Animals Were Harmed
November 26, 2013 3:03 PM Subscribe
Animals Were Harmed On the American Humane Association's relationship with Hollywood.
This was a depressing read -- I hope some more widely-read mainstream outlets pick this story up and put public pressure on Hollywood to take animal welfare seriously.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:13 PM on November 26, 2013
posted by tonycpsu at 3:13 PM on November 26, 2013
Whoops, this is the correct link for the AHA's statement.
posted by Blasdelb at 3:16 PM on November 26, 2013
posted by Blasdelb at 3:16 PM on November 26, 2013
Well, the link I linked is the link I meant to link, but the link you linked is also a useful link, Blasdelb, so thanks :-)
posted by turbid dahlia at 3:23 PM on November 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by turbid dahlia at 3:23 PM on November 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
Before I read this thing which may be upsetting, could someone tell me: are there descriptions of animal abuse in the article?
Thanks
posted by Adridne at 3:47 PM on November 26, 2013
Thanks
posted by Adridne at 3:47 PM on November 26, 2013
The descriptions of animal injuries are not lurid, but there are photographs of some of the injuries and they are somewhat graphic.
posted by chrominance at 3:49 PM on November 26, 2013
posted by chrominance at 3:49 PM on November 26, 2013
The AHA's response is ... not especially winning me over to their side.
"Several of the dozens of incidents you mentioned could be interpreted as not being our fault!"
posted by kyrademon at 3:52 PM on November 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
"Several of the dozens of incidents you mentioned could be interpreted as not being our fault!"
posted by kyrademon at 3:52 PM on November 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
I am glad this was written and is getting attention (I had to stop reading it though). I guess I was mistaken in believing that most people knew the AHA's "stamp of approval" was basically meaningless.
But while it can be enjoyable, I am pretty against using animals solely as entertainment. I would love to see these issues get wider attention.
posted by darksong at 4:00 PM on November 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
But while it can be enjoyable, I am pretty against using animals solely as entertainment. I would love to see these issues get wider attention.
posted by darksong at 4:00 PM on November 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
"Before I read this thing which may be upsetting, could someone tell me: are there descriptions of animal abuse in the article?"
Yes, although most of it seems to be negligence rather than intentional abuse.
The problem seems to be that the AHA is funded by the industry it's supposed to be monitoring, which leads to an avoidable conflict of interest - and (according to the article) an increasing need for the AHA to "go easy" on productions.
posted by Kevin Street at 4:02 PM on November 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yes, although most of it seems to be negligence rather than intentional abuse.
The problem seems to be that the AHA is funded by the industry it's supposed to be monitoring, which leads to an avoidable conflict of interest - and (according to the article) an increasing need for the AHA to "go easy" on productions.
posted by Kevin Street at 4:02 PM on November 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
It's interesting how much of this involves horses.
A part of me thinks that, due to the number of projects that want to do horse-related stunts, and the delicate nature of horses in general, either one of two things should happen:
- the AHA should blanket refuse to be involved with any production doing horse-related stunts, denying horse stunt projects the sought-after "No Animals Were Harmed" credits blurb (and possibly making it harder to insure these projects?)
or
- there should be a separate advocacy group that uses much stricter criteria and maintains much closer relationships with productions that use horses.
I've worked on projects that have had AHA involvement. None of them have been horse related. It's been mostly dogs (and in those cases, mostly pet dogs depicted on screen just being pets), and one job where there were several scenes on a farm with barnyard animals. On those projects, I've felt like the AHA was fine, and I trusted from what I saw on set that the animals were being treated appropriately.
Films that heavily use horses, or more significantly, do stunts that involve horses, seem like a totally different situation than someone making sure the pet dog on camera was well treated.
posted by Sara C. at 4:04 PM on November 26, 2013 [4 favorites]
A part of me thinks that, due to the number of projects that want to do horse-related stunts, and the delicate nature of horses in general, either one of two things should happen:
- the AHA should blanket refuse to be involved with any production doing horse-related stunts, denying horse stunt projects the sought-after "No Animals Were Harmed" credits blurb (and possibly making it harder to insure these projects?)
or
- there should be a separate advocacy group that uses much stricter criteria and maintains much closer relationships with productions that use horses.
