MovieChat Forums > White Dog (1982) Discussion > I couldn't take it seriously

I couldn't take it seriously


We had to watch this in a classroom. The classroom is very diverse. I, myself, am African-American. Now, while watching the film there were many laughs. We kinda all agreed that the movie was bad. The first 20 minutes seemed to be going well, but as soon as we saw the dog come back in blood and the lady hugging we were all thrown off.

If my dog came back in blood. I'd be concern. Not oh my god my dog I love you let's bathe.

Now when she goes to find help she goes to the wrong place (lady and the lion). Weird Editing here:
The lady walks to front and "daisy dukes" (or what I imagined 70 year old Jessica Simpson) appears. First "daisy-dukes" speaks while she's then it cuts to lady speaking then suddenly "daisy dukes" is sitting next to a lion. ????? That was fast if she actually did that. It was just weird.

The Santa Clause figure - Oh my goodness. He was by far the most awkward person in every scene. For example:

ZOOM ECU: ....It's an attack dog" HAHAHAHA of all things to say. Like he's a mind reader. Not he has rabies, untrained or anything just BAM right there. SOOO Cliche. I couldn't help thinking of him as Santa Clause.

Cleveland Brown character, known as Keys, did a good job. But we all laughed at the scene when he screamed "The dog killed a Black man!...In a Church" ZOOM ECU at the unemotional face of the lady.
First of all, of all things the Black man would run to (I don't if I'm being racist but) he would run to a church. Not a store or a house or a bank BUT a church. Now let's jump back to the scene where Keys got the dog back. You see the main lady arguing with Keys. And there's Santa on the right hand side of the screen. Everyone in the room is like "Why is he there" No lines. Santa is just standing there looking at them conversing like he's the "third-wheel."

Now, when we meet the owner at the end. He brings chocolates. One of the classmates screamed, "I bet they're all white chocolates" We lost it. When she starts screaming at him. I see the door is left open, which throws me off. "Okay you're threatening him and your leaving...by the way you left your door open." It reminded me a husband leaving his wife after a fight and slams the door and five minutes later the husband forgot his keys.

The finale: The dog running to each person like a mad dog then suddenly he's calm was weird. It just didn't work. "Fuller was playing with my heart" a peer said.


And Finally:

"You should have spanked him!" What what?

Intellectually, I understood the dog not only resembled the scary view of how to lead an innocent one into hatred. More, importantly, the dog could resemble an everyday child. And gives ourselves a look of how corrupted we were to our own children back then.

I'm sorry though, the majority in the classroom, including myself, couldn't take it seriously.

reply

[deleted]

I saw it in a Greenwich Village movie theater, full of serious film buffs (most of them white). The reaction was similar--and I've seen that reaction to other Sam Fuller movies at the same theater. He's so revered in cinephile circles, and there are reasons for that, but his dialogue can be so corny, and his visual style can be too overstated. You have to be in a certain frame of mind to get into it. I've absolutely loved some of his films, and I've gotten something out of most of them, but he's often wildly overrated by certain people who WANT him to be a great filmmaker so much that they overlook his glaring flaws. He became kind of a guru to certain types of independent filmmakers, even though he was a straight Hollywood director for nearly his entire career, and certainly for the part of his career worth remembering.

This film in particular is overrated--as a film, and certainly as an anti-racist statement. As such, it might have been powerful in the 1950's or 60's, but in 1980 it was just not effective--and yeah, it can even be insulting, if not intentionally so. But mainly it's just kind of goofy.

Try reading the book by Romain Gary sometime--same basic premise, entirely different story and setting, and Gary was an amazing writer. Be interested to know what you thought.

reply

Show some respect to your elders, young man! Paul Winfield was a damn great actor.

Just not in this movie so much.

reply

I saw it in a Greenwich Village movie theater, full of serious film buffs (most of them white). The reaction was similar--and I've seen that reaction to other Sam Fuller movies at the same theater. He's so revered in cinephile circles, and there are reasons for that, but his dialogue can be so corny, and his visual style can be too overstated. You have to be in a certain frame of mind to get into it. I've absolutely loved some of his films, and I've gotten something out of most of them, but he's often wildly overrated by certain people who WANT him to be a great filmmaker so much that they overlook his glaring flaws. He became kind of a guru to certain types of independent filmmakers, even though he was a straight Hollywood director for nearly his entire career, and certainly for the part of his career worth remembering.


I saw this on Netflix stream first time yesterday. It was (imo) hokey and a little overwrought. Most of Samuel Fuller's movie strike me that way.

I watched Tigrero: A Film That Was Never Made http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111430/ a while back and had a chance to see what amounted to a fairly extended interview session with Fuller, at least he did a lot of talking. What struck me was how animated he became when recalling the pitches he'd make for stories - that seemed to be where much of his passion lay. Of all people he reminded me of Marvel's Stan Lee. Someone who ended every sentence with an exclamation mark! Someone who, if he were around today browsing the net, would bookmark every Weird News site he came upon!

He's an interesting director, but his taste for tabloid sensationalism (See the Dog Trained to Kill Black People! The Medical Jungle Doctors Don't Talk About! Candy's place - where all kinds of men find all kinds of sweets!) wears thin after a while.

reply

Very belatedly responding--tabloid sensationalism is exactly what you'd expect from a guy who learned how to write working for real tabloids. 

reply

while watching the film there were many laughs


Yeah, right, it was a barrel of laughs from start to finish.

reply

[deleted]

Do you need to take a movie seriously to enjoy it? Some of my favorite movies I don't take seriously at all.

reply