SPOILER re: pets

I think the pets had a lot to do with the movie. Thanks for starting this thread.

I wonder if Anne's situation was meant to be compared to that of the pets. (She's the only one with a pet-name/nick name: Glorious.) Are pets "part of the family"?? Or are they just pets? Was Anne ever truly "part of the family", or did they think of her as being as expendable as the cats? Anne decides it's better to let her cats run off into the woods, rather than have them killed. That's the same as when her mother decides it's better for her to run off then to "be killed" by being starved to death while locked in a room.

I think showing the rooms full of dead pets, and then Anne's boyfriend in there with them, shows how the aristocracy of the time viewed the common citizenry. It also kind of parallels how Hitler viewed the Jews/Catholics/gypsys and how similar the English aristocracy's views seem to be to Hitler's.

Summer 39 in England was a time of incredible pressure on the public, with the paralyzing fear of Hitler's later promise of invasion on the horizon, and events in Europe fueling the horrible thought of the destruction from War I. Desperate to avoid war, many of the political and aristocratic folks thought they would rather make a deal with Hitler that have the country suffer another war.

The 3 factual elements that the G39 story draws on are the appeasement movement, the evacuation of London, and the related (humanitarian?)putting down of family pets. By the end of Anne's imprisonment by the 'family', it became clear that she was only allowed to live, because she was her adopted father's 'pet'. He could not 'put her down' like so many other Londoners had done with their cats and dogs.

A riveting and disturbing look at an incredible time in world history. Had Winston Churchill not succeeded, and King George not made the King's Speech, Americans might ALL be speaking German now.

Those scenes were really horrible. I can't believe she walked through there, the smell must have been horrible! That really creeped me out, I had to look away.

We recently took in a dog that had been let go in the woods. He tottered into our yard, looking like one of those ASPCA ads, horribly starved, every bone showing. Believe me, dogs and cats that are "set free" have a hard time finding something to eat. It's more humane to have them euthanized than have them starve to death, or eaten by coyotes.

I could not handle the pets being put down at all! I kept thinking of my own and it broke my heart. I think it really showed how family's are supposed to love their pets as if it is a member of their family. However, in this film, the pets clearly aren't loved enough to be kept alive and taken care of. So, in turn, this metaphor is used to describe Anne as the adopted child--supposed to be loved and apart of the family, but truly isn't in the end.

Also, at the 'party', the French girl sang a song about looking high and low for a lost cat.

Quand le doigt montre le ciel, l'imbécile regarde le doigt.

Posted this as a new topic, but perhaps it fits better here as it pertains to the pets.

The scene where Anne is walking through the veterinary building totally creeped me out! I almost cried at all those pets.

Can anyone tell me why all the people were euthanizing their pets just before the War? I know that the children really were evacuated from London during this time, but I don’t recall ever reading or hearing about a mandate forcing the people to euthanize their pets? Did this really happen or was it just a convention for the film? (As Anne’s subsequent release of the cats foreshadowed her own imprisonment and release).

I really enjoyed this film by the way and I’m glad to have caught it on Showtime recently. Yes, it could be a little slow, especially with a heroine who was a bit slow on the uptick. I don’t know, I guess I liked it anyway because of the way it harkened back to classic spy thriller films of the 30’s and 40’s.