The 2021 London Film Festival described 'Cow' as a documentary following the life of Luma, a cow caught up in the UK's dairy industry. In fact both Luma (who actually seems to be called 'Emma' by the dairy workers) and her unnamed calf - whose birth features in the opening scenes - get near-equal screen time. They are together for only a brief time before the calf is placed in an isolation hut and Luma is returned to a life of intensive milking, grazing, another pregnancy and, ultimately, death. Eventually the calf is placed in a group of other calves as she in her turn is introduced to her place in the industry.
Such a lot of what happens in this film is not explained: for instance, why was the calf placed in isolation? Why were holes burned in her forehead? (at least, that is what it looked like.) Why did the dairy farm decide to shoot Luma when - from the horrendous size of her distended udder - it seemed she was still capable of intensively producing milk? I suppose it could be argued that not providing such information puts the audience in the same position as the cows themselves: they, after all, will not have a clue what is happening to them. But I would rather have had the information in order to assess for myself whether how the animals are treated can be justified or not.
A danger with any documentary about how we treat animals is that the viewer will be manipulated by the film maker to feel emotive sympathy for the animals (not, of course, that sympathy is a bad thing). There were one or two occasions where I felt that happened here: for instance, when Luma and her calf are separated director Andrea Arnold gradually mutes all the sound - of other cows, the dairy machinery etc - until only Luma's breathing is heard, which creates a sense of loneliness. (And were there really fireworks in the sky when Luma is once again impregnated?) But on the whole I thought this documentary came across as pretty even-handed: those concerned with animal welfare will not be impressed by the machine-led husbandry on display, while those worried about negative portrayals of the dairy industry will be pleased that no obvious, malicious cruelty is on display (although the viewer may wonder if the dairy workers are *quite* so cheery and friendly to the animals when they do not have a documentary film crew in the vicinity...)
Such a lot of what happens in this film is not explained: for instance, why was the calf placed in isolation? Why were holes burned in her forehead? (at least, that is what it looked like.) Why did the dairy farm decide to shoot Luma when - from the horrendous size of her distended udder - it seemed she was still capable of intensively producing milk? I suppose it could be argued that not providing such information puts the audience in the same position as the cows themselves: they, after all, will not have a clue what is happening to them. But I would rather have had the information in order to assess for myself whether how the animals are treated can be justified or not.
A danger with any documentary about how we treat animals is that the viewer will be manipulated by the film maker to feel emotive sympathy for the animals (not, of course, that sympathy is a bad thing). There were one or two occasions where I felt that happened here: for instance, when Luma and her calf are separated director Andrea Arnold gradually mutes all the sound - of other cows, the dairy machinery etc - until only Luma's breathing is heard, which creates a sense of loneliness. (And were there really fireworks in the sky when Luma is once again impregnated?) But on the whole I thought this documentary came across as pretty even-handed: those concerned with animal welfare will not be impressed by the machine-led husbandry on display, while those worried about negative portrayals of the dairy industry will be pleased that no obvious, malicious cruelty is on display (although the viewer may wonder if the dairy workers are *quite* so cheery and friendly to the animals when they do not have a documentary film crew in the vicinity...)