Documentary on bestiality premieres at Sundance Film Festival

[Glow]

It isn't always true that rape has to be violent. Rape can be just a basic act of sex. Such as when grown men flock to Thailand to have sex with little girls. I'm sure that in most cases they are just "having sex" not "being violent". The thing that makes it still a rape is that the little girl would not be in that moment of her own volition. She is a victim of the moment. The "rape" is in the imbalance of power, in that it is not consensual. So as regards the animal kingdom even though a child is held in higher value than an animal the same PRINCIPLES would still apply. It still involves the "taking" of something by the one in the postion of power. That breaks all the laws of universal decency and harmony.

As for looking at this in the medium of "art" and "free" expression.....
As long as there have been humans there have been those select few that view things differently than the masses. Sometimes they have raised the consciousness of those around them (think Gandhi) sometimes they have lowered it (Hitler) The point is that they were able to take people with them by power of persuasion that wouldn't have gone there all on their own. In the beginning they both appear similar in that they offer "freedom" of action..."freedom" of thought etc.....but they are actually going in opposite directions. One truly elevates the mind to think higher, the other traps ensnares and debases, all in the name of "free" thought.

The real truth is that this movie will open the door for others just as previous "artistic" efforts paved the way for this one and on it goes....

people feel titillated by the "thrill" of things "dark" and "taboo" it "feels" like a daring idea....the artist is counting on that ability to have artistic "freedom" because after all how can "free" thinking be a bad thing? Someone once said "We will never go higher than our thoughts" so if this is what is put out to the general public as an example of "free thinking" then it is really a trap as it glamorizes the worst in human nature , exploitation of the innocent. There will be people who will be moved in that direction now that their mind has been exposed to the idea in such a "eerily beautiful way"

If Robinson Devor had directed a movie that elevated the human mind in a way that brought an end to lets say, violence he would be hailed as a hero and I have no doubt he would be right there accepting accolades and taking responsibility. Instead he has taken the viewers of his "art" to a place that undermines the dignity of humans while simultaneously raping animals. I wonder if he will be as quick to step up and accept responsibility for what his "work" causes those who viewed it to go away thinking and feeling.

I am all for art. I am all for freedom of thought and action. But not when it violates the universal laws of what we all know deep down is right. Then I am not for it because there is nothing "free" about it. The cost is way to high.

 

[julianne]

It isn't always true that rape has to be violent. Rape can be just a basic act of sex. Such as when grown men flock to Thailand to have sex with little girls. I'm sure that in most cases they are just "having sex" not "being violent". The thing that makes it still a rape is that the little girl would not be in that moment of her own volition. She is a victim of the moment. The "rape" is in the imbalance of power, in that it is not consensual. So as regards the animal kingdom even though a child is held in higher value than an animal the same PRINCIPLES would still apply. It still involves the "taking" of something by the one in the postion of power. That breaks all the laws of universal decency and harmony.

As for looking at this in the medium of "art" and "free" expression.....
As long as there have been humans there have been those select few that view things differently than the masses. Sometimes they have raised the consciousness of those around them (think Gandhi) sometimes they have lowered it (Hitler) The point is that they were able to take people with them by power of persuasion that wouldn't have gone there all on their own. In the beginning they both appear similar in that they offer "freedom" of action..."freedom" of thought etc.....but they are actually going in opposite directions. One truly elevates the mind to think higher, the other traps ensnares and debases, all in the name of "free" thought.

The real truth is that this movie will open the door for others just as previous "artistic" efforts paved the way for this one and on it goes....

people feel titillated by the "thrill" of things "dark" and "taboo" it "feels" like a daring idea....the artist is counting on that ability to have artistic "freedom" because after all how can "free" thinking be a bad thing? Someone once said "We will never go higher than our thoughts" so if this is what is put out to the general public as an example of "free thinking" then it is really a trap as it glamorizes the worst in human nature , exploitation of the innocent. There will be people who will be moved in that direction now that there mind has been exposed to the idea in such a "eerily beautiful way"

If Robinson Devor had directed a movie that elevated the human mind in a way that brought an end to lets say, violence he would be hailed as a hero and I have no doubt he would be right there accepting accolades and taking responsibility. Instead he has taken the viewers of his "art" to a place that undermines the dignity of humans while simultaneously raping animals. I wonder if he will be as quick to step up and accept responsibility for what his "work" causes those who viewed it to go away thinking and feeling.

