Animal cruelty? - Dead of Night (1974) Discussion

[–] lastmidnite2 10 years ago

I absolutely agree. I saw this film on tv over 30 years ago and will never watch it again because of the scene with the dog. WAY to disturbing and ruins the rest of the movie.

reply

[–] GetSmarter 10 years ago

I too wont ever watch it again. I did go back and have a look at the end credits again and noticed that it did state that the dog was "owned and trained by...." someone but I just dont like the scene and wont watch the film again because of it. Shame really because apart from that one bit the movie was quite good.

reply

[–] iluvnyc 9 years ago

Wow GetSmarter your screen name betrays your true self. Here's a tip - don't ever watch the Godfather, I can tell you'd be tempted to believe that's a real horse head left in John Marley's bed! LOL Hey, had to tie it into this movie somehow. Better tip yet - don't ever go see any horror film. You probably believe people are actually sliced and diced, impaled, shot, hung, etc IRL on set. What are you 12 years old?

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] EyeDunno 8 years ago

Actually Godfather used a real horse's head from a slaughterhouse for the film. So much for making a smart comment....

reply

[–] gribfritz2 9 years ago

Yes. Way too disturbing to see a dog get killed. I'm okay with the trucker having his throat cut, several being strangled, a man being run over, and a "zombie" injecting human blood into his veins. But please don't hurt an animal. I guess it would have been less disturbing if he would have killed one of the kids instead.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 9 years ago

Does someone really, seriously believe they had an actual dog 'strangled' for a film? And even if one's inclined to think the filmmakers 'would' do such a thing, just look how the scene is shot - from behind the dog, mostly avoiding a clear view of it after the first few seconds it's lifted up.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] devtrev27 9 years ago

Well, that dog was pretty annoying....

reply

[–] puplover 9 years ago

Not only the horror of the death of the pup, but when the idiot mother screams "he's gone and that's all there is to it!!!", the sister just asks "aw Mom, did you and Dad have a fight?" Nice reaction.

reply

[–] devtrev27 9 years ago

Yes. He should've strangled the mother while he was at it.

reply

[–] muzilon 9 years ago

In the DVD commentary Bob Clark, Alan Ormsby, and Richard Backus all make a point of saying that the dog was a trained "stuntman" and wasn't really harmed. The scene was shot to conceal the fact that Backus is gripping the dog by the collar (not by the throat). Incidentally, the youngest boy in this scene (wearing the black cap) is Alan Ormsby's son.

reply

[–] robbytara 9 years ago

That part was the highlight of the movie and don't loose sleep, the dog was not real. The fact that real human beings get killed (in the movie) does not seem to bother people but if an animal gets hurt...

reply

[–] Dr_Adam_Warlock 9 years ago

I think the whole point of that scene was to show that:

1. No one was safe, and

2. the Andy that came home was not the same one that left.

It was an unpleasant scene, but that's just what I got from it.

BLACKOUT!

reply

[–] Dr_Adam_Warlock 9 years ago

If made now, or in this case remade, instead of that poor dog being killed, Andy would instead just get very hostile and start yelling at the kids to get out of his face (most likely by saying to eff off). Then he would grab one of the kids, hold him up in the air, and toss him on the ground. The kids would run away in pure panic, the youngest one crying. The scene would be just as effective, but not as unpleasant. At least none of the kids would be killed, let alone a dog.

I just re watched this movie for the first time in years. I had forgotten all about that scene, and when they showed it, it actually left a very bad taste in my mouth.

BLACKOUT!

reply

[–] psdhart 9 years ago

I had forgotten all about that scene, and when they showed it, it actually left a very bad taste in my mouth.

yeah just watched it for the first time and agree

reply

[–] carl_thirdparty 9 years ago

I sometimes wonder why people bother watching horror films at all if they're going to complain that they were disturbing or unpleasant. Um, that's kinda the point. Real animal cruelty is indeed sickening but this wasn't real, it was staged just like the deaths of the humans in the film; no one was actually harmed, human or animal. I just can't understand why people will happily watch fictional cruelty against humans but fictional cruelty against animals is beyond the pale. It's the same bloody thing. Either they must have an overly sentimental view of animals or a disturbing lack of empathy for their fellow human beings.

reply

[–] alucardvenom 8 years ago

Oh what a bunch of oversensitive babies over here.

No, there was no animal cruelty. It was a trained dog with fake fur under which Richard (Andy) could slip his fingers to make it look like he was strangling the dog. (He actually explains this on BU DVD release). You know explaining this is like explaining people who never seen a horror movie that people don't actually die in them, that they are just actors under FX and makeup.

And yes, that scene was quite horrific (I actually hate any of dog-violence in movies, because I absolutely love dogs and owned them all my life), but that was the whole point. It's a horror movie, horror movies are suppose to be horrific.

And that scene showed that: Andy is no longer the same guy. No one is safe. Also that scene makes father realize there's something seriously wrong with Andy, and it's not just trauma from Vietnam.

reply

[–] cdjunkee-1 7 years ago

For years Alan (aka Andy) felt terrible for making his Son cry for that scene. Effective and horrifying.

reply