With an in-depth study into pet stores, puppy mills and animal shelters, as well as factory farms, the leather and fur trades, sports and entertainment industries, and finally the medical and scientific profession, EARTHLINGS uses hidden cameras and never before seen footage to chronicle the day-to-day practices of some of the largest industries in the world, all of which rely entirely on animals for profit. Powerful, informative and thought-provoking, EARTHLINGS is by far the most comprehensive documentary produced on the correlation between nature, animals, and human economic interests.
I ended up watching this movie after hearing about how gruesome it was. Being someone who watched the AIDS virus get passed around in "Kids" and a number of the "Faces of Death" movies, I was wondering if this movie would disturb me in the way it had many of my peers. I also was down for some education and figured it wouldn't hurt to see something like this.
Thoughts while watching the film:
- Why would a man feel emasculated by their pet being neutered...and does any parent really think it's a rite of passage for their kid to witness animals give birth? I think that sounds ridiculous. I think it's far more likely that people don't get their pets spayed/neutered because it can be expensive. I do find myself upset about the percentage of people who bring their pets to shelters.
- The dead bodies of cats had a sad effect on me, especially since my own cat was sitting on my lap as I watched it. But I guess I am more upset about the people who get pets only to take them to a shelter than the practices of the shelter. I will never, ever take my cats to the shelter, and I will only ever support the Humane Society by adopting there rather than buying a pet.
- I watched the gas chamber section with a morbid fascination. I'll admit, that's pretty fucked up to watch them place a bunch of animals in a crate and then roll out their limp bodies.
- I'm not really surprised or feel like I've had the wool pulled over my eyes about the way animals are slaughtered. Could it be better? Yes. Would it be as productive? I'm not sure. I think the blood and gore is simply a part of it, and considering that even humans can move after death, it's hard for me to think that every animal in the film that was moving after being slaughtered was still alive and sentient in the way the narrator wants the viewer to think.
- All of these weird camera angles point to the fact that it was undercover filming and that's pretty cool, except that it makes me question the other scenes where such obvious cruelty was filmed out in the open, i.e. the fur farm. How are we to know that these scenes were not done for show? It's not exactly a secret that extremists will go to any means to push their agenda, and it doesn't seem off the mark that they would pay someone for a graphic image.
- Medical research on animals is necessary for the advancement of science. There isn't a way around it, and more importantly, it's a complete lie that we don't learn certain things from animal research. For one thing, we learn off the bat if something is completely nonviable. Of course tests have to be done in humans before treatments can be released to the public, it only makes sense to isolate a small number before exposing the entire population.
- Alright, as soon as they got to the part where they blamed various ailments on our overconsumption of animals, I had to roll my eyes. Vegetarians are more likely to be anemic than omnivores because it's harder to absorb iron from grain and vegetables. Cigarettes and the sun are more to blame for cancer than utilization of animals in various ways. Diabetes has way more to do with the type of diet in general and simple sugars are the big deal. Osteoporosis is actually more common in thin individuals who don't get enough calcium - sounds like a vegan would be at the biggest risk. And on, and on, and on but I don't want to sound like a broken record. Point is that it's impossible to say that eating animals alone causes all of these things.
- Piggybacking on my last point, I am always concerned about the type of meat I am getting because of the antibiotics and hormones put into it. This is something that does bother me, and I feel like if I had kids, I would buy higher quality meat just for that reason.
Conclusion:
Overall, I found myself wondering when it was going to get shocking. Maybe I've heard a lot about these things already, and that's why it's not necessarily so strange to me. I've also come to the conclusion that hurting an animal for no reason than your own entertainment pisses me the FUCK off, but when it comes to food and science, I'm completely emotionless. Sometimes it's necessary, and sometimes it's for the betterment of the human race.
This felt more like propaganda than a movie set out to educate and inform. Where was the other side of the coin? I felt like the extreme vegan biased was so prevalent throughout the movie that I couldn't get past it, even when I tried my hardest. I have my doubts that every single thing featured is "industry standard" because it's simply not in line with what the laws and health codes set out for animals. Laws can still be broken by individuals, and those individuals should not be a reflection on the whole. I'm also quite a bit amazed by how disorganized the film seemed in regards to location. What is illegal in the US certainly is not necessarily illegal for all countries - which makes a huge difference when viewers are being fed the line that such practices happen in their own backyard. Quite a few videos were not from Western countries which arguably have some of the most humane animal treatment practices and guidelines.
