'No Animals Were Harmed'? Not Quite
'Hollywood Reporter' expose says AHA often overlooks abuses
By John Johnson, Newser Staff
Posted Nov 26, 2013 7:55 PM CST
Updated Nov 30, 2013 1:28 PM CST
This 20th Century Fox image shows Suraj Sharma as Pi Patel in a scene from "Life of Pi." The tiger 'damn near drowned,' says an email from an AHA rep on the set, but the incident was downplayed.   (AP Photo/20th Century Fox)

(Newser) – That "no animals were harmed" disclaimer that crops up at the end of movies courtesy of the American Humane Association seems straightforward enough. But an investigation by Gary Baum at the Hollywood Reporter finds that plenty of animals do, in fact, get harmed on sets—even for movies that end up with the label. In one of the more buzzed-about pieces from the story, Baum gets hold of an email from an AHA rep on the set of Life of Pi that describes how the "tiger damn near drowned," instructs the recipient to keep it quiet, and adds, "I have downplayed the f--- out of it." (Salon reprints the full email here.) There's also the chipmunk that got stepped on and killed in Failure to Launch, the dog that got repeatedly punched by its trainer in Eight Below, the nearly 30 goats and sheep that died in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, and all manners of injuries and even deaths to horses over the years on a slew of films.

The examples go on and on—there's all kinds of wiggle room from the AHA, especially if the accident occurred off-camera instead of during filming or was accidental—and Baum's piece suggests that AHA has gotten too "cozy" with the industry to adequately protect animals. It includes this quote from an AHA board member defending the "no animals were harmed" disclaimer: “I think what people think [it means] is that when a horse dies in the movies, it didn’t really die,” she says. "I think that people think [the AHA's monitoring] is just when the cameras are rolling." At Slate, LV Anderson finds that tough to take: By those standards, "no one cares if you punch, step on, or starve animals as long as there’s no camera turned on nearby," she writes. "If that’s the best defense the AHA can come up with, I hope the Department of Agriculture, the governmental agency usually tasked with protecting animals from neglect and abuse, begins sending agents to Hollywood very, very soon." The AHA, meanwhile, calls the piece an inaccurate hatchet job in a statement picked up by the Sacramento Bee. Click to read the THR story in full.

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
'No Animals Were Harmed'? Not Quite is...
5%
6%
68%
3%
10%
8%
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Comments
Showing 3 of 22 comments
Tabbico
Dec 3, 2013 8:46 AM CST
I have always found the "no animals were harmed" disclaimer hysterical. How many chickens, pigs, and cattle were eaten by the cast and crew during filming? Those animals had to be "harmed" to get them on the plate!
viva_yo
Nov 30, 2013 2:40 PM CST
Tigers love water & are good swimmers in lakes and streams. Did they really film this on the ocean?? I thought that was CGI. AHA needs to clean up their act otherwise they are totally useless & may as well get out of the business. Send PETA instead.
George R
Nov 30, 2013 2:20 PM CST
I know, it really is pretty awful,. But It's not John Johnston's fault. I dare you to name one single newspaper or website that doesn't repeatedly re-post its top stories on their front page for weeks and months after the fact.