A scene in the 32nd episode of the TV series "The Mistress of the House" in which a white cat was poisoned and died aroused protests from the audience.
In this clip, the kitten fell on his back from the table, his limbs stiffened and vomited blood and died.
The audience believed that the performance was too "realistic" and suspected that the crew had tortured and killed kittens. The crew carried out many "clarifications", but they still failed to dispel the public's doubts and failed to restore the reputation of the drama.
Some commentators pointed out that from the perspective of the plot, this shot is not mandatory, and even if it is to be filmed, it does not have to be performed in such a cruel and horrifying way.
Prior to this, for the so-called visual effects, human-made animal tragedies have occurred many times, and they have also caused considerable controversy.
For example, in the 1993 film "King of Dogs", for the sake of "truth", a well-trained military dog with repeated meritorious service was tied to a bomb, and it was shot to pieces while running; in the 1995 film "Sadness Brook", for Showing a tragic scene, the crew cast a horse blindfolded and pushed off the cliff; in the 2010 TV series "Three Kingdoms", many horses were mentally stimulated during the filming of war scenes, and even fell disabled or burned. Those with serious injuries can only be implemented. Euthanasia.
Ironically, most of the "violent materials" that have caused a public uproar before are mostly exposed by the director in an interview, and he is proud of it.
However, judging from the intense indignation of the audience after learning the truth, most people do not like to watch such tragic scenes filmed at the expense of animal abuse.
Treating animals kindly is a manifestation of the evolution of human civilization. The increasing attention to animal welfare in filming and filming shows that people's awareness of animal protection is gradually improving.
Behind the cat abuse controversy, the public's social sentiment towards animal protection is reflected.
"No animals were harmed"
Throughout the world’s film history, the issue of animal protection was not raised at the beginning during the filming of film and television works.
In 1903, the short film "Electric Shock Elephant" recorded the whole process of an elephant being electrocuted by high voltage.
Today, viewers familiar with Hollywood films will not be unfamiliar with the words "No Animals Were Harmed".
Many domestic movies and TV dramas will also be marked in the ending subtitles "No animals were harmed during the filming of this film."
The appearance of this line is related to the tragic death of a horse.
At the end of the film "Jesse James" released in 1939, the two brothers rode horses and were chased to the edge of the cliff near the water. The only way out was to jump off the cliff.
The crew used a landslide device to push the horse down from a cliff more than 20 meters high. The horse drowned after breaking its spine.
This scene aroused public outrage.
In order to quell public anger, the American Film Association signed a contract with the Humane Society of the United States, authorizing the latter to supervise the treatment of animal actors used in the film production process to ensure that abuses do not occur again.
The "No Animals Were Harmed" logo at the end of the movie was born.
This certification can only be obtained if it is confirmed that no animals have been improperly treated during the production of a movie.
In the 1960s, the number of cruelty to animals in the American film industry picked up during the filming process.
The end of "Apocalypse Now" shows the process of slaughtering a buffalo; in 1979, the crew of the 1979 film "Heaven's Gate" tied explosives to the horse's back in order to shoot the saddle blown up, and the injured horse died.
This incident once again caused public outrage.
The American Film and Television Actors Association signed an agreement with the Humane Society of the United States in 1980 to ensure the welfare of animal actors in filming.
However, even in the case of institutional supervision, animal actors are still in danger of life.
In recent years, a number of movies that have received the "no animal harmed" mark have been exposed to the death of animals.
In the 2012 movie The Hobbit, nearly 30 animals died after shooting.
In response, the Humane Society of the United States responded that the Association currently only has the right to supervise the welfare of animals at the shooting site, but it should also extend the protection of animals at the shooting site to all stages of film production.
In the past few years, the American media has written several reports criticizing the association for condoning the cruelty of animals by film companies, saying that the "no animals are harmed" sign has become a monopoly business, and the crew has resisted protests from animal protection organizations.
Relevant laws and regulations are still blank
In China, more and more film and television creators have taken an attitude of cherishing animal life, and their awareness of protecting and respecting animal actors has gradually increased.
