for any of the characters in the movie. What could have been a really-good movie generating some empathy for the family from the audience, was completely destroyed by this gratuitous scene. What could ever have posessed the screenwriters to put something like this in the script? This callous act/scene should have been cut from the final film.
shareI agree - totally unnecessary.
shareI have to watch this film now and come back and blast the hell out of you if your crying cause this family leaves a damn dog behind while on the run. LOL
Wayne Enterprises buys and sells companies like Stark Industries
Yes, because people only do good things and movies should reflect that. ;)
____________________________
http://thrill-me.blogspot.com
Actually, it's completely necessary...in fact, essential.
It's supposed to illustrate the situation, and foreshadow a time when they might have to do the same thing to one of their own children. It's a horrifying thing, yes, but that's the life they lead.
As you saw from the end, it was for the sake of the dog, not their own.
I just saw this movie for the first time in my life, and I'll tell you, it's going to stay with me for awhile. This is one of the best movies I have ever seen.
Actually, it's completely necessary...in fact, essential.
It's supposed to illustrate the situation, and foreshadow a time when they might have to do the same thing to one of their own children. It's a horrifying thing, yes, but that's the life they lead.
As you saw from the end, it was for the sake of the dog, not their own.
by - JazzMan599 on Fri Dec 24 2010 22:49:52
I don't mind that they left the dog, but they should have at least left him in a field or a park. Some place with less traffic. That poor dog probably got hit by a car being left in such a busy place.
shareBecause dogs are helpless and depend on their owners to take care of them. So it's sad when they get killed or left behind. Also the only reason we should feel worse about people dying is because we should care about our fellow species. But there is nothing special about us. The universe and Earth weren't created for us and we don't have "souls." That's all nonsense.
shareNo they're not. They take care of themselves just fine, therein lies the problem. Abandoned dogs pack up, become aggressive and prey on wildlife and farm animals. They also menace people.
They then have to be dealt with by solution 308.
nilbog44 wrote:
Because dogs are helpless and depend on their owners to take care of them. So it's sad when they get killed or left behind. Also the only reason we should feel worse about people dying is because we should care about our fellow species. But there is nothing special about us. The universe and Earth weren't created for us and we don't have "souls." That's all nonsense.
Also the only reason we should feel worse about people dying is because we should care about our fellow species
This is the thousandth time I've said this, but since when oh when does anyone ever complaining about the treatment of animals (real or fictional) ever ever ever EVER say 'IT"S GOOD TO BE CRUEL TO PEOPLE???? That my friend is what is skewed.
shareAbsolutely agree with this - it's really stupid and ignorant when, in a discussion about mistreatment of animals, some doofus shows up in order to point fingers about the lack of posts decrying cruelty towards whichever people they have in mind while, of course, having absolutely no idea what the posters have opined elsewhere on other topics. Ultimately, what such posts amount to, is an encouragement to continuously overlook the issue of animal welfare (and yes, in certain capacities, animals - abandoned or mistreated domestic animals in particular - do indeed need more protection because unlike humans, they cannot speak or fend for themselves).
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
violentauntie wrote:
This is the thousandth time I've said this, but since when oh when does anyone ever complaining about the treatment of animals (real or fictional) ever ever ever EVER say 'IT"S GOOD TO BE CRUEL TO PEOPLE???? That my friend is what is skewed.
As you saw from the end, it was for the sake of the dog, not their own.
Was the dog going to be killed by the FBI because he was the pet of some aging terrorists?
I agree that it foreshadowed the dumping of the kid, but thought it indicated the callousness of their thinking, and not for any noble feelings for their pet. I thought it was particularly poignant that the dog was first shown loyally carrying out a warning message to its owners, only to be abandoned when it was convenient for them to be rid of it.
Exactly the dog was loyal and then they abandoned it. I really did not quite understand why they felt that was necessary.
That was all rather thrilling. Anything more cinematographic could scarcely be imagined.
I agree, it was sad. That poor loyal creature wouldn't have understood why. The father may have felt that it would have been one more thing to worry about taking care of and it may bark if they needed to be quiet. I believe it was just another one of the father's attempts to teach that they had to sacrifice. He liked playing the part of the hero on the run.
"It may bark if they needed to be quiet"...and yet when they were staying in that motel, the little kid was reading out loud about what his parents had done. I was surprised no one told him to pipe it down if they were so paranoid about being caught. Motels have shared walls/floors/ceilings.
shareLike i said in the other post, I love this film but hated this scene. It did ruin it a bit for me!
“TONG PO RAPED ME!”
Look, there goes Elvis!
You are easily distracted.
If you had done such a thing (the bombing) in your youth and were still running, how serious would the situation have to be to force you do a thing like this?
It is so desperate that it is necessary to show such a scene so that you get it and the story can go forward. Five minutes later, the father finds out his mother had died weeks ago of cancer. This is their life.