I've worked on projects that have had AHA involvement. None of them have been horse related. It's been mostly dogs (and in those cases, mostly pet dogs depicted on screen just being pets), and one job where there were several scenes on a farm with barnyard animals. On those projects, I've felt like the AHA was fine, and I trusted from what I saw on set that the animals were being treated appropriately.
Films that heavily use horses, or more significantly, do stunts that involve horses, seem like a totally different situation than someone making sure the pet dog on camera was well treated.
posted by Sara C. at 4:04 PM on November 26, 2013 [4 favorites]
Don't google Milo And Otis + AHA unless you want to feel sad forever. ( The US version cut out a lot of the uh, kitten flinging.)
posted by The Whelk at 4:05 PM on November 26, 2013
posted by The Whelk at 4:05 PM on November 26, 2013
I guess I was mistaken in believing that most people knew the AHA's "stamp of approval" was basically meaningless.
I don't know that it's meaningless, it's just that I think people imagine a much more active role and more stringent policies than the reality.
In reality, every production I've been a part of that has used animals has treated the animals well, and it's absolutely true that no animals were harmed. It's not like there's this seedy underbelly of animal abuse happening on film sets that the AHA is actively working to ignore.
It's just that the AHA isn't actually empowered to do much and doesn't have that active a role in ensuring the welfare of the animals.
Also, they totes kill bugs and vermin right and left, of course. When they say "no animals", they either mean "no trained stunt animals" or "no cute animals".
posted by Sara C. at 4:09 PM on November 26, 2013 [5 favorites]
I don't know that it's meaningless, it's just that I think people imagine a much more active role and more stringent policies than the reality.
In reality, every production I've been a part of that has used animals has treated the animals well, and it's absolutely true that no animals were harmed. It's not like there's this seedy underbelly of animal abuse happening on film sets that the AHA is actively working to ignore.
It's just that the AHA isn't actually empowered to do much and doesn't have that active a role in ensuring the welfare of the animals.
Also, they totes kill bugs and vermin right and left, of course. When they say "no animals", they either mean "no trained stunt animals" or "no cute animals".
posted by Sara C. at 4:09 PM on November 26, 2013 [5 favorites]
This kind of conflict goes on all the time in industries that use animals, whether it's packing plants or movie making. There's a constant push for self regulation.
posted by Kevin Street at 4:10 PM on November 26, 2013
posted by Kevin Street at 4:10 PM on November 26, 2013
The descriptions of animal injuries are not lurid, but there are photographs of some of the injuries and they are somewhat graphic.
Thanks for the summary -- that's not something I need in my life today.
I've tended to figure that there is enough oversight on major Hollywood productions, most of the time, to not feel like I have to worry about excessive animal cruelty. But I completely avoid watching old westerns and other horse- and stunt-heavy movies because once I noticed them for the first time, I can't avoid seeing the tripwire stunts and harsh falls. I don't even particularly like horses, and seeing them fall that hard makes me feel ill.
Accidents happen, but I'm glad that the deliberate cruelties seem to be mostly over.
posted by Dip Flash at 4:36 PM on November 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
Thanks for the summary -- that's not something I need in my life today.
I've tended to figure that there is enough oversight on major Hollywood productions, most of the time, to not feel like I have to worry about excessive animal cruelty. But I completely avoid watching old westerns and other horse- and stunt-heavy movies because once I noticed them for the first time, I can't avoid seeing the tripwire stunts and harsh falls. I don't even particularly like horses, and seeing them fall that hard makes me feel ill.
