Analysis by Kyle A. Lohmeier
Every dog has its day, as the old saying goes, and today, January 20, 2017 is Donald Trump’s day; a fact that no one is unaware of and is also now rather boring. So, I’m going to write about some real dogs instead, well, one in particular: a German shepherd named Hercules.
Hercules is one of the dogs owned by Birds and Animals Unlimited (BAU) – a company that provides animal actors for movie sets – that was used in the filming of the upcoming movie “A Dog’s Purpose.” Wednesday, TMZ released a video that was shot during the filming of one of the movie’s scenes inside a studio in Canada, where a German shepherd, Hercules, was to jump into a churning pool that looks like a fast-flowing river. Hercules wasn’t having it and actively resisted going into the pool until his handler physically tossed him in. Despite being temporarily pulled under by the churning water, the company assures us that Hercules is happy and healthy some 13 months after the incident.
The timing of the video’s release, likely not an accident, couldn’t have been worse for Universal and Amblin, which cancelled a premiere and press junket for the film yesterday as outcry form the public and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals intensified. PETA, a group that is never shy about engaging in hyperbole, naturally made bizarre demands typical of the thinking of a person whose brain is chronically malnourished from veganism.
“We’re asking (Producer Gavin) Polone and (Director Lasse) Hallstrom to not only pledge to never use animals in films again but to rescue the dogs from BAU,” PETA demanded, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
PETA being PETA aside, the backlash against the film is appropriate, if a bit odd and at times exaggerated. Full disclosure: I love dogs. I was more heartbroken over the recent death of my doggie “nephew” than I have been over the deaths of humans I’ve known in life. I adore my rescued min-pin mutt; she’s a bit edgy and weird just like me and decidedly odd – she’s got nine nipples. That said, if I had been inclined to go see “A Dog’s Purpose” in theatres, I probably would join the boycott now and not see it – hard to say since realistically I was never going to see it in the theatres anyway and probably not on blu-ray anytime soon. Ok, ever. I can certainly understand the inclination on the part of animal lovers boycott a film that celebrates how great dogs are but mistreated them during the production of said film.
Whether or not Polone and/or Hallstrom ever work with animals again, it’s a safe bet that BAU’s stock is plummeting now. With this much bad press just ahead of the scheduled Jan. 27 nationwide release, whatever box office numbers the film was projected to garner will need to be revised downward. Indeed, everyone with a stake in the film, whether or not they had anything to do with the filming of the scene in question, will suffer some punishment from the market for the mistreatment of Hercules. Society’s disapproval of Hercules’ handling will be measured in unsold tickets and unfilled seats.
Well, that’s how it would work in a perfect world anyway. Of course, our world isn’t perfect; we have government. According to TMZ, the crew members involved in the shot are now under investigation by something called Canada’s Chief Veterinary Office, which has the power to actually bring criminal charges against humans, oddly enough. Said office told TMZ that those found culpable of wrongdoing can face up to $10,000 (Canadian, I assume, so $7,535.88 as of this morning) in fines and/or six months in jail.
Now, as distressing as the video of a handler tossing a German shepherd into the water was to watch for those of us who really do love dogs, it bears mentioning that in the commission of that act no one’s person or property was damaged. Therefore, no actual crime was committed. Therefore a single Loony of fines or a single second of jail time is unjust for anyone involved in filming that scene.
In fact, if you take a step back and think about it for a moment, this incident goes to prove how unnecessary the government is – particularly now in the information age.
Everyone has a video camera in their pocket and everyone has access to the internet in the United States today. We, as a society, have never been better-equipped to keep one another in check. The FBI didn’t expose the mistreatment of Hercules, a private citizen did, and then a private company, TMZ, put it out there for all to see and judge. And, judge, we as a society have. And, that judgement was rendered swiftly and with certainty, hence the cancellation of the film’s premiere and press junket. The purpose of producing the film in the first place was to make money for all involved. What money the film makes, if it ends up in the black at all, will be greatly diminished from what it could have been were it not for this unfortunate incident with Hercules. Universal Studios and Amblin Entertainment have already been effectively “fined” by society for the mistreatment of animals. Likewise, I’d be willing to bet that the next time Universal or Amblin needs an animal for a film, BAU’s phones won’t be ringing. If their animal actors and handlers aren’t working, BAU isn’t making money – it too will have been effectively “fined” by society.
This rendering of justice is a lot more efficient, and just, than what we think of as “justice,” which is nothing more than a support system for a massive and unnecessary bureaucracy of courts, cops, prisons and lawyers. An external, unrelated party, like government, doesn’t need to step in and violently impose any additional punishments upon the filmmakers; society has already rendered judgement and, furthermore, the mere existence of the system to arrest, try, fine and/or convict them victimizes all Canadians by forcing them to pay for something so completely unnecessary.
Of course, shaming and boycotts don’t really work for actual crimes that leave a victim, but there is certainly a better method of dealing with those than our current system. That, however is a topic for another time.
Leave a Reply