I felt the film was an overall good one to watch for our class. It brought to attention the horrible ways in which animals are treated for the furthering of scientific knowledge. It didn’t put as big of a bias on whether or not animal experimentation is right, it just allowed the viewers an insight into what it is like for the animals and gave them the choice to decide for themselves. Of course, Snitter and Rowf are escaping and trying to find a home throughout the film, but that is their view of the situation. The humans in the film are very pro animal experimentation, or at least never protest the motives of the scientists.
As a cartoon, I felt it to be a very dark and shocking plot line. Constant images of horrible conditions for the dogs and death to animals and humans is not what I was expecting prior to viewing the film. I’m unsure of who exactly Rosen was targeting in making Plague Dogs, but I do believe it at least captures moments where the dogs carry on human aspects and relatable movements and speech that convince humans to side with them. This is a very admirable characteristic of both Rosen and his film.
I wish I could say that I was completely against animal experimentation, but I guess I fall into the category of those who find themselves confused. I, by no means, agree with mistreating animals by abuse or neglect, but I find some aspects of experimentation necessary. If only it didn’t mean creating harm and discomfort for the animals, many would come out of the confused category and be able to be complete activists for animal rights. However, as a dog owner, I feel torn. If my dog needed brain surgery, perhaps one similar to that of Snitter’s, I would allow for it in a heartbeat if it would save him. The catch: My dog is only able to have the surgery because of previous experiments and surgeries performed on other dogs that may or may not have been humane and successful. This is what confuses me. This is what I have a problem with. I wish there was a way to do it differently, and maybe that was part of Rosen’s reasoning behind making the film. Maybe he wants people to come up with new ways of animal experimentation which will better the lives of animals in humane ways rather than just give scientists another notch on their belts.
I definatley agree with you, I would place myself in the confused category as well, I think. But here is how I look at this, humans have to have experimentation as well to learn if surgeries work or not. Along with treatments and medications. Humans for the most part can vocalize their dicomfort, or pain where an animal can't use speech BUT reacts to what their body has gone through. The animal could whine, bark, lick wounds, etc. So they too tell us when they are suffering, we just have to listen then try to comfort them. I know a little girl who is 7 years old, she can not do anything but look at you. She can't talk, she can't move her arms or legs, she can't even hear you, she can not do anything. SHe has major health problems and when her parents feel there is something wrong with her she has to be admitted into Children's Hospital and they do tests and probe on her and do everything they can to find out what is wrong with her. SOme cause her major pain-they assume-she can't talk, her body language is what they go by. Doctors have done several experiments on her with medications, diets through feeding tubes, minor surgeries on the brain to stop seizures. So my point is I guess is that it takes some suffering of some for others to live with less suffering. If they find something that works on her then maybe they can help another child earlier on in a diagnosis. It is horrible but she was put on this earth for a reason- maybe that reason is to find a cure for what she has. I hate to use a child for an example BUT in regards to an animal - they don't live a life to the extent of a human but they still feel and hurt I beleive. I love animals and I don't like to see anything suffer but in the name of research- if it helps others I think it is necessary.
ReplyDelete