Hi Guys,

I've just had a very distressing e-mail from an actor friend of mine in LA about a film showing at the Toronto Film Festival called "Casuistry: The Art of Killing a Cat"

It's a documentary about a famous pair of Canadian's who made a film of themselves killing someone's pet cat and then were put on trial and successfully prosecuted for animal cruelty.

There are a number of pressure groups trying to get the film banned.

So, I've got a question

Has anyone here seen the film and can they give us an objective opinion?

It seems to me that the film is bound to become the hyped film of the festival, simply on the basis that it is getting so much controversial coverage. Anyhow, I'd just like to have the facts before I start punching people at festivals. :grumpy:

Haven't seen it (or heard of it, for that matter).

But man, oh man! Google has heard of it! http://www.stevenrichards.com/images/smiley_creepy.gif

11, 200 hits for the exact title name, in quotes.

Lots to read about, for sure, and it's coming from every angle.

This reminds me... I've been meaning to send the title of IndieTalk's film "To Skin A Cat" to the fine folks at PETA. Hilarity will ensue, based on title alone. :lol:

Wow now that's interesting...

If anyone finds out more about this please post!

I've not seen the film, nor can I give an objective opinion (because I am an animal lover). But, how can one justify killing a living creature and presenting it as a work of art? If the piece exists, then it's a document of a disgusting ACT OF VIOLENCE. IMO, if festival organizers choose to show this piece of shit then they are accessories after the fact.

If the piece exists, then it's a document of a disgusting ACT OF VIOLENCE. IMO, if festival organizers choose to show this piece of shit then they are accessories after the fact.

Someone needs to read what the film is about and what it shows, methinks. http://www.stevenrichards.com/images/smiley_creepy.gif

Zensteve,

Did I not say, I didn't see the film and I can't be objective...and if it exists...? Are you TRYING pick a fight because I'm not biting.

I was at the TIFF for a couple days and, while I wasn't exactly "in the mix" as far as the press and such is concerned, I'll admit that the only mention I heard of this film was on Indiewire in the days leading up to the festival. I saw it on the docket while I was waiting in line for tickets to something else but no one I was in contact with mentioned it, nor did it pop up on the news while I was there (that I noticed).

Methinks this was one big publicity stunt that blew over.

If someone made a documentary about the trial and criminal prosecution of Jeffrey Dahmer, would that make them an accessory to murder?

Clive said the KILLERS made the documentary and I assume, presented it to the festival organizers. The work shows a crime, did the festival people report it or not. If they didn'report the crime then I'd say they were guilty of knowing of a crime and not reporting it, isn't that what an accessory after the fact is? Knowing of a crime after its been committed and not reporting it? In your example of Jeffrey Dahmer, I would call that filmmaker a reporter.

Mmmm... I believe Clive said it was "about" the killers.

Regardless, here is what the film is about from my glorious 10 minutes on Google.

1) Nasty person, with two friends, kill a cat in terrible ways... and film themselves doing it.

2) They get arrested & put on trial (One skipped town)

3) They used as the defense, that what they made was a "work of art" and not animal cruelty.

4) Found guilty. (as should be)

5) Three years later a person makes documentary about the case, (not using the cat-footage.)

6) Animal rights groups think it's the original cat-torture video itself being presented, as "work of art"

7) Hilarity ensues, and Clive starts punching people at festivals.

_______

That's what I came up with. Bless the Internet. :)

Zensteve,

You are right, I re-read Clive's original post and yes, it's the documentary 'about' the killers. And I guess I was #6 on your list.

I apologize (I'm becoming pretty adept at that lately), I see 'animal' and 'kill' together and i become a little irrational. I'll just shut the hell up, now. :blush:

I can't find my "Let's kiss & make up" smiley, but I did find this smiley which is almost as good.

http://www.stevenrichards.com/images/smiley_badger.gif

All is good in the world, with happy dancing badgers :)

Edit: Found it! http://www.stevenrichards.com/images/smiley_kiss.gif

Ditto that!

God i hate animal abusers...i swear..give me not even half an hour in the same room as one, and I'LL be the one in jail.

I dont know if i saw this vid, but i saw a video of two effing foreigners shoving a cat into a small hamster cage. Dousing the cat in alcohol. Lighting the cat on fire. You could hear the cat gurgling and screaming, and choking and suffocating. Pure evil. In this case i hope there is a Hell. and i hope satan sticks his nasty reproductive organ in their..well you get the rest.

I also saw a video of some punk ass bitch, skateboarder, BASH a dogs head with his skate board. The dog was just sitting there, laying down, after he got hit the first time the dog screamed and barked, then the bastard hit him again and the dog turned its face into the corner and tried to get away (it was trapped in a corner).

