MovieChat Forums > Year of the Dog (2007) Discussion > For those who Don't 'Get' This Movie

For those who Don't 'Get' This Movie

posted 18 years ago by jessie142
55 replies | jump to latest

Here's someone who does.

http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A234664

just a quote

"As the film unfolds, Pencil's death taps into a core of outrage inside Peggy, a fatigue at her interests being pushed to life's margins as a single, childless woman of a certain age expected not to make unnecessary demands on people's time and attention.

It is from this exasperation that Mike White charts Peggy's transformation into a pit bull, demanding respect and attention for her needs and interests. Pencil's death reveals other deaths to Peggy: the casual and wanton destruction of dogs at the animal shelter, the medical lab, the factory and grocery store. Some have fixated on how Peggy becomes a vegan as if Year of the Dog were some shrill PETA political tract. But animals' rights and a vegan lifestyle can be interpreted to some extent as the agent of Peggy's self-actualization. What she principally discovers are the limits to society's kindness and its facade of normalcy. There is killing going on beneath the scrim of reality, and Peggy begins to equate society's casual disregard for the lives of animals with that of her own life."

[–] rootleafdinner 16 years ago

I stumbled across this movie around 2am on TMC. I didnt think I would be interested but followed thru the whole movie. I enjoyed it, and was really impressed with Molly Shannons acting beyond the comedy you normally see her in. Made me see her as a good actress rather than a comedian.

[–] sabar-1 16 years ago

I realize this original post is two years old, but I just saw this movie not long ago on cable.

This post is excellent. I agree that a lot of viewers missed out.

The thing that jumped out at me was how the movie pointed out that society devalues someone for being single and/or childless. The character's realization that her feelings, thoughts, and actions matter as much as anyone's is classic.

I discovered this fact myself. While married, I was respected more. Once divorced, with no children, I suddenly faded into the background. I had to leave a decade-old job because I was routinely denied holidays and other days off because I didn't "have a family". (Excuse me, but one's parents and siblings still comprise a family). Choosing to be married and have children should not automatically elevate one co-worker over another. For those who think workplaces are unfair to mothers - think again. Nowadays, it's the opposite.

But the point is not about women in the workplace. It's about how the life of little Pencil - whose life would mean nothing to many in our "advanced" society - transformed and empowered the person who loved him.

Rachel

[–] crooow-2 16 years ago

It's funny what all the different people see in this movie. The misleading cover materials ("A comedy about the search for love") led us to watch it and of course it was nothing like the romantic comedy we were expecting. My wife (a big dog lover) hated it. I thought that Molly Shannon did an excellent job. I took it as a cautionary tale. The main character is unable to form any real relationships with people (although she desperately wants to) and loses herself in her love for her pet. After all, her relationship with her pet is simple - unconditional love and no messy dealing with another's wants. When her pet dies, she becomes even more lost and stumbles through a number of failed attempts at replacement. She gets her new dog but has no concept of what it really takes to deal with it. She never gets over the first dog and immerses herself in getting 'revenge' on everyone who took it away or downplayed its significance. She decides to become a vegan just to impress a guy and then overreacts when he isn't "the one". She ends up stealing, attempting murder, and betraying her brother's trust. She doesn't hesitate to shove her propaganda at everyone she knows. By the end she is truly an outcast who has "gone off the deep end". For all those who see her as a hero, I think you all have missed the point of the movie. It's not about the dogs or even love of the animals. It's about the disintegration of a person who may or may not find answers in her 'final' choice.

[–] crooow-2 16 years ago

I forgot to add one point. A key scene for me in the film is when the lead character uses her friend's boyfriend's infidelity to blackmail him into adopting a dog. She doesn't care that her friend is being cheated on; all she cares is that she can find homes for all the dogs. It has become a monomania for her to the point of being an abnormality.

[–] sabar-1 16 years ago

I didn't feel that harshly about it. I took it more as a person struggling to deal with various issues, not the least of which was her marginalization by others. Also, I feel it would have been better if they had tapped more into the issue of grief. I felt it would have been an explanation for her overreactions. Grief for a pet can be real and deep.

