Movie producer speaks out on controversy over ‘A Dog’s Purpose’ and on American Humane Association

By on February 8, 2017 with 12 Comments By Wayne Pacelle

Gavin Polone is a big name in Hollywood, even if he’s not known to the average film-goer and television watcher. He’s an Emmy-nominated film and television producer behind such hits as “Panic Room,” “Gilmore Girls,” “Zombieland,” and “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” But those of us who fight for animals know him as a dedicated, principled advocate for our cause: he’s been a long-time supporter of The HSUS and the Humane Society Legislative Fund and last year, with The HSUS invoking his entertainment industry credentials, he joined us in calling on the California legislature to ban bullhooks used on elephants in circuses (enacted last year). Gavin shares his home with a dog and two cats, is a long-standing vegan, and in a recent article addressing claims concerning his latest movie, “A Dog’s Purpose,” he wrote that the “most consistent and closest relationships I’ve had throughout my life have been with animals.” I recently interviewed Gavin about the controversy over the treatment of a dog on the set of his new movie, the role of the American Humane Association in overseeing animal treatment in the industry, and the future of film and animals.

Gavin, there has been controversy over the treatment of a dog in “A Dog’s Purpose”, a film that everyone agrees delivers a strong message about the human-animal bond and the protection of animals. As the producer of this film, and as a devoted animal advocate, you’ve said you’d never tolerate the mistreatment of any animal. What happened on the set, and is there reason for animal advocates and animal lovers to be concerned?

First, thank you so much for giving me an opportunity to explain. In short, on the day in question, people did not do their jobs. The person directing the action changed the starting point of the scene from where the dog happily and successfully had done it many times before, and this change spooked him. Twenty minutes ago, my dog Lacy was shivering with fear because a technician was in my house fixing the alarm system. I am not sure why but his presence affected her and when he left, she was fine. That dog in the movie, Hercules, had a reaction to the change in position. The director should have cut immediately and moved back to the original start point for the scene as soon as Hercules showed fear; the trainer should have stopped trying to get Hercules into the water immediately; the American Humane Association monitor should have demanded it stop immediately. Nobody who could have stopped that incident from carrying on did so soon enough and it went on for 40 seconds, which is 39 seconds too long. Also, the turbulence in the pool should have been turned down, so that Hercules’s head would not have been submerged for four seconds.

Hercules was not harmed, and is a healthy and happy dog, and no animal was hurt on the movie, but systems broke down and what was seen on the edited and intentionally inflammatory video should not have happened. If your readers would like more detail on this, they can read the column I wrote for The Hollywood Reporter, which, at this point, has been read by several million people.

What is your opinion on the use of wild animals and domesticated animals on movie sets?

Gavin Polone

Gavin Polone at the HSUS Genesis Awards. Photo by Tim Long/Long Photography

Wild animals should never be used on sets. I’ve done a movie in Africa where we created a complete 3-D digital crocodile and then shot footage of some animals in the wild and composited them into the scenes, but never brought in a trained wild animal. Domesticated animals, like dogs or cats, have evolved to be around people and can be used on a set without putting them in unnatural situations or using abusive training techniques. But I do not believe that is true with wild animals, like tigers or orcas, and I would never participate in their use on a set. In an early draft of “A Dog’s Purpose”, there was a scene with a bear. I demanded that it be removed, because I knew we would not have the budget to build a digital bear and I would not allow a trained real bear on the set.

You’ve been highly critical of the American Humane Association (an organization that The HSUS calved off from in 1954 and has no affiliation with). The group has had a contract with the Screen Actors Guild (SAG-AFTRA) for decades to monitor the treatment of animals on movie sets and it provides a “No Animals Were Harmed” assurance for movie-goers. But for years, and especially in recent years, it’s been widely criticized by animal welfare groups for a less than rigorous enforcement program. What’s your take on the group?

The stories of animals being hurt or killed on sets, where AHA had been present in a capacity to monitor the treatment of those animals, are too many to ignore. It is clear to me that they don’t step in to protect animals when needed and after an animal is hurt, such as on the TV show “Luck” or in the film “The Hobbit”, they are pretty much silent about what happened. It is heartbreaking and unacceptable to me that AHA remains the de facto protector of animals in the entertainment industry.

Increasingly, it seems that AHA is generating revenue by allowing its brand to be used by factory farmers, animal trainers, captive display businesses, and others, often undercutting more substantial and meaningful animal welfare standards. People are confused, and wondering if they are a force for good or bad.