In a nutshell: This movie will push you toward a vegan lifestyle if you were already headed in that direction. It will make you stop buying fur and leather if you feel your heartstrings get pulled. If you are a 20 something that grew up looking at crazy shit on the internet, though, you probably will find yourself analyzing things such as the juxtaposition of Nazi camps and overcrowded animal pens for maximum pathos. I wouldn't watch it with your mom or little sister.
"I'm not really surprised or feel like I've had the wool pulled over my eyes about the way animals are slaughtered. Could it be better? Yes. Would it be as productive? I'm not sure. I think the blood and gore is simply a part of it, and considering that even humans can move after death, it's hard for me to think that every animal in the film that was moving after being slaughtered was still alive and sentient in the way the narrator wants the viewer to think."
ReplyDeleteStraight from the mouth of a cow slaughterhouse manager: It doesn't pay to have an animal that's still alive after you bleed it. Generally, you're supposed calm the animal, hit it in the head to cause brain damage so it won't regain consciousness, and then you bleed it out. If the animal at any point is conscious or alive, it'll release fear hormones that greatly degrade the quality of the meat, which is not profitable. Also, if the animal isn't cut properly and doesn't bleed out within a few seconds, there's too much blood left in the meat, which also greatly degrades its quality.
I watched the trailer and I saw them slaughter a cow in a way that I can tell you is absolutely not done by the majority of processing plants, especially in the US. It is not only illegal (and processing plants cannot operate without a certain number of USDA inspectors present per processing capacity, so you can be damn sure they'd find out), but it doesn't make sense for them to risk their profits for the whole thing.
Haha, I just had to say it. Slaughterhouses really aren't as inhumane as people paint them to be. I still blame it on the consumers that want their meat. Industry's just figured out the most profitable and efficient way to meet that demand. :)
I need to watch this documentary now. I'm intrigued...
-Kate (WWB)
I know you took issue with the documentary including footage of countries not in the US, but this documentary is about EARTHLINGS. That includes all species of the earth, not just one's in the US.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the part that really messed me up and made me sick was the dogs that were fed poison and then convulsed on the ground looking into the camera. I will never. ever. forget the look in that dog's eyes (I'm crying now remembering it) how confused and hurt he/she looked. I don't care if the footage was extreme and intended to pull at my heartstrings. It's still an innocent dog being poisoned and killed inhumanely, regardless of what country it was done in or for what reason. It's disgusting, and it should be considered disgusting, and it should evoke an emotional response in any human with a caring heart.
I agree with Dai. The fox that was skinned alive and thrown on the ground, only to look in the camera and blink and then start shaking.. I have no idea how someone could come from that and say "Well, I wasn't as affected as I thought I would be." It just baffles me..
ReplyDeleteFood and science.. I understand animals need to be killed. But fur farms? That is disgusting, and only for selfish, human WANTS, not "needs."
I have my doubts about the legitimacy of many of those videos. Legitimacy meaning that I do not think that's a standard practice. It wouldn't make any sense for them to not kill an animal before skinning it other than to be shocking and convince viewers that it's standard practice. It's not exactly a secret that PETA has been accused of paying people to do cruel things to animals so they can further their agenda. I also think that videos from 1993-1996 are NOT a good indication of where we are today. Many, many of the videos in the film looked 10+ years old judging by the film quality.
ReplyDeleteDai - My problem was with the fact that locations were not named, which is a tactic that was used to make the viewer think these kinds of atrocities happen in their backyard. I understand the point of the film was to showcase the entire world, but there is only so much control people have in their own country, let alone in others. If third world countries don't use humane practices in killing animals, it's not something that the US or its citizens can do anything about. This 'call to action' so to speak would have been much more effective if the sources and locations were named, but they purposely were not. Reason?
I did not note this exactly, but I do not own fur. However, before the creation of synthetic materials, fur was the best means for staying warm in the winter. It does not surprise me in the least that the prevalence of fur has decreased with the increase in synthetics.
That's cool that it might be thought that I'm inhuman and unfeeling, but death is not a new experience to me. If I cried every time I saw blood and gore, I wouldn't be able to be a nurse. I've learned to be a critical thinker even when something is scary and sad. This film was pathos over and over again, and while that may be enough to convince some people, it's not a tactic that really works on me. Logos please.