"Also, the scene with the cute dog being cruelly killed was unnecessary."
Well, it's their movie, so by default I kinda choose to believe that it's their choice as to what was necessary to tell their story, or not.
But even past that, we can still certainly explore whether the dog murder (canicide?) served the story or not. In this case, it went to show that the mom's dementia/craze had indeed turned violent. She was no longer simply imagining things, but also putting them into horrible, deadly action. It was not all in her mind--some of it was in fact in her very hands.
And that's a kind of horror. What evil regular people do can be very horrible.
"Why is it whenever you see a dog in one of these films they end up dead?"
First off, I would point out that a quick google search shows that your contention is untrue. Dogs don't always die in horror movies, family-oriented or otherwise.
<http://horrorfreaknews.com/best-horror-movies-animal-lovers>;
That being said, I would guess that pooches do bite the dust so often in horror flicks precisely because the moviemakers know that a great deal of us moviegoers love our furry friends very much, so placing animals in peril really stands to affect us emotionally. Make the dog particularly cute (like this Westie), funny, or clever, and you further intensify the dread that accompanies the appearance of danger. The dog scene in the book, as well as the protracted dog scene late in the film, both had me cringing personally.
I volunteer in canine search and rescue, so I'm most certainly a dog-lover. I was particularly on edge once I saw the dog scene in the book, and every time I saw the dog on film afterward. He was being presented as the first victim in this ordeal, and I was fearfully anticipating his demise.
And that's a kind of horror. It's a very effective one.
That you came here protesting it goes to show that you, yourself, were deeply affected by it--even offended by it.
What I don't understand is how you don't see the effectiveness of the horror SPECIFICALLY for a dog-lover in this situation. So IMO, the truth actually leads 180 degrees from your main assertion.
reply
share
Mikel3
8 years ago
Texasbeast, first it's refreshing that you didn't simply insult me like so many others have because I DARED warn other dog/cat/pet lovers who might feel like I do about the scene in this film. I now just ignore those posts that are a waste of time to respond to. In the cases of particularly rude and mean-spirited ones I no longer respond and add them to my blocked list so I don't read their nonsense in the future somewhere else on the IMDB. Those people through their insulting words reveal the type that enjoy, or don't mind, seeing pets killed in a movie. You took the time to express your point of view in a reasonable and polite way without resorting to personal insults and cursing. I stand behind the spirit of all I said in the warning of my original post, it was meant as a warning for others who feel like I do about dogs and other innocent pets being killed in movies for shock value. The readers who don't care one way or the other should just ignore my warning and move on. The warning was not meant for them, that's clear in the title of my post. I fully admit that it bothers me more when a beloved family pet gets killed in a film more than when a human does. Make of that what you will. Perhaps I know that it's fiction in the case of a human beings killed in a film and part of me wonders if they may really have actually killed the animal to be more realistic and save money...maybe they don't fake it. No, I don't trust messages at the end that say "no animals were harmed in the making of this motion picture" or that they will follow the humane laws. Animals lives are disposable to many people who would rather save money than animals lives. Or perhaps the animal used was not killed yet traumatized in the scene, since perhaps they don't realize it's all make-believe and they won't be really harmed by the actor pretending to strangle them. Maybe a fake dog was used, maybe not. I'd also like to point out that in this particular story, no human was killed, only the dog. Now someone will write "well how do you know that aren't really killing people in these films too"...which of course would be MUCH harder to get away with.
Besides all this, even if no one dog or human was harmed, I still thought the over all story was a waste of my time with a silly ending.
You quoted me as writing ""Why is it whenever you see a dog in one of these films they end up dead?" Perhaps I should have said "often" not "whenever". I have seen some horror films where the cute family dog or other pet does survive, yet they are rare films IMO.
Thank you for the volunteer work you do in canine search and rescue. Please keep up the good work.
Best wishes,
reply
share
Whatlarks
8 years ago
perhaps the animal used was not killed yet traumatized in the scene
The killing was off-screen, relying on sound FX and a sustained close-up of Amelia's face.
There are two brief shots of "the dog." One is a tight framing as its hindquarters draw up, in the usual way a small dog does when picked up. Take away the sound FX and it's completely normal. The other shot is when she drops it to the floor, dead, and of course it's a mock-up.
Similarly the Coens use a mock-up when Moss shoots the attack dog on the bank of the river in No Country For Old Men.
Edited to add, Jennifer Kent:
"Look, I'm a vegan; I'm a pacifist -- I won't kill a cockroach. So I was shocked when we put the final cut together and we had everything there in that moment, because it really hit me. But it wasn't gratuitous to me. I wasn't interested in gratuitous violence. What I was trying to say was that she couldn't connect with her child, but she could connect with that dog. And if she can kill that one thing that she connected to? My God, what is she going to do to that child? That was about creating an environment of terror, at that point in the film. She means business, and she's going to do what she says she's going to do. Also, she's going to do what the book says she's going to do. And we know what comes next in those pages of the book."
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
reply
share