Jonathan Burt analyzes on the the very first animal hero films ever made entitled, Rescued by Rover (Hepworth, 1905). The theme of this film involves a pet collie, Rover that acts as the families protector. The nanny goes on a walk with a family's baby and loses the child during her stroll. When she returns home without the baby in hand, loss and suspicion arise. Rover immediately takes on an authoritative role and goes out searching for the baby. Rover then gets the father's attention and forces him to follow, leading him to the baby to bring her home.
The relationship between Rover and the father illustrates trust and understanding. With a silent film in particular such as Rescued by Rover, actions have to say everything. As Rover retraces his path three times to affirm where the baby is located, he is exemplifying strength and persistence-- both traits in which dogs are recognized and admired for; a reason why many families opt to get a family dog. Rover is the only figure on the film who "understands" as much as the camera (116). Burt describes these themes as mechanical (the pursuit) and the non-mechanical (the possibility of a common understanding outside language) come together without actually collapsing into each other (117). Essentially, this is a perfect example of human-animal relationships. In particular how a connection can be discerned through a pet dog and owner. A connection so strong working together, they are able to save their baby, and live happily ever after. :)
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
Herzog's, Grizzly Man.
There seem to be many complications and emotions running through Herzog's, Grizzly Man. This film highlighted the journey of Timothy Treadwell and his intimate ties to grizzly bears. Treadwell automatically thinking he is apart of the grizzly family and resides in their land takes on a ignorant role. Understanding the grizzly behavior was something Treadwell took pride in. However, little did he know that understanding or not he can't change their instinctual behavior. Treadwell took on the point of view as one of the animals, yet as human, they do not see him as a fellow brother, merely a piece of flesh and vulnerability.
Treadwell became one with nature. Through Transcendentalism, he is able to capture his surroundings and animals within and form a sort of bond that is often uncommon. Such as his relationship with his friend Fox. Living with and only with nature, Treadwell is able to adapt more with his surroundings and assuming he is then able to communicate with this grizzly bears on a more personal level, when in reality, they still have yet to consider him one of their own.
This brings forth many questions when relating transcendentalism and human behavior with authentic nature. Mankind is only capable of so much, especially when relating and connecting them to a wild animal such as a grizzly bear. As much passion and devotion Treadwell had with his relationship between these bears, if they do not see him as one of their own, he's doomed from the beginning. And, with this, I would argue Herzog's hidden perspective: trying to show the viewers-- the struggles with human and animals bonds, and the potential for them to be absolutely false.
Treadwell became one with nature. Through Transcendentalism, he is able to capture his surroundings and animals within and form a sort of bond that is often uncommon. Such as his relationship with his friend Fox. Living with and only with nature, Treadwell is able to adapt more with his surroundings and assuming he is then able to communicate with this grizzly bears on a more personal level, when in reality, they still have yet to consider him one of their own.
This brings forth many questions when relating transcendentalism and human behavior with authentic nature. Mankind is only capable of so much, especially when relating and connecting them to a wild animal such as a grizzly bear. As much passion and devotion Treadwell had with his relationship between these bears, if they do not see him as one of their own, he's doomed from the beginning. And, with this, I would argue Herzog's hidden perspective: trying to show the viewers-- the struggles with human and animals bonds, and the potential for them to be absolutely false.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Nature and Morality
Does society use nature to describe morality? The complexities of nature and morals is unfathomable. Yet, they come to thought every single day. So, what does this mean?
My stance of nature and morality is human's weakness. As humans are an intelligent beings, morality is often the foreground for everyday life. With constant expectations and desires, our morals often play a significant role in decisions and goals.
Yet, as humans we do have these instincts and behaviors that can be seen as primal. If we give into these desires is that just nature playing its course? For those that fall victim, the easy answer is yes. We are animals, it's only "natural" to have multiple partners and not consider emotions.
Angels and Insects focused a lot on social class and behaviors within them. Red and Black Ants. Being intermingled within a class and desiring to get out. I would argue the idea of wanting to escape a social class is morality and not nature. Primarily because from what I've learned, it's natures path to pack and group animals of the same breed. Though William was not the same breed as the Alabaster's, he was somewhat welcomed into their world, his morals forced him to leave. His morals witnessed the natural corruption and he felt he had to escape.
