Z
MCN Blogs
Kim Voynar

By Kim Voynar Voynar@moviecitynews.com

Okay, Who Let the Filmmakers Have a Rifle?

Well, this one creates an interesting ethical dilemma for Tribeca Film Festival attendees who are also animal lovers/vegans/card-carrying members of PETA. Apparently two deer were illegally shot (and skinned and cooked, although that bit probably wasn’t illegal once the deer were already dead) in the filming of Tribeca Film Fest entry First Winter, about a group of Brooklyn new-age hippies/hipsters stranded in a remote farmhouse in the dead of winter with the food supply running out. And by “shot” I don’t mean “filmed,” or even “inadvertently shot by some PA screwing around with a loaded rifle.” I mean “shot” as in, the script called for a real live deer to be really shot and killed and skinned and roasted. For authenticity, I guess.

I know what my veggie and vegan friends would have to say about that … what do you say? Killing a wild animal just so you can record the killing (and skinning and roasting) for your film: Okay? Not cool, but not necessarily morally wrong? Or just flat-out ewwww?

2 Responses to “Okay, Who Let the Filmmakers Have a Rifle?”

  1. Leon says:

    If they actually ate it, then no more morally wrong than any other instance of going hunting, killing an animal, and eating it.

  2. DP says:

    yeah except the whole potching thing, and they only “ate” one.

Leave a Reply

Quote Unquotesee all »

“Chad Harbach spent ten years writing his novel. It was his avocation, for which he was paid nothing, with no guarantee he’d ever be paid anything, while he supported himself doing freelance work, for which I don’t think he ever made $30,000 a year. I sold his book for an advance that equated to $65,000 a year—before taxes and commission—for each of the years of work he’d put in. The law schools in this country churn out first-year associates at white-shoe firms that pay them $250,000 a year, when they’re twenty-five years of age, to sit at a desk doing meaningless bullshit to grease the wheels of the corporatocracy, and people get upset about an excellent author getting $65,000 a year? Give me a fucking break.”
~ Book Agent Chris Parris-Lamb On The State Of The Publishing Industry

INTERVIEWER
Do you think this anxiety of yours has something to do with being a woman? Do you have to work harder than a male writer, just to create work that isn’t dismissed as being “for women”? Is there a difference between male and female writing?

FERRANTE
I’ll answer with my own story. As a girl—twelve, thirteen years old—I was absolutely certain that a good book had to have a man as its hero, and that depressed me. That phase ended after a couple of years. At fifteen I began to write stories about brave girls who were in serious trouble. But the idea remained—indeed, it grew stronger—that the greatest narrators were men and that one had to learn to narrate like them. I devoured books at that age, and there’s no getting around it, my models were masculine. So even when I wrote stories about girls, I wanted to give the heroine a wealth of experiences, a freedom, a determination that I tried to imitate from the great novels written by men. I didn’t want to write like Madame de La Fayette or Jane Austen or the Brontës—at the time I knew very little about contemporary literature—but like Defoe or Fielding or Flaubert or Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky or even Hugo. While the models offered by women novelists were few and seemed to me for the most part thin, those of male novelists were numerous and almost always dazzling. That phase lasted a long time, until I was in my early twenties, and it left profound effects.
~ Elena Ferrante, Paris Review Art Of Fiction No. 228

Z Z