What does “No animals were harmed” mean for… | Little White Lies

What does No ani­mals were harmed” mean for film­mak­ing in 2022?

23 Jun 2022

Words by Joseph Phelan

A powerful tiger standing on a wooden structure, with a cloudy sky in the background.
A powerful tiger standing on a wooden structure, with a cloudy sky in the background.
A short his­to­ry of ani­mal wel­fare in films, and whether more needs to be done to pro­tect the crea­tures who bring movies to life.

Killing or hurt­ing an ani­mal on-screen is a sure­fire way to catal­yse an emo­tion­al response from a film’s audi­ence, be it sad­ness or anger, dis­may or shock. Some ani­mat­ed films – Bam­bi and The Lion King spring to mind – con­tain ani­mal death scenes so har­row­ing that only the hardi­est of souls could refrain from elic­it­ing a sob, but at least the view­er can find com­fort in being ful­ly aware that, despite the hor­ror, no real ani­mal had to suffer.

The same is not true in live-action cin­e­ma. When ani­mals die on-screen – think law-abid­ing pooch Hooch in Turn­er & Hooch or faith­ful steed Artax in The Nev­erEnd­ing Sto­ry – the death can be so con­vinc­ing that view­ers under­stand­ably could be left con­tem­plat­ing the animal’s true fate.

Enter Amer­i­can Humane, cre­ators of the reas­sur­ing No Ani­mals Were Harmed” cer­ti­fi­ca­tion, which rou­tine­ly appears in movies’ cred­it sequences. Cre­at­ed in 1940 as part of Amer­i­can Humane’s desire to keep a dili­gent eye on film­mak­ers and ensure they don’t treat ani­mals as dis­pos­able props, the cer­ti­fi­ca­tion is, accord­ing to the organ­i­sa­tion, award­ed to pro­duc­tions that meet its rig­or­ous stan­dard of care.” Amer­i­can Humane says it has spent the last 80 years work­ing to improve work­ing con­di­tions for ani­mals in film, with staff spend­ing exten­sive peri­ods on film sets to keep tabs on oper­a­tional meth­ods. They have also pro­duced exten­sive guide­lines​for film­mak­ers to follow. 

Giv­en Hollywood’s pret­ty grim his­to­ry of hor­ri­ble ani­mal wel­fare prac­tices, hav­ing some form of ani­mal-lov­ing pres­ence on film sets is cer­tain­ly wel­come. One infa­mous exam­ple of lax safe­ty and care for ani­mals in film­mak­ing occurred dur­ing the mak­ing of Hen­ry King’s 1939 west­ern Jesse James, when a horse was com­pelled to jump off a 70-foot cliff for one scene’s dra­mat­ic con­clu­sion. Reports of how the ani­mal died vary – some say it drowned, oth­ers sug­gest it was killed by the fall – but regard­less, the fact the film’s crew was hap­py to sac­ri­fice an ani­mal in pur­suit of cin­e­mat­ic spec­ta­cle is distressing.

Jesse James is far from the only cul­prit of ani­mal cru­el­ty on set – the list is as exten­sive as it is shock­ing. Dur­ing the film­ing of the 1925 clas­sic Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ, as many as 100 hors­es report­ed­ly died in a vari­ety of ghast­ly ways; to film Old­boys icon­ic octo­pus-eat­ing scene, it is thought that four octopi were con­sumed while still alive; the team behind Heaven’s Gate, the 1980 box office flop that has since become a cult clas­sic, was round­ly slammed for blow­ing up a horse with dyna­mite and behead­ing a host of chick­ens; while 2017’s opin­ion-split­ting Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge felt the wrath of PETA after star Kaya Scode­lario admit­ted she found it hilar­i­ous” that a mon­key was so ill dur­ing film­ing it vom­it­ed numer­ous times on set.

Count­less ani­mals have drowned, been crushed, suf­fered hor­rif­ic phys­i­cal abuse or been tor­tured on films sets through­out the years, inci­dents which are at once depress­ing, dis­turb­ing and, one would think, entire­ly need­less. In the­o­ry, Amer­i­can Humane should pre­vent inci­dents of ani­mal cru­el­ty occur­ring, but unfor­tu­nate­ly, its on-set pres­ence isn’t always a guar­an­tee that non-human per­form­ers will be treat­ed well. What’s more, some films have been grant­ed the No Ani­mals Were Harmed” badge despite their ani­mal stars very much suf­fer­ing harm.

In 2013, The Hol­ly­wood Reporter pub­lished a damn­ing arti­cle in the wake of a com­pre­hen­sive inves­ti­ga­tion into on-set ani­mal safe­ty, and sug­gest­ed that some Amer­i­can Humane employ­ees down­played the poor treat­ment of ani­mals in their reports. Indeed, it accused Amer­i­can Humane – then known as Amer­i­can Humane Asso­ci­a­tion (AMA) – of turn­ing a blind eye” to ani­mal injury and death.

