Yao Shougang, the leading director of New China, caused huge controversy because of the movie "The King of Dogs". He was once known for the authenticity of the scene, but at the cost of a military dog with third-class merits, the audience questioned and resisted. The movie score plummeted, becoming one of the lowest in the history of Chinese films. Yao Shougang's response was shocking, and he seemed to have no reverence for life.
In and out of the play: The tragic sacrifice of the military dog Hailong in "The King of Dogs".
"The King of Dogs" is set in the background of the Anti-Japanese War, telling the story of the military dog Hailong who fought against the Japanese army for the villagers and finally sacrificed his life. The climax of the plot of the movie is repeated, especially the scene where the sea dragon is holding explosives**, repeated three times**, the emotion reaches its peak, and the audience is in tears.
In 1993, "The King of Dogs" won the "Excellent Film Award" of radio and television and was recommended as an educational film for primary and secondary school students. However, 15 years later, the truth was revealed, and director Yao Shougang admitted that the death of the military dog Hailong was real, which caused a huge **.
The truth outside the play: Yao Shougang's indifferent attitude towards the sacrifice of military dogs.
During the shooting, Yao Shougang did not inform the trainer that real explosives were used, and the military dog Baylor became a victim. Yao Shougang excitedly praised the scene and was indifferent to Baylor's trainer. His response was even more shocking, saying that the killing of the military dog was an attempt to achieve "tragic tension."
The director's response: instead of apologizing for the behavior, he flaunted his "artistic" achievements.
Yao Shougang responded to the criticism, but was unimpressed. He claimed that there were no special effects conditions at that time, and that the killing of military dogs was to achieve an "artistic effect". What's even more bizarre is that he said that Baylor was sick and was "helping him euthanize", calling it an inevitable "sacrifice".
The lack of conservation concepts for animal actors.
The audience's outrage over the "King of Dogs" incident reflects the lack of animal protection in the entire industry. Although Yao Shougang pursued "art" in the name, he was indifferent to life. This notion of "art" at the cost of life needs to be reflected on and corrected.
The real contribution of animal heroes.
In Wenchuan** and epidemic rescue, search and rescue dogs have made great efforts to save lives for humans. They are not simple props, but real heroes, selfless dedication, and have a profound impact on human society.
Art and Life: Limitations and Reflections of the Times.
The incident of Yao Shougang reflects the limitations of the times, and insufficient progress has been made in terms of technical level, protection awareness, and human environment. The promotion of the concept of animal protection is an urgent issue for the film industry to consider.
Conclusion: Is the director's "art" worth the sacrifice of life?
Yao Shougang's "The Dog King" incident has caused widespread controversy, making people think deeply: should we cherish life more while pursuing art?The concept of animal actor protection needs to be improved urgently to avoid similar incidents from happening again. The heavy responsibility of history and reflection is facing the film industry.
The controversy caused by the incident of "The Dog King" directed by Yao Shougang has focused people's attention on the conflict between artistic creation and respect for life. This event inspired the audience to think deeply about ethics and animal rights in the film industry.
First of all, Yao Shougang is known for his real scenes, and he chose to use a real military dog sacrifice in "The King of Dogs" to highlight the tragic atmosphere of the film. This approach may have been considered a breakthrough at the time, but as the times evolved, the audience's interest in animal rights and protection gradually increased, and so did the questioning of this method.
Secondly, Director Yao Shougang's attitude is puzzling. In his response, he did not express his apologies for the sacrifice of the military dog, but showed a kind of indifference to the sacrificed life in the name of "artistic effect". This disregard for life sparked strong resentment among the audience, who believed that it was unacceptable for the director to sacrifice his life in the pursuit of so-called "art".
What is even more shocking is that Yao Shougang actually justified the act of "helping him euthanize" by blowing up the military dog. Such rhetoric raises huge questions about the dignity of animals and the value of life. Euthanasia should be carried out under the guidance of professionals and the law in the case of animal disease and serious decline in the quality of life, rather than the unilateral decision of the director.
Artistic creation is undoubtedly a complex issue, but it should also be carried out with respect for life. Yao Shougang's rendering of the scenes in the film and the pursuit of tension may have a certain creative motive, but whether art needs to cost his life and whether he should ignore the ethical bottom line is a question that needs to be deeply considered.
In modern society, the audience's attention to animal rights and interests is gradually increasing, and the film industry has put forward higher requirements for whether to respect animal life in its creation. The ways in which animals can be protected that can be learned from Western movies become a model worth pondering. Filmmakers should recognize that audiences are not only concerned with the storyline, but also with the values and ethics behind the work.
In general, while the "King of Dogs" incident directed by Yao Shougang caused controversy, it also provided an opportunity for the film industry to reflect. Art and life should not be opposites, but complementary. Filmmakers need to find a balance in their creations and treat life more responsibly, so that the audience can see full respect for ethics and animal rights while appreciating their works.
Disclaimer: The above content information is ** on the Internet, and the author of this article does not intend to target or insinuate any real country, political system, organization, race, or individual. The above content does not mean that the author of this article agrees with the laws, rules, opinions, behaviors in the article and is responsible for the authenticity of the relevant information. The author of this article is not responsible for any issues arising from the above or related issues, and does not assume any direct or indirect legal liability.
If the content of the article involves the content of the work, copyright**, infringement, rumors or other issues, please contact us to delete it. Finally, if you have any different thoughts about this event, please leave a message in the comment area to discuss!