MovieChat Forums > A Boy and His Dog (1975) Discussion > How is it different?

How is it different?

posted 11 years ago by smoogster
5 replies | jump to latest

From Wikipedia:
'The novella ends with Vic remembering her question as Blood eats: "Do you know what love is?" and he concludes, "Sure I know. A boy loves his dog."
In the film, Blood states "Well, I'd certainly say she had marvelous judgment, Albert, if not particularly good taste."

... Ellison criticized the film's "moronic, hateful chauvinist last line, which I despise.'

How is the last line of the film any different to what Ellison wrote? How is it any more moronic, hateful or chauvinistic really?
Is this just another case of Ellison hating anything and everything around him (something he's quite (in)famous for)? Or is there some subtlety I'm missing out on. True Ellison's last line is slightly nicer in that it implies Vic did it just to save Blood whereas the film's line turns it into a terrible pun. But this is post-apocalyptic: you find humour where you can and it's not like Blood's gonna care about what he eats; certainly not have qualms about eating a completely different species.
Anyone can see what Ellison is complaining about?

On another note, I can't quite see how the story is misogynistic. If anything, one could argue it's misandristic. The story essentially says that if civilisation collapses, men will lose all trace of humanity and civilised behaviour and revert to animalistic primitive behaviour where rape and torture is the norm. Even the most primitive of societies - heck even ape societies - don't act this way, so why would we?
This movie basically says that if there was a nuclear war tomorrow, by the day after I would be raping my next-door neighbours 12 year old daughter and either use my wife as bait to lure men in to kill, or as payment for goods. That's a nice elevated view of mankind there. And this is derogatory to WOman?
Thankfully I'm intelligent enough to realise that this is, at best, a satire on society as Ellison saw at the time he wrote it. Shame others can't see that.

[–] BRKSpeed 11 years ago

My take on Ellison's criticism of the film's ending line is that they turned it into a joke (and as you pointed out a particularly bad one). The film reduces the entire twist ending into a campy one-liner. It is not particularly inspired or thought-provoking as it is meant to be shocking.

Whereas in the novel the line (A boy loves hid dog) is certainly dark, but not necessarily cynical. He is reflecting on what he was asked earlier ("Do you know what love is?") and answers it in an apparently honest way. There is shock-value, but you also consider Vic's libidinal desires differently as he decides raiding for sex and sticking with blood is preferable to sticking with Quilla June and sacrificing Blood. The last line in the film makes a contemptuous mockery out of this choice, whereas the novel treats it more sincerely.

At least that's my perception of the difference. I don't like the film's ending either and so I may have imparted my own criticism for that of Ellison.

[–] smoogster 11 years ago

Very good point, though really it only explains away the film's line as moronic (which I agree with you & Harlan there). I still don't really see it's any more chauvinistic than the novel.

[–] mrannah 10 years ago

actually the bigger reason Ellison hated the ending was that it implied that Vic had eaten some of the meat from her body as well. In the story Vic killed Quilla June Holmes and fed some of her meat to Blood to save the dog's life, he saw that in his world Blood was more worthy than Quilla, and more necessary. However, it had consequences.

Harlan Ellison wrote a sequel to the story, part two of what he oped would eventually form a novel, changing the point of view to Blood as the narrator, in which it is clear that Vic is traumatized by having killed Quilla, and he gradually withdraws into a nearly catatonic state. I won't go further into it, and the third part was never released that i was able to determine.

Turning the death of the girl into a joke and having Vic join in the eating were parts of the whole issue that Harlan had, and has, problems with.

[–] ridge-m-1 10 years ago

The quote you are referring to is from Blood "Well, I'd certainly say she had marvelous judgment, Albert, if not particularly good taste." In the parlance of humor it is known as a pun.

Read the sentence. In no way can it be construed that Vic partook of Quilla's body.

Ellison, of course still prefers his own last line of the novella. As Blood eats, Vic ponders a question Quilla asked him. "Do you know what love is?" Vic asks himself. He then answers: "Sure I know. A boy loves his dog."

Ellison's line of course is more true to the central story line but apparently L.Q. couldn't resist one last joke and prefers his own ending line to this day.

From a recent interview with Ellison.....

"The Dissolve: With the film coming about again for a new audience, do you have any thoughts or theories about how differently it will play now than it did back then?

Ellison: That’s one thing I have absolutely no worries about. Years would go by between the time I first saw it and the next time I saw it on a big screen. They had it here in Hollywood at the Egyptian Theater last year, where they premièred the new, clean Blu-ray version onscreen, and it was standing room only. And I sat there and I said, “This is a goddamn terrific movie.” It is a movie that reflects its times, and yet speaks to current intelligence. So I have absolutely no fear about how well this film will do, and how much people will love it. I think it’s an all-time film."

[–] sonofbeach-sheet 9 years ago

The way it differs greatly from the book is the down under part. In the book, the folks from down under are a very clueless, God-fearing people wanting a better world for their citizens and lured Vic down to help repopulate and have shown him some respect and mercy despite his hard exterior from living in such a harsh environment, whereas in the movie the down under is a totalitarian, dictatorial society that executes people that don't comply with the commands of the powers that be 100% and use Vic to milk him for his semen and execute him afterwards.

Also, the reason the men had a hard time repopulating the species downunder in the book was because they lived in such a clean, pristine environment and they couldn't get it up and make babies with balls instead of slots, whereas in the movie, it's just the underground living sterilized them.