Humane Society approval during film credits

Does anyone remember when filmmakers started using the short little blurb during film credits to inform the audience that no animals were harmed, mistreated, or worse during the making of a film ?

I don't remember when I started seeing those, but I'm guessing there is some backstory that explains why they are now pretty common.

My guess is the warnings probably started after "Apocalypse Now" because there is a scene on the Kurz compound, towards the end of the film, that is the actual slaughter of a water buffalo with a machete - filmed by Francis Ford Coppola in the Phillipines. Looking at wikipedia, it seems like there was a stink about this scene with the American Humane Society giving "Apocalypse Now" an "unacceptable" rating because of that scene. I don't remember that being mentioned in the press at the time - but my guess is that's partly because the film had so much in it that could shock the viewer - that the one scene kind of floated by without specific attention (by most).

I bring this up because I saw a movie recently where someone (the film's director most likely) changed the language from what I usually see, to something more ambiguous, that suggests that *maybe* animals were harmed during the production of his film.

I commented on the imdb.com message board that I never seriously thought that the scene is question was authentic but I do think it was pretty crass to reword the standard language for no apparent reason other than to mess with people who stayed around to read it.

The bizarre language reads something like "The American Humane Society was present for most portions of this film, and they observed that no animals were harmed during the portions of the film they were present for." When I saw that language in the theater, I thought it read kind of odd - but I didn't give it additional thought until I saw some other people mention that it wasn't the standard language. The problem is that the language used suggests that the filmmaker simply didn't allow the AHS on the set on certain days when they planned to shoot animal cruelty.

I don't think it happened that way, but I do think its odd that someone wanted to suggest that it COULD have happened that way - essentially making the legal language included at the end of the film pointless.

My guess is CGI was used and the director (if pushed) would say "C'mon... do I have to have a Humane Society rep sit there with my computer guy too?"

No... but I'd appreciate it if he had just used the standard language and didn't invent new language to mess with those of us who read the fine print.

I don't normally go LOOKING for that warning, but I did in this case.

 

I only ever remember seeing "No animals were harmed...".

 

On the imdb.com thread, I mentioned that the current language at the end of the film - reminded me of the 1976 film entitled "Snuff" - that was marketed in a way that suggested the film included an actual murder.

wikipedia has details on that 1976 film and a separate more generic entry about films that fit a similar category.

The phrase apparently was first used in print in 1971 in a book about the Manson family. But it became a common descriptor after the 1976 film... the wiki article talks about films that date back to the 50s with subplots that involve
a lunatic film-maker - but most of the earlier films were apparently like an episode of "twilight zone" - and showed no gore.

There is mention on wikipedia of an Italian movie from 1980 where the director got into such a stink about his movie that he had to present the actors he used to prove that they weren't killed during the production of his film. Unfortunately, the same film supposedly involved "the genuine death of six animals on-screen and one additional animal off-screen".

I suspect that film, coupled with "Apocalypse Now" probably resulted in more attention paid to what happens on a film set... not that there was a problem previous - because I don't think there was epidemic of animal cruelty prior to the late 70s...

The way the wiki entry reads for "Apocalypse Now" it was apparently already against the law in the US to mistreat animals during the creation of a film - but I suspect there might have been some focus on making sure that the viewing public in the US wasn't watching something objectionable filmed overseas as an end around those laws.

I believe Coppola has said that he filmed a religious ceremony. But I'm unsure how it was done.

 

The rewording if the disclaimer just sounds like the director making a silly joke. What was the movie?

 

Which movie was this?

By the way, I was under the impression it was Heaven's Gate, with its real horse-killing, that prompted the Humane Society deal with the studios and the producers' guild (although I may be wrong about that).

Leaving aside the Humane Society disclaimer, one of the most remarkable disclaimer credits I recall seeing at the end of a film was Ang Lee's Lust Caution from a few years back, which contains explicit but (to my knowledge) simulated sex scenes. The credits specifically stipulated that all actors consented to participate in these scenes. I've never seen a credit like that before or since in a feature film (although porn films, of course, have to have the record-keeping disclaimer at the beginning if they're produced in the US).

 

"Wiener-Dog"

The rewording is less silly if you see the film. It's not appended to a film that doesn't involve animals.