The Reporter alleged that numer­ous high-pro­file films, includ­ing Life of Pi (a tiger almost drowned dur­ing film­ing), The Hob­bit: An Unex­pect­ed Jour­ney (27 ani­mals, includ­ing sheep and goats, report­ed­ly died of dehy­dra­tion, exhaus­tion or drown­ing), Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (fish and oth­er marine ani­mals were killed by in-water explo­sion effects), and 2011’s Zookeep­er (an elder­ly giraffe passed away), were grant­ed per­mis­sion to say that No Ani­mals Were Harmed” dur­ing pro­duc­tion, despite evi­dence and anec­dote appear­ing to point to the contrary. 

Amer­i­can Humane has always reject­ed claims of neg­li­gence. In response to The Hol­ly­wood Reporters now-infa­mous sto­ry it issued a press release stat­ing the piece dis­torts the work and record of a respect­ed non­prof­it organ­i­sa­tion that has kept mil­lions of beloved ani­mal actors safe on film and tele­vi­sion sets around the world for more than 70 years” while claim­ing it ulti­mate­ly paints a pic­ture that is com­plete­ly unrecog­nis­able to us or any­one who knows Amer­i­can Humane Association’s work.”

Amer­i­can Humane’s press release also raised anoth­er issue that has become increas­ing­ly per­ti­nent in recent years due to the cli­mate cri­sis and rise of veg­an­ism: why are only ani­mal actors” deemed wor­thy of pro­tec­tion? What about the chick­ens killed so as to be served in the cafe­te­ria? Or the cows that died so a char­ac­ter can sport a leather jack­et? Why are the lives of some ani­mals pri­ori­tised over others?

Vintage black and white image of a woman driving a decorative horse-drawn carriage with intricate designs.

This is some­thing recent­ly raised by ani­mal wel­fare advo­cate Alex O’Connor – bet­ter known as Cos­mic Skep­tic – via his Insta­gram Sto­ries. He sug­gest­ed it is illog­i­cal for a film to boast about its no harm” cre­den­tials if ani­mals of any kind were harmed along the way. Giv­en the num­ber of peo­ple going veg­an is on the rise, grow­ing from 600,000 in the UK in 2019 to around 1.5 mil­lion in 2020, this is undoubt­ed­ly a point of view oth­ers are either on the cusp of adopt­ing, or have already adopted. 

What’s the solu­tion? Should Amer­i­can Humane alter its guide­lines so as to incor­po­rate more ele­ments of the film­mak­ing process? Or – as The Hol­ly­wood Reporter seems to have sug­gest­ed – is the organ­i­sa­tion so inept that, regard­less of its guide­lines, films will con­tin­ue to be giv­en the sought-after stamp of approval even if they don’t fol­low the rules?

Per­haps it’s time for ani­mals to place their faith else­where. One pio­neer­ing film­mak­er – some­one who has built his career on being ahead of the curve – has already made moves to cre­ate more ani­mal-friend­ly film­ing envi­ron­ments. James Cameron of The Ter­mi­na­tor, Titan­ic and Avatar fame, who adopt­ed a plant-based diet in 2012, made the bold step to only serve veg­an food dur­ing the pro­duc­tion of the Avatar sequels, say­ing he want­ed to make all ele­ments of his films green­er and more sus­tain­able. It could be argued that Cameron’s approach has more to do with pro­tect­ing the envi­ron­ment than the rights of ani­mals, but regard­less of the moti­va­tion, the out­come is unde­ni­ably positive. 

Whether Cameron will influ­ence on-site cater­ing eti­quette – and ulti­mate­ly encour­age oth­er improve­ments in ani­mal wel­fare – in the same way he re-defined film’s use of CGI is yet to be seen, but for ani­mal safe­ty advo­cates, he’s cer­tain­ly tak­ing film in a more pro­gres­sive, com­pas­sion­ate direction.

Cameron isn’t alone. Veg­an ani­mal activist Joaquin Phoenix has pro­duced sev­er­al doc­u­men­taries on ani­mal rights, Anne Hath­away had an ani­mal-free cos­tume spe­cial­ly made when she played Fan­tine in Les Mis­érables, and Bet­ty White’s sta­tus as Hol­ly­wood roy­al­ty was only strength­ened after it emerged she has turned down roles if the script indi­cat­ed ani­mal abuse might occur. With ani­mals unable to speak up for or pro­tect them­selves, film stars cer­tain­ly have a part to play when it comes to ensur­ing on-set ani­mal safety. 

Of course, giv­en CGI’s abil­i­ty to repli­cate ani­mals dig­i­tal­ly, it could well be the case that future film­mak­ers won’t require the use of ani­mal actors at all. In 2020 The Hol­ly­wood Reporter wrote a fea­ture in the wake of the retire­ment of Eli, Hollywood’s last chimp actor, which high­light­ed that due to grow­ing pres­sure from ani­mal rights cam­paign­ers, as well as the emer­gence of increas­ing­ly pow­er­ful CGI tech­nol­o­gy, on-set ani­mals could even­tu­al­ly be a thing of the past. For ani­mal lovers the world over, the soon­er that day arrives, the better.

You might like