Tai the elephant is shocked with an electric prod while she is doing a headstand.
Elephant abuse is in the news again since Animal Defenders International released a 2005 video showing the abuse of Tai, the elephant who appears in the 2011 film "Water for Elephants." But I would boycott the film even if Tai had never been beaten or shocked with electric prods.
While the American Humane Association certified that no animals were harmed during the making of the film, it doesn't literally mean that no animals were harmed. It just means that the filmmakers followed AHA guidelines. Two horses died during the making of "Flicka," but the film still earned the "No Animals Were Harmed" certification. AHA explains its certification:
Safety Representatives were on set to ensure the safety of the animals throughout production. After screening the finished product and cross-checking all animal action, we determined the film met or exceeded our PA-FILM-guidelines and is awarded the end credit disclaimer "No Animals Were Harmed"®.
In the case of "Water for Elephants", it's possible that no animals were beaten or shocked with electric prods during the making of the film, while the abuse took place earlier, during the training process. There's a six year gap between ADI's video and "Water for Elephants."
Regardless, as with any form of animal exploitation, abuse is a separate issue from whether we have the right to use animals. Just about anyone would say that elephants shouldn't be shocked with electric prods, calves shouldn't be kept in tiny veal crates, and carriage horses shouldn't be overworked. But animal rights is not about how well the animals are treated; it's about whether we have a right to use animals for our purposes. If Tai were never beaten or shocked with electric prods, she would still be a victim - imprisoned by the people who profit from her exploitation, forced to perform tricks instead of roaming and foraging for miles each day in the wild. It doesn't matter whether she was born in captivity or captured in the wild. Breeding an animal doesn't mean that that animal doesn't suffer in captivity.
I do believe that it's possible that some domestic animals don't suffer in captivity because they can't survive in the wild. (In the case of dogs, cats and other pets, the animal rights position is that we should care for the animals who are already here, but we should stop breeding. Because they are bred to be dependent on us, the basic relationship between humans and companion animals is flawed because of the difference in power. Learn more here.) I believe it's possible for a dog to perform tricks without suffering or abuse, but I don't think that's possible with elephants. Their instincts to roam and form social relationships are constantly being frustrated in captivity.
It's difficult to boycott every film for which animals suffered - scenes where the characters are eating animal products are ubiquitous - but when I know in advance that a live elephant is one of the main characters, it's a no-brainer.
Photo courtesy of Animal Defenders International
Suggested Links:
Comments
ok well you have fun with your boycott. i’ve seen the movie, and enjoyed it, and right before that i went and had a huge steak dinner. guess that makes me a horrible person.
Nick, save the world and kill yourself
Thank you for your insight and wisdom in boycotting this film. I loved the book but started a Facebook page to boycott it when i learned that they were going to use Tai and Have Trunk Will Travel, known for its misuse of elephants for rides, parties, paintings, etc. All wild animals, whether they be big cats, primates or elephants, are beaten repeatedly and severely in order to do the tricks insensitive people seem to crave. ADI has proved this to be true. Why Water for Elephants decided to use an abused animal to tell the sad story of animal and human abuse is beyond any reasoning. THANK YOU!
I believe that in order for ‘water for elephants’ to portray animal cruelty so well and to make the audience realise it’s wrong, they had to use an abused animal. One that’s sad and so they didn’t have to harm a healthy elephant to get it to do want try want ( not saying that they wouldve, just my thought )
I saw the movie and it reaffirmed for me the reason I don’t go to the circus. Hopefully more people will boycott a circus that uses wild animals.
I saw the film and feel that the movie could of kept the graphic cruelty out of the film. It did not add to the film in anyway! In fact after reading your blog I think that the movie does promote cruelty by just showing it. The saddest part is that the elephant was the best actor in the film. It would be interesting to know if Tai made the same amount of money as Reese or Robert. If not then a donation should be made (that equals the pay of the actors) to the prevention of animal cruelty and it should be paid for by Reese and Robert because their acting was so bad that Tai saved the movie for them.
I hate the circus!!! Will never set foot in one or my children. (Edited to conform with About.com User Agreement)
I think the film is horrible I can confirm that tai was actually harmed in the film and they try and cover up it by saying it is fake but you can clearly see that tai Isn’t pretending to be hurt or in pain because I trained as animal phycologist and I know it isn’t fake cuts or being knocked down trust me its all real trust me I know what I’m talking about
Please let me know if you’re looking for a article author for your weblog. You have some really good articles and I believe I would be a good asset. If you ever want to take some of the load off, I’d really like to write some articles for your blog in exchange for a link back to mine. Please send me an e-mail if interested. Thank you!