Tears for elephants – Bringing social responsibility to the movies

Vanessa Del Carpio
Contributor

My birthday is coming up, and I’m celebrating with dinner and a movie. I was leaning towards watching Water for Elephants, but also considering Thor and the latest Pirates of the Caribbean, so I went online to check out their storylines and reviews on Wikipedia. Based on the romantic plot, the fact that it is based on an award-winning novel and that it stars Reese Witherspoon and Robert Pattinson, I settled on Water for Elephants. But as I scrolled down the film’s wiki, I saw a section titled “Controversy”. I discovered that according to Animal Defenders International (ADI), Tai, the star elephant used in the film, was abused when it was taught tricks in 2005. The organization has released a video reportedly showing trainers subjecting Tai to beatings and electric shocks. Although the American Humane Association monitored animal treatment throughout the film’s production ?which began in 2010? and confirms no animals were harmed during the making of the movie, ADI has called for a boycott of the film.
So what was supposed to be a simple movie selection turned into a more complicated situation, leaving me with more serious questions than whether to watch the reigning Blockbuster or a romantic drama. Do I, as a movie-goer, have a social, moral, or ethical responsibility to boycott a movie that features a mistreated animal? Does a production company – in this case, Fox – have to ensure the animals used in its film were never abused? Does a good film have to pay the consequences for a bad act someone unrelated to it committed? Is Water for Elephants complicit if Tai was hired, even if unknowingly, based on the tricks she learned being abused? Should I avoid the issue altogether and just buy the bootleg?
This was a hot topic for many people, who were vocal about their concerns over Tai’s abuse. The Facebook page for the film was forced to disable comments, and while 242, 746 people “like” the book’s page, only 41, 462 people “like” the film’s page. On opening weekend, the film made about half its $38 million budget and to date has grossed only $48 million. But the problem extends beyond this movie, as Tai has also appeared in Britney Spears’ “Circus” video, advertisements, and numerous movies including the upcoming Zookeeper.
The idea of boycotting Water for Elephants seems similar to refusing to buy Nike or Gap clothing because of the working conditions and ages of the people who make the clothes. Consumers, whether of entertainment or clothes, are becoming more aware of the actions of corporations and are increasingly forcing socially responsible behaviour through awareness and boycotts. The standard is becoming higher, beginning with demanding ethical treatment of people, environmental awareness, and making characters in fiction behave more conservatively: case in point, British TV series Skins. The fierce complaints of the Parent’s Television Council, who threatened to boycott the MTV show’s advertisers because of its portrayal of underage sex, drug, and alcohol use compelled Taco Bell, L’Oreal, Subway, and other major companies to pull their ads.
Despite the controversy, I am still intrigued by Water for Elephants. In a statement regarding the abuse, Fox asserts “a central message of Water for Elephants is the condemnation of cruelty towards animals”. The movie is accomplishing this not through its content, as expected, but rather through its cast, calling attention to the use of performing animals in entertainment. Ironically, this message of condemnation may just extend to a condemnation of the film itself.