For what it's worth...
A long time ago, when I was a freshmen in college, I wrote an edgy paper that said nothing wrong - but there was sub-text - that was the product of an immature mind (i.e. MINE). In retrospect - its very probable that a different teacher would have given me an "F", instead of the "A" I received. In this class, the teacher sometimes had the students read their papers aloud in class, after she handed them back to us. I read mine, and the students were probably in shock - but the teacher still went along with the idea that I said nothing wrong... but then I made the almost fatal mistake of asking the class "Did anyone figure out what I was *really* writing about ?" I quickly noticed a very stern stare from the teacher (that was was entirely justified)... I may have walked the line on the written page but she wasn't going to let me pull the class into an undignified discussion and I quickly said "Ummm... never mind." to the class and tried to sink into my seat and hide. My previous assumption that the teacher was stupid and didn't see the sub-text was completely wrong. She knew exactly what I had written (text and sub-text) but she was very gracious with her grade because I didn't take it as far as I almost did during the classroom discussion.

This "Wiener Dog" movie seemed like it was created by the same sort of mind that created my (admittedly stupid) freshmen paper.

I brought this up in a separate thread, about the "Wiener-Dog" film... The only saving grace is the film seems to be constructed so that there is a "film within a film" (think "Tropic Thunder") and the more odd scenes are actually the product of a very bad screen writer played by Danny DeVito. If that's *not* what the director intended, then he's just toying with his audience

 

From the wiki entry for "Heaven's Gate"...

The film was marred by accusations of cruelty to animals during production. One assertion was that live horses were bled from the neck without giving them pain-killers so that their blood could be collected and smeared upon the actors in a scene. The American Humane Association (AHA) asserted that four horses were killed and many more injured during a battle scene. It was claimed that one of the horses was blown up by dynamite. This footage appears in the final cut of the film.

The AHA was barred from monitoring the animal action on the set. According to the AHA, the owner of an abused horse filed a lawsuit against the producers, director, Partisan Productions, and the horse wrangler. The owner cited wrongful injury and breach of contract for willfully depriving her Arabian gelding of proper care. The suit cited "the severe physical and behavioral trauma and disfigurement" of the horse. The case was settled out of court.

There were accusations of actual cockfights, decapitated chickens, and a group of cows disemboweled to provide "fake intestines" for the actors. The outcry prompted the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) to contractually authorize the AHA to monitor the use of all animals in all filmed media.

The film is listed on AHA's list of unacceptable films. The AHA protested the film by distributing an international press release detailing the assertions of animal cruelty and asking people to boycott it. AHA organized picket lines outside movie theaters in Hollywood while local humane societies did the same across the USA. Though Heaven's Gate was not the first film to have animals killed during its production, it is believed that the film was largely responsible for sparking the now common use of the "No animals were harmed ..." disclaimer and more rigorous supervision of animal acts by the AHA, which had been inspecting film production since the 1940s.

 

I honestly think "Wiener Dog" should have been awarded an "X" rating - but someone over on the imdb.com thread pointed out that "X" is pointless because the film would just get distributed without a rating.

I won't be surprised if someone who sees this film writes to his or her local politician and the director gets hauled in front of a committee to explain how his film was made. I envision a new law that bans the exhibition of un-rated films in a public place.

To be clear, I liked the "Wiener-Dog" film. I'd give it a high grade - but only after the director explains to us that my theory is correct about how parts of his film are similar to what we see in "Tropic Thunder" (i.e. so ridiculous that the joke was assumed by the director to be clear to all film patrons).

But, if the director ever gets hauled into front of congress and starts talking like I tried to talk before my english 101 teacher stopped me in my tracks... I'm going to take back my grade and adjust it like she probably would have done.

 

What was the subtext of your paper? PM if needed.

By the way, X doesn't exist as a rating anymore. It wasn't trademarked, which is why XXX became a thing. You're thinking of NC-17, and I'm not sure that rating is handed out for violence/gore. I've always heard it used because of sexual content. I could be wrong.

 

I didn't know that, but now I'm glad this film was a box office bomb.

 

More of the story here:

Humane Hollywood - No Animals Were Harmed | American Humane Association »

 

There's also the famous chariot scene in Ben Hur where horses were killed. Fortunately, that scene has been digitally altered and re-edited by George Lucas.