"Yes, but again, that's crap. It would not happen in reality. Dogs don't 'snap' just from being reconditioned."
It's a movie clyons!
There a "suspension of disbelief" needed...i'm not sure that "pure reality" was Fuller's intent (if so, he would have shown the police's investigation after the two murders, for example), his aim was more the metaphore, the fable, in my opinion.
"the training methods used in both the book and film are inhumane"
But that's also an interesting part of the story, don't you think?
There's an ambiguity, like in "A clockwork orange"...maybe the trainer is "as violent" as the dog's owner. The dog's owner used violence towards the dog and Keys in some ways uses violence too.
In the Kubrick movie Alex is violent but they use another kind of violence to recondition him...there's ambiguity, like in "White dog".
"How are we supposed to see this as a good man? He caused a black man's death, and then went right on doing what he was doing"
His character has an ambiguous side, for sure. Obssessed, maybe blinded, by his goal, like the dog.
"Sorry, but you can't talk endlessly about 'the filmmaker's intentions', without at least addressing the issue of whether he knew what he was talking about. He didn't."
Like for all the movies or books, it's just my feelings and thoughts, my point of view about a story:
I haven't read many Fuller's interviews about the film, but these are my feelings when i watch this film, like you have your own!
I just know that Gary was a friend of Fuller and that Fuller wasn't convinced by the novel's ending, or at least the ending of the first screenplay lifted from Gary's novel:
the trainer training the white dog to attack white people.
According to Fuller, Hollwyood was a bit afraid to adapt the novel because of the issue of the novel's/first screenplay's ending.