The Beast of Gevaudan

[Will Carothers]

This is my documentary that i made concerning the Beast of Gêvaudan from the 18th century. It was a beast that was responsible for over 100 deaths in a matter of 2 years in a very localized area. I won our state National History Day Competition with this video. I have used lots of footage from history channels documentary, with their permission, but in the documentary i put the beast into context by showing how it related to: reaction, and revolution.

Please watch and let me know your opinion on the video

[JonathanVonErich]

There's already plenty of threads about this legend here on the forum, very interesting case.

You say it was a beast; well the truth is that we don't know if there was really a beast, many beasts, etc. There's no evidences that only one animal, a monster, was responsible for the attacks. It could have been the work of a sadistic killer, could have been the work of a group of killers, and there's a huge possibility that many of the murders were not related.

The problem with this case is that we have so little informations about most of the murders, there's so many myths related to this case and so little truth, it's difficult to know what's real and what was created by authors or storytellers. I doubt very seriously that only one beast was responsible for the huge amount of murders in the Area, and I think La Bete du Gevaudan is a myth, probably created by people who couldn't accept that humans can do horrible thing to other human beings.

[Leonardo]

A very good production, especially considering you put it together yourself.

A few (hopefully constructive) criticisms:

Over-dramatisation rather spoils the sense of mystery, and I would stick more to what is known and make more clear what is speculation - rather than try to convince the audience of your own views. This tends to engage the audience more, and engages a wider audience.

In association with this, try to speak more naturally (assuming it is you speaking) rather than 'act' with your voice. Unless you have been coached in voice acting the attempt to add dramatisation via voice can detract from the overall effect.

Cut the final few scenes where you try to associate the Beast of Gevaudan with the French Revolution. There really is nothing to the association and it too detracts from what should be the main focus of the documentary - putting across the sense of terror and mystery surrounding the Beast.

Overall, though, well done. I can see why you won the competition.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Leonardo

[Apopo]

A very good production, especially considering you put it together yourself.

A few (hopefully constructive) criticisms:

Over-dramatisation rather spoils the sense of mystery, and I would stick more to what is known and make more clear what is speculation - rather than try to convince the audience of your own views. This tends to engage the audience more, and engages a wider audience.

In association with this, try to speak more naturally (assuming it is you speaking) rather than 'act' with your voice. Unless you have been coached in voice acting the attempt to add dramatisation via voice can detract from the overall effect.

Cut the final few scenes where you try to associate the Beast of Gevaudan with the French Revolution. There really is nothing to the association and it too detracts from what should be the main focus of the documentary - putting across the sense of terror and mystery surrounding the Beast.

Overall, though, well done. I can see why you won the competition.

Actually, the French Revolution was the one that seemed much more horrifying than the Beast of Gevaudan itself. If it really existed, there could be multiple creatures since there were many descriptions (either faked or true or mistaken reports) and the number seems a bit unlikely.

[Will Carothers]

Thank you for the criticism, im only 15, and the rules for this years competition was that it had to fit into at least one of these themes, reaction, revolution, and reform.

I think it had to be one creature, or one species, because although witness testimonies differed, any lawyer or defense attorney will tell you that witnesses are sometimes very invalid, but i looked extensively over all of the "autopsies" (or the times equivalent) and found that the wounds were extremely consistent, and it most likely couldn't have been a person, (in the opinion of those who saw the bodies.

[Leonardo]

Thank you for the criticism, im only 15, and the rules for this years competition was that it had to fit into at least one of these themes, reaction, revolution, and reform.

I think it had to be one creature, or one species, because although witness testimonies differed, any lawyer or defense attorney will tell you that witnesses are sometimes very invalid, but i looked extensively over all of the "autopsies" (or the times equivalent) and found that the wounds were extremely consistent, and it most likely couldn't have been a person, (in the opinion of those who saw the bodies.

The video was a pleasure to watch, so I'm glad you took my small criticisms in the vein they were intended.

I'm not familiar with all the details of the "Beast" case, and I'm not sure how many of the alleged victims were medically autopsied, rather than have another person pass comment on what they thought the wounds looked like. From what I have read, it does seem that several of the reports of attack indicate it could only have been an animal, but others are less reliable.

Some reports relate an attack by a solitary animal, while others indicate a pair of animals. I would suggest that many attacks by different animals (and humans) may have been 'rolled up' into "Beast" attacks, so how many actually fell victim to the Beast will likely never be known. I'm not convinced that Chastel is guilty of connivance in the terror. All we really have to support that is the account of him slaying the animal, and that account may be embellished.

[Will Carothers]

I agree, it may have been many animals or people covering up murders by making it look like animal attacks. I've just always found that this case was so interesting due to the lasting effect it has had on the way we view things. It really makes you wonder what is really out there, because from all the evidence, i doubt that it was a wolf, or any other commonly known creature. I would love to know what (or who) it really was.

[Night Walker]

For a comprehensive review of the incident and its ongoing impact I recommend:

Jay M. Smith (2011) Monsters of the Gévaudan: The Making of a Beast

[CANDIDPETS]

will do you have the french material also? are you abel to read french? yes it is just one creature as it was always described to be the exact same from first attack to last. This shows us loup de chazes was not involved in any serious attacks.

Loup de chazes was not a red beast with black strip and heart faced white on his chest.

only one set of prints was found near the dead body so it cant be many animals. No human prints were ever found. Every survivor or eye whitnes always said it was 1 animal.

Edited August 7, 2012 by cateyes221981

[Will Carothers]

Yes, i do speak french fluently, so it really helped with the research, because all the primary sources were in french

[cryptidkrz]

My opinion on Le Bete was that it was a wolf-dog hybrid, bred by Jean Chastel and the church. The beast was huge, bigger than a hyena and never went after anything non-human. The size is explained by heterosis (hybrid vigour), which is when an offspring is bigger than the parents (Tiger and Lion offspring grow to be like 800 pounds). It was trained by Chastel to attack women and children. Secondly, I say the church is involved because in Gevaudan at the time, the church was losing its' influence. Jean Chastel was a member of the church. A conspiracy between Chastel's ability to make wolf-dogs and the church stating the beast is sent by God to punish non-church goers is then born. Look it up. When the beast was not killing, churches were relatively vacant. When the beast was doing its' thing, churches were cramped. No coincidence. And the only reason I think Chastel accepted killing the beast was because if he said no, then he would look like he was in on the beast's rampage. It makes perfect sense. Anybody else got any input?

[Abramelin]

You bumped the wrong thread:

http://www.unexplain...ic=220324&st=15

Or better, read this member's posts::

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=220324&st=15#entry4514601

.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Abramelin