I am all for art. I am all for freedom of thought and action. But not when it violates the universal laws of what we all know deep down is right. Then I am not for it because there is nothing "free" about it. The cost is way to high.

Wonderful post, Glow!!! I totally agree --- the "cost" IS way too high. Geez, you said this perfectly. I have failed to put into words exactly how I feel, but you just did a phenomenal job of it.:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[SieSie]

Ewwww.....another film I will be putting on my blacklist.......If you find that planet Sally can you let me know...I,ll come with you.

Going to pack now, call me when you guys are ready to go, I'm right there with ya!!!

Just when you think you've heard it all, along comes this load of total garbage. Next on the agenda will be some creative serial killer and his "beautiful" methods of slaughter and torture. Some people can attempt to justify almost anything. Well, guess what.....you can dress up hog manure anyway you like....it still smells like s&@t.

:clap: :clap: I like how you think!!

 

[Jules]

Wonderful post, Glow!!! I totally agree --- the "cost" IS way too high. Geez, you said this perfectly. I have failed to put into words exactly how I feel, but you just did a phenomenal job of it.:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

I agree!!! Great post Glowbug!!! :blowkiss:

 

[SieSie]

Snipped -->

While I do not (can not?) say the subject of beastiality could ever be beautiful, I see nothing wrong with someone exploring the information to further their understanding on the subject. Sweeping things under the rug, holding your ears and eyes and saying "la la la la I can't hear you" doesn't solve anything. Society does this all too often, trying to ignore things and hope they go away, rather than learning about them, and perhaps finding ways to combat the issues they feel need combating. (Such as respect for the dead, animal rights, children's safety, etc.)

I like keeping my head in the sand - it's much safer here!!!

ETA: I've been waiting forever to use that smiley!! Thanks for giving me the perfect lead-in, Glitch!!

I, too, am very much a "to each his own" person when it comes to people and choices, but this issue IS very different for me, because beastiality is animal abuse---animals cannot consent to this---so this is veerrrry different, and my "to each his own" philosophy ends when it becomes abuse.

I don't doubt that this was made solely to illicit a reaction and to up the shock value. I'm more disgusted than I am shocked. In fact, I'm not shocked at all, just plain grossed out at the depths some go to get the attention they desire. Why not devote their time, energy and financial resources to something with substance? With real potential to add something positive in todays world? It's too damn easy to let the world down than it is to inspire, encourage and motivate the world around us. Sad.

:clap: So well said, Julianne!!! :clap:

 

[southcitymom]

Well, but I was thinking of the Bible Belt (no offense meant for those who live there, I do too) and I wouldn't put it past them to censor the film based on it's "sinful" content. For Og's sake, Kansas refused to teach evolution for a while there! :blushing: (Bill Clinton came down hard on Kansas, and told them that if they kept on not meeting the Federal standards for Science, than they would be ineligible for Federal funding.) They are at it again too, trying to chip away and widen a hole they can slip through. (I'm on the side of Science FTR, and not intelligent design either. I think that what Science teaches is true, but the way it was done was by the Creator, and that part of it we can't grasp. Who said our Maker isnt "THE" scientist after all? ) I also wouldn't put it past states where PETA and the ASPCA are held in high regard to have the film censored, maybe. It might be that I am a bit more jaded than I thought, what with the current climate and the insidious erosion of our civil liberties that has been occuring of late too though.

I hear what you are saying. I've lived in the Bible Belt my whole life (even went to college next door to a dry county - ironically enough, the county where Jack Daniels is made but can't be sold - gotta love the South!) and your comments make a great deal of sense.

 

[southcitymom]

I've always been a "to each his own" kind of person when it comes to people and their *choices*. For me, this issue isn't any different.......HOWEVER.....
I'm sure when they were making this film they knew exactly the kind of reaction it would receive. Maybe they were looking for the shock value.... Also, describing such a act as *Beautiful* is soooo inappropriate.(IMO)

Why can't a film about an ugly perverse subject be described as beautiful? I dont understand that. The reviewer in this case didn't say the topic was beautiful, just that the film was. I've seen a number of beautiful films about ugly, perverse subjects (war, murder, etc...)

