Screenshot: The Godfather (1972) Screenshot: Lanz kocht (2011)
Reality and Film
Capturing reality is one of the oldest aims of cinema. At the same time however, the possibility to ever reach this aim has been in a state of doubt. Since the invention of photography, people have questioned the possibility of capturing the truth of the world (assuming that such a thing exists) in a photographic image. To what degree can a photograph represent an objective reality? Many cineastes have discussed this issue. One of them is André Bazin whose writings have been of great influence in this discussion. Bazin (1945) represents the point of view that cinema holds the ability to capture the reality of an object. “The photographic image is the object itself, the object freed from the conditions of time and space that govern it” (Ibid, p. 162). For Bazin, “[photography] and cinema […] are discoveries that satisfy, once and for all and in its very essence, our obsession with realism” (Ibid, p.161). Therefore, according to Bazin cinema is capable of representing realism and of capturing the reality of an object.
Walter Benjamin (1936) on the contrary, argues that the photographic image cannot capture the truth of its object. “Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be” (Ibid, p.667). According to that assumption, a film is always just a reproduction of objects and never more. Continuing from this more pessimistic point of view on cinema’s capability of capturing reality, one could argue that cinema is able to create realism but not reality. For example it is possible to make a film about war which reflects in a realistic way events that can happen in a war. That means that one can create a film reality that can be similar to the reality of the world outside of the film. But the world inside the film remains a fictitious one and so does the film reality bound to it.
Even documentaries that claim to ‘document reality’ are faced with the same problem. Although documentaries appear to be the film genre closest to the ultimate aim of capturing reality, they are also never completely objective representations of the ‘real world’. Each documentary is subject to the creation of the people who are involved in its production and therefore they are always to some extent subjective. Take for example Robert Flaherty’s Nanook of the North (1922), the first silent feature-length documentary in film history. Three examples from that film shall illustrate the difficulties that documentaries have with capturing reality. Firstly, a look at the music and subtitles shows the filmmaker’s power to create a certain atmosphere. By his choice of words and music, Flaherty guides the spectator’s emotional reaction on the filmed Eskimos (Tinkl, 2010, p.3-4). Secondly, the film is characterised by Flaherty’s permanent presence among the Eskimos who he was filming. He did not film them from a distance but became a part of their reality. Consequently, the Eskimos behaved differently than they would have behaved without being influenced by a film crew (Ibid, p.2). Lastly, Flaherty added narrative elements to his documentary. For example he shot a scene which creates the illusion of Nanook struggling with a seal. It looks as if a seal was pulling the fishing line from under the ice. But in reality, it was not a seal but an assistant who was pulling the line (Ibid, p.5). These are three examples that illustrate how difficult it is to capture reality even for the genre that claims to document it.
Nevertheless, the pursuit of reality is one of the key issues among filmmakers and some of them seem to have found an answer to the question how reality can be captured by a film: the use of the “real animal death events” (Lawrence, 2010, p.63). Burt (2002) argues that everything that is “happening on screen is really happening to animals being filmed” (p.10). Lawrence (2010) agrees with Burt by describing the death of an animal as something that is “genuinely happening” (p.64). As each animal death “presents a degree of documentary actuality” (Ibid, p.67) they add a documentary element to each film that uses them. The reality in those films is “mobilised in the service of authenticity” (Wheatley, 2011, p.95), the authenticity of real dead. Death allows a film to obtain a reality that nothing else can offer, as “[f]or every creature, death is the unique moment par excellence” (Bazin, 2003, p.30). “It is through death that the animal ruptures the fiction with documentary actuality” (Lawrence, 2010, p.78). When an animal dies in a film, it is not just the fictitious animal that dies, the real animal dies too (Ibid, p.67). When this line between the real and the fictitious animal gets blurred, ethical questions arise (Burt, 2002, p.12).
