MovieChat Forums > En passion (1970) Discussion > Shocking scene (spoilers)

Shocking scene (spoilers)

posted 14 years ago by DukeBryant
17 replies | jump to latest

When the dog is shown being hung was awful. Tell me that was fake!

[–] rooprect 14 years ago

It wouldn't surprise me if it was real. Animal cruelty laws were virtually nonexistent in 1969, let alone in Sweden. Bergman also has a nasty track record with animals (such as slaughtering a calf in Persona for no real reason except to shock the audience). If anyone has any info, please chime in; otherwise I think we can assume it was real.

[–] jlent 14 years ago

The dog hanging was most likely real. The calf in Persona was apparently already dead, or footage from another film.
But Bergman did have an unfortunate record of animal abuse.
Liv Ullmann,in her first book, wrote about becoming very upset on the set of "Shame" when the heads of live chickens were cut off for the film.

[–] CaptainHowdy1987 14 years ago

I can't remember a a hanged dog, although I do remember them metioning something about a dead dog.

"I wished Her back but the dead adored Her, Even wild winds sang in chora for Her"

[–] The_Coma-Man 14 years ago

Yeah, that scene was missing from the version I saw (MGM UK DVD)... can somebody please clear that bit up??
--
VOTE JACOB'S LADDER INTO THE TOP 250's!!!
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0099871

[–] pseronwyrd 14 years ago

The hanged dog is in the MGM Region 1 (USA) DVD.

Those who think animal cruelty is bad in Bergman's films should stay far away from Olmi's "The Tree of Wooden Clogs" (1978) and Bertolucci's "1900" (1976).

[–] ktowny 11 years ago

Netflix version has the hanging dog, as well as a small herd of slaughtered sheep.

Love's turned to lust and blood's turned to dust in my heart.

[–] MarxBrosFan 13 years ago

Please... the yelping sounds are clearly fake and the rope is loose. He was probably only suspended for a few seconds... The dog was Liv Ullman's little dachshund 'Pet'. She tells a whole story about this on the DVD extras:

When she started her relationship with Ingmar Bergman the dog hated him, but soon realized Ingmar wasn't going anywhere, so Pet did gradually try to become friends, eventually working his way up to lying on his desk when he was writing. And four years later when the relationship was over, Pet stayed with Ingmar.

_____________________
Tally-ho, my fine saucy young trollop!

[–] Stirchley 12 years ago

the yelping sounds are clearly fake

I disagree completely. There was nothing fake about the little dog's pitiful cries for help. Though the noose wasn't tight, there was no mistaking the little dog's terror at what Bergman was putting him through. Though I suspect it only lasted a few seconds (mercifully done in one take, I hope), it was a horrible thing to do to an innocent animal.

If that really was Ullman's pet, what kind of person would let her little dog be subjected to that?

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Kammurabi 11 years ago

Much worse occurs to animals every few seconds of every day around the world. Most of humanity only sees one side to everything. The tender love shown to this animal after the momentary unpleasantness is not able to be understood by these people in juxtaposition with the scene which got their panties in a twist. I assure you most animals never receive such care. Many dogs in this world would endure years of abuse only to have one moment like that.

In the end, this is a perspective based argument like all are. And thus there is no right or wrong. The only degree of calculation which can be made is how much of a fool do you make out of yourself over it. What world are you improving by condemning Bergman or this film?

.

[–] Stirchley 11 years ago

^Heavens, you're quite the philosopher, aren't you?

[–] emncaity 10 years ago

I'll say. I feel completely helpless in the face of his strident, superior intellectual honesty, and stuff. Especially after his second post.

What a twit.

[–] Kammurabi 10 years ago

Completely helpless suits you. I certainly wouldn't argue this first point. Those are attributes I wouldn't self-apply, but I appreciate them.

Try to use a stronger word than twit though. It is really quite feeble, lazy and unimaginative. I expect more.
RIP Rik Mayall

.

[–] Whoah10115 11 years ago

thinkkam, while there might be a point somewhere there, shut the *beep* up.

lol, seriously.

[–] Kammurabi 11 years ago

You can't refute any point with your *beep* drooling like that.
It is a dipsh*t thread and many of you could use a course in torture by my hand so you will know what suffering is actually about.
Granted, we prefer humans in helpless positions as the tormented. I do as well. Lost upon you is the fact that the animal re: topic was not tormented. I suppose if people like you were to remake a film like this you would have a cgi dog there so no one will be offended. Art is dead. Bitches.

.

[–] kenny-164 11 years ago

I can't make up my mind whether it is worth taking people such as Stirchley seriously, or whether one needs to in order to understand something about other people and misplaced priorities. And for hte record I love dogs. But have some perspective, man.

[–] Stirchley 11 years ago

^I lose all sense of perspective when I see animal abuse.