Accidents happen, but I'm glad that the deliberate cruelties seem to be mostly over.
posted by Dip Flash at 4:36 PM on November 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
Probably this merits an AskMe, but I am trying to recall what movie I saw once that had the "No animals were harmed" boilerplate in the credits, followed by "Human action was not monitored, and casualties were extensive."
posted by ricochet biscuit at 5:28 PM on November 26, 2013
posted by ricochet biscuit at 5:28 PM on November 26, 2013
rb, a search of IMDB for the word "harmed" in Crazy Credits turns up a few, including In the Mouth of Madness:
Animal interaction was monitored by the
American Humane Association with
on set supervision by the Toronto
Humane Society. No animal was harmed
in the making of this film.
Human interaction was monitored by
the Inter Planetary Psychiatric Association.
The body count was high, the casualties are heavy.
posted by McCoy Pauley at 8:30 PM on November 26, 2013
Animal interaction was monitored by the
American Humane Association with
on set supervision by the Toronto
Humane Society. No animal was harmed
in the making of this film.
Human interaction was monitored by
the Inter Planetary Psychiatric Association.
The body count was high, the casualties are heavy.
posted by McCoy Pauley at 8:30 PM on November 26, 2013
In turn for getting to proudly wear the "No animals were harmed" badge when no animals are actually harmed, they ought to have to display a notice when animals are harmed.
posted by pracowity at 2:46 AM on November 27, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by pracowity at 2:46 AM on November 27, 2013 [3 favorites]
There's something to be said about the fact that it was considered a very bad thing that the tiger could have died. There's an argument for "harmed" meaning the same thing as "murdered" -- there's more than action, there's intent or negligence.
There's also an argument that there's definitely been some negligence.
posted by effugas at 1:43 PM on November 27, 2013
There's also an argument that there's definitely been some negligence.
posted by effugas at 1:43 PM on November 27, 2013
Yeah, like I said in July 2012, only to be dismissed by fellow MeFites. Glad it's finally going mainstream.
posted by désoeuvrée at 7:42 PM on November 27, 2013
posted by désoeuvrée at 7:42 PM on November 27, 2013
Not really, because what's actually alleged in the article isn't what you said back in July of 2012.
There really isn't a seedy underbelly of animal abuse that the AHA and Hollywood are covering up.
What is happening is that, when an animal is harmed on set potentially due to negligence, the AHA is far more likely to absolve the production by ruling that it was an accident that couldn't have been foreseen or prevented. This is the big controversy.
All this nonsense about how animals are mistreated on film sets as a rule is just that, and I didn't see anywhere in the FPP where that was in any way alleged.
posted by Sara C. at 8:08 PM on November 27, 2013
There really isn't a seedy underbelly of animal abuse that the AHA and Hollywood are covering up.
What is happening is that, when an animal is harmed on set potentially due to negligence, the AHA is far more likely to absolve the production by ruling that it was an accident that couldn't have been foreseen or prevented. This is the big controversy.
All this nonsense about how animals are mistreated on film sets as a rule is just that, and I didn't see anywhere in the FPP where that was in any way alleged.
posted by Sara C. at 8:08 PM on November 27, 2013
Sarah C., d'oeuvre said:
"Even if a film has the "No animals were harmed" thing, that doesn't necessarily mean much at all. Sure, there was some official oversight, but that doesn't mean the animals were actually treated WELL. In fact, they almost certainly were NOT treated well at all times, or not as well as they should have been. More importantly, they never agreed to be in the movie and they weren't compensated for it in any meaningful way."
Pretty much exactly sums up The Hollywood Reporter articles, and the distinction your drawing is not really a meaningful one. And exactly how the AHA got into trouble in the first place. A reasonable person isn't going to differentiate between the time animal is treated well while actively filmed, but starved while in the care of someone during shooting. And "harm" isn't defined by its intent, so when the audience reads "No animals were harmed." they shouldn't be expected to assume a footnote meaning "intentionally, while the cameras were rolling." And other such doublespeak. A disclaimer of "No animals were harmed on purpose" would lead to immediate concern and questioning. Instead, the AHA plays word games to make people believe something that is for all practical purposes, untrue.