Ethical Concerns
So, can it be ethical to use real dead animals or even to kill them (as Michael Haneke does for example in Caché, 2005) for the reality purposes of a film? A first spontaneous response to that question could be “No, how could it?” Why should any animal die for reality purposes of a movie when the capture of reality in a film is questionable anyway? Even if one agreed that the death of an animal (as something genuinely happening) would give a film a certain reality, whom does it serve? The rest of the film remains fictitious. To explain it with the example Rules of the Game (1939): “The presentation of the rabbits’ death is a presentation of real (documentary) death, whereas the presentation of Jurieu’s death remains just that, a (fictional) representation” (Lawrence, 2010, p.66). This means that even if an animal death is able to give a film a certain reality, the rest of the film will still be stuck with the old problem of capturing reality. Therefore, such animal deaths seem completely senseless. But can the answer be as simple as that? A comparison of two kinds of real animal death events on screen shall help to illustrate that the answer needs to me more complex than that.
The Godfather (1972)
Probably one of the best known scenes from Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather is the scene where Jack Woltz (John Marley) wakes up in his bed and finds the head of a dead horse next to his feet. As Coppola (2001) explains in his audio commentary on the movie, the head came from a real horse, which caused that scene a lot of negative feedback.
The audiences rose up in anger over the fact that the horse had been killed. […] I got letters from animal lovers […] and the truth was that the horse came from [a] dog food company, that the horses are slaughtered to feed the animal lovers’ little puppies and poodles their dog food … (Ibid, Min. 31:42-32:05).
This fact reminds of an everyday reality that one tends to forget about: real animal deaths in the meat industry. Due to capitalism, contemporary human life is characterised by an alienation from the animal (Berger, 1980). The consumer who buys his meat from the shelf at the supermarket is no longer connected to the process that is necessary to make the piece of meat what it is. Chopped into little pieces and wrapped in plastic or filled in cans, there is not much left that reminds of the animal that those pieces of meat once belonged to. This simplified transaction makes it easy for the customer to transform his awareness of the fact that meat once was a living being into a rather abstract knowledge. Coppola’s statement on the negative feedback on the horse’s head scene points out the irony that lies within that situation. Most people seem not to have a problem with animals being killed for nutrition purposes every day, but they do not appreciate it when an animal seems to be killed for a film. The irony is that in this case the animal was not killed especially for the film but for the production of dog food. The façade of killing an animal for the film industry makes the same death that would be acceptable for the meat industry ethically unacceptable. This example illustrates the conviction that the death of an animal is justified for nutrition purposes but not for the purposes of a film. Food seems to trump entertainment.
Cookery shows on television
Then, from that point of view, how are animal deaths for entertainment purposes of cookery shows justifiable? No matter which country to pick, cookery shows are an international trend. Take for example MasterChef (BBC One) and Ready Steady Cook (BBC Two) in the UK, Un dîner Presque parfait (M6) and Masterchef (tf1) in France or Lanz kocht (ZDF) and Das perfekte Dinner (VOX) in Germany. They all build on the same concepts. Either famous chefs explain their recipes and make their knowledge accessible to the audience, or cooks, famous or not, gather for a cooking competition. The fact that one can find the same kind of show in several countries proves the popularity of this TV format. Those shows are entertaining and they are inspiring; when one does not know what to cook one can always find some new ideas in one of those cookery shows.
The analysis of the episode of the German cookery show Lanz kocht (ZDF) from 2 December 2011 will help to illustrate the ethical problems of cookery shows within the context of killing animals for entertainment purposes. The chosen example stands out for two reasons. On the one hand, the episode is a prime example for real animal deaths for nutrition and entertainment purposes. On the other hand, the episode is remarkable for its self-reflexivity on the cooking of meat.