 

[BhamMama]

Why can't a film about an ugly perverse subject be described as beautiful? I dont understand that. The reviewer in this case didn't say the topic was beautiful, just that the film was. I've seen a number of beautiful films about ugly, perverse subjects (war, murder, etc...)

I agree! It also smacks of censorship and I'm not about that. I can not see it, or see it, but the right to make it is there.

Art can be created and celebrated with so many different mediums that it boggles the mind. Woman who feel that painting with their own menstrual blood is empowering, people who paint with human or animal feces and urine, artist who have taken dead animals and joined them together to make new animals...heck, even a doctor created art when he had people who consented to let him use their dead bodies. He stripped their skin and showed muscles and veins. That wasn't the gross part but still, he's shown in museums! (The gross part was he staged them as if they were still alive, walking, running and riding bikes etc) Right on down to people who throw blood on religious statues...gross to us, art to many.

So who's to say what art is? Personally, I don't want to own animal feces painted pictures but someone does...they pay for it. They also show it as a political statement, a religious statement, a statement about the human condition or the dark side of things.

As long as no one or no living thing was harmed, why not? It's been going on in the dark for years. Just look now though, so many are talking about it. Did exactly what it set out to do I think. Expose it!

 

[michelle]

. I stand by my orginal thought that artists should be allowed to explore any aspect of the human condition as long as sentient beings aren't harmed in the creation of their art.

Southcitymom, I am not trying to be a smart a$$ here but I am sure you have heard that when a child is molested that not all of them are physically harmed, some actually think it feels good. Does that make it right? For example, The "artist" filming a *advertiser censored* flick of kids "not being harmed" may not be physically hurting them, but damn, its wrong! Screwing a horse is just flat our NASTY....Anything to do with humping animals is a sick perversion, artist or not they need some serious mental help. Yes to each his own, but where do we as a society draw the line? Just because "Mr. Ed" may not be feeling any pain don't mean he wants jo schmo to hump him. Ewwww, I swear just the thought makes me want to puke out my sandwich. Sorry for the Rant. I thought I had read it all.

 

[southcitymom]

It isn't always true that rape has to be violent. Rape can be just a basic act of sex. Such as when grown men flock to Thailand to have sex with little girls. I'm sure that in most cases they are just "having sex" not "being violent". The thing that makes it still a rape is that the little girl would not be in that moment of her own volition. She is a victim of the moment. The "rape" is in the imbalance of power, in that it is not consensual. So as regards the animal kingdom even though a child is held in higher value than an animal the same PRINCIPLES would still apply. It still involves the "taking" of something by the one in the postion of power. That breaks all the laws of universal decency and harmony.

As for looking at this in the medium of "art" and "free" expression.....
As long as there have been humans there have been those select few that view things differently than the masses. Sometimes they have raised the consciousness of those around them (think Gandhi) sometimes they have lowered it (Hitler) The point is that they were able to take people with them by power of persuasion that wouldn't have gone there all on their own. In the beginning they both appear similar in that they offer "freedom" of action..."freedom" of thought etc.....but they are actually going in opposite directions. One truly elevates the mind to think higher, the other traps ensnares and debases, all in the name of "free" thought.

The real truth is that this movie will open the door for others just as previous "artistic" efforts paved the way for this one and on it goes....

people feel titillated by the "thrill" of things "dark" and "taboo" it "feels" like a daring idea....the artist is counting on that ability to have artistic "freedom" because after all how can "free" thinking be a bad thing? Someone once said "We will never go higher than our thoughts" so if this is what is put out to the general public as an example of "free thinking" then it is really a trap as it glamorizes the worst in human nature , exploitation of the innocent. There will be people who will be moved in that direction now that their mind has been exposed to the idea in such a "eerily beautiful way"

If Robinson Devor had directed a movie that elevated the human mind in a way that brought an end to lets say, violence he would be hailed as a hero and I have no doubt he would be right there accepting accolades and taking responsibility. Instead he has taken the viewers of his "art" to a place that undermines the dignity of humans while simultaneously raping animals. I wonder if he will be as quick to step up and accept responsibility for what his "work" causes those who viewed it to go away thinking and feeling.

