If it's cheating, why doesn't everyone use it? (Using dogs in film)

[Daniel Mooney]

Hello all,

Another day, another question.

I was talking to a friend the other day about the film Marley and Me. We both concluded how sad it is - I actually walked out of the movie halfway.

But then I got to explaining to him about how I was taught in school that it was a "cheat" to use a dog in film. Any time a dog is in danger, one usually can't help by cry out. Kill a couple million civilians in laser blast from an Alien space ship - no problem. Have one dog running to safety, with the flames just behind him - everyone is at the edge of their seat.

 

I know Disney uses alot of animal friendly films and some of them are in tense, the Homeward Bound Series is a prime example. War Horse is another more recent film to come to mind (altho I haven't seen it)

So my question is, if this is such a cheat, why aren't their more emotional sob fest films about pets like Marley and Me? I mean you want to be evocative, give the audience real emotion and get people to go out and seat and remember, well there you go. Hell, hollywood will do anything else to get a buck. Unless your a cat person, seeing something like a loyal dog following it's owner to death (like the true stories about dogs waiting for years for their owners to return) has got to tear you up and make you talk about the film.

Unless we're all just manly men and we're just gonna pretend we had something in our eyes.... :-P

Thanks!

Edited December 22, 2013 by Daniel Mooney

[David Mullen ASC]

You run into the problem that Hitchcock had in "Sabotage" (1936) when I think he had a boy carrying a bomb that goes off… you can put a dog in danger, but if you kill the dog, half the audience will not forgive the filmmaker and many might not even see the movie in the first place. My wife, for example, won't see a movie where a dog gets killed.

 

And there are only so many movies in which you can put a dog in danger before an audience gets weary of the same emotional trick being played on them. Plus many of them believe that the filmmaker would never actually let the dog character die, so then you have a problem of keeping the suspense up, just as when you put James Bond or Indiana Jones into danger -- the audience is waiting to find out how the character gets out of the situation but they don't actually believe that the character might be killed.

 

Of course, you can play with expectations… like what happens to the dog in "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy".

 

But plenty of good movies have had dogs in them, some of which actually die as characters, "Road Warrior" for example.

[Guest]

Yeah it's such a "cheat" to use a dog in a movie, what kind of filmmaker would resort to such a thing?

 

R,

[Guest]

On an unrelated note here's an early review for my latest movie. That is not a dog, it's very large fury cat:

 

http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/article_info.php?articles_id=9155#

 

R,

[Keith Walters]

On an unrelated note here's an early review for my latest movie. That is not a dog, it's very large fury cat:

 

http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/article_info.php?articles_id=9155#

 

R,

Sex: Kissing by a couple.

Language: G/OMG-4; Butt-1; Jerk-3; Shut up-1; Duh-1

Violence: A plane crashes but no one dies in the crash; some blood seen on a pilot's head and a very small amount on the kids; boy throws a baseball at wolf; a dog bites a grizzly on the foot.

Drugs: None

Nudity: None

Other: Tension between characters; a grizzly and a pack of wolves threaten kids which might frighten young viewers but the scenes are not graphic; a girl falls in the rapids; boy falls over side of cliff to a rock just below; a fire is started in the woods; parents "borrow" a jeep from rescue workers to go look for kids.

 

"Language: G/OMG-4; Butt-1; Jerk-3; Shut up-1; Duh-1"

Sorry Richard, I can cope with "Kissing by a couple." if it's tastefully done and is relevant to the plot, but using the word "Jerk" more than twice is bordering on gratuitous.

But "boy throws a baseball at wolf"; no, I really can't be a part of that....

Even if the boy, the baseball or the wolf is just CGI, I just know it will offend my Deity-of-choice, whose views, by a happy coincidence, appear to be exactly the same as mine :rolleyes:

As for "a dog bites a grizzly on the foot." I don't even want to go there....

 

 

Oh, that "kissing by a couple" invariably led to sexual activity. Yeah, right....

[Keith Walters]

Hello all,

 

Another day, another question.

 

I was talking to a friend the other day about the film Marley and Me. We both concluded how sad it is - I actually walked out of the movie halfway.

 

But then I got to explaining to him about how I was taught in school that it was a "cheat" to use a dog in film. Any time a dog is in danger, one usually can't help by cry out. Kill a couple million civilians in laser blast from an Alien space ship - no problem. Have one dog running to safety, with the flames just behind him - everyone is at the edge of their seat.

