Like what scenes of animal abuse? The crucified meat in Holy Mountain? Or the elephant in Santa Sangre?

I'm not saying it has never happened. Since I've never been on set, I'll probably never know. But, I can't think of a single scene in the films themselves that would make it evident.

This might sound a bit heavy, but walk with me, here:

I don't think he harms any animals in any permanent or serious way.

I would condone if he did, but then I'm a flesh-eater (among other things) and something of a relativist. I see his work as worthy of the pain - the death - of creatures. There was certainly a point in my life at which I could have offered to sacrifice myself to a film of the caliber of Holy Mountain or El Topo. It would be film, for one thing: it would last a long time. It would be preserved in some form, just for containing such a death. Art is that important to me. It is the highest duty of this life.

That being said, again I would like to state that I *assume* it would be a major violation of everything he conveys about the philosophy of/in his work. I think he would see such pain / killing of animals as exactly the sort of oppression he's opposed to, though of course, I certainly can't be sure.

I agree that this has always been a thorny issue with Jod's films - And according to the literature I've read (a couple pamphlets of exhaustive press clippings & interviews reprinted by TOPY in the 80s), the animal killing is REAL, at least in the case of the 100 rabbits in El Topo, and in other instances also (the impaled birds in Holy Mountain, etc)

We look at this from the eyes of contemporary Western materialism and its ostensible code of ethics - I am in fact a vegetarian (lapsed vegan to be precise), I am opposed to animal experimentation and factory farms (cows, chickens, etc) and I would tend to identify as an animal rights person

YET I think we must look at things from other cultural perspectives (different ethnicities and historical periods) to gain a broader understanding and acceptance

Ancient religions (and some present-day ones such as Santeria and *perhaps* some lefthand branches of Satanism) have customarily sacrificed animals (and sometimes humans) in religious rites (and what are Jod's films if not 'religious' in the highest sense?) - Most of us regard it as acceptable to kill and eat animals for physical sustenance and survival, and then there is the whole arena of vivisection and animal experimentation 'OSTENSIBLY' conducted as medical research to aid and prolong human life by determining chemical toxicity threshholds, studying and developing cures for diseases, and a whole slew of much more altogether dubiously justified and cruel laboratory atrocities - And yet religious sacrifice of animals is regarded as barbarous and inhumane - (Is this not one of civilization's many blatant hypocrisies?) - The underlying assumption is that whatever benefits the MATERIAL survival and well-being of humankind is justified, whereas the same things done for SPIRITUAL purposes is viewed as an unconscionable product of superstition - A society or individual who considers SPIRIT to be of higher and more fundamental value than the gross PHYSICAL body might well take the opposite point of view: that killing animals for food is a base misuse of life, whereas to kill a being that dies for a higher or divine purpose (such as Art or Deity) is more honorable - Furthermore, if one looks HONESTLY at the whole field of animal experimentation, torture and death, one will see that it is no different than those antique religious rites of animal sacrifice, but here in contemporary 'civilized' society we regard Science and Medicine as God, and the use and abuse of sentient creatures by these institutions is itself a culturally sanctioned ritual, no different than a Santeria priest killing a chicken to honor a deity or a Satanist killing a cat to make use of its primal life force for the purpose of enhancing personal power, except that the institution of scientific and medical animal experimentation is conducted on such a vast scale as to be on the order of a Holocaust against nonhuman creatures - Curious that a legal and moral system that endeavours to ensure that animals are treated humanely in film productions would accuse an ARTIST like Jodorowsky of cruelty to animals while not caring about the treatment of animals on factory farms, in laboratories, or the civilizational by-products of sickness, death and extinction to species after species as a result of toxic pollution and destruction of natural habitats

The verdict?

Jodorowsky: innocent

Monsanto: guilty

Keep in mind that Jodorowsky's art deals in mythic images, and mythology rarely ever conforms to the ethical or moral standards of the culture from which the mythology springs.

Mythic heroes are, by definition, the exception, and when we make the hero the ethical norm of a society, we get something that smells just a little like fascism.

Soren Kierkegaard once described the Biblical story of the sacrifice of Isaac as a "teleological suspension of the ethical"-- if we believe in ethical and moral God, we cannot accept Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac as the norm, yet the myth is widely accepted.

Myth is filled with violence, deceit, rape, incest, and mutilation. Myth is rarely a medium for moral instruction.

I also don't recall any scenes of obvious animal torture in his films; I'd have to review them again.

I do remember being sickened by the scene in Michael Haneke's very serious film "The Time of the Wolf" (Temps du loup, Le), when the horse is shot on camera -- so sickened, actually, that it ruined the entire film for me. The film was well directed, well filmed, and nicely lacking in music, but that one scene ruined everything for me.

There is absolutely no need to abuse or kill any animal on film, just as there's no need to do this to a human being. It does not "add to the realism", it does not contribute in any way. Special effects, if you really feel the need to show these sorts of things on camera, are sophisticated enough to pass off as a substitute to "the real thing". But personally, I feel that there's too much violence already in film, and if you really want to convey horror or discomfort, very often subtlety is more effective.

(And I'm also a vegetarian.)

All the dead and bloody horses in El Topo were claimed to be killed and bloodied for the movie. It sure looks real in the movie, but I always assumed that it was effect until someone told me it was real.

How much of Jodorowsky is real?