I am all for art. I am all for freedom of thought and action. But not when it violates the universal laws of what we all know deep down is right. Then I am not for it because there is nothing "free" about it. The cost is way to high.

Thank you for this thoughtful post. I would be interested in your personal thoughts about the fact that murder and war also violate the universal laws of what we know deep down is right. Do you object to films and other artistic expressions that pertain to these subjects because the cost is too high?

 

[southcitymom]

Southcitymom, I am not trying to be a smart a$$ here but I am sure you have heard that when a child is molested that not all of them are physically harmed, some actually think it feels good. Does that make it right? For example, The "artist" filming a *advertiser censored* flick of kids "not being harmed" may not be physically hurting them, but damn, its wrong! Screwing a horse is just flat our NASTY....Anything to do with humping animals is a sick perversion, artist or not they need some serious mental help. Yes to each his own, but where do we as a society draw the line? Just because "Mr. Ed" may not be feeling any pain don't mean he wants jo schmo to hump him. Ewwww, I swear just the thought makes me want to puke out my sandwich. Sorry for the Rant. I thought I had read it all.

Hi Michelle.

I don't think you're being a smart aleck. It's a great question!

Just as a child might be be pleasured and not physically harmed during molestation, there are a number of acts of bestiality that might not physically harm the animal while bringing pleasure to the human involved. So I would have to add to my previous statement. Real molestation is "always" harmful to children - it is always rape because children are not able to consent emotionally or otherwise. It is rape because - as Glow pointed out in her terrific post - there is a gross imbalance of power. Likewise, bestiality - an animal can never consent and there is another imbalance. In my opinion, child molestation and bestiality are always morally wrong.

But I don't think that a film which explores these pathological elements of the human race is wrong. If the film showed humans and animals engaging in sexual behavior in order to arouse people who are into that sort of thing, it would just be *advertiser censored*. From all of the information and reviews I have read about the documentary at issue, that's not what it does. I don't have a problem with artists exploring the human condition - even parts of the human condition that most of us find repugnant.

I find murder to be a repugnant human action and I find war to be a repugnant human action and I find rape to be a repugnant human action and I find cruelty and torture to be repugnant human actions; yet I have watched movies and read books that deal with all of the aforementioned subject matter and I have come often away saying "That was a beautiful book" or "That was a beautiful movie." More importantly, I have often come away having learned something about myself and the race of which - like it or not - I am a dues-paying member.

 

[southcitymom]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Please, pause a moment to slip him my number! :crazy:

 

[Dalilah]

How many of you have seen a movie that discusses or portrays murder, adultery, lying, thievery, abuse, etc?

I don't see how this is any different. I believe it is important to discuss all manner of the human condition. This is merely another form of criminal behavior (at least in our modern, Western society) that I believe should be learnt about and discussed openly.

I don't understand why some folks think we should act as if these things just do not happen. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. In fact, mold tends to grow in darkness, right?

There is animal *advertiser censored* made every day and shipped around the world. Because it is pornographic, it is an insult to the sense of the majority. This is not pornographic. It is a portrayal of an illness (in my opinion) that affects many humans and their animals (for whom I am solely concerned).

I don't feel that this film is insultive. I believe the subject matter needs to be brought out in the open and discussed as freely and openly as we discuss any other malady of the human mind/body/spirit.

Now, I haven't seen the film as of yet, but nothing I've read suggests that the film is made in such a way as to glorify beastiality. But, if I'm wrong, I apologize. Either way, my above comments stand.

(FYI - I am one of those "crazy animal people" who treats her pets as though they are her children. In no way do I condone any form of abuse towards animals, including humans.)

 

[southcitymom]

Oedipus the King by William Shakespeare - a story of murder, mother-son incest, suicide and self-mutilation. These are terrible, unthinkable, grotesque subjects. Why aren't we appalled that this is required reading in most high schools and universities?!! Anyone who would want to read "literature" like this must be truly disturbed. It glorifies these sick behaviors and might give people ideas.

