Yes, the killing of the little dog is disturbing, but we're talking 1952 post-war France. I'd have to see it again to be sure it wasn't a "stand in" -- maybe they could edit that scene out when it comes out on DVD? I know I'd appreciate it.
It's a great movie, otherwise.
i think my French Film class decided (as horrified as we all were) that it is not a stand in and indeed they killed the dog. the reason we think it is an actual dying dog is because when she first picks him up after the parents are shot, he is twitching and not responsive very well, and then stops moving all together. we just can't believe they would let a six year old carry arund a dead dog. that is pretty gross.
if you can't say something nice, at least say it where i can't see it.
[deleted]
The covulsing dog was fine-- they only had attached electrodes to the pup's underbelly. He was unharmed by the process. The roach, later killed in the film, was, however, real. If we are to protest any death here, is it not the roach, crushed with narry a thought, who is deserving of our angry clamor? At any rate, this movie is one of the all-time treasures of the moving pictures, and you hypocritical mammalcentric muh-fuhs need to recognize this fact, yurd me?
share[deleted]
They attached the electrodes to the little pup's udders and that's how it got to flopping around as it did. Its stiffness can be attributed to being rather stiff in the joints after its tussle with the wild world of electricity.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
In an Interview with Brigitte Fossey, se says "it was terrible" - referring to the dog trembling in her hands. I wasn't sure what to make out of it. Has anyone seen it (the interview is included in the DVD - Criterion Edition)?
shareWhy would they need to kill the dog when they could have merely anesthetized it? Plus a dead dog would start to decay no?
shareOh please, that dead dog was so fake looking, obviously not real. If they had killed the dog how would they have gotten it to twitch? It was just a camera trick. Welcome to the world of cinema!
share[deleted]
I saw that interview with Fossey. She also says of the dog's twitching that "it was very realistic." That she says it was "realistic" and not "real" implies, at least to me, that it was a trick, but a very successful one (as proven by this thread). In any event, I was convinced they killed the dog until I saw the interview, and it was a very intense thing to watch.
shareI think there were no available trick at that time for such a realistic play. Of course I agree it's terrific to see a little dog dying, but I wonder why a lot of people accept human being death's by mean of government and remain in silence!!!!
shareIf a human being were deliberately killed for the sake of a film, there would be outrage as well, and that's the only analogy that can be drawn here. The question as to whether they harmed and/or killed a puppy merely for an effect in a movie is a perfectly legitimate and important moral question that can't be dismissed lightly.
At any rate, I hope those who have said the dead dog was a cinematic sleight of hand are correct.
But...then how ever did they make the owl move the way it did -- it looks like an animatron?
Anyone know how they created the owl movements?
I have watched and rewatched the parts with the dog. When the dog is twitching and when Brigitte lifts it you can see this is definitely a real dog. Later, when the dog is tossed in the water it appears to be a stuffed dog, since the head and coloring of the dog is different and it is very stiff looking. The whole sequence with the obviously live dog is horrifying and disgusting. This not only ruins the film for me, but also makes this (for me) basically a film about torturing a defenseless animal. I am surprised that more hasn't been written about this aspect of the film. Does anyone know how to contact someone who knows more about what actually happened to the dog?
shareI have a related question, it's been bugging me since I saw it. Was the parent's death real or was it made to look real? It would have been sad if they had to kill those two actors off. Please tell me they didn't die. It looked like they did, though...
---
there will be snacks.
[deleted]
As a matter of fact, thousands of people get killed every year in action films, without being noticed.It's really outrageous.
Seriously, what a stupid discussion!!
rena63, I'd appreciate if you sighted the people who you are referring to, and the movies that they were killed during the making of.. The only thing I can remember is Joseph Von Sternberg and the deal with his extras, and that was back in what.. the 20s?
To make a statement like "thousands of people get killed every year in action films" is laughable, because that is so false it's absurd.
Sarcasm fail.
share[deleted]
I am reasonably sure that it was not a real dead dog. I once had a dog about that size and when she died I was shocked at how heavy she was. Dead weight, don't you know. And had I wished to throw her off a bridge, I know I could not have just hurled her like a frisbee. I don't that little child could have carried the weight of a dead dog.
share[deleted]
I've just watched this movie for the first time and was disturbed by the scenes with the dog too. After reading this thread I went back and watched those particular scenes again.
My conclusion is that they never actually used a dead dog. True, the scene where the dog is trembling was shot with a real animal. What I didn't see was any signs of electrodes attached in any way to the animal. The girl actually picks the dog up and there is no evidence of of anything electric. Perhaps they drugged the dog or somehow zapped it before the shot. Either way it's hard to watch.
Right before she picks it up she is laying on it and these shots are from two different angles. In the shots where she's actually resting her head on the dog it's clear this is some stiff (taxidermy?) replica. In the other shots it's the live dog.
What I did notice is the live dog had a short black tail with a white tip whereas the fake dog's tail is completely black. This is the one we see during the rest of its scenes. In fact, in a least one latter scene the dog's tail seems to be missing altogether!
"In fact, in a least one latter scene the dog's tail seems to be missing altogether!"
Some frog had a snack.
You can see the cuts in footage as the actual dog becomes a toy replica.
Keep silent unless what you are going to say is more important than silence.share
It was disturbing but one of the most heartbreaking and realistic moments I have seen in film.
shareAccording to Brigitte Fossey in an interview recorded in 2012, the reason the dog was convulsing - just before it died for real - was that they had used chloroform on it. She makes no mention of electrodes or camera trickery, so it would appear to have been killed for the purpose of filming. This interview is included as an extra on the recent UK blu-ray release.
shareI wonder if the puppy was killed. Not only the convulsing, but its being limp in the litte girl's arms. When it was tossed over the bridge,it looked all too real. Maybe the dog was knocked out on anesthesia and the twitching simply a part of that......I can't believe the pup was actually killed. Maybe a stuffed animal was tossed over the bridge?? Like I said,it looked like a real dog and nothing else. They wouldn't really kill that dog...no way.....I hope.
share