For example, in order to shoot the film "Wolf Totem", the crew raised and trained the wolf to be filmed three years in advance. The animal carcasses in the film are all imitations.
In the past, animals were often divided into prop groups. In recent years, some crews have set up animal actor groups, equipped with rest cars to ensure animal health.
However, the domestic legal responsibility for cruelty to animals has not yet been clarified, so that the rights and interests of animals cannot be effectively protected.
Usually, when the crew rents animals, they sign a contract, mark animal welfare, and pay a certain amount of remuneration.
However, if stray cats are used, this part of the expenditure will be saved. Since no one will be held accountable after the death or injury, some people will want to deal with the life and death of the animals.
The screenwriter Wang Hailin mentioned that horses are the most frequently used animals by the crew.
Horses are usually used in costume-themed film and television dramas and war scenes. The crew will invite professional horse teams to participate in the filming, and sign contracts with horse team managers to protect animal welfare.
However, different breeds of horses are treated differently in the crew. Thoroughbred horses are star horses, and the crew will provide a good resting environment, while horses responsible for dangerous actions are called "wrestling horses", which are more likely to be injured. In war scenes, the horse will fall with a tripping sling, and the horse is very likely to fracture when it falls.
Due to the lack of legal supervision, the phenomenon of animal abuse in film and television dramas cannot be effectively curbed.
The public's moral condemnation cannot prevent the occurrence of abuse.
The cat abuse incident also reminds the film and television industry that only by establishing self-discipline regulations and supervision mechanisms for animal protection can the creative process be regulated.
In fact, as early as ten years ago, animal protection scholars and legal research experts had heated discussions on the Anti-Animal Cruelty Law and the Animal Protection Law and drafted expert suggestions.
In this proposed draft of anti-abuse as the bottom line and focus on animal welfare, a special section is set up to focus on the welfare of performing animals. For example, the crew or the circus must not exceed the animal’s physical strength or performance ability, so that the animal can perform something that cannot match. Things.
Violation of this provision should be subject to corresponding sanctions, with light fines; if the number is large and causes bad effects, it may also be subject to criminal prosecution.
Judging from the public's protests against animal abuse and killing in film and television dramas, legislation related to animal protection also has a public opinion foundation.
Sina.com and Sohu.com launched a public opinion survey in June 2009. More than 80% of netizens voted in favor of the legislation, and more than 75% of netizens proposed criminal responsibility for animal cruelty to death.
However, in the past ten years, although there have been calls to promote the Anti-Animal Cruelty Law and the Animal Protection Law, the legislative steps and methods have always been controversial.
On the one hand, the legislation on animal protection may involve the folk culture and traditions of some regions. In addition, some opponents have argued that the concept of animal protection originated from the West and has no Chinese cultural foundation. There are even more people worrying that animal rights surpass human rights... This is the reason why the legislation has not made significant progress.
Some scholars have suggested that there were legal provisions against animal cruelty in the late Qing Dynasty. For example, in the thirty-fourth year of Guangxu in the Qing Dynasty (1908), the Outer City Patrol Department of the Beijing Normal University formulated the "Rules for the Management of Carts" to require "no cruelty to animals."
As early as more than a thousand years ago, Chinese traditional laws had strict regulations on how to treat livestock, especially officials and breeders who took care of working animals and economic animals. If they violate the law, they will be severely punished.
These regulations predate the first Anti-Animal Cruelty Act in the United Kingdom by about a thousand years, and also show that anti-animal cruelty legislation is not unique to the West.
Although the introduction of animal protection legislation will take some time, film and television dramas created at the expense of animal abuse will cause audiences to question the original intention of the creative team. While harming animals, it also hurts the audience’s emotions and is fatal to the work itself. Blow.
The protest caused by the cat abuse storm also reminded film and television creators that today's audiences will no longer passively accept scenes of cruel animal abuse.
At the same time, the anger and resistance from the audience can also promote the treatment and welfare of animal actors to be better protected and improved.