Your Mommy Kills Animals

[Guest guest]

From http://www.hour.ca/film/film.aspx?iIDArticle=12895

Animal instinct Melora Koepke

 

 

 

 

Masked avenger: A protester lets his fingers do the walking Your Mommy Kills Animals gives teeth to both sides of the animal-rights debateCurt Johnson is, in the world of documentaries, a very old-fashioned guy. That's why I learned so much from his latest film, Your Mommy Kills Animals. In a doc-making climate where shock tactics and speeches-in-front-of-a-PowerPoint-presentation are becoming the norm, Johnson believes in an objective approach to doc-making that is driven by the antiquated procedure of showing both sides of an argument, as objectively as possible, from as many angles as you can show it. Your Mommy Kills Animals, then, should come with a caveat: You will see talking heads. Lots of them. Johnson, on the phone, openly tells me that before beginning the doc he wasn't an animal activist - and even after completing the movie, he hasn't become a vegan or even a vegetarian. But though the film has garnered a certain reputation as a shock doc (the film's title, which actually is taken from a comic book PETA distributes to children, hasn't helped), this warning is mostly unfair, because its most shocking aspect is that even after Johnson's many interviewees have laid out their arguments, it's still possible to see all points of view. "That's the cool thing with docs, that you just don't know what you're going to get into," says Johnson. "If I knew, going into the process, what the ending of my doc was going to be, what's the point of doing it? I try to do as little research as possible beforehand, because if I did, I would be going in with an opinion, and I don't want to do that. I mean, God bless Michael

 

 

 

 

 

Moore and his ilk, and people whose goals are 'I'm showing my side' movies, but I really don't want to do that. But I've got to say, it's fucking hard!It was interesting, we would meet militant people, who only have vegan friends, and I just find that sad - I myself feel that I learn a lot more from the people who don't agree with me. As far as the movement is concerned, all I really knew about - all most people know about - is PETA, but I wanted to put a face on the rest of the movement, and that's what my movie is all about. The film is basically 'animal rights for dummies.'" Johnson's broad-scoped film explores many facets of the animal-rights movement, from the Humane Society to more extreme organizations like the Animal Liberation Front and PETA. (In fact, for my taste, the segment on some of PETA's more bizarre undertakings was especially informative; the group rescinded their initial consent to be interviewed for the film.) He also interviews some of the opposing voices, including anti-PETA animal activists and even a couple whose mink farm had undergone a "mink release operation" and whose children received death threats. "On this issue, it's always either you like [animal-rights activists] or you don't like them," says the director. "It's always black and white. But the interesting thing is that no matter what the issue is, both sides, you find, are essentially saying the same thing. But they're so busy screaming at each other." Johnson traces the inspiration for the film back to the announcement, in 2005, that the U.S. government considered animal-rights groups the number-one domestic terror threat. The movie, which meanders somewhat, also follows the trial of the SHAC Seven (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty), a group of activists who have been prosecuted in the States for their protest tactics. By following this trial, Johnson's film points to protest tactics that are gaining popularity, such as "economic" and "electronic" terrorism. (SHAC was responsible for getting its enemy, the British company Huntingdon Life Sciences, delisted from the New York Stock Exchange, though activists from the group were also charged for physically assaulting the company's president.) Ultimately, the greatest achievement of Johnson's film is that he has managed not only a balanced portrait of an issue, but also of the movement that addresses these issues with various degrees of militancy. As Johnson says, whenever he shows his film to people featured in it, they always say the same thing: "Your movie is good, except for one thing: You let the other side talk too much." Your Mommy Kills Animals

Peter H

 

For ideas on reducing your carbon footprint visit For Good this month.

[Guest guest]

Did this just come out? So it won't be on DVD for a while?Peter VV <swpgh01 wrote: From http://www.hour.ca/film/film.aspx?iIDArticle=12895 Animal instinct Melora Koepke Masked avenger: A protester lets his fingers do the walking Your Mommy Kills Animals gives teeth to both sides of the animal-rights debateCurt Johnson is, in the world of documentaries, a very old-fashioned guy. That's why I learned so much from his latest film, Your Mommy Kills Animals. In a doc-making climate where shock tactics and speeches-in-front-of-a-PowerPoint-presentation are becoming the norm, Johnson believes in an objective approach to doc-making that is driven by the antiquated procedure of showing both sides of an argument, as objectively as possible, from as many angles as you can show it. Your Mommy Kills Animals, then, should come with a caveat: You

will see talking heads. Lots of them. Johnson, on the phone, openly tells me that before beginning the doc he wasn't an animal activist - and even after completing the movie, he hasn't become a vegan or even a vegetarian. But though the film has garnered a certain reputation as a shock doc (the film's title, which actually is taken from a comic book PETA distributes to children, hasn't helped), this warning is mostly unfair, because its most shocking aspect is that even after Johnson's many interviewees have laid out their arguments, it's still possible to see all points of view. "That's the cool thing with docs, that you just don't know what you're going to get into," says Johnson. "If I knew, going into the process, what the ending of my doc was going to be, what's the point of doing it? I try to do as little research as possible beforehand, because if I did, I would be going in with an opinion, and I don't want to do that. I mean, God bless Michael Moore and his ilk, and people whose goals are 'I'm showing my side' movies, but I really don't want to do that. But I've got to say, it's fucking hard!It was interesting, we would meet militant people, who only have vegan friends, and I just find that sad - I myself feel that I learn a lot more from the people who don't agree with me. As far as the movement is concerned, all I really knew about - all most people know about - is PETA, but I wanted to put a face on the rest of the movement, and that's what my movie is all about. The film is basically 'animal rights for dummies.'" Johnson's broad-scoped film explores many facets of the animal-rights movement, from the Humane Society to more extreme organizations like the Animal

Liberation Front and PETA. (In fact, for my taste, the segment on some of PETA's more bizarre undertakings was especially informative; the group rescinded their initial consent to be interviewed for the film.) He also interviews some of the opposing voices, including anti-PETA animal activists and even a couple whose mink farm had undergone a "mink release operation" and whose children received death threats. "On this issue, it's always either you like [animal-rights activists] or you don't like them," says the director. "It's always black and white. But the interesting thing is that no matter what the issue is, both sides, you find, are essentially saying the same thing. But they're so busy screaming at each other." Johnson traces the inspiration for the film back to the announcement, in 2005, that the U.S. government considered animal-rights groups the number-one domestic terror threat. The movie, which meanders somewhat, also follows the trial of the SHAC

Seven (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty), a group of activists who have been prosecuted in the States for their protest tactics. By following this trial, Johnson's film points to protest tactics that are gaining popularity, such as "economic" and "electronic" terrorism. (SHAC was responsible for getting its enemy, the British company Huntingdon Life Sciences, delisted from the New York Stock Exchange, though activists from the group were also charged for physically assaulting the company's president.) Ultimately, the greatest achievement of Johnson's film is that he has managed not only a balanced portrait of an issue, but also of the movement that addresses these issues with various degrees of militancy. As Johnson says, whenever he shows his film to people featured in it, they always say the same thing: "Your movie is good, except for one thing: You let the other side talk too much." Your Mommy Kills Animals Peter H For ideas on reducing your carbon footprint visit For Good this month.

Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.Visit the Auto Green Center.