MovieChat Forums > Year of the Dog (2007) Discussion > Reason this is a dangerous movie

Reason this is a dangerous movie

posted 17 years ago by glebec
8 replies | jump to latest

This film sought to tell non-animal people that having animals at the center of your life is a valid choice - that that is a good and true thing.

The tragedy is that this character illustrated a small segment of the animal rights - welfare - rescue community. It depicted a woman who is tragically slipping into mental illness and made that seem normal and all right! That is horrible!

Most animal rescue people have solid relationships with people as well as love and rescue animals.

This woman was sliding into being an animal hoarder, which is a mental condition that leads to the biggest cause of animal cruelty and suffering in the country - because there are lots of animals involved and the neglect is ongoing and unrelenting. Every aspect of this character followed the criteria for identifying animal hoarders, as per the studies of the Hoarding Animals Research Consortium at Tufts.

Support those who love animals and rescue them and advocate for them. But help those who begin to act like this character. They are in trouble!

Some signs of a person in trouble:

Isolated from other people
Recently suffered a death or loss of a person
Usually women (but not always)
Usually "older" - over 45 years (but not always)
Has more animals than can reasonably care for
Physical appearance and home deteriorating in cleanliness and maintenance
Does not see - refuses to admit - being overwhelmed
Other irrational behavior

It was disturbing that she blamed the neighbor for Pencil's death. It was an accident. He did not set out to harm the dog. It was her responsibility to keep Pencil in her yard.

Help these people, don't encourage them!

[–] sossegado 17 years ago

"the biggest cause of animal cruelty and suffering in the country"

is factory farming, the dairy/veal industry and the egg industry.... not hoarding. hoarding is a terrible thing but it's not the biggest cause of cruelty.

[–] dsriddle_13 17 years ago

Yeah.. those damn farmers.. how dare they try to make a living by getting that tasty milk and cheese and eggs to the supermarket for breakfast..

You know what the difference between Bacon and Eggs..

for the pig it a life long dedicatiion, for the chicken, it's all in a days work.

[–] ManicMuse 17 years ago

I agree that people won't walk away from this movie wanting to emulate the character. The ending was strange because the main character's choice was not the one I wanted her to make. I wish she ended up having better relationships with people, but she didn't. I wish she was less extreme with her activism, but she was 200% at the end. The character changed her life in a way that makes most uncomfortable. That is part of what makes this such a strange flick, but not dangerous.

You know what the similarity is between Bacon and Eggs...

their both yummy

"WHO'S ON TOP & WHO'S ON BOTTOM NOW, huh?! WHO'S ON TOP & WHO'S ON BOTTOM NOW!"

[–] fireflyfanlaura 13 years ago

I wish she was less extreme with her activism, but she was 200% at the end.

This simply isn't true. Her 'stepping over the line' and/or being more 'extreme' happened before the end.....

She took on a brood of dogs......then took them back.
She drowned Laura Dern's collection of furs....and then is shown having remorse.
She takes the kids to that animal sanctuary....and is later shown to recognize that such actions are 'too much'.

She's not "200%" at the end ~ at that point, she's been shown to have gone 'over the edge' (in terms of causing damage to herself and/or others) and also been shown to recognize that.

Some people simply 'get' more out of their relationships with animals then they do from relationships with other people ~ 'sad'? perhaps. But not necessarily (wasn't it Mark Twain who said "The more I know about people, the better I like my dog"?)

Peggy at the end of the film is much more self-aware than she was earlier in the film ~ she's been shown to recognize and feel responsibility for the damage/negative effects she's caused up to that point. And, having done that, she decides to continue her work for animal rights/protection......but in a way that isn't personally damaging/preachy to those in her immediate/intimate circle....

Personally, I loved the fact that they didn't 'tie things up' nicely at the end ~ I loved that they didn't have Peggy finding 'mr right' and getting married or whatever.....the whole thing stayed true to her character while simultaneously showing some growth in her character.

Kudos to Mike White (and Molly Shannon) for all of this :)

[–] OtherBrotherDarryl 17 years ago

I almost lol'd when I saw the word "dangerous" in your post.

It hardly glorifies or endorses pet hoarding. Her character is quite sad, and one does not come away feeling any desire to emulate.

Your logic is flawed: people like her actually exist, and since they do harm to animals, nobody should make a movie about them that details how they become the way they are. Have you noticed The Godfather is #1 as an IMDb fav? Do you also denounce the whole mobster genre?

No animals were harmed in the making of this reply.

Harold & Kumar 2 (7.8/10)
Forgetting Sarah M. (8.2/10)
I see dead pixels.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] louster6 17 years ago

i loved this movie....

"imitate a cat puking..."

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]