MovieChat Forums > Year of the Dog (2007) Discussion > morally bankrupt

morally bankrupt

posted 17 years ago by zamzamzam999
7 replies | jump to latest

This movie lacks a coherent moral center. She feels a void in her life, otherwise she wouldn't come on to the SPCA guy. People need people, and she clearly needs people. But the ending threw this away and stuck her with the animals alone. This is half of a life, not a full life.

Am I supposed to be shocked that she chose dogs over the people? I'm shocked as much by this as by the same audacity that claims that 2+2 is 5. Now there's a rejection of bourgeois sensibility!

A life that rejects people for animals is, by definition, not a good life.

Human peoples >> animals.

[–] mhsmocktrial 17 years ago

But at the end we see her surrounded by a bus full of people who share her interest and values. A group she clearly cares about, travels with, and works alongside. I don't think we're meant to think she abandoned people for animals. Rather, she was working in a setting that had no real humanitarian core under a boss who could only think of numbers and status. Her friends didn't understand her passions and even her own brother derides her new found ideals. We don't see her giving up on people to become a crazy cat lady, but she has joined like minded people to work to help other people understand her love for animals.

What were the old people in her life doing that was good for her anyway? They were completely disinterested in anything she had to offer that wasn't settling down and procreating; her brother doesn't even have her picture up because he's more interested in making her "normal" than happy. She doesn't abandon these people but finds a group that can understand her and make her fulfilled.

[–] MQTPenra79 17 years ago

mock, I agree with you. She didnt give up people for animals, but found a way to live with them both and do something that mattered to her and helped the animals. It was bad that her brother didnt put up her picture - thanks for mentioning that. Good point - I think everyone was trying to make her "normal" and in the end, she finally had enough of it!

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nxgn_not_not 17 years ago

ZZ999

"Human peoples >> animals"

Uh ... what?

maybe we need 2 look @ what consititues the werd

Good

Or not

But let me pontificate

Animals cause pollution
Animals start wars
Plants & animals somehow care what U think?

One of us needs a major major nap

Bidadoo Twelfths Billabong Mooch

[–] artistoartist 17 years ago

the posters above said, she found people she could relate to in the end.

About the picture, I was wondering if they did not post it simply because the dog died, and did not want to remind and upset Shannon's character more.
Her brother and wife were surprisingly compassionate to her in the end, not sticking to a cartoon like "like to dislike" sort of characters. It would have been easy for Laura Dern's character to maintain in all situations the unsympathetic self absorbed biatch from hell. That was pretty big for her character not to shut Shannon's character out after she went against Dern's overprotective shielding of her daughter, and the trashing of her furs. The hunter next door had no moral qualm about hunting, but honestly said the only right thing to her when Pencil first died....that he understood that connection to a dog, that he went through the same thing when his dog died, instead of trying to distract her from her pain.

When people really get angry at the movie because of viewpoints of Shannon's character, I don't think they are looking at the movie as a whole. It does state that reality of animal's lives and deaths and the choices we make for them in maintaining our lifestyles, but I don't think makes a definite moral conclusion for all of us to follow. It does presents the issue, which can be enough to make people defensive and angry. The movie also deals with idealism vs compromising to get on in the real world. Where do you stand, where do you compromise, where and when do you fight? Is compromising always wrong? Does fighting for your ideals to no end create more problems and pain in the big picture? When do you speak up, what battles do you pick?

[–] nxgn_not_not 17 years ago

U need 2 see "Attonement"

Just see it

Dunkirk
WoW
U wanna bring out some issues
I was moved

Servadoo Twelfths Billabong Mooch

[–] veganjackson 17 years ago

Quote: The hunter next door had no moral qualm about hunting, but honestly said the only right thing to her when Pencil first died....that he understood that connection to a dog, that he went through the same thing when his dog died, instead of trying to distract her from her pain.

That's what distressed her so much. That he could be so feeling about his pet animal, but so unfeeling about the animals he hunted. I think that poignantly highlights the hypocrisy in people's attitudes towards animals. (Plus that he was only being sympathetic 'cause he wanted to sleep with her!)

Quote: That was pretty big for her character not to shut Shannon's character out after she went against Dern's overprotective shielding of her daughter, and the trashing of her furs.

I think that she felt patronised by the attitude represented by her brother and his wife - that she had a problem that needed to be fixed. She came to a realisation that animals are not ours to use for our own ends, but have personalities and lives of their own. She didn't want to be fixed, she had become enlightened!