Are Animal Right Protests Against the Film Manolete Hypocrisy?

Adrien Brody and Penelope Cruz have been slated to appear in the film Manolete, a biopic picture depicting the tumultuous life of one of Spain's greatest bullfighters whose death left the entire nation in a state of both shock and mourning. However, the film which was finished in 2005 was only recently shown for the first time in Spain in March of 2010, with a broader premiere in May in France. A series of unfortunate mishaps, generally rising from budgeting issues, had pushed the motion picture well above its intended budget of $11 million well into $20 million, much of this due to the high cost of digitally inserting bulls into the notorious bullfights.

Compounding the issues has been a general array of boycotts and protests from animal rights groups, incensed at the notion of glorifying the late Manuel Laureano Rodriguez Sanchez, otherwise known as Manolete. One particular cry, according to the anti-bullfighting Alliance Anticorrida, is that it is "inadmissible" to have any depiction of a matador in any form of heroic or sympathetic light, seemingly regardless of the realities of the story behind him. These statements came in March, joined by over 50 other animal rights groups that teamed to protest the release of Manolete and a proposed legislation by conservative groups to defend the practice of bullfighting as culturally significant.

The idea of bullfighting is a deeply divisive and controversial one, particularly in its home region of Spain, where both sides of the fence cannot even rightly agree on how to categorize the spectacle. Where animal rights groups earnestly protest the events as nothing more than archaic blood sports, a dark chapter from a darker age, the supporters of the practice insist that it cannot even rightly be considered a sport. Even Ernest Hemingway, legendary author of such works as For Whom the Bell Tells and The Old Man and the Sea, insisted that bullfights, or corrida de toros, insisted that they were far more akin to performances and works of art. Indeed, matadors and their opponents are far more akin to an intricate and deadly ballet than to an actual competition between one another, as Hemingway put it, "Bullfighting is the only art in which the artist is in danger of death and in which the degree of brilliance in the performance is left to the fighter's honor."

Foretelling the torrent of controversy that would be poured against it however, he also went on to say, ""It would be pleasant of course for those who do like it if those who do not would not feel that they had to go to war against it or give money to try to suppress it, since it offends them or does not please them, but that is too much to expect and anything capable of arousing passion in its favor will surely raise as much passion against it."

The words could very easily have been expected to highlight the growing controversy of Manolete, but one must ask themselves as the joint British-Spanish project grows increasingly nearer to a potential American release if the animal rights position is one borne entirely of consistency, or if prejudicial hypocrisy can be involved.

While the life style choices of Manolete the man do clearly contrast with the moral intents of the protesters, there is a conspicuous silence as films depicting the heroes of other such blood sports go unmolested with their rancor, whose heroes and heroines were cast in far more deplorable ages, performing far more deplorable acts. To cry out at the injustice of Manolete's film but to remain silent on the Academy Award winning Gladiator seems to suggest that while one form of perceived blood sport is "admissible", the entrance of bulls makes it inherently "inadmissible".

It would perhaps be most expected for detractors to argue that the depiction of Maximus (ironically a Spaniard), the protagonist in Ridley Scott's Gladiator, is inherently more sympathetic since he was impressed against his will into the bread and circus of Rome's most violent spectacle. But these are easily dismissed by pointing out that the character offered no overt criticisms of the practice of gladiatorial combat, in fact was an agent of its expansion as a general of conquering Roman legions. In fact one of his later comrades in arms, the mighty Hagen, was a captured German, brought in after the movie's opening battle sequence.

Perhaps the only reconciliation one could have for the inconsistency here is that Marcus Aurelius as he was depicted in the film, a close friend and confidant of General Maximus, had banned the gladiatorial games on humanitarian grounds. But this leads to a curious question: is it then okay to depict figures in history in cinema around morally reprehensible deeds, so long as we why lie about their complicity involved? Would Manolete then be an "admissible" film if it were to depict Penelope Cruz's character, Lupe Sino the wild fire left leaning movie star, successfully swaying her matador lover on his deathbed of the folly and evils of bullfighting?

This creates a frightening Orwellian concept demanded by the animal rights groups, who believe that only through character sabotage or through the alterations of history can we find ourselves admiring any qualities of figures that they personally feel were antagonistic to their modern ideals. It would appear that the inevitable consequence of this line of thought is that should a character behave "unfavorably" in some aspects he must be persona non grata, unless his entire history is rewritten to satisfy our modern sensibilities. Or hypocrisy is involved, because a film depicting bullfighting is "inadmissible", but a film with deleted scenes depicting innocent human families being fed by lions and slaves being butchered for no other reason than for being in the wrong place at the wrong time at the end of a conqueror's sword is "admissible".

This controversy comes on the heels of similarly left leaning criticisms of Clint Eastwood's film Gran Torino, where writer Mark Harris of EW decried the film for having the "bigot next door" have something to teach us about heroism and self-sacrifice. In this age, it would seem, some traits are unable to be overcome, shape a character beyond the realm of redemption. This means that shows of overt racism or participation in activities that are shunned by some sensibilities create a man, or woman, whose very being makes them beyond the realm of humanity, necessitating for our own good, perhaps, a perpetual form of character sabotage.

Therefore the film Manolete, despite 5 years of setbacks and controversy, is still attempting to struggle along, hoping to make some sort of return on the $20 million investment into one of Spain's most legendary modern figures.

But can a film about love survive the politically correct era?

Because after all, as producer Andres Vicente Gomez, says, "This is a film about a love story." Indeed he insists there is only one bullfight in the entirety of the film, the one depicting Manolete's final confrontation and death.

But this is not enough for some groups, insistent that modern society cannot tolerate bullfighters of any sort being cast in a good light, fearful of how the audience will respond to such antics, according to Jordi Casamitjana, of Europe's largest anti-bullfighting organization.

She told the UK Telegraph, "The film makes the matador the good guy and Franco and the Fascists the bad guys, so inevitably it will make a hero out of a man who tortures animals for a living."

But apparently Gladiator was okay because it made the gladiator the good guy and the Roman Empire the bad guys, so inevitably it will make a hero out of a man who tortures humans for a living.

Sources:
Ernest Hemingway - Death in the Afternoon
UK Daily Telegraph
IMDB -Manolete
Manolete Official Website