In life we are faced with many circumstances that force us to think of nature and morals. It's entirely our decision on how we answer and react to the conditions surrounding us. The notion of morality would perhaps be the more sophisticated choice, such as William's. Yet our natural instincts may desire otherwise.
My stance of nature and morality is human's weakness. As humans are an intelligent beings, morality is often the foreground for everyday life. With constant expectations and desires, our morals often play a significant role in decisions and goals.
Yet, as humans we do have these instincts and behaviors that can be seen as primal. If we give into these desires is that just nature playing its course? For those that fall victim, the easy answer is yes. We are animals, it's only "natural" to have multiple partners and not consider emotions.
Angels and Insects focused a lot on social class and behaviors within them. Red and Black Ants. Being intermingled within a class and desiring to get out. I would argue the idea of wanting to escape a social class is morality and not nature. Primarily because from what I've learned, it's natures path to pack and group animals of the same breed. Though William was not the same breed as the Alabaster's, he was somewhat welcomed into their world, his morals forced him to leave. His morals witnessed the natural corruption and he felt he had to escape.
In life we are faced with many circumstances that force us to think of nature and morals. It's entirely our decision on how we answer and react to the conditions surrounding us. The notion of morality would perhaps be the more sophisticated choice, such as William's. Yet our natural instincts may desire otherwise.
Monday, February 6, 2012
"Naming" our Animals
In our society we name everything. Naming can be looked at as giving something human characteristics. It creates a more personal connection. Instead of looking at an animal as just an "animal," with a name, it becomes a pet and family member.
Names can vary substantially. A dog can be named Roy, Zoe, and Jillian. All of these names are much more human-like. As far as why one would rather name their animal Ralph could be an example of respect. More importantly, seeing your pet as another individual with rights and feelings; instead of just an animal. A sense of equality has formed.
On the other hand it is quite common for people to choose a more clever and exciting name for their pets. Snickers, Nilla, Oreo, Scooter, and my personal favorite, Schnitzel. Do these names immediately create a sense of hierarchy? Owners being more superior to their pets?
To explicate this a little further, even though names are maybe the most single unique and personal ability owners have over their pets, I don't think it is done as power-forming. I think the act in choosing a pet name is more so done out of compassion and the possibilty to build a relationship. Some owners may constantly show that superiority to their animals, but I would also infer they may show that to humans as well. As far as other pet owners go, when you have a pet many do think of them as a family member; they treat them with respect and get them a toy on their birthday and for Christmas.
Names can vary substantially. A dog can be named Roy, Zoe, and Jillian. All of these names are much more human-like. As far as why one would rather name their animal Ralph could be an example of respect. More importantly, seeing your pet as another individual with rights and feelings; instead of just an animal. A sense of equality has formed.
On the other hand it is quite common for people to choose a more clever and exciting name for their pets. Snickers, Nilla, Oreo, Scooter, and my personal favorite, Schnitzel. Do these names immediately create a sense of hierarchy? Owners being more superior to their pets?
To explicate this a little further, even though names are maybe the most single unique and personal ability owners have over their pets, I don't think it is done as power-forming. I think the act in choosing a pet name is more so done out of compassion and the possibilty to build a relationship. Some owners may constantly show that superiority to their animals, but I would also infer they may show that to humans as well. As far as other pet owners go, when you have a pet many do think of them as a family member; they treat them with respect and get them a toy on their birthday and for Christmas.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Susan McHugh's, Bitches From Brazil.
(1)
McHugh's article, discussed the bold questions of cloning and the integral concerns behind the topic. In today's world money can buy anything, and that's exactly what this article is outlining. To explicate it a little further, wealthy owners have an aging dog named Missy. Rather than facing the reality that Missy will no longer to apart of their life in the future, they want to buy a "new" Missy, though the original essence of Missy will not be present this new created canine.