Thanks a lot..now im so pissed off i could snap at anything...god i hate animal abusers.

7) Hilarity ensues, and Clive starts punching people at festivals.

I know it may not sound like it, but I must be maturing. These days I do some research and get my facts straight before getting into fights at festivals.

I used to be notrious for my bad boy act at festivals (mainly heckling and throwing bread rolls at idiots). I don't think I'll be invited to the Sony party at the Edinburgh Film Festival for many years.

Anyhow, it seems like the film died on the vine at the Toronto Film Fest, but I'd still like to know whether the documentary has some validity as a piece of work or whether it's an exercise in hype.

If it's the later, the director better not do any open Q&A session near any bread type products
;)

It would be interesting to know what cases/circumstances the filmmaker is drawing parallels to, (like, 'people hunt for sport and kill a living creature' ) to support his/her Casiust argument. But I've always believed this reasoning was more effective at making the rest of us feel better about horrible breaches of morals(like reminising about the good times at a funeral) rather then truely explaining the heinous crime of psychos. But then I'm not an expert on morals/codes of ethics.

I know it may not sound like it, but I must be maturing. These days I do some research and get my facts straight before getting into fights at festivals.
Clive, this is by far the most disappointing thing I've ever read on these boards....

Clive, this is by far the most disappointing thing I've ever read on these boards....

Only if you take me literally and not in the totally ironic manner it was intended. Sorry :blush: I try to keep my posting here fairly light and frothy and this time I misjudged it.
Just for the record, I've never thrown a punch in anger, or any other way in my entire life. Not even at school.

Is this a transatlantic language thing? In the UK "picking a fight," just means having a verbal argument or debate with.

I think, given the content and the controversial nature of the issue, that the director of the documentary in question should expect the work to be questioned and it's validity debated. What I was trying to say, without success, is that at least these days I take the time to research the issues, talk to people and attempt to get a clear idea of the issues, before getting into a heated debate with someone. Previously, I used to just react emotionally.

Seriously. This documentary raises real moral dilemmas for me. On the one hand I have a genuine commitment to free speech and it's social importance; on the other hand, one of the things that I have a gut abhorrence of, is any form of cruelty to animals. I know that to understand what this filmmaker is trying to achieve, that I should watch the film, but I also know, that I wouldn't be able to sit through any cruelty shown on screen.

I'm just not sure how I feel about any of it.

My gut reaction is that this is an ambitious documentary maker, looking to make a name for themselves by doing contentious work and nothing is more contentious that animal cruelty. If that's the case, if this is another example of, Is it Art or Is it Hype? then the actions of that particular filmmaker are despicable. If, however, their intention is to create a provocative work that has a genuine impact and message, then I'd like to know that.

Either way, I'm uncomfortable and as I've shown today, my reaction to that is sometimes misplaced machismo.

:abduct:

All I know is that if I get hit in the noggin by a flying scone, I'll know who did it. :tongue:

I dont know if i saw this vid, but i saw a video of two effing foreigners shoving a cat into a small hamster cage. Dousing the cat in alcohol. Lighting the cat on fire. You could hear the cat gurgling and screaming, and choking and suffocating. Pure evil. In this case i hope there is a Hell. and i hope satan sticks his nasty reproductive organ in their..well you get the rest.

I also saw a video of some punk ass bitch, skateboarder, BASH a dogs head with his skate board. The dog was just sitting there, laying down, after he got hit the first time the dog screamed and barked, then the bastard hit him again and the dog turned its face into the corner and tried to get away (it was trapped in a corner).

When I was in high school, there was supposedly a photo of one of my more "nice girl" classmates performing fellatio on a cow. I never saw the pic, but I always wondered if that would be considered animal abuse. If so, I never got abused in high school.

Poke

PS I am attaching a pic of my dog Dreyfus ("I was in JAWS!!!"). He says he would like to be abused by Lassie (the girl one, not the guy ones).

