REVISITING THE HISTORY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ANIMAL WELFARE POLICIES IN THEATER AND FILM PRODUCTIONS: AN INTERVIEW WITH WILLIAM M. BERLONI, LEADING ANIMAL TRAINER IN BROADWAY SHOWS(1)

Por

WILLIAM M. BERLONI / IGNACIO RAMOS GAY / CLAUDIA ALONSO RECARTE

Animal trainer/ Adiestrador de animales

Universidad de Valencia / Universidad de Valencia

[email protected]

Revista General de Derecho Animal y Estudios Interdisciplinares de Bienestar Animal / Journal of Animal Law & Interdisciplinary Animal Welfare Studies 0 (2017)

ABSTRACT: William M. Berloni is the leading animal trainer in Broadway. With a career spanning more than thirty years, Berloni has trained animals for hit plays and musicals such as Annie, The Wizard of Oz, Awake and Sing!, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Legally Blonde, Living on Love and The Crucible, among others, and has also worked in films such as Woody Allen’s A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy, Mike Nichols’s Charlie Wilson’s War, and Will Smith’s film production of Annie. A notable recent success in his career has been the production of Because of Winn-Dixie at the Delaware Theatre Company in 2015 and at the Alabama Shakespeare Theater in 2016. He has also prepared animals for numerous Off-Broadway productions and dozens of TV shows and commercials. Berloni received the 2011 Tony Honor for Excellence in the Theatre in recognition of his accomplished skills as a trainer for the stage and his humane advocacy, and in 2017 he received the Drama League Award for “Unique Contribution to American Theater.” He had the opportunity to discuss his methods and experience in Spain during the international conference “Four-footed Actors: Live Animals on the Stage,” hosted by the University of Valencia on December 12-14, 2012. Journeying through film and theatre production experiences, Mr. Berloni touches upon multiple issues on how animal welfare is/should be respected when animals perform roles in shows. In this interview, he reviews the progress that animal welfare has made from the 1970s to today, an evolution marked by an increasing awareness and knowledge of specificities relating to species, breeds, and individual animal traits and capabilities.

KEY WORDS: William M. Berloni, animal training, theater and film industries, performing animals, animal welfare.

SUMMARY: I. INTRODUCTORY NOTE. II. INTERVIEW WITH BILL BERLONI.

RESUMEN: William M. Berloni es el principal adiestrador de animales de Broadway. Con una carrera que se extiende a lo largo de más de treinta años, y que incluye obras y musicales de éxito como Annie, El mago de Oz, Awake and Sing!, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Una rubia muy legal, Living on Love y Las brujas de Salem, Berloni ha adiestrado animales también para el cine, género en el que destacan títulos como La comedia sexual de una noche de verano, de Woody Allen, La guerra de Charlie Wilson, de Mike Nichols, y la producción cinematográfica de Will Smith de Annie. Entre sus recientes éxitos se encuentra la producción de Because of Winn-Dixie por la Compañía Teatral de Delaware (2015) y el Teatro Shakespeare de Alabama (2016). Asimismo, su actividad también se ha orientado hacia el adiestramiento de animales para numerosas producciones enmarcadas en el circuito independiente de Broadway – Off-Broadway – así como en decenas de programas y anuncios televisivos. Como reconocimiento a su labor para los escenarios y su defensa del trato respetuoso de los animales, Berloni recibió en 2011 el premio Tony de Honor por su Excelencia en el Teatro, y en 2017 recibió un premio de la Drama League por su contribución excepcional al teatro estadounidense. Durante el congreso internacional “Four-footed Actors: Live Animals on the Stage,” celebrado en la Universidad de Valencia entre el 12 y el 14 de diciembre de 2012, tuvo oportunidad de detallar sus técnicas y trayectoria profesional. Ilustrando su discurso con referencias a su experiencia en el teatro y el cine, Berloni desglosa las múltiples aristas que componen la compleja problemática del bienestar animal en el espectáculo vivo. En la presente entrevista, realiza un recorrido de los avances que la noción de bienestar animal ha experimentado desde la década de 1970 hasta la actualidad, acentuando cómo tal evolución ha sido puntuada por un creciente conocimiento y sensibilidad respecto de las especificidades inherentes a cada especie y raza, así como de los rasgos y habilidades de cada animal.

PALABRAS CLAVE: William M. Berloni, entrenamiento/adiestramiento de animales, industria teatral y cinematográfica, animales actores, bienestar animal.

I. INTRODUCTORY NOTE

The following interview reflects self-imposed policies or rather, policies negotiated by animal trainers and show producers. These policies are sometimes mandated by law, as in the case of the United Kingdom,(2) South Africa,(3) or India,(4) although sometimes they are only submitted to Codes of Practice, as for example in South Wales, Australia.(5) Alternatively they may be voluntarily agreed by the industry and private institutions, as is the case of the United States, where the sponsorship of the Humane Society is usually sought.(6)

In Spain, which is a semi-federal country, at the central state level, article 14 of the Act 32/2007 on Animal Care in Farms, Transport, Research and Sacrifice, establishes administrative penalties when an animal (whether farm, companion, research, zoo, or wild animal) used in film, television, art or advertisement dies as a consequence of the activity, regardless of whether the use of the animal had been previously approved by the competent animal welfare authority. Penalties decrease if the animal does not die but suffers serious injuries, and are even lower if the injuries are not considered serious. But this Act is only applicable by the Autonomous Regions when and if they lack general animal protection laws. This was the case in some Regions in 2007, yet nowadays all seventeen of the Autonomous Communities (Regions) and two Autonomous Cities have such acts and regulations in place. Concerning public security and/or public morals in forms of entertainment open to the general public, the central state regulation has a general clause that allows public authorities to prohibit shows or activities that imply or may imply cruelty or mistreatment of animals.(7)

Nonetheless, on June 23, 2017, the Spanish Parliament ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals, which will enter into force in Spain on February 1, 2018.(8) Emphasizing the need to pursue natural (“normal”) behaviors, article 9 (dedicated to “Advertising, entertainment, exhibitions, competitions and similar event”) dictates the following:

“1.- Pet animals shall not be used in advertising, entertainment, exhibitions, competitions and similar events unless: a.- the organizer has created appropriate conditions for the pet animal to be treated in accordance with the requirements of article 4, paragraph 2,(9) and b.- the pet animals’ health and welfare are not put at risk.

2.- No substances shall be given to, treatments applied to, or devices used on a pet animal for the purpose of increasing or decreasing its natural level of performance: a.- during competition or b.- at any other time when this would put at risk the health and welfare of the animal.”(10)

The animal protection acts of the Autonomous Communities, nevertheless, similarly contain general abstract mandates on animal welfare in filming and theater performances (see e.g. article 41.g) of Act 13/2002 of Asturias, article 4.1.o) of Act 11/2003 of Andalucía, article 32 of Act 11/2003 of Aragon, or article 6º.1 of Act 3/1992 of Cantabria, among many others). Some statutes also require previous administrative authorizations or ad hoc licenses for any show with animals (see e.g. article 4.6 of Act 6/1993 of the Basque Country, article 7.ñ) of Act 4/2016, of the Region of Madrid, or article 6.3 of Act 11/2003 of Aragon).

Some statutes also focus on the animals’ dignity (see e.g. article 4.2.m) of Act 5/1997 of Castille and Leon, or article 4.2.f) of Act 6/1993 of the Basque Country) and/or prohibit responsible parties from imposing on the animals behaviors that are unnatural or alien to their species or improper of their condition. The term “unnatural behavior” to qualify what is prohibited is used by almost every regional statute, and some of them go into further detail to include the prohibition "to feed animals with drugs or equivalent substances to enhance their docility in such unnatural behavior" (see e,g. article of 27.3 of the same Basque Country Act). Sometimes the prohibition of treatments that make fun of the animal is also expressly prohibited (see e.g. article 6.1 of the Act approved by Decree 2/2008 under delegated legislative authority by the Parliament of Catalonia, or article 6 of Act 3/1992 of Cantabria). Other statutes ban treatments that may disturb the sensitivity of the public (as stated in article 32.1 of Act 11/2003 of Aragon or in article 6.2 of Act 5/1997 of Castille and Leon).

Some statutes regulate the content of film scenes that show animals supposedly being mistreated or having their dignity violated, regardless of the fact that the animals’ welfare was respected during the filming process (see e.g. article 10, “On the filming of fiction scenes,” of the abovementioned Decree 2/2008 of Catalonia and article 7.o) of Act 4/2016, of the Region of Madrid), while others submit such fictional content to previous permits (see e.g. article 4.1.c) of Act 5/2002 of Extremadura). Others allow the filming of scenes in which animals appear to be hurt or mistreated as long as the credits specify and attest that in no way were the animals hurt in reality, and that the scenes are the result of cinematographic make-believe (see e.g. article 5.1 of Act 11/2003 of Andalucia which also submits such filming to previous license).

Despite the considerable amount of statutes dealing with the welfare of animals in the film and theater industries in Spain, records show almost no cases of actual sanctioning of mistreatment or animal cruelty, which suggests either full compliance with the penalized behaviors, or just plain lousy implementation.

With the exception of the litigation surrounding the strife to feature a real bullfight in the representation of Bizet’s opera Carmen,(11) and the social upheaval stirred by scenes in Pedro Almodóvar’s Matador (1986), in which six bulls were subjected to bullfighting and sacrificed for the film, or Jose Luis Borau’s Furtivos [Poachers] (1975), in which actress Lola Gaos beat a wolf (or wolf-like dog) to death, animal welfare in the theatre and in film has rarely been discussed as a topic on the legal fora. Such disregard and lassitude precludes enlightened debate as to the urgency and relevance of the matter, ultimately leading to erratic decision-making of courts.

A landmark event that nonetheless revealed how Spain has been showing signs of improvement in this regard was the legal battle surrounding Pablo Berger’s Blancanieves [Snow White] (2012). Given the high profile of the production (the film won ten Goya awards –the highest Spanish annual award for films- and was selected as the Spanish candidate for the Foreign Language Film Academy Award, although it ultimately did not make the cut as nominee for the Oscars), the controversy surrounding the mistreatment and abuse of the nine bulls that were killed in the Aranjuez bullring during filming was all the more vibrant. Ultimately, after a long legal process initiated by the network La Tortura No Es Cultura [Torture is Not Culture] precisely at the time when the film was being promoted, the Superior Court of Justice in 2014(12) condemned the Community of Madrid to begin the sanctioning procedures against the film. Through the death of the nine bulls, the film incurred in very serious infractions typified in national (specifically, in the aforementioned article 14 of the Act 32/2007 on Animal Care in Farms, Transport, Research and Sacrifice) and the autonomous region animal protection legislation.

Mr. Berloni’s interview provides insight as to how the matter stands in the United States. It should be noted that the animal welfare topics and policies discussed in the interview address activities different from essentially animal-centered forms of entertainment (circuses, zoo shows, sports such as rodeo, greyhound or horse racing, other types of competitions related to horsemanship, or nominal sports such as pigeon shooting and falconry), and from culture-based statutory exceptions to animal welfare statutes. Examples of such would include the celebration of activities involving animal abuse on the grounds of tradition, such as bullfighting in Spain, dog fighting in parts of Japan and of Russia (in Mexico it was finally banned in June 2017) and cockfighting in Andalucia and the Canary Islands.

The interview stands as a first-hand testimony of the animal welfare issues that emerge in the specific field of the performing arts, and of how such matters are managed at an internal level. Structurally, interactions may be carried out through private contracts or other alternative policies such as those based on voluntary institutional guidelines or codes of practice (whether audited or not by an independent third party, which is usually a humane, non-profit organization), or on the law (statutes and regulations). Indeed, Mr. Berloni’s experience suggests how private contract law might become a powerful tool for the prevention of the mistreatment of animals on the stage. To ensure that welfare standards are met, professionals associated with the production at hand must express their commitment through adequate contract clauses concerning the welfare of the animal(s) throughout the entirety of the process (from the initial planning stage and rehearsals to the actual live performances before audiences). An acknowledged professional in the theater and film industries, Mr. Berloni shows the way towards the necessary changes and refinements required to guarantee the implementation of animal welfare principles.

II. INTERVIEW WITH BILL BERLONI

Q: Your book Broadway Tails (2008)(13) is the story of how rescue animals who had been neglected, abandoned, abused – and were sometimes even only hours away from being sacrificed – became Broadway ‘stars.’ But it is also the story of how the theatre business has gradually learned to work with trained animals and of how your profession, which you have been practicing for more than 30 years, has in time earned well-deserved respect and recognition, to the point that in 2011 you were the recipient of the Tony Honor for Excellence in the Theatre.

Until you came around and you slowly started building your reputation as an animal trainer with the production of Annie in the late 70s, were animals a rare feature in Broadway and Off-Broadway plays?

W.B.: Pretty much yes. They were just used as props, walking onstage with a leash or just being carried on. Going back to vaudeville, when there were actual animal acts, there was a lot of training that went on with individual acts. But the animals never really played characters.

Q: You studied acting under one of the original Method actors,(14) Stella Adler, and in 2005 you worked in the production of Awake and Sing!, which was meant to commemorate The Group Theatre and The Method, along with Clifford Odets. How has your own background as an acting major contributed to your technique as an animal trainer?

W.B.: I don’t think it affected my animal training techniques as much as when it came to understanding the requirements – what needed to be done. I had the knowledge that people who aren’t in show business don’t: what a director does, what a schedule is like and how to rehearse. I knew all those sorts of things, which allowed me to prepare the animals better (as opposed to people who may train them in their backyard).

Q: There is a clear contrast between training methods that you describe as ‘intimidating’ and ‘bullying’ an animal and your own. You mention the importance of ‘building on what comes natural to the animal,’ which is not only a matter of species or breed, but also of each of the individual animals (‘personality,’ physicality, etc.). To what extent do you think your ability is based on ‘reading’ the animal as a species member and as an individual, as opposed to constraining him to deliver?

W.B.: When we’re looking to fulfill a job, we hire people with the skills to do it. We usually don’t just take anybody and then teach them to do that job. What we do is look for the best candidate for a job – the person who has the skills, the personality, or whatever. That makes sense to humans. But historically, mankind has always controlled, dominated and exploited animals for their own needs, so we tend to think of these other living inhabitants as things as opposed to sentient beings. I was taught to respect all people, and I just included the animal world in that. You look at a species or breed and observe what it is capable of in terms of intelligence and physicality, and then you tell the writers that and they write around that. So when it comes to the training of the animals, it made sense to me, and was easier, to find an animal with the right personality, to understand what its limitations may be and not to exceed them in trying to prepare for a show.

Q: What defines a good animal actor? Is it the animal that is able to do the hardest trick? Is it the one who is able to learn faster? The one who adapts more easily?

W.B.: All of the above. They have to enjoy it. They have to be able to deal with stress and do this sort of work. Prior to the first day of rehearsal we know what he or she will be expected to do and we have to know that it is achievable. If we know that it isn’t achievable, then we don’t take the job.

Q: What is the most challenging trick or routine that you have had to teach an animal and why?

W.B.: Probably that hardest thing to do is to keep an animal quiet on the stage. Also, when a song is being sung or a moment is very touching the animal can’t look disinterested either. However, I’d say the hardest behavior so far has been in Legally Blonde, the musical. In the first scene, the dog comes out and has to bark five different times, delivering exposition and telling the sorority girls where the main character of the musical, Elle Woods, is. If he doesn’t come out and bark, it sort of stops the show right at the top.

Q: So what happens when the dog, on whom, in this case, the resolution of the scene rests, misses that mark?

W.B.: In the same way that in a theatrical production there are contingency plans if the set doesn’t work or someone forgets a line or an entrance, there are alternatives that I must have previously devised. My theatre knowledge tells me that everybody makes mistakes, so there must be contingency plans that take over when a behavior doesn’t happen in order to keep the story going without the audience being aware that there has been a hiccup. This doesn’t just apply to my job, of course; it goes for every department in a production. Regarding that particular behavior in Legally Blonde, if the dog doesn’t bark what we do is have the actress pick him up and do as if he were whispering something in her ear. Then she translates what the dog has ‘said’ to keep the story moving.

Q: Processes such as ‘acclimatizing’ and ‘positive conditioning’ seem to be the methods for initiating the particular animal in his/her training. Can you explain what factors are involved in these processes?

W.B.: Whether you raise a puppy in the city or you raise it in a road environment or in the country, you desensitize them to the surroundings. Loud noises, traffic, people, cattle or tractors or whatever… There’s a learning curve in which they have to feel safe in their environment. The thing about doing a show or doing movies is that there is nothing that replicates that. Before anything, they have to feel safe in an environment before a group of people who are making loud noises and singing and wailing and carrying on, because if they are not used to it, they are just going to be frightened by it. Therefore, in the rehearsal period (or even before that, with the actors), we take these animals and get them used to the sound of applause, of people singing, loud music and scenery moving. There is nothing in our home that is thirty feet high that we could use to acclimatize them in such manner, so we try to get them used to those things before we start the show.

Q: It is your belief that some animal species are more trainable than others. Which have you found the most difficult to train?

W.B.: Anything that is not a dog. Of the animals we have domesticated in terms of companionship, canines are at the top of that list. There are very few other domesticated species like canines, so there are probably no other animals that have that kind of connection with humans, which makes it a lot more difficult to handle them. It’s really at the basis of who dogs are. Wolves live in packs, as opposed to other species that are independent hunters or live in herds. It has a lot to do with the evolutionary aspect of it all, which goes back to domestication. Even though we’ve domesticated felines, it takes one litter to be born in the wild for the cats to become feral. If it were a family of dogs, you’d have to have at least two or three generations before they would learn how to survive in the wild. Cats are only one generation away from being wild.

Q: Has any particular species come as a surprise to you as to its learning ability?

W.B.: Pigs have a high cognitive understanding, but they are physically challenged. They are also constantly hungry, which gives them a high food drive and makes it easy to motivate them. But there are really very few things they can do onstage because of their physical limitations. Mice are also interesting. In college I took Psychology 101 and they used mice for all the cognitive tests in laboratories. Like the pig, they’re easy to condition for a behavior or two, but they’re so small that they don’t do well in a bigger world such as a stage.

Q: You are an advocate against using certain types of animals, such as primates, bears or big cats, for entertainment. Why is this?

W.B.: At the basis of what I do, no animal walks up to my front door and says, ‘I want to be on the stage.’ So in reality I am asking animals to do this work. As I mentioned, certain species have a certain evolutionary drive to be around humans. But if they haven’t gone down that evolutionary path, they really have no desire to hang out with us. To take any non-domesticated species and say ‘listen to man,’ means that you really have to control their mind. I find that the techniques to accomplish that are rather cruel, harsh, and basically unhealthy for them.

Q: In your webpage,(15) however, you do mention the possibility of working with wild animals such as elephants or giraffes.(16) Why the distinction between these and other wild animals you refuse, out of principle, to work with?

W.B.: Well, to a great extent, elephants have been domesticated. We know a trainer, Bob Commerford, who lives in a beautiful farm in Connecticut who takes in rescue elephants. He’s also been doing some work with a certain species of giraffe, helping to keep them alive. So it’s more of a preserve than it is a training facility. What we do when we work with them is just go to the farm and take a picture of the animals in their barns and use a green screen that is transported there. He has other animals such as buffalo and yak that he has worked with.

Q: But even though such kind of work appears to be humane, don’t you think it poses an ethical dilemma regarding the interests of these wild animals?

W.B.: Well, I’m sort of in a transition with all this. Thirty years ago when I saw wild animals being abused I thought, ‘I want to find people who do this well.’ I didn’t find many of them. Then I thought that if someone were going to get the job it would better be us so we could guarantee that the animals weren’t hurt. But now, lately, I’m having second thoughts about all this. This is because every time I provide an image of a well-trained elephant for the media, the result is that people want to see more of it, in the same way that wearing faux fur does not involve the killing of animals but may still encourage people who don’t know it’s fake to go out and buy real fur. I’m pretty much at the point right now where I’m getting totally out of the elephant stuff. I haven’t done an elephant job in about ten years.

Q: Even though long hours and constant attention are put into training, there is always a permanent risk of unpredictable behaviour on the part of the animal. While spontaneity on the part of an actor is credited by the audience and the industry, do you think that animals’ spontaneity is intentionally used in the production as a form of metatheatricality to make audiences interrogate the very nature of the theatre? (A clear example of this happens in Two Gentlemen of Verona, in which most of the joke is that Crab does not act like a trained dog).(17)

W.B.: No. The improvisational nature of the theatre is frowned upon, and you can get fired as an actor if you improvise. You can’t change a word, you can’t change a note, you can’t change anything that you’re supposed to do, because if you do, then you might be out of a job. We try to hold the animals to that sort of consistent behavior. Now, they tend to do things or be distracted by things, which then throw them off the track, but we try to avoid or at least minimize that. That said, audiences enjoy the theatre in a different way when something goes wrong and reality sets in, which is one of the reasons why I think animals are so appealing onstage. They’re the ultimate reality – they’re in the real moment, not acting. So while my entire career has been focused on preventing that, we’re now actually looking at the possibility of capitalizing on it in the production that my wife Dorothy and I are working on, Because of Winn-Dixie. Here the dog is the star, and he is onstage all the time. We want to use some of that improvisational stuff – letting the dog just be a dog and letting the actors react to it while staying within the confines of a structure. That way, you always have the audience on the edge of ‘they’re really, really doing it,’ as opposed to ‘they’re pretending to do it.’

Q: In Broadway Tails(18) you refer to a similar incident that happened in two productions, Frankenstein and The First. In Frankenstein the dog runs offstage and ‘the creature’ comes onstage with a puppet, as if it had killed the dog. In The First, when Jackie Robinson takes Ebbets Field for the first time, a black cat jumps from a stool at the wings and enters the stage, recreating the actual historical moment. In both these cases an officer from the ASPCA showed up after receiving calls from distressed audience members claiming that an animal had been drugged or abused. The audience could not tell that the ‘dead’ dog was a puppet and the cat was actually jumping from a stool after a treat (and not being thrown onstage). Is this sort of reaction on the part of audiences common in your experience?

W.B.: It’s happened in a number productions. Writers, producers and even I come up with ideas which, until you actualize them onstage, you don’t really know how it’s going to work for the audience. We may think something is funny but the audience may find it disturbing – sort of like the use of nudity or violence, shooting someone onstage. Interestingly enough, in 2012 there was a school shooting in Connecticut, up in Sandy Hook. A gunman came in and children were killed. At the same time, we were doing a Broadway family musical called A Christmas Story, which is based on a very famous movie about a boy who wants a B.B. gun for Christmas. Audiences came in the night after the shooting at Sandy Hook and were not as receptive to the production. So again, actual events really click an alarm in audiences when we imply violence, when it looks like we’re hurting an animal, because we do it so realistically. Just like everything else in the play, people tend to believe it. In Bullets Over Broadway there was a scene in which the little dog annoys the main character and so, in the movie, the main character yells at the dog. We brought this into the musical, and on opening night the character yelled, ‘Good luck, Mr. Wuffles!’ at the dog. It wasn’t hurting the dog; the dog didn’t care. The first couple of nights we ran this onstage, the audience got very angry because of his yelling at the dog. In the context of the movie, it was one of the funniest moments, but it didn’t translate well into the stage. So it’s more when people think that we’re hurting the dogs that the play gets interrupted.

Regarding the ASPCA(19) intervention, I’ve become a humane officer myself, so I think people now get it. When it comes to discussing ideas for a play, as a creator I can warn writers and producers about things that I believe are not going to go over very well with audiences, and they’ll listen. Again, the yelling part in Bullets Over Broadway didn’t go well, even though we thought it was hilarious. So we continue to learn. I’ve become more knowledgeable about discussing possible audience reactions with writers and producers.

Q: How do you feel about the fact that audiences, even if mistakenly misled, do indeed appear to be concerned about the rights and/or welfare of the animals? Do you believe such concern has increased in the last years on account of the growing awareness about animal cruelty and abuse?

W.B.: Yes, I believe it has. Not just in entertainment, but also in other areas such as farming, clothing and luxury. I think we’re actualizing as a society and becoming more aware of what we do, not just regarding the animals but also the earth, nature in general. I am very happy for the increased audience concern. I welcome it and encourage people to be even more proactive about knowing how animals in entertainment are treated.

Q: Going back to The First, you mention in your book that the appearance of the cat onstage was ultimately cut out because it shifted the audience’s attention away from the theme of racial integration. Aside from the issue of the animals’ welfare onstage, do you think that the ‘realness’ of the animal may in other ways be detrimental to certain plays?

W.B.: Well, if they’re not worried about their welfare, it’s the problem of the animals being too damn cute. The cuteness factor tends to make your eye wander. Besides the reality factor, they’re just cute. You might have something being set on the other side of the stage – the focus still goes to the cute dog. We take that into consideration during the direction of the play, where the animal is going to be placed. And if it is in a scene where something else is supposed to be more relevant and there’s no way to stop it from being cute and stealing the focus, then we have it removed. In Bullets Over Broadway, for instance, we have this little Pomeranian – very cute. In the movie, the owner was never without the dog; but in the play, there are scenes in which she is without the dog, because having her just holding it when we’re trying to tell the story got to be a little distracting. We also just did a new production of The Threepenny Opera with Martha Clarke, who is a very famous modern dance choreographer. She trimmed the play and sort of tried to make it streamline. She decided to put a bulldog in it and, you know, there are a lot of Brechtian followers, who are very loyal to the material and dislike changes and alterations. A bulldog was particularly insulting to them. If you look at the reviews, the dog’s presence completely upstaged the entire production, even though he is only in three scenes. The New York Times ran a picture of the dog – because it plays Queen Victoria in one scene – and the title of the article was “Dogs and Scoundrels.”(20) It all completely backfired on the production – the reviewers picked up on the dog and said it was the best thing in it. They completely disliked all other aspects of the play.

Q: Ethologist Marc Bekoff writes that “animals will always have their secrets, but their emotional experiences are transparent,” and that animals “do not filter their emotions. What they feel is clearly written on their faces, made public by tails, ears and odors, and displayed by their actions.”(21) Do you agree with this and do you find yourself in the position of having to ‘train’ actors to ‘read’ these signs?

W.B.: Oh, yes. I completely agree with him, it’s the truth. And it’s somewhat refreshing to work with creatures that allow you to know what they’re actually feeling. But what we’re looking for more than anything when we ‘read’ them is signs of stress, fatigue or illness to make sure they’re OK. We train the actors to look for these symptoms, so if the animal is not in that ‘happy mode’ we can figure out why. Unlike a person who might not tell you what is going on when there’s clearly something the matter, we can tell from dogs when something’s off and address it.

Q: Do you think that your experience as an animal trainer has helped to contribute to developments in animal psychology as a field? Have you been approached by animal ethologists asking about your personal experience and work methods?

W.B.: No, I haven’t. I’m very pleased with the fact that there are now many more degrees and universities looking into animal sciences, but certain academics get snobbish about people who aren’t in the academia and since I am completely self-taught, that must mean that I am not credited. I’ve never been approached by any professional.

Q: You mention in your book that “animals are the ultimate Method actors.”(22) How do animals contribute to the ‘realness’ of The Method and how do they ‘assist’ actors in their concentration?

W.B.: Well, in the end, calling animals the ultimate Method actors is actually incorrect, because they’re not acting. But the fact that they are completely real on the stage is what that particular style of acting asks you to do – to understand the characters, to really feel the emotion. For instance, thinking about something that makes you sad so that you actually cry onstage in a scene. It’s very easy in any repetitive job to get lazy and to stop thinking. In the theatre, it happens all the time; when a show like The Phantom of the Opera is run for twenty-five years and you just show up and you do your job, you don’t go into the depths of your feeling nor visualize what is actually happening onstage anymore. You just sing the songs, hit the marks, smile and go home. The actors that I work with can never go there, because the minute they disconnect from really relating to the animal, the animal will do something wrong. So, from an audience standpoint, my actors and animals are really in the moment, because if they’re not, then the animal won’t do the behavior. The animals force the actors who may tend to get lazy to really stay in the scenes, and so they really contribute to enhancing the humans’ performance.

Q.: In the end, therefore, animals are not really actors…

W.B.: No, they’re not. I want people to always remember that they’re animals, because the minute you give them a different label, people will add the whole cognitive thing. You know, sort of like ‘well, if it’s an actor, then it must think this and that.’ The thing that I don’t want to do is have people forget that they are animals. I want them to respect that and the fact that they have limitations. We would never call a Belgian shepherd who lives in a farmhouse in France and protects its family a police officer, even though he is in fact protecting a family. But we would never assign it that job or that title – it’s the family dog, period. So whether my animals are making us happy in my living room or making us happy in front of eighteen hundred people, we’re still treating them with the same respect as dogs, and that helps people keep in the right mindset about how to deal with them. Once we assign them a title like ‘actor,’ people forget that they are animals and just expect them to always do their job – because that’s what actors do. It’s a way of anthropomorphizing them that neglects the fact that they are animals, which is something that we all need to respect and which helps in the humane aspect of it. The minute we start treating them like humans we are disrespecting them, and that’s where things go wrong.

Q: In the same way that some species (and individuals within the species) seem more predisposed towards training than others, to what extent is the casts’ ability to successfully work with the animals important? What kinds of personal and behavioural traits should the actor/actress have to successfully interact with the animal onstage?

W.B.: First and basically, I insist that whoever works with animals has to have had a dog at some point in their life, because you can’t teach that relationship in a four to eight week period, which is usually what we have to get it up to speed. But I think the most important human trait is empathy. If you are someone who cares about the feelings of others, then you’re perfect for this sort of work. Paris Hilton may have dogs, but they are just things to her. I need someone who understands and cares and wants to protect the creature that they love. So that’s probably the best trait: empathy.

Q: What about the other way around? What makes an actor/actress difficult to work with when bringing animals into the picture?

W.B.: When they’re self-centered and egotistic. Narcissistic people make bad actors anyway, and as a result they make bad trainers. They go out there and instead of cooperating and sharing the spotlight, it all becomes about them.

Q: Does that happen a lot?

W.B.: It’s happened a few times, but generally we’ve been very lucky.

Q: I gather that the animals are able to sense the mood or energy of the actor or actress they work with.

W.B.: Absolutely. I mean, generally by the time we get our actors up to speed, they already recognize that the animals are reading their emotions and they know that they have to stay centered and in control. Traditionally, the one area that always goes wrong is opening night. Opening night is a very exciting, wonderful event, and you tend to get pumped up for it. But even though your exterior is calm, your heart is beating faster, your adrenaline is pumping, your body chemistry changes… and that’s the same reaction you have when you’re terrified. So even though the actors are pumped up for a good reason, the animals tend to become very worried on opening night, because the entire stage is filled with adrenaline and everyone’s just so excited. The animals can’t cognitively distinguish it’s for a fun reason instead of for a dangerous one. As much as I try to remind my actors that they need to stay centered on opening night, you can’t control everybody else around them as well. So the animals always tend to get thrown off on opening night.

Q: You always have an understudy in case of emergency. Are the animals able to learn by imitating each other (for instance, an understudy learning certain routines by imitating the featured animal that usually goes onstage)?

W.B.: Actually, we don’t train them together. We want the animals to feel that they’re in control, that it’s their territory and they own the area. When you train them together, they become competitive, so you need to make them feel that they’re always the top dog. That’s why we always train them separately. The result of having them in the same room is that the one who is not working will be very upset (because of the lack of attention at that particular moment) and the one who is working will be concerned about the other one. We need to reproduce a context in which they will both feel top dog, and so we train them separately.

Q: What about when you have to prepare dogs that go onstage at the same time? In Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, for instance, there were several dogs that shared the stage in a single scene.

W.B.: We had to prepare for that very carefully, because when you create a pack, there has to be a hierarchy and we have to ensure that no one crosses the line. If there were a pack of eight dogs and you threw a steak in the middle, they would fight each other to get it. What we had in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was an actor onstage with treats in his pocket, so when we created this pack all the dogs had to be aware of who the top dog was in order to respect this very definite hierarchy. The little ones would wait for the big ones to get their treats and not try to intervene before that, because that would have caused a fight. That’s why putting that pack together was probably one of the most dangerous things we’ve had to do.

Q: Getting back to the previous question, there’s therefore no routine that is learned through imitation.

W.B.: Well, probably the only time we do that is when we’re teaching them to bark on command. In conditioning, you form a behavior – you give the dog a stimulus and then you reward him. But you can’t always solicit vocalization, you know. You can imitate physicalization with a dog and then give it a word as a command, but barking is more difficult. What I’ve found over the years is that if you sit one dog next to another one who knows how to bark and gets a treat for it time and again, the other one will eventually bark out of frustration and get his treat. That is the only circumstance in which we use the competition, because it’s not something we can physicalize.

Q: In your book, you also mention and denounce the fact that there are no unions for animal trainers. Can you explain the relevance of unions within Broadway and why there are none for your profession?

W.B.: I think there are none for my profession because it wouldn’t be lucrative. The unions wouldn’t make any money off of me – in fact, I would cost them money, because I’m the only professional in this field in Broadway. My dues wouldn’t cover the costs of litigation or representation and all that sort of stuff, so I think there’s a financial reason for this. What it does is it puts me at the mercy of producers in terms of not just the financial levels they set, but in terms of the rules as well. I’m referring to rules such as number of working hours and breaks, and having guarantees such as air conditioning and heat. With animals, that’s an additional cost that producers choose not to do. In the end, most of my negotiations revolve around the basic treatment of animals and not around what I do in particular. If a producer chooses to break the contract, it becomes a litigable thing where I have to personally sue a mayor corporation, and we know that never works. Meanwhile, if an actor doesn’t get paid, they just call their union and there’s a litigation and there you have it. So even when there is a breach I have no recourse.

Q: Are there other professions within the industry that aren’t protected by unions?

W.B.: No. In a Broadway theatre, everyone is unionized: from the maintenance people to the ushers, the musicians, the people who take the tickets… I’m the only non-union person in this building, and I don’t think the situation is going to change any time soon. It would be a cause for me to pursue when I retire, because when I go there and create public support, educate the people and force producers to spend more money on ensuring good conditions for the animals, I will never work again.

Q: How is working in the production of a film or TV different from the everyday work in the theatre and how does it affect an animal’s performance?

W.B.: First of all, the cost of doing business in television and films is much greater and it’s a much more ‘fly by the seat of your pants’ preparation and performance. On a major motion film it might be costing a hundred thousand dollars an hour to get a shot, so it’s very tightly managed out. So when you come in and say that an animal needs a half hour rehearsal, that could mean fifty thousand dollars for half an hour of a lot of people standing around doing nothing. They’re not willing to concede that, so it’s a lot harder to prepare animals for that work. People in the film industry are less concerned about the welfare of the animals and more concerned about the bottom line. I’m too thick-skinned for that – I don’t compromise. I tend to stick up for the animals, which means I’m not a team player, which in the end means I don’t do a lot of that work because basically I’m a pain in their ass. However, a lot of what we do can be done in preproduction, and certain filmmakers have found that if you listen to me and we prepare well, I will get it for you in one take, which will save you money. If we get it in the first take, we can move on quicker. Certain filmmakers have obviously learned that lesson and will work with me, but the film industry is such a ‘turn-around’ that it’s unusual to work with the same person over and over again, unless you’ve won an Academy Award.

Q: When casting, animals sometimes have to be aesthetically consistent with the tone of the play (such as the black and white Boston terrier you used for the silent-movie-inspired ballet, Double Feature). Sometimes, there’s also the matter of historical consistency (using certain breeds depending on the time period, nationalities or social classes represented onstage). Do you find that production teams consult these choices with you more than they used to?

W.B.: Yes. They’ve learned that I can give them valuable knowledge. In the Bullets Over Broadway movie, there was a nasty little Chihuahua and Susan Stroman, the director of the musical version, wanted a dog with a more luxurious kind of look. I showed her poodles and all sorts of small dogs, and she chose the Pomeranian. If you look at the show, you will see how the costume designer took the look of the Pomeranian and integrated it into the actress’s entire ensemble. Every costume that that actress wears matches the dog throughout the entire play. So they do come to me more and more. But even though I can help write scenes, I can help cast scenes, and I can help direct scenes, I never get the credit for it, while everybody else does. Now, with Because of Winn-Dixie, I am the animal director, so my contributions to all the other departments are being acknowledged for the first time. [Joking] But it’s only because I’m married to the producer [Dorothy Berloni]… you’ve got to start somewhere.

Q: You would never put a dog’s health in risk by making them fly in the baggage compartment of a plane. However, do you think that featuring the same dog on a play for several years could potentially be detrimental to his health? How do you know they are ready for retirement?

W.B.: Fortunately for me, it’s black and white. The minute the animal is unhappy or uncomfortable, they stop performing and there’s no return. They’re not on the stage if they are not in the best physical and mental condition they can be. Interestingly, what I’ve found is the opposite: when they do become arthritic (we can see these signs when the dog walks or when it’s getting harder to get up) and we retire them, they go on a major depression because their purpose in life is not there anymore. Just like a herding dog that gets depressed when you retire them; what he lives for is no longer there. It’s a sad phenomenon that I’ve discussed in another book called Beautiful Old Dogs: A Loving Tribute to Our Senior Best Friends.(23) What we have to do when we retire them is find other purposes for them, because after having been used to being around people all the time, getting their treats, being happy in their activity and being well-loved, retiring and lying in a couch all day at home is just not stimulating. It’s terrible to watch, so we have to find other things for them to do. And you know, the age at which they may start developing arthritis is maybe three quarters into their lifespan, so they still have a substantial part of their life to live once retired. So what we do is slow down their pace: when they get older we don’t send them out for a year – we send them out for a weekend or once every six months, and that sort of keeps them alive. Or, they participate in high school productions, doing two shows on a weekend, or we take them to nursing homes so people can do pet therapy with them. We try to recreate these contexts in which they go into a room and people are petting them, or they do some behaviors and they get their treats. So we really have to deal with the fact that when they do stop working, they become very upset, and we have to find some other way to keep them happy.

But the retirement thing doesn’t have to be old age as much as boredom. When we see signs of boredom and that they’re not enjoying it, they just stop performing. It’s the case with some dogs, and it’s very clear. That’s easier to take care of than when they’re mentally still in the game but are physically starting to slow down, or their hearing or eyesight is going. We have to forcibly retire them, and it’s sad.

Q: What are the limits as to what an animal has to do or is subjected to do onstage?

W.B.: Obviously there are environmental issues we worry about, but there isn’t really anything I can think of that has been physically dangerous. More than anything, it’s when people come up to me and say they want to do a production with a black panther or a primate – I obviously try to talk them out of it and I never get involved. So it’s more in the line of that. Now, in a production with the canine-feline-bird stuff, they’ll usually look to me as to what the limitations are, as opposed to saying ‘they have to do this.’ I’m always very much aware of what the animals have to do before I sign my contract. For example, sometimes there’s smoke onstage and we have to make sure that it’s not carcinogenic, or, we have birds in a show and we make sure that they don’t use smoke at all. It’s those sorts of things, but it’s never really been a major issue. And again, ethically they stay away from hurting the dog because it’s inhumane and because it doesn’t play well.

Q: Do people within the industry responsibly report abusive treatments of animals?

W.B.: No. I mean, now I think it’s easier to be an anonymous complainant… In the United States, in order to prosecute someone for animal cruelty, you have to have a witness. Otherwise it’s just an empty claim. No one in the film or television industry wants to be that witness because it’ll just mark him as a whistle-blower and he won’t work again. Theatre is much more transparent because we’re in one place for a longer time. In the case of a film, you might be shooting a horse scene in the middle of America and the horse trips – you just get out of town quickly and nobody knows or cares. But if something happens in a Broadway show, you have eighteen hundred witnesses. It’s much easier for people to air their grievances regarding a theatrical production than a film. What happens on a film set stays in the set.

In our case, we want to address everybody’s concern, and we don’t want people worrying inappropriately about the dogs. We want to educate the public; that’s why I’m one of the few trainers who allow cameras in their house, who talk to reporters. I’ve got nothing to hide. The more people see, the more they understand.

Q: Ever since the beginning of your career as an animal trainer with the first production of Annie, you have always turned to rescue dogs and cats for the stage. Do you think of them as protagonists of a sort of Cinderella tale?

W.B.: Not really. I think about how lucky I am to have saved these many animals. My parents immigrated to this country from Germany and Italy prior to the Great Depression. I remember that growing up as a kid, my uncles, aunts and parents would go to the dump to recycle nails or screws. They would take scrap metal or old boards for building things, and so part of our survival was based on recycling things that were thrown away. To me, discovering that animals were thrown away was crazy, so it just made sense and came natural to me to rescue animals. I mean, they’re there, they’re good, they have a life. I don’t think of it as wanting to get some animal and putting it on a pedestal; I’m just happy I could save its life. I don’t want to anthropomorphize them through a Cinderella story – it’s about keeping the animal alive and giving it a home for the rest of its life.

Q: How does featuring a rescue animal help to publicize a show and what is the general audience response to knowing the animal on the stage was taken from a shelter or pound?

W.B.: It’s an interesting question. When I started back in the 1970s, the most famous rescue animal was a dog named Benji.(24) He was a big movie star and the fact that he was rescued was part of his appeal. About that time, I came along with Sandy for the production of Annie, and I came from a totally different field and was not at all trying to emulate the Benji story. My story with Sandy sort of created this buzz on Broadway, and the press promoted the use of rescue animals. Over the years and over the decades, I find that more and more trainers are using rescue animals, which warms my heart. Fast-forward to 2014, I have four shows opening on Broadway, all of them featuring rescue dogs. But now the press seems uninterested. We had to hire a press agent because we couldn’t get any press on the fact that we were using shelter dogs. It’s because the audience expects it now; they take it for granted. It’s a great place to be – knowing that the audience acknowledges that fact and they don’t think it’s special or unique to have a rescue animal. It is, however, not good for business in terms of publicity because the press is like, ‘we already did that story on you and the rescue dogs last year.’ My story has been done so much that nobody wants to interview me. Ultimately, that won’t change what I do. Yet looking back on my life, I can see how what drove my career for twenty-five years has become the norm, not just with me but with other animal trainers as well. I guess we’ve had some effect.

Q: You donate 20% of the royalties of your book to the Humane Society of New York, with whom you actively collaborate as a Behavioural Consultant. When the animals retire, homes are found for them. Your success lies not only in training an animal to proficiently perform on the stage, but also in advocating social awareness about animal adoption programs and the need to give strays a chance as life companions. Do you think your Tony Honor Award doubly reflects both of these achievements?

W.B.: I’m going to correct you: we don’t find homes for these dogs – we keep them. As a trainer, I want to be a good role model. What I don’t want to do is adopt a dog, exploit it for a lot of money and then find it a home. That’s not committing to the animal as a creature. I want people to take home an animal and make sure they take care of him for his lifetime; we owe them at least that. We have a beautiful farm where we have competent staff and the animals have places to run around. But occasionally, a dog retires and doesn’t react well to coming to live in a farm in Connecticut with twenty-six other dogs. What these dogs want is to live in a one-on-one situation, just like they do during their work period in a show. Usually it’s the small dogs who don’t enjoy the farm environment, or special needs dogs. It would be selfish on our part to keep them in that situation because we love them. Pretty much in each individual case we ask ourselves what the best choice is for that particular animal, and 95% percent of the times we commit to them and bring them to the farm, because they are happy with us. It’s a cycle – we have to keep working to take care of the dogs that have worked for us and that are just hanging out at home. Our hope is to be able to give them a good life, and if we can’t, we have to look at what’s best for them, at what we think will make them happier.

The Tony Honor was given to me for Excellence in the Theatre, and that is usually given to people who don’t fit in any category, but have contributed with some sort of special skill to the shows. My inscription was particularly beautiful because it mentioned not just my contribution to the theatre, but also my contribution as a humanitarian. It was beautifully written, and it referred to something that is not usual for the honor to be for – normally it’s for things like being a good fight director, or using a specific skill. But mine was about a specific skill and a greater cause.

Q: What is your opinion on the use of puppets (such as in War Horse) or digital animatronics today in plays and feature films and how do you think such technology affects the use of animals within the industry?

W.B.: That’s been an evolutionary process. When I started, there was no computer-generated imagery; every animal job was an animal job, and if you wanted an animal, you had to get it. When this technological advent started coming in, it became more economical for filmmakers to do it that way, instead of actually having animals. There was a time in the 80s and the 90s when technology was diminishing trainers’ film work, which is only a small part of what I do, so it didn’t affect me as much. In many ways, CGI [computer-generated imagery] has made animal training a lot more humane because if you’re filming, for example, an animal going through the tundra, you don’t have to go to the North Pole to get that shot. You do it with a green screen with some confetti on it and then superimpose it. CGI allows for animals to be brought into the studio, which is much easier than going on location. And so, it went from initially losing work to actually making it more humane now for the animals. In terms of the puppetry, there would be no way to tell the War Horse story onstage without the puppets. It’s a beautiful story about the equine-human bond, and people who have horses can really feel this in real time. There are many times when I’ve actually advised people to use a puppet. In fact, I try to discourage the use of live animals for high school plays of musicals such as Annie or The Wizard of Oz, a typical instance in which someone will bring in their pet to perform. That kind of situation will probably frighten the animal, so when I get the call I’ll advise them to use a stuffed animal or put a kid in a suit. On smaller productions, people could be abusing an animal without even knowing it, so it’s best to go for costumes or inanimate props.

Q: Your career as an animal trainer has not just been about preparing an animal to proficiently ‘act’ a role. It is also a career of other achievements that involve rehabilitating the social, literary and legal status of the theatrical animal (integrating features from minor genres such as the circus into ‘serious’ Broadway shows, getting contracts to specify rehearsal times, transportation, and private dressing rooms, guaranteeing understudies, and even having the chance to modify the script according to the animal’s needs). What’s next?

W.B.: Well, for years I’ve seen the effects that animals have had on audiences in terms of enjoyment and the press it generates. And for years I’ve been waiting for someone to come up with a new kind of show… You know, if a dog is onstage for eight minutes and is able to generate all that publicity, why not do a show in which the dog is onstage all the time? For quite some time I’ve been waiting for someone to come up with a musical based on Lassie, Benji, or on other classic films such as Rin Tin Tin so that I could train the dog for it. There still wasn’t one in sight around the time I turned forty, and my wife suggested that we put it together ourselves. As a couple of kids from Connecticut, taking on that sort of project is like saying you’re going to build a rocket to go to the moon. In other words, it’s not something you would normally do – it’s the sort of thing that you dream about but don’t actually carry out. But we’re pretty sturdy, and so my wife found a children’s book called Because of Winn-Dixie, which had a good message, and she convinced the author to give us the theatrical rights. Fourteen years later, this December, we’ve had our first premiere of Because of Winn-Dixie, in Little Rock, Arkansas. The show was very successful and it was the first time something like that was carried out: the dog was the star and was onstage the whole time, and it wasn’t distracting for the audience. In 2015 we’ll have our second production – we’re slowly becoming Broadway producers, where people who have been doing this for years have failed. We keep moving forward with this project because we believe it makes for a very exciting evening in the theatre. To create the first theatre piece in which an animal is the star, to talk about the human-animal bond, and to include all the things I’ve learned in terms of training, all add up to a unique theatrical experience. Still, I’m aware that the project could die at any moment and the dream could fade away. Eventually I’ll be too old to do anything more… I will continue training animals for the stage for a few more years, even though it’s very physically demanding, and then probably give it up and become an advocate of some sort. My daughter doesn’t want to take over the business, and I would discourage anyone from having to go through what I’ve had to go through in my career, but hopefully we’ve been able to establish some guidelines that future trainers will adhere to – guidelines that will avoid unpleasant battles, please audiences, and contribute to the welfare of stage animals.

NOTAS:

(1). The interview was conducted on April 16, 2014 in the dressing room reserved for Mr. Berloni and his dogs in St. James Theatre, where the musical Bullets Over Broadway was playing (final drafting and editing was carried out in 2016-2017). Since 2015, Mr. Berloni has focused more on training animals for film productions. JAL&IAWS will address the application of animal welfare policies to the film industry through another interview with Mr. Berloni that will be published in 2018.

(2). Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937 (1 Edw. 8 & 1 Geo. 6, c. 59) and see also the RSPCA Guidelines for the Welfare of Performing Animals (under UK law official registration of performing animals is mandatory, see https://www.gov.uk/performing-animals-registration). Accessed September 24, 2017.

(3). See the Animals Protection Act NO. 71 of 1962 and the Performing Animals Protection Act NO. 24 of 1935: http://www.saasp.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Legal-Requirements-for-working-with-Animals.pdf. Accessed September 24, 2017.

(4). See http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Laws-governing-use-of-animals-in-films-TV-shows-often-flouted/articleshow/19299377.cms. Accessed September 24, 2017.

(5). See http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/animals-and-livestock/animal-welfare/general/codes-of-practice/film-theatre/simplified. Accessed September 24, 2017.

(6). See https://www.americanhumane.org/publication/guidelines-for-producersfilmmakers, or “Humane Hollywood” https://www.americanhumane.org/initiative/no-animals-were-harmed. Accessed September 24, 2017. Neither the federal government nor the states have implemented any laws specifically addressing this concern. The federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) have limited, indirect application to animal actors. See Rizzo, Vincent. 2012. “Detailed Discussion of the Legal Protections of Animals in Filmed Media.” Animal Legal & Historical Center. https://www.animallaw.info/article/detailed-discussion-legal-protections-animals-filmed-media. Accessed September 24, 2017.

(7). Article 71 of the General Regulation on Public Order in Open Events and Recreational Activities, approved by Royal Decree 2816/1982, August 27. It is to a great degree superseded by the general animal protection statutes and regulations of the Autonomous Communities and Municipalities.

(8). See https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2017-11637#analisis. Accessed November 5, 2017. The Convention entered into force much sooner in other countries (in the first four ratifying countries it came into effect on May 1, 1992).

(9). As indicated in article 4, paragraph 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals, “Any person who is keeping a pet animal or who is looking after it shall provide accomodation, care and attention which take account of the ethological needs of the animal in accordance with its species and breed, in particular: a.- give it suitable and sufficient food and water; b.- provide it with adequate opportunities for exercise;c.- take all reasonable measures to prevent its escape.

(10). European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals. https://rm.coe.int/168007a67d. Accessed November 5, 2017.

(11). The Superior Court of Catalonia’s decision on July 11, 2001 about the matter was that artistic freedom and expression prevailed over the welfare of a bull. Carmen was staged in a bullfighting ring precisely to enable the staging of the bullfighting ritual. Comments and debates on the case may be found in the following sources: 1) Pg. 358 of Lafont Cinuesa, Luis. 2006. “La protección de los animales y su coalición con otros derechos en la jurisprudencia.” Revista Vasca de Administración Pública. Herri-Arduralaritzako Euskal Aldizkaria 74: 335-368. 2) Pgs 45 ff of Doménech Pascual, Gabriel. 2004. Bienestar animal contra derechos fundamentales. Barcelona: Atelier.

(12). The text of the decision , of October 31st 2014, can be downloaded from http://www.poderjudicial.es/cgpj/es/Poder-Judicial/Tribunales-Superiores-de-Justicia/TSJ-Madrid/Noticias-Judiciales-TSJ-Madrid/ci.El-TSJ-de-Madrid-estima-el-recurso-de-una-plataforma-de-defensa-de-animales-por-la-muerte-de-varios-toros-en-la-pelicula--Blancanieves-.formato3. Accessed November 5, 2017.

(13). Berloni, Bill. 2008/2012. Broadway Tails. Heartfelt Stories of Rescued Dogs Who Became Showbiz Superstars. Guilford, Connecticut: Lyons Press.

(14). Method acting involves a series of techniques based on the Stanislavsky system, and aims towards sincere, emotional delivery of the character (as opposed to external simulation). Actors are encouraged to find common emotional grounds with their character in order to truly assimilate and understand them better, by drawing on personal experiences, memories and feelings through which they may affectively relate to their role and therefore ‘become’ the character.

(15). See William Berloni Theatrical Animals: http://www.theatricalanimals.com

(16). The reader should note that when this interview was originally conducted, in 2014, Mr. Berloni’s website did specify elephants and giraffes. Mr. Berloni has since then given up with all work with wild mammals and will only work with domesticated mammals, birds and reptiles.

(17). Shakespeare’s Crab remains, to this day, one of the most celebrated and intriguing canine characters for theater scholars. Beyond the type of relationship that Crab has with his owner, Lance, it is the dog’s performance (or, perhaps more accurately, lack thereof) that has triggered different theoretical approaches as to the nature of animals (and dogs in particular) within the setting and dynamics of the theater. For an insightful historical analysis of dogs on the stage and Crab’s uniqueness in such developments, see Dobson, Michael. 2014. “A Dog at All Things.” Performance Research: A Journal of the Performing Arts 5 (2): 116-124.

(18). See Footnote 9.

(19). The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is a privately funded 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. See https://www.aspca.org

(20). See https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/theater/atlantic-theaters-decadent-decorous-threepenny-opera.html

(21). See pgs. 13 and 44 of Bekoff, Marc. 2007. The Emotional Lives of Animals. Novato, California: New World Library.

(22). See Footnote 9. Pg. 208.

(23). Berloni, Bill. 2013. “A Reason to Live.” In Beautiful Old Dogs: A Loving Tribute to Our Senior Best Friends, edited by David Tabatsky, 72-73. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

(24). Benji was a fictional canine film character played by a female dog and, later on, by her offspring. The original Benji (to which Mr. Berloni alludes to) was played by Higgins, a border-terrier mix that was adopted by Hollywood animal trainer Frank Inn from the Burbank Animal Shelter (Los Angeles) in the early 1960s. After several uncredited roles in televisión sitcoms, Higgins became one of the most popular dogs in America with the feature film Benji (1974), created and directed by Joe Camp. Soon enough Benji became a household name, and an entire franchise was launched that included a series of sequels (there is currently a reboot by Blumhouse Productions on the way). In Broadway Tails (see footnote 9 for details), Mr. Berloni recalls an anecdote that is illustrative of the different approaches that professionals such as Frank Inn and himself used to train their respective rescue dogs, Higgins and Sandy, and which suggests something about the welfare and well-being of the canine performers. Upon meeting Inn for a photo op in the mid-1970s, Mr. Berloni had the opportunity to see his dog’s skillset:

Frank did a demonstration for us. Benji [Higgins] knew twenty or thirty behaviors, which she did effortlessly. As my self-esteem was running out, I realized that when Frank was not interacting with Benji, she did not move. Andrea [Andrea McArdle, who played the lead role in Annie] noticed it too. Benji looked like she was programmed to never take her eyes off of Frank. The more we watched, the sadder we became. After Frank and Benji got in their limo and went off, Andrea hugged Sandy and said she felt sorry for Benji. “It’s like she has no free will. Sandy may not be as trained as Benji, but at least he’s happy.” (25)