"Canada's Shame"

Please Note: This 45-second video contains graphic images.

In my last post I pointed out how PETA’s reliance on spectacle can lead to the invisibility of the animal. Today I want to focus on a brief video PETA produced in which the animal is visible. If there is an iconic image of the animal-rights movement, it may very well be that of a Canadian hunter about to club a baby seal. The startling contrast between the seal’s cuteness and the carnage left by hunters looking to sell a seal skin coat greatly contributes to PETA’s appeals to save the seals. In this post, I explore the significance of the video’s music and cutting, and how the video shapes the identity of baby seals and hunters.

The video’s opening music underscores the baby seals as tranquil animals at peace with nature. The woodwind score is light, ethereal, and happy. One could easily imagine it serving as the background music to a scene of the countryside in spring--that is to say, emphasizing nature's rebirth. This mirthful music, however, shifts to the steady beat of a drum after a helicopter flies over a baby seal. Before examining the significance of the drum beat, it is important to briefly note that the camera angle of this helicopter shot positions the helicopter as though it were a predator overcoming its prey (the seal). The speed and grace of the helicopter stands in direct contrast with the clumsiness of the seal as it ambles toward the viewer.

For most of the video, the drum beat falls on the exact same moment as the cuts between scenes (the only exceptions are during the written text). The first time we see a hunter, his hakapik makes contact with the seal at the sound of the beat. While this theme is not developed in every instance, the drum beat may connote hunters swinging their hakapiks, thereby connecting the drum beat with violence. A metaphorical type of violence also exists in the connection between the drum beat and scene cut, inasmuch as the viewer’s gaze is abruptly cut short with each pounding of the drum. Significantly, the first few clips of a hunter hitting a seal are some of the bloodiest images in the bunch. These first few clips quickly drive home the point (no pun intended) that the violence is disturbing. They also help the audience imagine the spray of blood during distant shots.

Finally, it is worth examining the portrayal of the seals and hunters. As noted above, the seals are seen as tranquil, cute creatures. They are also portrayed as fully cognizant of the danger they are in. This is suggested by the seal scream and the blood-red “Canada’s Shame” icon. In this icon, the baby seal is shown craning its neck up in recognition of the hunter. More importantly, it has its mouth open wide, as though it were screaming in terror or pleading for its life. Not only are the hunters portrayed as violent, the scene of one slipping and falling in his eagerness to kill suggests that they are also clumsy. The emphasis on clumsiness or incompetence in animal abusers is a common strategy employed by animal rights activists. Beyond serving to refute those who would argue that hunters, scientists, farmers, etc., kill animals efficiently so as to minimize pain, it undermines the ethos of those who hurt animals. It is hard to respect someone who cannot do his or her job properly.

Vegan Love and the Word Made Flesh

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is the most well known animal rights organization today. Playing no small role in PETA’s fame is its frequent use of spectacle, which tends to confront viewers with animal abuse or titillate them with scantily clad women. The photograph above, from their Valentine’s Day “Fur out—Love In” tour in the Midwest, is clearly an attempt at the latter. Viewers are likely to first notice the banner that proclaims “Vegans Make Better Lovers” and the two “lovers” (models really) wearing only lingerie while kissing. The coats worn by the woman and teenage girl, who hold the banner behind them, provide a clue as to the current chilly temperature (indeed, the “lovers” are also wearing gloves).

For anyone familiar with the “rule of three,” whereby you repeat a message three times to ensure that it is processed by the recipient, the attempt to correlate a vegan diet with better lovemaking may be seen as a success. This image, however, belies a fundamental flaw in PETA’s attempt to make their rhetoric "sexy." Although this is part of their “Fur out—Love In” tour, nowhere in this photograph is any mention made against wearing fur. The likelihood that one might intuit an anti-fur message from gazing on nearly naked models is rather slim. In their attempt to make animal rights "sexy," PETA has lost sight of the nonhuman animal. Perhaps the banner women are frowning because they notice this.

It may be worth considering Lady Gaga's outfit at the 2010 MTV Music Video Awards. While her decision to wear animal flesh was not to protest animal abuse, I think that it provides a useful contrast to PETA's attempts to make animal rights "sexy." Granted, sex appeal is still an important part to Lady Gaga's meat dress. Nonetheless, her outfit manages to confront the viewer with the raw flesh of nonhuman animals. In a largely ambivalent blog entry on Gaga's dress, Ingrid Newkirk (co-founder and president of PETA) noted, "The stunt is bringing lots of people to PETA.org to download a copy of our vegitarian/vegan starter kit, so I guess we should be glad" (PETA Files, 9/13/10). Whether PETA will begin imitating such apparel is unlikely. PETA should be mindful, however, not to lose sight of the nonhuman animal while trying to make animal rights "sexy."

Photos from: Peta.org; Dailystab.com