 

I know Disney uses alot of animal friendly films and some of them are in tense, the Homeward Bound Series is a prime example. War Horse is another more recent film to come to mind (altho I haven't seen it)

 

So my question is, if this is such a cheat, why aren't their more emotional sob fest films about pets like Marley and Me? I mean you want to be evocative, give the audience real emotion and get people to go out and seat and remember, well there you go. Hell, hollywood will do anything else to get a buck. Unless your a cat person, seeing something like a loyal dog following it's owner to death (like the true stories about dogs waiting for years for their owners to return) has got to tear you up and make you talk about the film.

 

Unless we're all just manly men and we're just gonna pretend we had something in our eyes.... :-P

 

Thanks!

You make it sound so simple.

The reality is, getting dogs to put on a convincing performance is damned hard work. You should try visiting the set of a commercial shoot for dog food or similar. You can spend all day trying to get the bloody mutt to do what the script requires, and often the script has to be re-written to match the actual footage obtained.

With a feature film, multiply that 100 times or so. Usually there are at least two identical-looking dogs used, and often several more. With the advent of cheap CGI it's gotten a lot more practical, particularly with shots involving multiple dogs, which explains the sudden rash of "companion animal" flicks.

[Guest]

Usually there are at least two identical-looking dogs used, and often several more. With the advent of cheap CGI it's gotten a lot more practical, particularly with shots involving multiple dogs, which explains the sudden rash of "companion animal" flicks.

 

Not in Against The Wild, one dog, and he does all his own stunts. And no CG animals, all in camera ;)

 

R,

[Guest]

Even if the boy, the baseball or the wolf is just CGI,

 

 

Nope, boy, baseball, and wolf, all REAL!

 

R,

[Keith Walters]

 

Not in Against The Wild, one dog, and he does all his own stunts. And no CG animals, all in camera ;)

 

R,

OK, so how did you get him to bite the bear on the foot, and live to bark about it afterwards?

[Guest]

OK, so how did you get him to bite the bear on the foot, and live to bark about it afterwards?

 

Told him he had one take to get it right.

 

R,

[joshua gallegos]

You run into the problem that Hitchcock had in "Sabotage" (1936) when I think he had a boy carrying a bomb that goes off… you can put a dog in danger, but if you kill the dog, half the audience will not forgive the filmmaker and many might not even see the movie in the first place. My wife, for example, won't see a movie where a dog gets killed.

 

And there are only so many movies in which you can put a dog in danger before an audience gets weary of the same emotional trick being played on them. Plus many of them believe that the filmmaker would never actually let the dog character die, so then you have a problem of keeping the suspense up, just as when you put James Bond or Indiana Jones into danger -- the audience is waiting to find out how the character gets out of the situation but they don't actually believe that the character might be killed.

 

Of course, you can play with expectations… like what happens to the dog in "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy".

 

But plenty of good movies have had dogs in them, some of which actually die as characters, "Road Warrior" for example.

 

I loved that sequence from Sabotage, because it's a stark reminder that no person is immune to death, no matter how young or faultless. In the movie the boy must deliver cans of nitrate film which unbeknownst to him is packed with an explosive, when he gets into the bus, the explosive goes off and kills everyone in the bus. The film was ahead of its time, back when people were used to happy endings, I hate films that are made to make the audience feel good about themselves, I feel life isn't that way, people die everyday and it's a part of our reality. The same with Treasure of the Sierra Madre, in the film John Huston had Bogie's character decapitated by the bandits, but it never really made it into the movie. I don't know why people feel the need to make things so sappy and unrealistic, I can understand that in a kid's movie, but life is filled with tragedy and movies should at least reflect that in an honest way. At least in Bambi the mother dies, to me that's realistic, the same with The Lion King, and I think babe died of the swine flu. but i don;t remember if that was in the movie?

[Guest]

 

I hate films that are made to make the audience feel good about themselves, I feel life isn't that way, people die everyday and it's a part of our reality.

 

If the mass audiences wanted that they would stay home and watch the news for free.

 

Movies are supposed to be an escape from the horrors of our world, where happy endings are all too infrequent. Imagine JAWS were the shark isn't blown up at the end. Instead it simply eats Brodie, the end. The movie would not have had the same impact on audiences.

 

Sure, 99% of what happens in movies is totally improbable. But that of course is the fun and magic of movies. It's a pretty short list of movies that had down endings and were also a success with the public.

 

If you do want to make dark and depressing movies I suggest you move to Canada and start applying for funding from TeleFilm Canada. They will welcome you with open arms.

 

R,

[joshua gallegos]

 

If the mass audiences wanted that they would stay home and watch the news for free.

