Editorial: We need to talk about animals in movies

Electrocuting an Elephant (Edison, 1903)

Recently, the QCinema film Balangiga came under fire from the Philippine Animal Welfare Society for several controversial scenes that allegedly constitute a violation of the Animal Welfare Law. In the past two years, this hasn't been the first time PAWS has spoken up about alleged animal abuse that occurred during the production of the film, the 2016 MMFF film Oro came under similar fire for scenes where a dog was killed. Eventually, the case was dismissed by the Pasig City assistant prosecutor.

For the record, I enjoyed both films for what they were, but the way both films were made has always concerned me. I was not really shocked by the scenes per se; in my line of work, I've seen worse. But I was disturbed as to the way the scenes were done. To ignore the welfare of any performer (human or otherwise) for the sake of art is both reckless and irresponsible.

This led me to wonder, what is the state of animal abuse law in our country? How does the law protect animals in film production? Has this happened in other cinematic cultures? And, what can we do to change this attitude?

Historical Background

Jesse James (King, 1939)

As it turns out, animals have had the short end of the stick in film productions for a long time. Even in the earliest instances of film, there have been instances of abuse to animals. As part of his ongoing War of Currents with Nikola Tesla, Thomas Edison made a film titled "Electrocuting an Elephant," if only to demonstrate the dangers of Tesla's alternating current. Big film productions, such as 1926's  version of Ben Hur, where more than 100 horses died during the course of production. Technicians began devising ways to trip horses on cue, which led to many deaths. (These devices have since been banned.) It wasn't until 1940 or so, after a stunt in the 1939 movie Jessie James where a horse was made to run off a cliff and fall 70 feet to its death, that the non-governmental, non-profit American Humane Association (AHA) started to write guidelines for animal performances on sets, even monitoring on-set. Their association has since then monitored most Hollywood productions since then - the disclaimer "no animals were harmed in the making of this film" comes from. At the same time, there have been allegations of shady dealings and collusion with the AHA and the film industry itself, and no US government body has stepped in. In the end, the AHA is answerable only to  Hollywood itself.

Andrei Rublev (Tarkovsky, 1971)

In other countries, it's much more fuzzy. Films from other countries have involved some kind of animal cruelty in one form or another, some of them directed by well-known, award-winning directors. For example, in a deleted scene from Lars von Trier's Manderlay (2005), a donkey was killed onscreen - one of the film's producers explains that the donkey was killed humanely, adding in jest, “we could probably kill six children for a film without anyone raising a fuss.” For the sake of pure shock value, the 1980 film Cannibal Holocaust featured a turtle being graphically dismembered on screen - adding to all the fake violence on humans that occurred on screen. One may remember a scene in Andrei Tarkovsky's 1971 masterpiece Andrei Rublev where a cow was set on fire (it was shielded by asbestos and unharmed) and a horse was impaled by a spear (the horse came from a slaughterhouse and was already destined for commercial use.)

It's clear that film productions all over the world haven't always been humane to animals, given that they're pretty much in the bottom tier of performers that people care about.

Animal Abuse Laws in the Philippines

The main Animal Abuse Law in the Philippines is Republic Act 8485, later amended by Republic Act 10631 in 2013. The law concerns a broad range of topics, including but not limited to the care and transportation of animals, the welfare of animals in pet shops, abandonment, cruelty or neglect and so on.

The law is implemented through the creation of a Committee on Animal Welfare (CAW) as outlined in Section 5 of RA 8485. The Committee's members are composed of several organizations, including PAWS. The law is enforced through animal welfare enforcement officers in the PNP and NBI.

"Animal" as defined in this law consists of:

"All sentient creatures other than humans which shall include but not be limited to terrestrial, aquatic and marine animals."

It's tricky to define sentience in this context, as the term has scientific, religious and moral variations - in animal rights law, it usually refers to an ability to feel both pleasure and pain. It's logical, considering that without pain, there would be no suffering. Speaking in my capacity as a scientist, does this exclude anything without a central nervous system and pain receptors? Does it include small insects, etc? Later in the list, both Aquatic Animals and Aquatic Mammals are defined clearly and through taxonomic classification in the case of the latter.

Section 4 (Transportation of Animals) and Section 6 are relevant to animal rights in film production. Section 6 specifically states the following:

"It shall be unlawful for any person to torture any animal, to neglect to provide adequate care, sustenance or shelter, or maltreat any animals or to subject any dog or horse to dogfights or horse fights, kill or cause or procure to be tortured or deprived of adequate care sustenance or shelter, or maltreat or use the same in research or experiments not expressly authorized by the Committee on Animal welfare. The killing of any animal other than cattle, pigs, goats, sheep, poultry, rabbits, carabao, horse, is likewise hereby declared unlawful..."

It then states several exceptions to this particular rule, such as:

"1. When it is done as part of the religious rituals of an established religion, sect, or ritual required by ethnic custom of indigenous cultural communities: however, leaders shall keep records in cooperation with the Committee on Animal Welfare... "

The most specific passage in regards to film production is in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 10631 Section 6.1-f which considers as an act of animal cruelty the following:

"Improper and inhumane practices in use of animals during research, television or cinematic production."

