I've been meaning to discuss The Chronicles of Narnia ("The Chronic" "What?" "-cles of Narnia") since I saw it weeks ago, but I've been busy, and didn't feel any burning desire to do so at the time. Still, it's been nagging me, and I'll address it as part of my response to Ryan's piece.
I love that the filmmakers behind Narnia used computer-generated imagery (CGI) to create most of the animals in the film. But they appear to have done it only so they could more easily control their "acting," not out of concern for animals, per se. After all, fur coats abound. Now, those may be faux fur, and we're talking about a long time ago and far, far away. And, of course, it's in the book. But every time I saw fur on-screen (especially on the protagonists), I kept waiting for Beaver to say, "I think I knew who you're wearing."
With the divide between animals I respect and animals exploited for human purposes pretty much shattered these days, my mind screams out in these kinds of scenarios: "He's wearing animals, Beaver! Call him on it! Run before they use your fur, too!" Yeah, it's a little distracting, to say the least, but it points out the incongruity involved in our perceptions of animals that we can so casually use fur on screen in a movie where (cute and pretty) animals are generally the heroes.
Now, that's the obvious stuff on screen. Ryan gets into the "making of" the film in his post, talking about how animal byproducts are often used in horror films. This causes him some discomfort as a fan of the genre. I'm not as big a fan of the genre. I like a (really) good horror movie once in a while, but I'll confess to having never seen a Fessenden film. I only want to see Hostel because I'm told Jay Hernandez - the lead - plays a vegetarian character, positively portrayed. That said, I recently executive-produced a slasher movie, and I'm glad that we used MiniDV (Panasonic's DVX-100a) for our project, instead of 16mm film. These are small improvements, I know. And compared to adopting a plant-based diet, these types of incremental changes are nominal.
Knowing that, I tried to feed my crew vegan food for the weekend I had them on another recent project of mine, a short film I produced and directed. That could have gone better. While most of the women didn't seem to mind (and even a few of the guys), practically all of my teamster guys were turned off and went to a nearby Carl's Jr. for some burgers. No problem, right? Well, it kind of is. You want your crew to be happy, especially when they're working for less than their usual rate. For them to feel that they have to go out and buy lunch with their own cash is harmful to the project, believe it or not. You don't want your people resenting you for trying to feed them something they're not interested in eating. So, while I'm not keen to produce a feature film where I would have to allow meat to be served, I can definitely tell you that animal-free options will be more prominent, occupying the top spot on the menu. You want cheese with that? You'll have to ask for it. That kind of thing. It's better if people choose the animal-free foods for themselves anyway. As we all know, you can't make anyone do anything. If they end up deciding they prefer the vegan options, then that's their choice, which is key.
People like Alicia Silverstone, Joaquin Phoenix, and James Cromwell are among those who have at least some influence on every project they accept, whether it's ensuring vegan meals are available, or vegan-only wardrobe (even Johnny Cash's boots from Walk The Line). I remember reading an interview with the caterer on "Miss Match", the Alicia Silverstone sitcom, who said that many people began to eat more of the plant-based options he had provided to satisfy the vegan star. They found it was better for their overall energy levels and well-being. I'm telling you, the soft sell works that way. So, we may not be able to successfully enforce a vegan-only policy on an entire production without a mutiny (that's what happens when you go all fascist on your people), but we can make another dent.
But what about film? Some movies shoot well over a million feet of film, a medium which incorporates animal by-products. From what I understand (though I'm not exactly an expert on tape stock), even MiniDV and HDCAM tapes may involve some
But, as Ryan (sort of) points out, Stephen Spielberg is not going to shoot his next blockbuster on DV. Even so, HD is used by George Lucas and Robert Rodriguez, among other pioneers, and the next phase of HD is going portable, with a new generation of gear coming down the road that allows direct recording to disk. This is the way things are heading. Doesn't mean film will die a permanent death in the next twenty years, but you're going to see more digitally shot productions in that span, especially in the independent world.