Marketing is a significant tool with tremendous power. While McHugh's article outlines the concerns for cloning, she also explicates the power of marketing behind potentially questionable ideas or concerns. Again, money can buy approval. McHugh talks about how society may not be so keen on the idea of cloning dogs at first, "It will take the general public about 5 minutes to accept dog cloning, once the first puppies are born and shown on the evening news" (196). Society falls in love with baby animals; whether that is kittens, bunnies, fawns, or puppies, when we look at this little creatures to the human eye it doesn't matter where they came from because we will fall in love with them anyway.
(2)
"Cute" and "Anti-Cute." Why do we find some animals adorable and others not as adorable, I find some quite frightening. I suppose it is all perception, some individuals favor different critters. I am not a fan of reptiles or amphibians. Yet, I know a number of people that love their pet snake or gecko. I think at a young age if you are exposed these "anti-cute" creatures your perception may actually see them as cute. Whereas, more traditionally when someone is only around they furry pets, a reptile is like night and day, it is pretty obvious why this cold blooded snake isn't cute to a cat owner.
The "anti-cute" pets to me aren't necessarily repulsing, yet I just don't have a desire to own one or even pretend to enjoy their appearance. I would never insult a lizard or turtle, but I suppose I feel like I don't have any personal ties to them which directly relates towards their "cuteness" factor. I would imagine childhood history plays a substantial role in "cuteness."
(3)
Providing affections for some animals and not others directly relates to the "cute" and "anti-cute" animals. I think if someone is brought up with a pet turtle, they will more than likely always have warm feelings for turtles. As a child, I remember several of my friends having snapping turtles as pets. I never cared for them, but to this day one particular friend is still in love with turtles. All animals are different, just the same with all people. Everyone finds affections in different ways.
My affection goes to my feline Persian cat, Schnitzel. I love all cats, but to be completely honest, I have way more affection to Schnitzel than I do towards my childhood cats at my parents house and even my Siberian Husky. The experiences one has with their animals from the beginning most certainly weigh in on how their affection grows into a relationship.
McHugh's article, discussed the bold questions of cloning and the integral concerns behind the topic. In today's world money can buy anything, and that's exactly what this article is outlining. To explicate it a little further, wealthy owners have an aging dog named Missy. Rather than facing the reality that Missy will no longer to apart of their life in the future, they want to buy a "new" Missy, though the original essence of Missy will not be present this new created canine.
Marketing is a significant tool with tremendous power. While McHugh's article outlines the concerns for cloning, she also explicates the power of marketing behind potentially questionable ideas or concerns. Again, money can buy approval. McHugh talks about how society may not be so keen on the idea of cloning dogs at first, "It will take the general public about 5 minutes to accept dog cloning, once the first puppies are born and shown on the evening news" (196). Society falls in love with baby animals; whether that is kittens, bunnies, fawns, or puppies, when we look at this little creatures to the human eye it doesn't matter where they came from because we will fall in love with them anyway.
(2)
"Cute" and "Anti-Cute." Why do we find some animals adorable and others not as adorable, I find some quite frightening. I suppose it is all perception, some individuals favor different critters. I am not a fan of reptiles or amphibians. Yet, I know a number of people that love their pet snake or gecko. I think at a young age if you are exposed these "anti-cute" creatures your perception may actually see them as cute. Whereas, more traditionally when someone is only around they furry pets, a reptile is like night and day, it is pretty obvious why this cold blooded snake isn't cute to a cat owner.
The "anti-cute" pets to me aren't necessarily repulsing, yet I just don't have a desire to own one or even pretend to enjoy their appearance. I would never insult a lizard or turtle, but I suppose I feel like I don't have any personal ties to them which directly relates towards their "cuteness" factor. I would imagine childhood history plays a substantial role in "cuteness."
(3)
Providing affections for some animals and not others directly relates to the "cute" and "anti-cute" animals. I think if someone is brought up with a pet turtle, they will more than likely always have warm feelings for turtles. As a child, I remember several of my friends having snapping turtles as pets. I never cared for them, but to this day one particular friend is still in love with turtles. All animals are different, just the same with all people. Everyone finds affections in different ways.
My affection goes to my feline Persian cat, Schnitzel. I love all cats, but to be completely honest, I have way more affection to Schnitzel than I do towards my childhood cats at my parents house and even my Siberian Husky. The experiences one has with their animals from the beginning most certainly weigh in on how their affection grows into a relationship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)