horse. There were many people on the set, and I've never heard any reports from people who MADE the movie that anything bad happened to the cow. Some of those same people DID complain about the horse scene.
As to the dog, it doesn't even deserve an explanation. Anyone who watches it can see that no dog was harmed. A dog runs up to a man and jumps at him more like he wants to play than as an attack. Camera pans up so we don't see the dog (however, watch the man's eyes and you can SEE him watch the dog pulled away). Once the dog is out of the scene the man swings a club at the ground a few times. Cut to a picture of a dog told to lie down; it moves a bit, but not at all 'twitches'. The dog is just restless on the ground, as dogs often are. EVEN THE SOUNDS ARE NOT OF A DOG YELPING! If you've ever seen a dog hit, you know that they yelp! How could THOSE sounds come from a suffering dog?
In conclusion, the horse scene was cruel and Tarkovsky took heat for it. The cow and the dog weren't harmed at all. That's what people associated with the film have said, and there's nothing in the film to disprove that.
I don't think Tarkovsky specifically wanted to hurt animals, but in his mind they were props, objects. If he needed a shot for his film, he was going to get it.There is an inherent contradiction in this statement, can you see it?
As to the cow, a 'coat' of asbestos doesn't mean a fabric coat. Asbestos is a natural forming fiber. When processed it has the feel of a fibrous powder. It can be mixed with a paste and spread over things. Look at the cow. You can clearly see that it is much darker on its body than on its head. That is the asbestos paste.Did the cow get to sue for asbestosis later in life? I find it hard to swallow that any mammal being coated with asbestos is not cruel. Furthermore, unless the cow understood that it was protected by this powder then the distress caused to it is not tolerable.
I'm scared of the middle place between light and nowhereshare
I'm not disagreeing that it is insensitive; I don't think I praised Tarkovsky as being 'sensitive' at all. I'm just explaining how the shots were done, and pointing out that the cow was not burned alive, or anything remotely close to that. They put the flames out and the cow went her merry way. And yes, asbestos is a known carcinogen NOW but I believe that was not the case when this film was made.
shareFair enough. In explaining how the scenes were done you sound like an apologist for Tarkovsky though and according to open sources the effects of asbestos were known by the mid-60's. I'm sure the cow was not merry after the event - rather ridiculous expression to use - and neither might the crew who administered the powder, unless they were in protective clothing.
There are lots of discussions and arguments on IMDb where an animal has been mistreated on film and some, not including you in this, go to some length to invalidate concerns and disquiet that others have watching these scenes done for film effect. Ultimately the degree of insensitivity and even sadism of the director has to be questioned. That questioning need not undermine their significance or talent as a filmmaker. If others do not want to question it even in mental privacy then there is an uneasy question for me about them as people I'm afraid.
I'm scared of the middle place between light and nowhereshare
"So saying "Tarkovsky said so" is to my mind irrelevant".
But of course. Yet what is NOT irrelevant, are your "beliefs" regarding events you never witnessed and know nothing about, except for some rumors you heard somewhere, sometime.
"I´ve never heard of "asbestos powder".
Which, of course, means that it doesn´t exist - or at the very least, could not have been used by Tarkovsky.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
LMAO :D best comment. Well maybe he's a hindu, but .. still strange, isn't it supposed to be mother instead of daughter? 
shareIf that cow was my daughter... kinda like the way it rolls off the tongue...
And it wasn´t a helpless cow, it was a highly sophisticated, resourceful Special Forces cow trained to successfully combat any number of christ-loving pyromaniac filmmakers. You can guess three times who got their asses kicked when the cow and the film crew were duking it out in the unfilmed climax...
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
ALLEGED animal abuse happened FIFTY YEARS AGO in fu@#ing Russia IS trivial. Moron.
There's so many of you retards who have, or more likely have not, watched a cinematic masterpiece and have nothing better to say than "Oh poor dog, oh poor cow, such bastards" it really makes me lose my faith in humanity. Seems all you have a couple of neurons left for is feel sorry for everything, including yourselves. Why don't you try and watch "The Smurfs"? I think it's more suitable for the likes of you. Leave truly great movies to people who can appreciate three hours of great cinema without being put off by a 10-second shot of an animal dying.
Jesus Christ...
If some of us want to make or watch realistic films that involve animals being harmed or killed, that's our prerogative. If you want to buy a pet cow, put it in diapers, and nanny it like a little baby, that would be yours. Take your Naziesque control attitude elsewhere and stop acting as though nobody else on the planet is allowed to do something simply because it offends you or makes you squeamish. This is why democracy is dangerous... tyranny of idiots, such as ones who don't like seeing animals die (but don't mind killing and enslaving them in general, as long as it's out of sight, out of mind) censoring intelligent people based on their whimsical moral and religious beliefs.
~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~
"That's our prerogative".
Not really; as a matter of fact, certain animal-harming practices that film crews might engage in, are against the law this day and age - and so they should be. And the correlation you're attempting to draw between advanced intelligence and lust for zoo sadism, is downright bizarre. Talk about "whimsical moral"...
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
> Not really; as a matter of fact, certain animal-harming practices that film crews might engage in, are against the law this day and age
They can still be done. Laws don't restrict behavior, they only punish people for that behavior. Many people even get away with breaking them without any punishment.
Laws are arbitrary and are not the same in every part of the world.
> and so they should be
Your opinion. We're entitled to our own.
> is downright bizarre
Your opinion.
> Talk about "whimsical moral"...
There are different moral codes. You don't have the monopoly on them. There are also amoral people who choose not to have any moral code.
~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~
Nothing to do with any "opinions" - I'm a civilized person while you are a sick f-ck that needs to be locked up for good. Especially seeing as elsewhere you've also chosen to defend Holocaust as a good thing.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Pure opinion and bias. You fancy yourself "civilized" and special and have words with negative connotations to label those you dislike so as to feel elevated above them. I'm a sick f-ck to you, and you're a stupid, arrogant f-ck to me. I've been seen defending historical revisionism elsewhere, making me "sick", and you've been seen right here exhibiting biggotry, hostility, and lack of rationality, which makes you stupid. If you managed to get your fat American ass off the couch long enough to come try to lock me up personally you'd end up similar to the cow of this topic, so you'd better hope that another "big boy" takes care of me for you without getting your anus ravaged too much in the process.
~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~
Nothing to do with any "opinions" - I'm a civilized person while you are a sick f-ck that needs to be locked up for good.
Prisons are factually very effective at keeping the psychopaths and other antisocial element from moving around freely. I approve of them.
And I have no intention of showing the slightest bit of respect to proponents of zoo sadism and the Holocaust or the deranged element that is egging them on. And by the latter I mean you, c-nt.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan
you might be a dumbass. Scratch that, you are insane.
shareI agree. It doesn't detract from the movie and the animals they used were gonna be sent to the slaughterhouse anyway (which isn't too much better), but it is bothersome to see a cow on fire.
That Really Rustled My Jimmies
I watched that film yesterday and on the German Icestorm DVD there are obviously some cuts here and there (running about 171minutes). What is interesting is, that they cut or completely cut out those animal cruelty scenes. I never saw a burning cow or a dead dog. They only showed the off screen beating but omitted showing the corpse. Also the horse scene seems to be heavily cut judging from your description in this thread. The cow was completely left out.
share