They deliberately drove to a more populated area to make sure the dog was found by someone. It's idiots from the city who drive out to middle of nowhere and dump their pets by the roadside. If some poor farmer doesn't take them in, they are doomed.
Every time I have seen this film I have been very moved by it. I went looking for it this week when I heard Sidney Lumet had died. When they ticked off his filmography, this is the one that made me pause and reflect.
As soon as that haunting guitar/piano waltz floated over the opening credits, tears welled up in my eyes. I don't believe that the couple abandoned their son. I think they finally grew up and gave him back to the world. They could never make amends for the acts of reckless youth, but they could give this boy what they had deprived him of all his life. The irony of the two young people's characters yearned from across the fence at their lives, one envying what she perceived as a freedom of spirit, the other longing for the secure stability and reliabilty of a life his girlfriend saw as confining, but for him was like a long and loving embrace.
The son surpassed his father's maturity level and was brave enough to leave this terrifying 'devil he knew'. The father, on the other hand, mourns for his mother the activist and says that now there is nothing to go back for, completely forgetting what his wife gave up for him and left behind when she cast her lot with him.
So many lessons for all the generations portrayed; the children, the parents, the grandparents, all having to learn a different way to show their love.
Bravo, River, bravo, Tony Mottola and bravo Mr. Lumet.
A truly fine film.
I didn't like the scene either, but if you pay attention to the following scene there's a reference to the dog being mentioned in a newspaper, presumably saved and available for adoption.
shareI agree that dumping the dog was an uncomfortable scene, but showed the family's situaiton.
shareI didn't like the scene either, but if you pay attention to the following scene there's a reference to the dog being mentioned in a newspaper, presumably saved and available for adoption.
Such a beautiful post, Marteenuz. Thank you. I have been waiting for this movie to come on TV so my husband can see it. It's one of my very favorites, too. It deserves to be better-known.
shareI understand the point of the scene, what it was supposed to illustrate and all, but on a rational, practical level it simply doesn´t make sense - I mean, how come the dog suddenly became such a liability that it had to be abandoned? What´s the deal here? Why couldn´t they take the poor bastard with them? In fact, it woulda made more sense to ditch the kids instead since it certainly musta been a far greater financial burden to have those two tag along. Looks like an example of clumsy writing to me - snd one that makes the folks look like complete as-holes.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
The dog's name could have been changed too. They didn't drop or pick up another kid. I doubt the dog just being there would have alerted the FBI. There were probably people in the FBI that thought pets come and go. They were looking for a family of four. They could have also picked up a cat along the way and then thrown them off that way if needed.
The dog wasn't a prop but a pet to the younger boy. The parents took so much from him that having at least one permanent friend would have been nice.
It was just another way for the father to be shown as dominant, selfish, and radical. The father enjoyed playing the martyr for the cause, his cause, and making the others accept that they must make sacrifices, his choices of sacrifices.
[deleted]
Of course the kids couldn't be in pictures and on display in crowds because that is part of playing the game. The father saw himself as a martyr and enjoyed it. The wife and kids paid the price. It wasn't about lacking logic but being selfish to make his family continue to live like that.
It was a practice board and not a keyboard. The mother seemed to have been the one to encourage that. The father would have been happy if the kids followed him. If it had been a keyboard and the father had to hear it then it probably would had been left long before.
Nothing seemed to change much each time they moved except for their names. The boys' hair did get a little lighter. I thought it was silly that the parents looked the same. They should have had the mother dye and cut her hair and wear make-up so she could make changes. The father could have done his thing with facial hair and maybe even hair pieces.
I believe the dog was picked up during that particular identity or the kid would have put up even more of a fight. The boys expected to get to keep her or they could have left her home or tied her to a neighbor's porch or something. I had mentioned in a previous post that they may have been worried about another mouth to feed or the dog barking while they needed to be quiet but they had a network ready to move them on to the next place.
The concept of this movie was so similar to "Mosquito Coast".
The father was an anti "fat-cat" guy that never outgrew his old ways. He acted like her parents were evil because they were fortunate to live well and cared about their daughter. The mom was right that they should have left Danny with her parents and never have had Harry. They though could have sent Harry to also live with her parents after he was born. Though then there wouldn't have been a movie.
I wanted to add that I liked the Mosquito Coast father better than this Judd Hirsch one.
It seemed HF's character was coming from a place of concern and had a touch of mental illness but JH's seemed to not want to grow up and enjoy playing the martyr.
An innocent man was hurt. The janitor was just making a living and wasn't involved in anything governmental. He had every right to be on the job, maybe earning needed overtime pay. Instead of "he wasn't supposed to be there", they parents should have taken responsibility or at least denounced their actions as more than a mistake in a bigger mission.
He also seemed okay with Danny playing baseball. Other parents sometimes take photos and/or videos of games.
Women sometimes follow their men into situations they know are wrong but mothers should first do by their children.