Rachel

[–] DianaColorsOfTheWind 16 years ago

I loved this movie and I can't understand how anybody can dislike it.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] artistoartist 15 years ago

Just re watched it and read this thread (among others) and it is sad to me how many people are blind to the nuances from all the characters and pigeonhole any of them, depending on the POV of the viewer, into as crazy/cruel/stupid.

Then, that poster grandstands that's whats wrong with (pick your choice) hunters, Peta, single women, women looking to pair up,corporate minded career people, animal rescue people, traditional nuclear families, vegans, whatever group you can name. Every character had his/her foolish side. Each and every one had redeeming qualities and were capable of love.

It reflects all their faults with sadness, compassion and sometimes gentle humor. It is a movie with much empathy for humans and animals, and recognizes suffering. It also acknowledges the emotional myopia we can have about other's realities.

BTW, I think the OP's movie review quote was pretty right on.

http://www.gigglebounce.com/conan/altar/rrr.wav

[–] dump123456789 15 years ago

Here's a way to figure out if you get this movie.

Imagine, instead of Peggy joining an animal rights crusade, she had joined an anti-abortion crusade, adopted sixteen orphans simultaneously, embezzled her employer's money and blackmailed her friend's fiancee to support it, taken her niece to see The Silent Scream, vandalized the car of her sister-in-law who works at Planned Parenthood, tried to kill a doctor who provides abortions etc. If this would have resulted in a change in your opinion of this film in either direction, from hate to love, or from love to hate, then you don't get this movie.

This was a movie about one person experiencing a huge loss, not being allowed to grieve properly, and the damage it did to her. It actually reminded me of an episode of King Of The Hill, in which Luanne is dumped by her boyfriend, and Hank refuses to allow her to grieve just because he's uncomfortable with her crying. As a result of his inappropriate meddling, she winds up in the arms of Boomhauser (the local slut), which Hank realizes is a much worse outcome. Of course, what happens to Peggy in this film is more significant and more serious, but it's along the same lines.

[–] rahm 15 years ago

Ok, if I substitute her animal rights crusade for an anti abortion crusade, and assume all of the above in your theoretical example is true, it results in absolutely zero change of my opinion of this movie, which I hated.

I should qualify that I am pro choice and love dogs so much, (and animals as a whole, though not to the same extent) that my wife complains that I sometimes appear to love dogs more than her, based on how I react when I come into contact with one.

That being said, I have a problem with this movie for 2 reasons:

1) the trailer is completely misleading, and connotates a light, cute, romantic comedy with dogs thrown in for extra cuteness/comedy. There's nothing worse than going to a movie in a mindset expecting a certain genre based on reviews and trailers, and finding out it's something completely different, and that (deliberately) poor communication by the director in making the trailer led to this, almost as if he had to make us think it was a romacntic comedy to get us in to see it, because the truth wouldn't sell as much, and he needed it to be a success for his pet (no pun intended)cause.

Don't take my word for it, watch it and decide for yourself. But be honest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJdi8r4Mu3s

2) the woman committed a long list of crimes, and the film doesn't seem to give the message that it's wrong to do so (regardless of the cause or her motives). That send a BAD message to people who are im pressionable and believe what they see in ther movies. A very irresponsible thing for Mike White to do.

BTW, I saw this in a sneak preview in Bethesda, MD with Mike White present, and more than one person came away with the same thoughts I've just described, and he was evasive when confronted with this. Draw your own conclusions.

[–] sabar-1 15 years ago

I agree with you to a certain extent. You listed the movie's two biggest faults: It was presented as a comedy. (I posted in another thread that I nearly lost it when Pencil died - my own beagle/basset had died recently and I had no idea it would happen in the movie). The second is that her actions were overboard.

But don't most movies do the second thing? Look how many male bonding (for lack of a better term) movies depict outrageous acts that would normally get people hurt and land jail sentences. Instead, everyone laughs at the antics.

Rachel