 

Movies are supposed to be an escape from the horrors of our world, where happy endings are all too infrequent. Imagine JAWS were the shark isn't blown up at the end. Instead it simply eats Brodie, the end. The movie would not have had the same impact on audiences.

 

Sure, 99% of what happens in movies is totally improbable. But that of course is the fun and magic of movies. It's a pretty short list of movies that had down endings and were also a success with the public.

 

If you do want to make dark and depressing movies I suggest you move to Canada and start applying for funding from TeleFilm Canada. They will welcome you with open arms.

 

R,

 

I think the true self which we hide deep inside is the one that emerges in a time of dire circumstances. When I say "feel good", I mean movies like E.T., which is basically Lassie, but with an alien. The Pianist really reveals so much about the Adrian Brody character, and I don't see it as a happy ending, just because he survived. He has to live with the trauma, and death that he has witnessed for the rest of his life! The same with Chinatown, which I think draws many parallels to today's corruption, it's just something that you can't stop. I don't feel like a pessimist, but evil never truly goes away, neither will death or despair. I believe it was Orson Welles that said that a happy ending depends on where you end the story, but does one really ever die happy? For instance in Nights of Cabiria, Fellini ends the film on an uplifting note, by having Gulietta Masina smile before the camera as she weeps, it means she will continue to live to fight another day, it shows her strength to carry on. But will her life ever be a happy one after that night? The answer is no, she has no money, she sold her home, she'll have nowhere to go.

 

it's all very subjective, but life has no true happy endings, at least it's the way I see things, but that's just me.

Edited December 23, 2013 by joshua gallegos

[Guest]

it's all very subjective, but life has no true happy endings, at least it's the way I see things, but that's just me.

 

If that's true then all the more reason for movies to provide an escape from reality. I live in a country were filmmakers are obsessed with the dark and the depressing. And a government agency that throws buckets of money at them so they can keep making these movies. Certainly the free market and audiences have little interest in these films. They are celebrated by critics and go to film festivals, then the general viewing and paying public, rejects them.

 

I think it's human nature to cheer for the good guys and hope that they win in the end. Even stories where the hero doesn't technically "win" i.e. the first ROCKY, Stalone's character is a winner because he battled the odds and came pretty close to winning. Interesting that in that particular franchise that type of ending was abandoned if favour of the more bankable, Rocky always wins in the end approach.

 

Every story needs sympathetic characters for the audience to cheer for. And when it comes to kids and animals, well, the sympathetic aspect of the characters comes built in. No one is going to cheer against kids and their dog.

 

R,

[joshua gallegos]

 

If that's true then all the more reason for movies to provide an escape from reality. I live in a country were filmmakers are obsessed with the dark and the depressing. And a government agency that throws buckets of money at them so they can keep making these movies. Certainly the free market and audiences have little interest in these films. They are celebrated by critics and go to film festivals, then the general viewing and paying public, rejects them.

 

I think it's human nature to cheer for the good guys and hope that they win in the end. Even stories where the hero doesn't technically "win" i.e. the first ROCKY, Stalone's character is a winner because he battled the odds and came pretty close to winning. Interesting that in that particular franchise that type of ending was abandoned if favour of the more bankable, Rocky always wins in the end approach.

 

Every story needs sympathetic characters for the audience to cheer for. And when it comes to kids and animals, well, the sympathetic aspect of the characters comes built in. No one is going to cheer against kids and their dog.

 

R,

 

I think characters can be sympathetic without being purely good. For instance Peter Lorre's performance in 'M', in the end you feel something for this man, even after committing many monstrosities. You feel something for Cagney in White Heat when his mother is killed while he's locked up in prison. I love anti-heroes, because it really shows the duality of men, how people are neither good nor bad, and even those who are "bad" have love in their lives, and it humanizes them. I think people will relate to anything that is human, not necessarily good or heroic, but human. It's part of the reason why I deeply enjoy Josef von Sternberg films, people are too intricate to merely classify as being one thing, a person is many things, and even that person may not understand why he is the way he is. Life is a journey of discovery, I think every day we discover something new about ourselves, and I think the greatest films reflect that aspect of life.

 

But, there is also the type of cinema that is made to merely entertain the audience, and there's nothing wrong with that, it's just a matter of what someone likes.

[Keith Walters]

 

No one is going to cheer against kids and their dog.

 

R,

Maxim probably would :P

[Daniel Mooney]

So technical stuff aside,

What if someone did a animal centered movie with a bittersweet ending? Like a Rocky ending, yes he loses, but he also wins.