When I was in college, a student made a film titled: 'How to clean a Fish'. If it had been about gutting a catch, I would have called that a documentary. He placed a live fish on newspaper and sprayed it with industrial cleanser, the conclusion of the piece was to watch the fish flop and gasp till it died-I would call that a crime. Given the title of this work, 'Casuistry: The Killing of A Cat' (I HAVE NOT SEEN THE WORK) I'm assuming the filmmaker is trying to draw some parallels to other ways in which we kill animals for our needs which are acceptable (like hooking a fish instead of spraying it), or our selection as to which animals are pets (and 'deserve ' exemption), which are food, and which are sport. An effort to diminish the brutality of this one act so it doesn't look so monstrous in comparison. I understand the weaving through semantics which make some animals deaths 'acceptable'. What I don't understand is the cat was killed simply to watch it suffer and die, how can THAT be justified through any wordplay or any amount of convoluted 'reasoning'?

http://www.stevenrichards.com/images/smiley_learn.gif Casuistry (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=casuistry)

Once again, you are right. I didn't realize casuistry was the 'subtle reasoning INTENDED to rationalize or mislead'. I believed it was using comparable arguments to minimize the horrible facts of the subject , thereby making the tragic deed easier to swallow.

Am I being punished for my opinions on another string? Why can't you just let me wallow in my own ignorance-I wasn't THAT far off with the def of 'Casuistry'. I just recently came back to Indietalk and the two strings I've posted to, nothing but animosity. I made my apologies, but I guess I'd better dot all my i's because I'll be called on everything.

You guys are worried about running off newbies?????????? I'm going back to Indieclub where at least the gloves are on from the get-go and the sarcasm not cloaked in 'advice'.

Oh and by the way, Zen, I noticed you didn't call Poke on the 'fellatio on a Cow' thaannng. (sorry Poke)

clive,

I was sure you were making a joke - so I countered with a joke...

I was disappointed that you have chosen NOT to get into fights any more. I guess countering irony with irony is difficult on a messageboard.

I was sure you were making a joke - so I countered with a joke...

I was disappointed that you have chosen NOT to get into fights any more. I guess countering irony with irony is difficult on a messageboard.

I guess we should ask indietalk to find us a new "irony" smilie

Am I being punished for my opinions on another string?

No. I have no idea why you would even think that.


Why can't you just let me wallow in my own ignorance

:huh:

the two strings I've posted to, nothing but animosity. I made my apologies, but I guess I'd better dot all my i's because I'll be called on everything.

There is no animosity. None at all.

There is nothing hostile in a reply that corrects a misunderstanding, or a misrepresentation, or a clarification. If I ever make a statement that is incorrect (which I frequently do), I would expect someone to challenge my notions or statements.

You guys are worried about running off newbies?????????? I'm going back to Indieclub where at least the gloves are on from the get-go and the sarcasm not cloaked in 'advice'.

Well, have fun I suppose. None of that makes much sense; especially the bit about sarcasm being cloaked in advice. Peoples' opinions vary, their experiences vary, their use of the English language varies... and the way they communicate in a text-driven medium (such as messageboards) will vary. It can be easy to miss implied intent, that sounds obvious when vocalised but nothing but a "smiley" (at best) can even start to simulate.

(Btw... it's "the gloves are off from..". Gloves soften the blow, etc.) Well, maybe I shouldn't mention it...

Oh and by the way, Zen, I noticed you didn't call Poke on the 'fellatio on a Cow' thaannng.

Why should I?

It had nothing to do with the cat-flick, he was trying to lighten the mood (in a gross kinda way), and I have absolutely no intention on trying to research the answer to his question.

I'm pretty sure that I will not be very happy with the matches I'll get, typing "animal sex" into Google. Feel free to take the initiative, though. :lol:

_______

Well... best of luck, Bird.

_______

"All our knowledge has its origins in our perceptions." - Leonardo da Vinci

P.S. Here is what I look like, as I type this reply. (http://www.stevenrichards.com/images/serious.jpg)

P.P.S. Here is a pre-filled Google search for more information about Casuistry flick. (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Casuistry%3A+The+Art+of+Killing+a+Cat%22)

Zensteve,

I just have to come back here and see how you responded, cause face it, you ARE interesting. I did mean 'gloves on' because I like a good debate as much as the next person (you said you didn't mind being told you were mistaken). 'Sarcasm cloaked in advice' - to me it seems your intentions were to show how clever you are rather then educate me.(please note the BTW, gloves reference in your post). As for 'fellatio on a cow', last time I heard you needed to be a bull-I don't believe you need to research that. Perhaps along with the 'irony' smiley, an 'I'm not trying to condescend, but...'. smiley might be handy. I like being enlightened, but just like the next person, I don't take a shine to being embarrassed.

Kiss and make up police....

everybody, hands up....

I heard on reviews of the toronto film fest that they had police in the cinema at the film screening and heaps and heaps of protesters turned up and caused a big fuss. I guess everyone got all fired up and thought it was the actual video of the cat being killed, not a doco about the (sicko) guys who did it. Although giving them the glory of a film made about their exploits ... dunno if I agree with that but having not seen the film I can't really comment can I ?