Outcry over alleged abuse in ‘A Dog’s Purpose.’ Do live animals have a place in film?

Animal-rights activists have shut down Ringling Bros. Circus and the orca shows at SeaWorld. Now, a leaked video has put the film industry in their crosshairs.

Joe Lederer/Universal Pictures/AP
Dennis Quaid with a dog, voiced by Josh Gad, appears in a scene from 'A Dog's Purpose.' A spokesman for American Humane said on Jan. 18, 2017 that it has suspended its safety representative who worked on the set of the film when a frightened German Shepherd, not shown, was forced into a churning pool of water.

When fast-moving water on the set of "A Dog’s Purpose" gave Hercules pause, a trainer decided to wrestle the German Shepherd into a pool. A crew member encouraged him to keep pushing. "He ain’t gonna calm down until he gets in the water. You just gotta throw him in," says an off-camera voice in footage that caught the moment.

The video, from a November 2015 shoot, was leaked by the news entertainment site TMZ on Wednesday, sparking outrage on social media. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has urged audiences to boycott the film.

For some, the treatment of Hercules (one of at least five dogs used in the role) adds fuel to recent debates on the ethics of using animals for entertainment and educational purposes. Last February, The Christian Science Monitor reported that scientists disagreed over the merits of confining animals for conservation. But in the entertainment sector, public opinion has come down hard against the practice. On Sunday, the Ringling Bros. circus announced that it would hold its last performance this year (a year ago, the circus said it would stop using elephants in its show), prompting celebration from animal-rights groups, who also pressured SeaWorld San Diego to cancel its orca show.

With large swaths of the American public no longer looking kindly on the use of animals for entertainment, the video of Hercules under duress could increase pressure on the movie industry's use of live animals.

In a statement given to People magazine, Amblin Entertainment, the production company for "A Dog’s Purpose," and Universal Pictures, its distributor, maintained that they "followed rigorous protocols to foster an ethical and safe environment for the animals.... There were several days of rehearsal of the water scenes to ensure Hercules was comfortable with all of the stunts. On the day of the shoot, Hercules did not want to perform the stunt portrayed on the tape so the Amblin production team did not proceed with filming that shot."

But that decision came after a trainer spent 46 seconds trying to wrestle him into the pool, which activists groups such as PETA find unacceptable.

Since 1925, the American Humane Association (AHA) has worked to protect animals in movie shoots, publishing guidelines that a film must meet in order to receive its "No Animals Were Harmed" certification.

An AHA employee was on the set of "A Dog’s Purpose." In its own statement to People, the AHA declared itself "disturbed and concerned" by the video. "When the dog showed signs of resistance to jumping in the water, the scene should have been stopped.... We are placing the safety representative who was on the set on administrative leave immediately and are bringing in an independent third party to conduct an investigation into this matter."

By working with film producers to protect animals, the AHA has taken a more moderate approach than PETA, which wants audiences to boycott "A Dog’s Purpose [and] any other movies that use live animals." 

When activists began to take issue with their practices, both SeaWorld and Ringling Bros. worked to dispel their claims. If the film industry takes a similar approach, it could face an animal-rights community that may be buoyed by recent successes – and public support.

"Society has changed," PETA announced upon Ringling’s closure, "eyes have been opened, people know now who these animals are, and we know it is wrong to capture and exploit them."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.