I mean not only are you cheering for it, but you get the satisfaction of win, but also maybe a reality check?

I don't know. I can watch dozens of characters die, but goddam Marley and I'm beside myself. Or the end of Homeward Pound....Shadow get out the dam pit...please....

The other day another friend told me about how Artex's death in Neverending story haunted him for years.

So if you have balance depression and happy. Could that make it better?

What about all these dogs patiently waiting for their deceased owners until their own deaths? Maybe you do one like that, but in the last shot you seen the reunited in the after life?

Also is this really cheating? Because I was taught it was, but no one here seems to view it the same way. Perhaps maybe once again, my 15k put into film school, could have been saved if I just visited this website :-P

Thanks!

[Guest]

The other day another friend told me about how Artex's death in Neverending story haunted him for years.

 

Yes, but that was a German movie, they are ok with that sort of thing. :rolleyes:

 

As someone who has completed two "dog centric" movies I can tell you that simply putting a dog in a movie and expecting positive sales results doesn't work. There is a lot of dog product on the market right now. And much of it is not doing too well in the market place. The number of talking dog movies has exploded with the advent of cheap and easy to use software.

 

So many people have made ultra low budget dog centred movies and then crashed the market with them. You still need all the rest of the elements, name actors, solid story, high production value, and even then.....who knows?

 

R,

[David Mullen ASC]

What about all these dogs patiently waiting for their deceased owners until their own deaths?

 

I cried reading the review of the original "Hachi-ko", I couldn't bring myself to see the actual movie...

 

I'm sure you can do a very powerful movie where the dog character sacrifices itself for the family -- I'm thinking of something like an animal version of the end of "Iron Giant" maybe -- whether people would show up is hard to say.

 

By the way, "Umberto D." has a bittersweet ending involving a dog.

 

I don't think of any of this as "cheating" unless the emotional manipulations using well-worn scenarios seem to have no heart behind them and are merely mechanical and therefore have little impact. In other words, it's only cheating if you do it badly.

[Guest]

I'm sure you can do a very powerful movie where the dog character sacrifices itself for the family -- I'm thinking of something like an animal version of the end of "Iron Giant" maybe -- whether people would show up is hard to say.

 

I had an ending like this for Against The Wild, the dog doesn't make it out alive as he sacrifices himself to save the children. Every single distributor that read the synopsis for that version said they wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole with that ending.

 

And that.....was the end of that.

 

R,

[Daniel Mooney]

Wow,

Richard that's insane. I guess that's the way it works.

To this day I still won't watch Futurama's "Jurassic Bark", not even the beginning where I know there are bound to be great jokes and one liners. Having watched the ending recently, it's not as much of a downer as I remember - but then again I only watched the ending, not the full episode leading up to it.

I suppose if the "Jurassic Bark" is thought of in terms of being a feature length film - then I, as well as several friends I know, would likely be avoiding it like the plague - which means others probably would too. Which means a loss of revenue.

One more thing to throw out there tho. If it was made a subplot, would that help?

Make him less of a dog and more of sidekick. Hell, I read stories of WWII dogs drinking beer and having their own helmets and medals and such.

Maybe we open on a beach, a soldier, let's call him John and Rover,a dog, sharing a beer. John talks for the both of them. Rover's too preoccupied with his ball, looks up occasionanly. They two of them are fighting thru Normandy. John's trying to woo a nurse, Rover's is the wingman. Maybe John gets hit by a car, saving Rover's life. Rover sticks with the girl and protects her, knowing that's what John would want. Years later, Rover dies of old age and we end on Rover and the soldier, once again sharing a beer on the beach. Implied to be heaven, but could also be flashback.

Something simple like that. It's an idea I've been kicking about since I started this thread, seeing as tho before I thought using a dog in anyone would cause my fellow film peers to lynch me :-P,

[Mark Kenfield]

 

I cried reading the review of the original "Hachi-ko", I couldn't bring myself to see the actual movie...

 

 

Haha! Glad to hear I'm not the only one!

[Stuart Brereton]

if you kill the dog, half the audience will not forgive the filmmaker and many might not even see the movie in the first place.

 

When Marley & Me' was in theaters, a huge billboard near my apartment in Hollywood had the poster on it. Within a couple of days, some helpful soul had spray painted in large, red letters 'THE DOG DIES.'

[Kieran Scannell]

The dogs in "A fish called Wanda" didn't fare well! But that was done with such Pythonesque humour that the dog death factor wasn't a problem. In fact a good example of how to kill dogs in film and still keep an audience?