# data[].attributes.body
Animals that are used in film are being forced to do and experience that opposite of what their bodies and natural instincts tell them to. But Hollywood trainers are forcing them to be in close proximity to humans, when in the wild animals do what they can to avoid humans. These animals are typically considered props and must involuntarily perform tricks on cue until the studio considers them to be "too old" or not profitable.  By using animals in Hollywood they are being taken away from their families, freedom and animal instincts (“Animals in Movies and on TV: Cruelty Behind the Scenes”).

# data[].attributes.body
Many offset compound's living conditions are miserable, depressing, and ghastly. Food deprivation, abusive training techniques are more often than not used to ensure that animals will perform a scene in the least amount of takes possible. Many of these animals begin this life in the entertainment industry by being taken away from their mothers and denied the essential care, guidance and maternal development needed. PETA, people for the ethical treatment of animals, led an undercover investigation into one of the animal suppliers and discovered that the animals were being kept in deplorable conditions and being whipped. This causes many animals to develop serious physical and psychological distress (“Animals in Movies and on TV: Cruelty Behind the Scenes”). But not all animals used in film are from a supplier or a zoo or private company, such as the Birds and Animals Unlimited; Keiko , the orca used in Free Willy was captured from the wild for the movie. The AHA, American Humane Association's Film and Television Unit , is mainly known for their statement "No animals were harmed" after any film or show involving an animal. Though this does put many minds at ease this label has been known in recent years to be falsely used (“Animals in Film and Television”).

# data[].attributes.body
One example of the AHA putting its statement falsely on a movie is the 2012 Life of Pi. Though the tiger in the film was created through CGI, they observed 4 other tigers to create a lifelike re-creation. One of the tigers, King, nearly drowned during a scene when being filmed swimming in a water tank. Clearly an animal was harmed in the making of this film but the AHA still put its label on the film, ignoring the fact an animals was harmed and almost killed for the purpose of entertainment. In 1996 Disney did a live-action version of its 1961 101 Dalmatians. Though real dogs were used in the film,  the "danger" wasn't in the film but what happened after (“Animals in Film and Television”). Another 2012 movie, The Hobbit,  27 animals were killed during the process of making the film; another movie that received the AHA label. It is ridiculous how the society can say that it is out to protect animals but it puts out false labels to movies that don't deserve them, and don't even bring to light the conditions in which they live off set, when performing, or even the training methods in which these animals must experience. The popularity that comes from the movies that help capitalize on the bond between humans an animals wants you to not know the truth about how the animals are really treated. While on screen they are treated as family members the law still considers them property, hence they are treated like a prop and not like a living being with feelings. The English philosopher Jeremy Bentham's "can they suffer" idea really comes into play on how these animals are seen and treated off set (“Animals in Film: Capitalizing on Suffering”).

# data[].attributes.body
The elephant Tai in the movie, Water for Elephants, as seen above was chased by a hook on multiple occasions. Tai was also electrocuted, subjected to stun guns  and beaten with bull hooks, all for the sake of a movie. Though this movie didn't "demand" animal cruelty, and it happened during training instead so movie directors do demand animal cruelty. Though the movie isn't recent the critically acclaimed Francis Ford Coppola's 1979 Apocalypse Now, had animals deliberately killed on set for the "dramatic effect" and got away with it. Though the AHA should file formal complaints with these movies though they rarely do (https://www.facebook.com/EluxeMagazine?ref=br_rs). Complaints should have been filed for movies like Apocalypse Now, The Hobbit, The Life of Pi and many more. It may have been for greed, or they may have been told to just turn their head to the situation, but animals have feelings and they too like humans can suffer. If a human being was treated like this on or off set somebody would definitely get into trouble and pay for their crimes, so why are animals any different?, when we have more in common with them than anything else on the planet and are scientifically shown to have feelings and emotions. But thanks to recently generated sophisticated technology directors don't need to use real animals when filming and have to put them through torture and suffering just for Hollywood greed. One example of this is Disney's 2016 live action Jungle Book, those who know the movie a boy named Mowgli meets many animals while living in the jungle such as a bear, snake, tiger and black panther. Without using real animals who would certainly have to be trained, since they'd all have close contact with humans; they used CGI, or computer generated imagery which was a triumph in proving that it can create amazing life-like animals in place of real ones (“Animals in Film: Capitalizing on Suffering”). Though many animal stars have suffered while being apart of movies many were never harmed in a negative way, and even though they aren't harmed images can be manipulated to look as if they are being harmed and effect not only the studio but humanity.

# data[].attributes.body
This photo when first looked at appears to have inhumanly strapped a lion down for a simple head shot for the MGM studio's infamous intro. But especially in today's tech-savvy age computers can indeed create images out of thin air; through photo shop and many more sites like it. Sadly this image is an example of this photo tinkering, when this fake photo was released the public went into an uproar because they thought that this is how their beloved MGM lions was being treated, which couldn't be further from the truth (“FALSE: MGM Strapped Leo the Lion to a Table”)."