And don't even get me started on the rest of Shakespeare's bawdy, human pathology-filled works. We should ban the whole lot, don't you think?

 

[Glow]

murder and war also violate the universal laws of what we know deep down is right.QUOTE]

Hi southcitymom,

What I think is, first of all not every war or even every murder violate what we know to be right (as does bestiality). There have been times when war was seen as an unfortunate necessity to stop an evil greater than the war itself. Individuals who fight for what they perceive to be a higher cause are usually proud to stand up and be identified.

I noticed in the article that two of the three men interviewed in this documentary wanted their faces hidden. A striking contrast to the man who stands up and fights in uniform (war) That action alone strikes right at the core.

We are comparing apples and oranges if we attempt to use one to justify the other.

As for Devor, he is at least up front in stating his purpose in making the movie:

"Zoo" is intent on allowing these men to be heard."

Why do they need to be heard? He could have done a documentary that just "documents" that this dark underbelly exists in human society, but no.

He wants to give them a platform as stated in his own words so that they can "be heard". By using his artistic skill in his chosen medium (film) he brags:

"I aestheticized the sleaze right out of it."

Really?

Obviously not to everyone he didn't, as shown by some of the posts here. Apparently some people can see sleaze as sleaze no matter how much soft music and beautiful scenes of nature gets mixed in with the sleaze.

My concern is not for those people. My concern is for the ones that gulp that movie down mentally and go away thinking "well bestiality is not for me, but I guess its not 'SO bad' after all".

Taking something that would and should normally be considered a perversion and "softening" the face of it, making it more palatable, in effect moving it more "mainstream" is what I am questioning. Devors taking this topic up and deciding that he will furnish these men with a platform not just to be "heard" but that he will use his considerable artistic ability to make sure it is perceived as having the capacity to appear "beautiful" carry's with it a moral responsibility on his part.

 

[Dalilah]

"I noticed in the article that two of the three men interviewed in this documentary wanted their faces hidden. A striking contrast to the man who stands up and fights in uniform (war) That action alone strikes right at the core."

If war were illegal and it were considered a public disgrace to engage in such, I doubt they would be standing up for what they believed.

Again, I'm not condoning. But, that is apples and oranges right there. I fully understand your view, Glow, but disagree that this is something that should be censored.

(By the way, there are hundreds of thousands of people who already think that beastiality is not for them, but it's not SO bad. There are people who justify murder, rape, stealing, adultery, and every-damn-thing else in the same way. It doesn't stop anyone else from producing media on those subjects.)

 

[michelle]

Hi Michelle.

I don't think you're being a smart aleck.

.

I am glad. I did not want to come across that way. I just dont understand why this would even be shown. In my mind its just sick and nasty to even need a documentary on it. JMO

 

[southcitymom]

murder and war also violate the universal laws of what we know deep down is right.QUOTE]

Hi southcitymom,

What I think is, first of all not every war or even every murder violate what we know to be right (as does bestiality). There have been times when war was seen as an unfortunate necessity to stop an evil greater than the war itself. Individuals who fight for what they perceive to be a higher cause are usually proud to stand up and be identified.

I noticed in the article that two of the three men interviewed in this documentary wanted their faces hidden. A striking contrast to the man who stands up and fights in uniform (war) That action alone strikes right at the core.

We are comparing apples and oranges if we attempt to use one to justify the other.

As for Devor, he is at least up front in stating his purpose in making the movie:

"Zoo" is intent on allowing these men to be heard."

Why do they need to be heard? He could have done a documentary that just "documents" that this dark underbelly exists in human society, but no.

He wants to give them a platform as stated in his own words so that they can "be heard". By using his artistic skill in his chosen medium (film) he brags:

"I aestheticized the sleaze right out of it."

Really?

Obviously not to everyone he didn't, as shown by some of the posts here. Apparently some people can see sleaze as sleaze no matter how much soft music and beautiful scenes of nature gets mixed in with the sleaze.

My concern is not for those people. My concern is for the ones that gulp that movie down mentally and go away thinking "well bestiality is not for me, but I guess its not 'SO bad' after all".