I’d go a step further and say that AHA gains unworthy credibility because people who don’t know better think they are part of The Humane Society of the United States. For me, it is as if a trade group for the tobacco industry was called The U.S. Lung Association.

Last year, AHA reached a new low in my view when it hired Jack Hubbard from the public relations shop of Richard Berman, who fights animal protection efforts across the board on behalf of unknown clients involved with animal exploitation. Hubbard is now AHA’s chief marketing officer and vice president of communications. It feels to me like the group has flipped and may no longer be an ally of animal welfare but an adversary instead.

“It feels like”? I think you’re being charitable. Their actions and inactions speak for themselves. To me, their billing themselves as protectors of animals is a fraud.

The AHA attempted to undercut the effects of Prop 2 in California in 2008, and similar initiatives in Oregon and Washington, by pushing its comparatively weak American Humane Certified standards concerning the treatment of farm animals. In recent years, it’s joined with elephant trainers and circus spokespersons to defend the use of the bullhook for controlling animals. And it’s launched a certification scheme for zoos and aquaria, recently giving its endorsement to a “swim with the dolphins” chain that traffics in close contact experiences that carry serious health and safety risks for both humans and animals, and keeps the animals in small pens and tanks. Do you think it’s time for the movie industry to shed AHA for its certification program? Would you support a governmental role for oversight in this area instead?

Absolutely, and I intend to be a part of the industry moving away from AHA and to a new organization that is independent of those whom it regulates and is answerable to either the state or federal government. Because of the negative publicity surrounding the incident on “A Dog’s Purpose”, and the possible revenue lost, I think that the film studios now realize that it is financially advantageous for them to have a better system for protecting animals rather than just posting a straw man on the set, hoping to avoid the consequences when something bad happens.

Companion Animals, Wildlife/Marine Mammals

Subscribe to the Blog

Enter your email address below to receive updates each time we publish new content.


Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Diane Antille says:

    Someone should have been fired for this. Does anyone know if that happened?

  2. Robyn says:

    Thank you so very much for addressing this issue……

  3. Mary A says:

    While not a good thing, and wish that dogs would only experience love, we all make mistakes and, hopefully, are forgiven. While I don’t like that this happened, it will send a message to others that will not likely be ignored, and in that way the dog’s bad experience may help other animals and bolster enlightenment.

  4. Mary A says:

    P.S. I also thank you for addressing this issue.

  5. Linda Isrel says:

    any time you take an animal from its natural environment, you are looking for trouble. I do not need to be amused or entertained by wild animals (bears, tigers, elephants etc.) and feel badly for them when they harm someone – because they are ultimately the ones who pay for it with THEIR lives.

  6. Kathie Marcellus says:

    Thank you so much for addressing the situation!! One of the actors in the movie
    disclaimed it happened and gave excuses!! I’m all for the welfare of the animals!!! They screwed themselves when they allow this to happen! I might read the book..but will never see that movie!! Thank you!!

    • Pam says:

      I went to see the movie tonight and i am a true animal actovate and lover. I was sad when I read the story about the possible abuse of the german Shepard in the movie. I was also relieved to read the “real story” behind the filming. It was not what was protraded in the “Entertainment Tonight” story at all.

      I decided among all the controversy to go see the movie. I LOVED the movie and am so glad I went to see it. I think it was such a wonderful story. It showed how the love that animals bring to us humans is beyond words. I thank all the people that wrote, directed and starred in the move! I cried. It made me come home and hug and love my beautiful golden retriever even more than I already do.

      I think in this world we need more movies like this that make us realize the love that animals give us unconditionally. The sad part of this movie is the truth about how awful human are to dogs. So many treat them so awful that it breaks my heart. Please encourage people to see this move just for the sake of sitting for an hour and a half and sharing todays world in the eye of a dog.

      I am a better loving person today for being able to see that movie.

      Love to all and compassion to all of us and to sharing this world with our amazing animal companions. I don’t know where I would be without my animal friends.

      • Jill Cagle says:

        I loved the movie also and am so glad that the real story is being told!!

        • presley marie says:

          that is beside the point of the article, the article is about someone hurting a dog. and your saying it was a great movie…. thanks a lot JILL!

      • Marg says:

        No one should see this movie. That German Shepherd dog that was terrified and abused in this film did not enjoy it!!

        It’s time humans look behind the scenes in movies to find out what the animals really go through to make it. They are used as money making machines and nothing else!!!

Share a Comment

The HSUS encourages open discussion, and we invite you to share your opinion on our issues. By participating on this page, you are agreeing to our commenting policy.
Please enter your name and email address below before commenting. Your email address will not be published.