In the next five years we'll see a movement toward memory-based recording. Already, a new, highly-portable camera from Panasonic is taking us that route. The HGX-200, based on the body of their highly successful DVX-100 MiniDV camera series, is truly a revolutionary camera, permitting direct recording to proprietary memory cards that each hold up to 20 minutes of true high definition footage at the same frame rate as film. This is about half of what one HDCAM tape can hold, but the camera holds two cards, so you're in business. Obviously, the advantage that memory cards have for animal- and environmentally-concerned people is that they are reusable. Just dump the footage to a drive or to your computer and start editing. No digitizing necessary. No tapes. And all with the high definition quality and other features (like slow-motion) that characterize Panasonic's higher-end camera, the VariCam. I think the CCD imaging chips on the HGX-200 are about half the size, which does have some impact, but this camera is only a hair larger than a prosumer-level MiniDV camera, and costs only $5,995 (list price), which is groundbreaking. When compared to the starting price of $65,900 for the VariCam, it's downright earth-shattering, really. While two cards, plus the camera and tax, puts you near $10,000, that's many times cheaper than the least expensive true high definition cameras on the market, and not much more than all the other standard definition tape-based cameras that are now obsolete. And you don't have to buy a thousand dollars or more in videotape, which is especially great for those of us who want to reduce our use of animal products and byproducts.
So now that I've established that the acquisition of footage is going more animal-friendly, and that it's even possible to make the catering truck more animal-friendly, let me circle back now to animals themselves and animal byproducts on screen.
I have stated before that the visual effects in King Kong (particularly Kong himself) are spectacular, and that they foretell a time where filmmakers may not need to use animals in movies anymore. Coming back down from the clouds, I don't know if that's entirely true. Try to imagine Seabiscuit without real horses. Unlike factory-farming, the use of animals for purposes like transportation has centuries of tradition behind it, and any time a filmmaker tells a story in that time period, the issue will come up. I think that animals will still be on-screen for some time to come, but they are being digitally replaced in scenes where they might otherwise be endangered, and that's good for everyone. In this regard, the welfare of animals will continue to trump the rights of animals, but as animal treatment goes, animal actors generally have it better than, say, factory-farmed animals, so activists would do well to focus their energies on other issues than banning animals entirely from the movies, in my opinion, at least for the moment.
That said, I've wrestled with this question a lot. If I was fortunate enough to be offered my first feature film, and it required the use of animals for a couple of scenes (say it's a horse-drawn carriage in Victorian England), I'd have a hard time turning it down. I would try to find another way to shoot that scene, I would be adamant about using HD instead of film, and making sure that vegan menu options are listed on the catering menu every day. Plus I would make sure those horses were treated at least as well as their co-stars (ooh, that got me to thinking they should receive screen credit, too...). The only way around using them might be to not make the film, but it's likely the film would be made with or without me (after all, first-timers are nearly interchangeable). Another director might not insist on shooting with HD and vegan menu options, so there's that. In terms of the least harm principle, that's what I see working. I'm definitely curious to hear thoughts back from readers on that.
As for byproducts, those can almost always be replaced with effects work, but it is usually more expensive and time-consuming than simply buying a liver or intestines from an animal already processed for food. I have to say, I would never do this. I personally don't enjoy seeing people's guts up on the screen. It seems pointless, and what's more: injurious. Seriously. Seeing people's guts - fake or not - is something that I do not find beneficial to my brain. Even gratuitous blood is pushing it these days, though I object to bloodless entertainment on grounds that it simply looks ridiculous to have someone shot or otherwise be injured bloodlessly.
If a victim's guts are somehow necessary for the story, and it's not gratuitous, an animal-friendly person would do well to find another method of depicting this on screen, whether through carefully chosen camera angles, home-made "guts," or tricky editing. But if there's simply no better creative choice than to buy an animal's byproducts, it's probably a drop in the ocean compared to the savings I've described above. One additional vegan meal served on a set (instead of a meat-based meal) balances that out. Shooting on tape, disks, or memory cards probably more than balances that out. But, again, all that said, if you're really an animal-friendly person, I would hope that you can be creative enough to find a way not to create any more demand for animal products or byproducts than is truly necessary.
Is seeing someone's innards on-screen all that vital?