The complaint filed by PAWS against the producers of Oro stated that they violated Sections 6 and 9 of the law - section 9 establishes fines and punishment for anyone breaking this law.

Arguments for and against the two films

In both cases, the only source of information from both productions would be testimony from the people involved in the production, as enforcement officials are not required during production. This limits any evidence that can be used against the filmmakers other than the film itself.

EDIT 11/2: To clarify, there is the very real possibility that the filmmakers HAVE treated the animals humanely, but because there's no transparency, we don't know for sure. That's why during the credits of Balangiga I was looking for something, anything to the effect of "animals were treated humanely" or whatever. If there were such a proclamation in the credits, I would've been fine with it.

The case against Oro as stated earlier was later dropped. Their defense was that they were filming scenes that are part of the culture in that particular area as part of a documentary-style treatment, and they did not actively kill the animal in question. This would probably fall under section 6.1 of RA 8485. Balangiga is a bit different. In the context of the movie, it makes sense, since historically, the order to purge Samar included the killing of livestock. Both films would argue that quibbling over things like animal rights bypasses the fact that both films are talking about relevant issues where real people were or are being killed or subjected to brutality. In any case, as stated earlier, it's something that requires a thorough examination through the lens of a court of law. If the filmmakers gave us a proper justification, or if they didn't actually kill or maim any animals and the movie was just THAT convincing, and if that convinced a court of law of that fact, personally I wouldn't have any problem with it.

We have become a society of judges, and we are so complacent in our self righteousness that it tends to be detrimental rather than helpful. I don't think either production should be subject to public judgement until they have been proven to have broken the law. I don't think the message of any film should be ignored just because some people mistakenly thought it would be cheaper, convenient or shocking to kill an animal on screen.

The decision to engage in hurting animals for the sake of artistic vision is tempting - it's a way to incite shock in people and it's far more cheaper and expedient compared to indulging in special effects or CGI.

On the other hand, neither a low budget, nor any notion of artistic integrity and realism does not excuse someone from breaking the law. The law is the law. You cannot kill a person, steal or rape in real life just because the script calls for it. Any sense of artistic licence does not justify or excuse the commission of an unethical act. Besides, it's a public relations nightmare for the film involved: the backlash from any perceived instances of abuse will ultimately impact negatively on any film, regardless of its message. It will deflect from any real discourse on what the film is trying to say.

Ultimately, any and all discussion on artistic intent or message is moot when faced with the simple question: did the filmmakers break the law? If they did, they should be subject to any penalties or punishment provided under the law.

When considering a film's aesthetic or message, perhaps one would be inclined to argue that to display suffering does not necessarily condone it, but to critique it. This would be followed by the argument that in the setting of these films, suffering is part of the milieu, thus it would be disingenuous to not include it in the film. On the other hand, the suffering can be expressed in other ways, or through other techniques of the filmmaking craft. Using CGI or practical effects can help communicate suffering without actually causing it. As technologies improve, any attempt to expedite the process using the real thing will eventually not only be seen as inhumane or unethical, but also lazy filmmaking.

The prevailing sentiment from those opposed to the scenes in both films has been: are such scenes really necessary? And if for some reason they are necessary, couldn't those scenes have been done through some method that does not cause real life harm to someone or something?

What then, some might say, about the real human subjects of the film or the human actors that may have also suffered abuse? This is deflection; considering their suffering and the suffering of animal performers is not a dichotomy or a strict binary construct; one is perfectly allowed to consider one or both equally. Besides, if we ignore how we treat the lowest of creatures with little to no rights or legal protection, what does that say about how we treat other performers, other human beings?

Moving forward

As we stand now, the status quo allows things like this to happen again and again. The law must be clearly defined so that there is no ambiguity. A dialogue needs to happen between animal rights people and the film industry to make sure animals are treated humanely at all times. Perhaps a set of guidelines in film and TV production can be drafted in this regard.

And while we're at it, make sure that the welfare of every worker on set - human or not human, adult or child - be protected by the law. Perhaps an AHA style monitoring agency may be untenable, but I believe a compromise can be reached. Art does not have to remain unethical. We can all strive to do better. Otherwise we'd all be complicit in maintaining an elitist, inhumane system.

In closing, let us go back to the 1967 film Weekend by French New Wave auteur Jean Luc Godard. In it, a pig is killed on screen by cutting its throat. In the context of the film, it's meant to be a shocking scene, playing into the movie's themes of challenging the expectations of the upper social classes. Film critic Pauline Kael, a long time fan of Godard, wasn't buying it, noting in her New Yorker review:

"Is he (Godard) forcing us to confront the knowledge that there are things we don’t want to look at? But we knew that [already]. … [B]ecause we know how movies are made, we instinctively recognize that his method of jolting us is fraudulent; he, the movie director, has ordered the slaughter to get a reaction from us, and so we have a right to be angry with him. Whatever our civilization is responsible for, that sow up there is his, not ours."

Weekend (Godard, 1967)

Linked Sources and Further Reading:
--------------------------------------------------
on the current state of the AHA:
The history of animal cruelty in Hollywood:
Examples of Animal Abuse on film and TV:
US Animal Abuse Laws by state: 
Copies of RA 8485 and RA 10631, including IRR:
http://animalstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=acwp_pswa
Thomas Edison's Electrocuting an Elephant (1903)