Markus Lanz, the moderator, invited the five chefs Cornelia Poletto, Ali Güngörmüs, Alfons Schuhbeck, Johannes King, and Kolja Kleeberg to cook five dishes that suit the motto ‘Hearty Country Cooking’. Four out of those five dishes include meat and are therefore each involved in one real animal death. The starter, a ‘crusty bread loaf accompanied by rabbit and taggiasca olives’ is followed by ‘roe dear meat balls accompanied by apple pieces and woodland mushrooms’; dish number three is a ‘saddle of lamb accompanied by caramelised cabbage’ and dish number four is a ‘breast of veal accompanied by woodland mushrooms and dumplings’. Only the dessert does not include meat (but nonetheless animal products): ‘goat’s cheese mousse accompanied by stewed apple and black walnuts’. Obviously, each of those four animals died for the purpose of nutrition. But as the cookery show aims at entertaining the audience in the show and the spectator at home, those four animals died for the purpose of entertainment as well. The animals may not have actually died for being cooked in this particular show. But neither did the horse whose head served as a prop in The Godfather actually die for this movie. All of them died for the primary purpose of nutrition but also served the purpose of entertainment. Another example for the similarity of those juxtaposed examples of cinematic and television entertainment is the fact that in both cases, body parts of dead animals are displayed. In one case one animal body part is placed at the foot of a bed, in another case body parts are put on plates and in casseroles. In both cases the body parts are props on a film set or on television set. The only difference might be that the body bits in Lanz kocht remind much less of the animals that they used to be than the horse’s head in The Godfather does. Whereas the horse’s head still shows basic animal characteristics as eyes, ears, snout, tongue, teeth, fur, and a gory mixture of innards pouring out of its neck, the body parts in Lanz kocht are neat and clean single pieces of meat. Not much about these portions of meat is indicative of the animal that they once belonged to. But still the principle of body part display is the same.
Screenshot: Lanz kocht Set (2011)
Yet, the reactions to both scenarios are completely contrary. Whereas Coppola received negative feedback, cookery shows boom. Although the cookery show and the horse’s head scene in The Godfather have a lot in common, nothing in the show gives a hint about that. Everything about the show suggests a positive atmosphere. The kitchen attracts the spectator’s attention due to its modern style and equipment. Everything looks shiny and clean and the kitchen is bathed in a sparkling light. The worktop is decorated with lots of fresh vegetables and fruits and a wide range of herbs and spices. The kitchen looks like a classic example from the catalogue. The atmosphere is relaxed and friendly and the moderator and the five chefs have a good laugh together. Everything about the show creates an inviting atmosphere. Nothing about the show gives cause for ethical concerns.
However, the episode is remarkable for its self-reflexivity on the real animal deaths that are an essential part to the show. Although or maybe due to the number of meat including dishes, the participating chefs and the moderator seem to feel that their use of meat needs some justification. In a world where vegetarianism becomes more and more popular for various reasons such as respect for the animal or environmental consciousness, people seem to become more aware of the ethical problems related to the consumption of meat.
For example Lanz asks Poletto, who is responsible for the starter, where she got her rabbit meat from (given the fact that rabbit meat appeared to be a tricky matter, especially when children are around). Poletto responds that she knew someone who breeds and slaughters rabbits himself. By showing the audience that she knows the origins of her meat, Poletta relates to a growing trend of an attempt of paying the dying animal more respect. Instead of intensive livestock farming which results in anonymous pieces of meat on a supermarket shelf, it becomes increasingly popular to know where the animal came from. It is an attempt to acknowledge the animal as a living being by guaranteeing him a decent life (according to human definitions) and to show him more respect. According to Poletta, it would not be necessary to enjoy slaughtering, but everyone who cooked and consumed meat should be aware of the process of transforming an animal into meat. Having sorted out where the meat comes from, Lanz wants to know the purpose of the rabbit’s death. He asks Poletta to give the rabbit’s death a sense by explaining what meal she is creating (“Was hast du gemacht, um das Kaninchen zu garen, damit dieser Tod einen Sinn hatte?”) It is an ironic way in which this ethical issue is being raised. But it is known that humour and irony can function as protective mechanisms that can help to cope with difficult topics. Later on in the show, the chefs and Lanz discuss the problems of only cooking the noble body parts of an animal. There is agreement that this sort of selective cooking is not acceptable. They all agree that no animal death should be in vain. Making the most out of one dead animal ideally means that fewer animals would need to die.
