Retro Active Compassion: Respect For (Non-Human) Animals In 1990's TV/Films

Jingle All The Way (1996); Frasier; Switch (1991); Grosse Pointe Blank (1996)

Compassion in Mainstream 1990's TV/Films (Following Decades of Activism)

I had only seen 'Grosse Pointe Blank' (1996) once, years ago. I watched it again recently and noted how its rhythm, screenplay, soundtrack all have a distinctively 90's feel. All in the best way possible. 

I also appreciated something else: Several times in the course of the film, the characters express concern and compassion for animals. In dialog, alone. For example, when the two leads are getting reacquainted after a 10-year gap, John Cusack's (professional assassin) character explains he doesn't have a wife but he has a very nice cat, and when Minnie Driver's character tells him that's not the same thing, he responds: 'You don't know my cat. It's very demanding.' To that, Driver's character asks (baffled): 'It? You don't know if it's a boy or a girl?' For someone who believes in respecting all species –– because non-humans are their own persons, not things –– this pointed dialog in the midst of conversation in an action-comedy film was refreshing to hear. 

Later, when Dan Akroyd's character (Grocer) meets with Cusack's (Blank) for a surprise breakfast, they discuss the controversial error Cusack's character made during a previous job which cost an innocent dog, called Budro, his life. Cusack's character is noticeably upset and says: 'Budro was never a target. Budro was acting on instinct. I would never hurt an animal. I'm offended at the accusation.' Another welcome surprise. This is how two tough assassins can talk in an action-comedy film? Seems like a different world than the one we have today when people shamelessly brag about 'hunting' and killing other species in various capacities. But the clincher was how they ordered their breakfasts! Here's the script from the point when the waitress enters the scene:

WAITRESS: Hi, my name is Melanie. Let me tell you about some of our specials. Today there's the Alfalfa on My Mind. That's our featured omelet. Or there's Gatsby's West Egg Omelet. If in the mood for something different, there's the I Left My Heart in San Francheezie.

BLANK: What'll you have? 

GROCER: Two poached eggs. Scrape off the milky white stuff. Hash browns well done. English muffin for the bread, and a coffee.

BLANK: Wholegrain pancakes and an egg-white omelet, please.

WAITRESS: What would you like in your omelet?

BLANK: Nothing in the omelet.

WAITRESS: That's not technically an omelet.

BLANK: I don't wanna get in a semantic argument. I just want the protein, all right?


Their  options and their choices are not vegan –– but it's all decidedly vegetarian. This is a far cry from what any action-comedy film would include in a food discussion between two manly assassins. There would be plenty of talk about slaughtered animals without the slightest semblance of concern for their welfare. I was frankly amazed to hear this sort of food conversation casually taking place in a mainstream film. And it wasn't that their vegetarian food choices were an issue. This was obviously just normal for these characters.

This past Christmas, my husband and I decided to watch a Christmas movie we hadn't seen before. We were in the midst of watching a 90's mainstream (awkward, inconsistent) family film called 'Jingle All The Way', starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, when something remarkable happened; a supporting character emphatically told a woman on the street: 'You shouldn't wear fur!' Just like that. In a mainstream-Arnold Schwarzenegger-family-comedy-from-the-90's. The lady was undoubtedly considered a villain. 

And then I remembered: This was typical in the 90's. And, as I've shared in frustration before, animal rights activists in the 70's (and 80's) made terrific strides to help alleviate any interest in fur until it seemed only the cruel, heartless older woman was the sole participant in a bygone industry. So what happened?

I saw this again in one of the most successful and mainstream TV shows for the 90's, 'Frasier'. In one episode, Frasier mentions how he knows Maris will react dramatically (as the never-seen but oft-discussed Maris was prone to do.) He says: "She doesn't deal with confrontation very well. I once questioned the political correctness of her serving veal. An hour later, we found her locked in the garage with the engine running on her golf cart!' A TV character known to be food snob was willing to discuss the cruelty involved in serving veal in the 90's. We never hear anything remotely like this on TV today. So again, what happened?

Here's another example I noticed recently in the midst of what I consider to be a dismally bad film. In the film 'Switch' starring Ellen Barkin, the character played by JoBeth Williams wears a fur coat, and an alarmed woman passerby stops her and says: "Do you know how many poor animals they had to kill to make that coat!?" Again, this relatively mainstream Blake Edwards film was released in 1991. Following diligent activism decades prior, the 1990's upheld an existing narrative and everyday people were disenchanted by the entitled and self-serving woman who was willing to wear a fur coat. So what happened since, allowing the fur industry to seep back into fashion?

With these separate, random examples, it's quite obvious that compassion reached the masses decades ago, despite the fact that today we have far more knowledge and exposure to the tragic cruelties that exist in industries that exploit the lives of non-human animals. I am so grateful for the activists who struggled to build that level of awareness so that people were choosing to be relatively conscious back in the 90's. It's heartbreaking that a couple of decades later, we see how entitlement and greed came back full force to eliminate all of the progress that was made before, taking us many steps backwards. 

Indeed, we should be looking back at the 90's and seeing how much we have progressed from that time to be coexisting respectfully along with our fellow Earth-dwellers –– instead, we have this. Things are for worse today. Farm factories, fur factories, even canned hunting factories. It's truly abominable to see where we are today. Those struggling to encourage a compassionate lifestyle must constantly swim against a tide of overwhelming force. 

Faux Fur Pioneers –– An Anti-Fur Campaign From Way Back In 1974

When will the fashion industry listen? This photo features Doris Day, Mary Tyler Moore, Angie Dickinson, Amanda Blake and Jayne Meadows wearing faux fur coats, looking up at a camera with hopeful smiles on their faces. The image was captured for an anti-fur campaign from 1974 for The Fund For Animals, an animal rights group that remains active today.