In other words, d'oeuvre was exactly on point with that 2012 comment.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 10:02 PM on November 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
"Even if a film has the "No animals were harmed" thing, that doesn't necessarily mean much at all. Sure, there was some official oversight, but that doesn't mean the animals were actually treated WELL. In fact, they almost certainly were NOT treated well at all times, or not as well as they should have been. More importantly, they never agreed to be in the movie and they weren't compensated for it in any meaningful way."
Pretty much exactly sums up The Hollywood Reporter articles, and the distinction your drawing is not really a meaningful one. And exactly how the AHA got into trouble in the first place. A reasonable person isn't going to differentiate between the time animal is treated well while actively filmed, but starved while in the care of someone during shooting. And "harm" isn't defined by its intent, so when the audience reads "No animals were harmed." they shouldn't be expected to assume a footnote meaning "intentionally, while the cameras were rolling." And other such doublespeak. A disclaimer of "No animals were harmed on purpose" would lead to immediate concern and questioning. Instead, the AHA plays word games to make people believe something that is for all practical purposes, untrue.
In other words, d'oeuvre was exactly on point with that 2012 comment.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 10:02 PM on November 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
There really isn't a seedy underbelly of animal abuse that the AHA and Hollywood are covering up.
Uh...
What is happening is that, when an animal is harmed on set potentially due to negligence, the AHA is far more likely to absolve the production by ruling that it was an accident that couldn't have been foreseen or prevented.
That sounds EXACTLY like a seedy underbelly of abuse that is being covered up. Don'tcha think?
posted by WalkerWestridge at 6:52 PM on November 28, 2013 [2 favorites]
Uh...
What is happening is that, when an animal is harmed on set potentially due to negligence, the AHA is far more likely to absolve the production by ruling that it was an accident that couldn't have been foreseen or prevented.
That sounds EXACTLY like a seedy underbelly of abuse that is being covered up. Don'tcha think?
posted by WalkerWestridge at 6:52 PM on November 28, 2013 [2 favorites]
No, because human beings are injured on set in the course of doing stunts all the time, and nobody is getting all pearl clutchy about it.
posted by Sara C. at 7:39 PM on November 28, 2013
posted by Sara C. at 7:39 PM on November 28, 2013
No, because human beings are injured on set in the course of doing stunts all the time, and nobody is getting all pearl clutchy about it.
How is that even remotely the same as animal negligence? If someone is injured in the course of the dangerous profession they freely chose, that sucks for them but it's an occupational hazard. Animal exploitation for human profit is a completely different situation.
posted by désoeuvrée at 4:05 PM on November 29, 2013 [2 favorites]
How is that even remotely the same as animal negligence? If someone is injured in the course of the dangerous profession they freely chose, that sucks for them but it's an occupational hazard. Animal exploitation for human profit is a completely different situation.
posted by désoeuvrée at 4:05 PM on November 29, 2013 [2 favorites]
To the same point, I don't recall hearing scandals of human stunt persons needing to be euthanized because of their injuries on movie sets.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 5:11 AM on November 30, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by [insert clever name here] at 5:11 AM on November 30, 2013 [2 favorites]
No, because human beings are injured on set in the course of doing stunts all the time, and nobody is getting all pearl clutchy about it.
Its almost mind blowing that you could equate those two things that are not anywhere close to being comparable. BUT I will point out that athletes being injured in the game is a HUGE big deal right now so that blows your crappy argument out of the water don't it?
posted by WalkerWestridge at 10:10 AM on November 30, 2013 [2 favorites]
Its almost mind blowing that you could equate those two things that are not anywhere close to being comparable. BUT I will point out that athletes being injured in the game is a HUGE big deal right now so that blows your crappy argument out of the water don't it?
posted by WalkerWestridge at 10:10 AM on November 30, 2013 [2 favorites]
I remember reading about The Hobbit last November: "Hobbit" farm had animal "death traps" that killed as many as 27
posted by homunculus at 6:38 PM on December 2, 2013
posted by homunculus at 6:38 PM on December 2, 2013
« Older What's White and Round and Goes Around | Boys and girls come out to play, playing till... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by turbid dahlia at 3:05 PM on November 26, 2013 [1 favorite]