Taking something that would and should normally be considered a perversion and "softening" the face of it, making it more palatable, in effect moving it more "mainstream" is what I am questioning. Devors taking this topic up and deciding that he will furnish these men with a platform not just to be "heard" but that he will use his considerable artistic ability to make sure it is perceived as having the capacity to appear "beautiful" carry's with it a moral responsibility on his part.

Thanks, Glow. Then I will amend my question to ask about rape and incest. Those things are always wrong in every case. Do you object to art that pertains to these subjects ( ie. The Accused, Oedipus,etc...)?

I think that perhaps your objection is not so much to the subject matter in the film at hand, but rather to the fact that the filmmaker wanted to give a platform to people who engage in such immoral behavior and to humanize them in the process. Please correct me if I have misunderstood.

If that is your opinion, I will offer mine. I am deeply moved by any work of art that explores the underlying similarity of all human beings, regardless of how different we may perceive ourselves to be via race, tongue, caste, sexual persuasion, mental health status, religion, criminal record, age, sex, geography, financial situation, marital status, body type, etc..etc.. And by etc...etc..., I mean all those things that we use to separate ourselves away from each other.

In other words, I don't have a problem exploring and accepting the threads of humanity that connect me with the "good" people in our society (ie. leaders, heroes, healers, ministers, - whoever lives in such a way to lift the world up) and I don't have a problem exploring and accepting the threads of humanity that connect me with the "bad" people in our society (rapists, murderers, pedophiles, torturers - whoever lives in such a way to bring the world down).

I don't have a problem thinking lovingly towards the "worst" among us and taking a look at how they might be more like me than I want to know. This doesn't mean that I could ever perceive bestiality as a good thing. I don't think it follows that people soften their opinions on ugly, harmful, criminal behavior just because they recognize another person's humanity.

I personally think that being able to see the human connection between oneself and others (regardless of how different or repulsive we might find those others) is one of the most important things a person can ever do. So I am a fan of art that aims to do this because it jibes with the way I naturally filter the world.

I don't know if the documentary in question aims to do this, but I suspect it might be one of its goals given that the respulsive subject matter has been presented "beautifully." I agree that attempting to show people that underneath our bones all look the same carries with it a moral responsibility - I think that's a good thing. It's brave to present the "worst" among us in such a way that we might sense - if only vaguely and briefly and uncomfortabley - the basic humanity that connects us all.

 

[Glow]

In both the cases you mentioned Oedipus and "The Accused", the story works because it is told from the viewpoint of the victims. Our sympathies are directed at their story not towards the viewpoint of the villain.

Imagine Oedipus if the story was aimed at getting us to understand and sympathize with Laius. I haven't seen "The Accused" but again I'm sure that the story is presented to the viewer NOT from the viewpoint of sympathy for those "poor rapists" but rather from the viewpoint of the awfulness of it and the search for justice ie; the victims viewpoint.

In this documentary on beastiality, the story is told to put forth the viewpoint of the perpetrator, not the victim. Their victims (the animals who even if big and strong, are still helpless in the situation) can not speak. They do not have the ability to form words. If this movie was produced with sympathy for the victim then that would be a different matter.

Just because there is a market for something, doesn't that mean the producer has no accountability.

 

[LionRun]

In both the cases you mentioned Oedipus and "The Accused", the story works because it is told from the viewpoint of the victims. Our sympathies are directed at their story not towards the viewpoint of the villain.

Imagine Oedipus if the story was aimed at getting us to understand and sympathize with Laius. I haven't seen "The Accused" but again I'm sure that the story is presented to the viewer NOT from the viewpoint of sympathy for those "poor rapists" but rather from the viewpoint of the awfulness of it and the search for justice ie; the victims viewpoint.

In this documentary on beastiality, the story is told to put forth the viewpoint of the perpetrator, not the victim. Their victims (the animals who even if big and strong, are still helpless in the situation) can not speak. They do not have the ability to form words. If this movie was produced with sympathy for the victim then that would be a different matter.

Just because there is a market for something, doesn't that mean the producer has no accountability.

Thank you Glow! Beautifully said. You hit the nail on the head.

Lion