# data[].attributes.body
This is the original unedited image of the lion strapped down. You can clearly now see that he was only strapped down for his safety and medical purposes, this false image caused an unneeded backlash to the beloved MGM studio. Once tracking down the true image MGM did regain their popularity also while exposing the idea that there are false information out there and you must 't jump to conclusions. This image is was actually taken in 2005, when a two-year-old Barbary lion named Samson underwent a CAT scan after falling ill at an Israeli zoo, what the studio actually did to create their famous roar is far more dangerous (“FALSE: MGM Strapped Leo the Lion to a Table”).

# data[].attributes.body
To create their famous roar they simply sat the lion down and told him to roar. We can clearly see that there were no restraints or anything preventing this lion from pouncing and possibly injuring one of Hollywood's greatest directors. This is due to the loyalty and familial treatment given to the MGM lions but also the type of training Ralph Helfer introduced into the studio in 1957, when the studio decided to use which lion they were going to officially use for the logo. Helfer's technique didn't use chains, whips or anything that would hurt the animal during training. Helfer respected all animals and their wellbeing was always a priority before anything else, this is why we can see Hitchcock so close and calm with Leo, the lion the studio chose for the logo. Leo trusted humans because of his training, which didn't allow him to have resentment or the feeling that he may be in danger and possibly hurt anyone (Emily). The real treatment of Leo is very different and more respectful towards animals then the false image described above. If people could treat an animal like a lion this well back in the 50s and not have any accidents where the lion was out of control why can't we continue that today when we have such better technology and knowledge?

# data[].attributes.body
Another example of an animal being treated well in Hollywood is Crystal the capuchin monkey, famously known for her role in The Hangover Part II, and Night of the Museum. Her trainer and handler for about 18 years, Thomas Gunderson says "...while monkeys are typically liars, Crystal is not. She’s very honest and takes her work seriously." Gunderson, employed by Birds and Animals Unlimited, doesn't just see Crystal as a monkey but as a client in a business relationship, hence treating her like he would any human client. Gunderson whos an extensive advocate for the safety of animals on set has also considers Crystal as apart of the family and lives with him in his 3 acre property in LA. This shows his dedication to her wellbeing, how close his connection with her is and that Crystal too sees him as "family" and trust him (Saval and Saval). "At night, Crystal joins him in bed. Gunderson puts your average Park Slope family to shame, sharing his mattress with (in addition to his wife and, sometimes, his kids) not just Crystal but Squirt and a Chihuahua. “It gets pretty crowded,” Gunderson says. Crystal sleeps at least eight hours a night" (Clarke et al.). Gunderson is a perfect example of someone who treats animals with the respect they deserve. For her part in The Hangover II, Crystal depicts a chain smoking drug mule and many viewers were concerned that the capuchin was addicted in real life. Crystal is treated very well and not put into danger, the cigarettes that were used were hollow props and Gunderson taught her how to hold it. The smoke was added in with CGI at a later date, refuting the theory that Crystal is addicted to cigarettes in real life (Clarke et al.). Once again modern technology has allowed Hollywood to add a life threatening effect to the animal without actually hurting them.  One of her co-stars from the film, Ken Jeong, who had never worked with Crystal before said “...she’s amazing. She’s not a monkey, she’s an actor (Clarke et al.)." This shows that the people on set even the one who have never worked with her saw her and treated her like a human colleague.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a famous shot from the 2011 film Mr. Popper's Penguins. But unlike The Life of Pi they used real penguins when making the film.  Since penguins live in Antarctica they are definitely at risk health wise filming a movie in LA, but the studio hired a professional veterinary facility to take care of the penguins and monitor their well being. Dr. Ernest Vine, Practitioner of Veterinary Medicine, Dr. John Charos, Director of Avian and Exotics Medicine, and Dr. Laura Gorman, Associate Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, were responsible for the care of the penguins during the five months of filming. "At the movie studio, the penguins had a specially refrigerated environment designed and built for their health and well-being, including a custom-built cold-water Jacuzzi. To prepare them for their new home, Dr. Charos added incremental amounts of salt water to their diet. This addition of salinity, called weaning, allowed the vestigial supraorbital glands — the glands which allow the penguins to live in and drink salt water and to remove the salt from the water — to fully develop again (“Central Veterinary Associates, P.C. Takes Care of ‘Mr. Popper’s Penguins’”)." This refrigerated environment shows that the studio really cared about the penguins well-being and actually spent the time and money for their health and safety, and for an industry that can be known to not care about animals this is an example that Hollywood still can care and accommodate animals for movies.  While traveling to different filming locations the birds were checked constantly for diseases like aspergillosis, a group of illnesses caused by mold, and Bumblefoot, a bacterial infection mostly found on the feet of birds; the penguins would also receive monthly blood work, and also be tested for West Nile virus and the Avian Influenza. The studio even went as far as requiring international health certificates from Dr. Vine who is a experienced veterinarian licensed by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; this was done so the penguins could be shipped safely internationally (“Central Veterinary Associates, P.C. Takes Care of ‘Mr. Popper’s Penguins’”). Though many people believe that animal cruelty exists in film it surely does but not everyone sees and treats their animal co-stars like animals, but as humans cause they too have feelings and a well-being that must be cared for.

# data[].attributes.body
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16oef1VSCrVlHi02IfuOl61D12tGytxtvwknkUGQFDHY/edit?usp=sharing

# data[].attributes.body
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1APhEZKCMn0Z4LBpfVuXxP7URD5NEkMhqOqgw3yhKrrc/edit?usp=sharing