On its own, the image is misleading. And for anyone aware of the lifelong advocacy of two of the women –– Mary Tyler Moore and Doris Day –– on behalf of animal welfare and animal rights, it's surprising, and prime for speculation. The photo (separated from its original text) has managed to find circulation around the internet, posted by curious passersby on blogs and image-sharing sites like Pinterest. As is typical, the quick, haphazard sharing of content has skewed the actual meaning of what is being shared. Which is a terrible fate for a photo like this one, which holds such a greater ––and entirely opposed –– meaning. The truth can only be known with discernment.

Without the context from the campaign text associated with the image, which appeared in magazines and publications in 1974, it has begun to hold a distressingly erroneous meaning. Many who've shared it thought of it as a fun bit of vintage fashion, simply believing this is a photo of five once-and-still famous ladies wearing real animal fur.                   
Knowing a great deal about both Mary Tyler Moore and Doris Day and their respective lifetimes of advocacy for animals, my intention has been to share the reality of what the photo and campaign actually meant to say. These five women are decidedly NOT wearing real fur because they are actually advocating for an end to the wearing of real fur.

The heart-wrenching truth is that this level of hope, compassion, and possibility for real progress –– the ideal being to get humans to stop being so entitled, to see the suffering they've caused and to end it, finally –– has yet to be realized. Many decades later.

Doris Day, Mary Tyler Moore, and Angie Dickinson at an event for The Fund For Animals

This was a wonderful anti-real-fur/pro-faux-fur campaign. Again, it's from 1974. Why on earth can't the fashion industry stop using real fur once and for all –– finally, after all this time?

Here is the heading: "Five women who could easily afford any fur coat in the world tell why they're proudly wearing fakes." And then: "Fur coats shouldn't be made of fur."

Ideally, this campaign from 1974 should have worked. It would have easily worked for those who actually care about the welfare of animals and all that humans share the planet with –– it should have also worked for those who are simply affected superficially by the fact that these beautiful, rich actresses have stopped wearing real fur (for those to whom making some connection with wealth and fame are important and meaningful factors in their decision-making.)

It should have worked for anyone with a conscience, because the alternative is simply cruel. That this campaign did not work is definitive of how entitled humans have been, continuously, when it comes to decisions that affect others terribly. Other species have no choice but to share this earthly space with humans, and humans continue to be the cruelest and most dangerous animals on the planet. It is truly heart breaking.

People should evolve over time, if humans are as evolved as they tend to believe themselves to be, in that we have minds that absorb and differentiate information and make decisions based on previous experiences –– those of our own, and those of others. Why is this campaign/photograph such a sad indication of how little people really do evolve over time? It is terribly distressing for many reasons.

The fashion industry is at its core a creative industry, one that's ever-evolving while recycling from the past. At its core, it is also a business, and that is what drives many of its participants to do what they do.  But the decision to sell clothing people are willing to buy, without causing horrifying harm to other species, should be an easy one to make.

Why do so many high fashion labels continue the antiquated practice of using real animal fur when alternative synthetic materials that are just as beautiful and warm exist? Popular high-end designer labels like Burberry, Fendi, Louis Vuitton and Gucci still utilize real fur. Despite her own commendably strong stance against using fur and leather in her designs, Stella McCartney's parent company unfortunately is Gucci.

On the other hand, the Arcadia Group, which includes Topshop & Selfridges, has pledged not to sell fur. The Arcadia Group states in its Fashion Footprint FAQ's: "We are committed to not selling any items made of real fur. All our suppliers are required to sign up to our animal welfare declaration as part of their factory set up. In addition, our internet-based test report system automatically reminds suppliers of our animal welfare policy when they are asked to supply goods made from animal sources."

The long list of designers who continue to use real fur is disheartening, and their reluctance to stop the cruelty is both tragic and abhorrent.

Why would anyone choose cruelty and suffering for any reason –– but especially for no reason? It's disheartening to say the very least to see that this campaign from several decades ago did little to change something that's so simple to change. Stop using real fur, fashion industry, please and finally.

Speciesism is in no way more tolerable than racism. If one does not discriminate between species and is willing to look at the suffering of animals all over the world at the hands of humans, it would be made clear that theirs (all animals, apart from humans) is by far worse than any plight that has affected living beings in the history of the world.

Whether or not one chooses to see animals suffering terribly for no reason, these useless practices continue to exist. Whether the end result of that suffering is all that certain humans are willing to experience, the means still exists. And anyone who is willing to make fashion out of real fur, buy fashion made of real fur –– and wear fashion made of real fur –– is also entirely responsible for that very same amount of fur being ripped away from the body of an innocent, helpless & suffering animal who looks far more beautiful wearing it than any human ever could.

These days, some of the fashion industry's greatest ambassadors still plead for the most sensible move each and every label could make, and that's to stop using real fur. Twiggy Lawson, arguably the most famous fashion model of all time, who is also an actress, singer, and entrepreneur, attempts each year to get designers at London Fashion week to listen to this simple message against cruelty.

How many well-intentioned and heartfelt campaigns, and how many fashion plates of note or otherwise, must plead for this to change? And for how long? How many lifetimes of good service by animal welfare advocates will it take for the fashion industry to stop the cruelty?

More about The Fund For Animals' 1974 anti-fur campaign: http://www.fundforanimals.org/about/history.html.
More about Jayne Meadows: http://www.stevedalepetworld.com/print-archive/vintage-stories/animal-stories/359-jayne-meadows.
More about Amanda Blake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Blake

(Also published for Vintage Fashion at Examiner.com.)