Those three examples illustrate the self-reflexivity of this episode of Lanz kocht on the consumption of meat and therefore the self-reflexivity on the use of real animal deaths for nutrition purposes. They show that there is a certain awareness of the ethical problems that are bound to that killing for nutrition purposes, today more than ever. Yet the awareness is not as big as it would prevent the moderator and the chefs from cooking four dishes including meat. Beyond that, although there is a self-reflexivity on cooking meat, the episode does not show any critical engagement with the ethical problems of using dead animals for the entertainment purpose of cookery shows.
ToHe went to work summarise, the chosen episode from Lanz kocht showed how real animal death in cookery shows relate to real animal deaths in films such as in The Godfather or in films by Michael Haneke (e.g. Caché, 2005). The juxtaposition of those two on the first sight very different formats demonstrates that they actually share similar ethical problems. They both make use of dead animals for entertainment purposes and in both cases, the animals primarily died for nutrition purposes.
Entertainment trumps food
Is a position tenable where cookery shows are accepted without being questioned and where films including real animal deaths are automatically dismissed? Is it acceptable to deny a film something that is part of every day reality? Not only are real animal deaths a part of worldwide every day reality, but also do cookery shows and films making use of real animal deaths have a lot in common. Accepting the one and dismissing the other is hypocritical.
Coming back to the discussion of a film’s ability to capture the truth of the world, the juxtaposition of real animal deaths in films and in cookery shows revealed another element of such truth. Not only do animal deaths add the reality of something genuinely happening to a film, but also does their use reflect reality as much as possible. Not only by displaying an animal’s death that could actually take place in reality (realism), but by doing exactly what a worldwide meat industry does everyday, a film receives one further layer of reality. This allows a film to gain reality in a Bazinian understanding.
Although it does not appear this way at the first sight, real animal deaths in films can be much more ethical than they appear to be. By copying what the meat industry (which is one part of human reality) does, such films confront us with our alienation from the animal (Berger, 1980), they remind us of a part of our reality that we like to suppress, they show us our hypocrisy, and they make us think. Therefore, the killing of animals for reality purposes of a film might not only be more ethical than first expected, it might even be more ethical than any other killing of animals.
References
Bazin, A. (2003) ‘Death Every Afternoon’, in Marguiles, I. (ed.) Rites of Realism: Essays on Corporal Cinema. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 27-31.
Bazin, A. (1946) ‘The Ontology of the Photographic Image’, in Braudy, L. and Cohen, M. (ed.) Film Theory & Criticism. 7th edn. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 159-166.
Benjamin, W. (1936) ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’, in Braudy, L. and Cohen, M. (ed.) Film Theory & Criticism. 7th edn. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 665-685.
Berger, J. (1980) ‘Why Look at Animals?’, in About Looking. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, pp. 3-28.
Burt, J. (2002) Animals in Film. London: Reaktion Books Ltd.
Lawrence, M. (2010) ‘Haneke’s Stable: The Death of an Animal and the Figuration of the Human’, in Price, B. and Rhodes, J. D. (ed.) On Michael Haneke. Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University Press, pp. 63-84.
Tinkl, K. (2010) Robert Flaherty: Nanouk l’Esquimau ou la crédibilité dans la représentation du réel. Unpublished Essay, Université Francois-Rabelais, Tours, France.
Wheatley, C. (2011) ‘Naked Women, Slaughtered Animals: Ulrich Seidl and the Limits of the Real’, in Horeck, T. and Kendall, T. (ed.) The New Extremism Cinema. From France to Europe. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 93-101.
Filmography
Caché (2005) Directed by Michael Haneke [Film]. UK: Artificial Eye.
Lanz kocht (2011), ZDF, 2 December. [Online] Available at: http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/hauptnavigation/startseite/#/beitrag/video/1508402/Lanz-kocht!-vom-2-Dezember-2011 (Accessed: 24 January 2012).
Nanook of the North (2004) Directed by Robert Flaherty [DVD]. USA: The Criterion Selection.
Rules of the Game (1939) Directed by Jean Renoir [Film]. France: Distribution Parisienne de Films.
The Godfather (2001) Directed by Francis Ford Coppola [DVD]. UK: Paramount Pictures.
© 2012-2013 Katharina Tinkl
antoineetmoi 