Report: Actually, Animals May Have Been Harmed in the Making of That Film

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Life_of_Pi_2012_Poster.jpg">20th Century Fox</a>/Wikipedia

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


“A Husky dog was punched repeatedly in its diaphragm on Disney’s 2006 Antarctic sledding movie Eight Below, starring Paul Walker, and a chipmunk was fatally squashed in Paramount’s 2006 Matthew McConaughey-Sarah Jessica Parker romantic comedy Failure to Launch.”

Those are just two of the many incidents cited in the Hollywood Reporter‘s investigation into how the American Humane Association (AHA) has been dropping the ball on protecting animals featured in major film and TV productions. When you go see a movie in theaters, chances are you’ll see the words “no animals were harmed” etched onto the closing credits (other times, you might see a film listed as “acceptable” or “outstanding” in its treatment of animals). That famous disclaimer is awarded by the AHA, the nonprofit charged with ensuring animal safety in American film and television. According to THR, the organization has too often signed off on a film in which animals were harmed during production—and has justified doing so on grounds that animals weren’t intentionally injured (or that incidents occurred when cameras weren’t rolling).

“In 2003, the AHA chose not to publicly speak of the dozens of dead fish and squid that washed up on shore over four days during the filming of Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl,” the report continues. “Crewmembers had taken no precautions to protect marine life when they set off special-effects explosions in the ocean, according to the AHA rep on set.”

Another incident of animal death or injury on-set involves the Bengal tiger in Ang Lee’s Oscar-winning 2012 drama Life of Pi. “This one take with him just went really bad and he got lost trying to swim to the side,” the assigned AHA monitor wrote in an email. “Damn near drowned.” Still, Life of Pi earned its “no animals were harmed” credit. Furthermore, during filming of Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, 27 animals reportedly died. According to the report, instead of investigating, the AHA crafted a carefully worded disclaimer that it had “monitored all of the significant animal action” and that “no animals were harmed during such action.”

In response to THR‘s inquiries, the AHA offered several official explanations that, according to THR‘s review, often conflict with the organization’s own internal records. Also, the AHA pointed to a bunch of technicalities. For example, their statement on the crushed rom-com chipmunk reads that the dead rodent wasn’t a factor because the incident “occurred after filming and no intentional cruelty was involved.” Dr. S. Kwane Stewart, a veterinarian and the national director of AHA’s “No Animals Were Harmed” program, told THR, “This whole idea that we’re cozy with the industry—it’s simply not the case. We first and foremost want to keep the animals safe.”

As The Hill notes, Congress has worked with Hollywood on legislation to protect animals. But in this Congress, none of the related legislation directly addresses animal safety in film productions, according to the Congressional Animal Protection Caucus. The offices of Reps. Jim Moran (D-Va.) and John Campbell (R-Calif.), who co-chair the bipartisan organization, did not respond to Mother Jones‘ requests for comment regarding the new report.

“The moral compass of the entire place is off the hook,” one AHA employee told THR. “It’s not changing,” another said. “It’s getting worse.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate