The Chris Moeller Archives

I thought of the question most recently only yesterday when I read a related true-life story-- that HBO stopped production on the second season of a terrific TV show by David Milch called "Luck," about the culture of horse racing. In recent days, a third horse accidentally died on set (two during production of the first season, and now another). What has resulted from this, besides the fact that HBO has prematurely cancelled another Milch series (see: the 2006 tragedy of "Deadwood") is that I think I now have my answer to the first question I posed. I feel a sense of frustration with the series' producers, but to be perfectly frank, I find my overwhelming feeling upon the news, right or wrong, is approximately this-- Really? You're going to cancel this engaging, poetic story with important things to say (about redemption, failure, addiction, and coincidentally, life and death) because of the death of a few horses?

Yes, these are tragedies. Yes, it sounds like there was negligence, at least in the first two cases. But do the lives of three horses ever really mean that much when a majority of us consume parts of other farm animals at almost every meal? In many non-English speaking countries, horse is served on the table with the others. It's largely cultural. We would be eating them here too if we hadn't found better way to engage them in the economic system. It's the action of horse racing being depicted that's dangerous. Thoroughbreds are becoming bigger and stronger, even as their legs become thinner. It's a dangerous industry for the human riders, too, but both of these issues are dealt with substantively on the show. The even greater irony is that, arguably, no filmed piece of art has ever loved horses quite the way this show does. At moments during the first season (which is still airing over two more Sundays on the pay cable channel), the images of the equine, either in action on the track or in repose, could almost be described as "masturbatory." This is a show about horse lovers for horse lovers.

Online, the comment about "Luck's" cancellation that most got my dander up was this one from "Lemonadechee" on the Atlantic site...

I really wanted to like the show, based on the cast and it seemed to have an interesting story line. I found it to be disjointed at times and while I will watch almost anything with horses in it, I couldn't bring myself to like it. It's really sad that they lost three horses just to make a TV show, so whatever their real motivation for canceling the show at least more animals won't die for the sake of entertainment.

That's what it comes down to. We're all selfish like my friend, even when we're selflessly pulling items from a burning building. I love this particular show. Lemonadechee thinks the loss of three horses is much more important than just "the sake of entertainment," but then it's worth pointing out that he also doesn't like the show. I wonder if would be feeling differently today if he had been drawn more emotionally into the program. I think there's a hell of a lot of art that's potentially worth that price. Our lives would have very little worth at all without art.

So what would I save, the cat or the painting? I know there's no way of predicting. The question can't be answered in the abstract. In the moment, I would choose selfishly-- the one that had more emotional meaning for me. So would you. The only other thing I can be sure of before this event actually occurs is that, cosmically, it might not be the best idea to name your series "Luck."