MovieChat Forums > Hachi: A Dog's Tale (2010) Discussion > A few things that really bothered me...

A few things that really bothered me...

posted 11 years ago by paramitch
44 replies | jump to latest

I saw this over the weekend and once my tears dried, had to comment. (sniffle)

First off, let me just say that this is one of the saddest films I've ever seen (more on this in a moment). But on the good side, overall, It was a lovely, well-made movie, and everyone in it did a good job. I loved Gere's palpable warmth with Hachi (both puppy and grown-up versions), and especially loved Hallstrom's directing so much of it from the point of view of Hachi himself. I now realize that the Akita may be the cutest dog on the planet. Such a beautiful dog!

However, I had real problems with some of the writing choices in the movie, and just wanted to see if some of my issues were present for anyone else. Here goes:

1. The family's unrealistic almost immediate abandonment
Once Gere dies (in a very affecting and realistic moment), the way the family handles Hachi's life is really weirdly written and not entirely believable to me. It felt like a movie to me from that point on, if that makes sense.

The Mom instantly gives him to the daughter, who seems loving, but Hachi runs away once and she basically decides he "needs to be free." I'm sorry, but anyone who has ever had a pet knows that you don't just "lovingly" set them free (especially not the much-loved pet of the father she loved, abandoned to pursue their grief).

I get why the movie does this -- it's to make it seem okay that Hachi is choosing his own destiny, but it's such a waste, and incredibly sad. Wouldn't it have been better for the daughter to try to keep Hachi inside until he bonded with the family and had a chance for a good life with them? How is setting a beautiful much-loved dog free the responsible thing to do?

I just felt like this probably played better in the script, where the writers needed someone to nicely abandon Hachi so we could get to the famous train-station wait for his master. But to me there are other options since this is all a fictionalized version of the real Japanese tale. So why not be more humane and have the family struggle to keep Hachi? And to then stay in his life even after he moves to the train station to wait forever?

2. Hachi's tragic ultimate life and situation
Once Hachi has made his choice, there are still ways the scriptwriters could have involved the family in the story so they didn't look like such dog-abandoning jerks.

Why couldn't we have seen them visit Hachi at his station since it was evidently somewhat accessible? Why do the local shopkeepers seem kinder to Hachi than his former family? Why didn't the daughter at least bring the kid to visit Hachi, with toys and treats for him once in awhile? Why couldn't we have seen that they are at least monitoring the dog's living situation from afar?

It's all set aside though, so that we can see Joan Allen realize Hachi is still there... TEN YEARS LATER... in the big sad scene. I mean, yes, I was crying, but also, I wanted to throw things at her. She should have known where the damn dog was. There were articles about it in the paper, right? So for her to be so touched in that moment -- and then to evidently walk away and leave him there (alone again)... aghgh. I hated her for it.

My Mom died this past year. After her passing, we took care of her adored and much-loved kitty until she, too died unexpectedly this Fall -- both for the cat we loved, and because my Mom had adored her so much. Why doesn't anyone in this film look at Hachi the same way?

3. The "Hachi, my hero" crap
At first, I thought the opening with the boy saying, "Hachi was my hero," was a bit saccharine as a way to begin the movie.

Then the family abandons Hachi the moment Gere dies, and the dog lives for ten monotonous years (devastatingly brought to life from the dog's point of view by Hallstrom as director) waiting endlessly for a master who never comes. Sitting there. Alone. In the rain, cold and snow. Right. Let's hear it for how this kid treats a 'hero.'

While I appreciate the scene with the professor's Japanese friend which at least lets us know that the local shopkeepers will pitch in if Hachi gets sick, from a scriptwriting standpoint, it felt like telling versus showing, as nobody otherwise ever seems to take notice of the patiently waiting dog or for his comfort (except for one scene where he's given water). People basically ignore the dog. But wouldn't it have become a kind of local celebrity? Wouldn't people have sought it out to be kind to it, knowing its story?

And MOST OF ALL: Nobody thinks to maybe put a blanket down where he waits? A doggie bed, a doghouse nearby? etc.? Make sure each night he sleeps in a warm room instead of under a dirty train in the SNOW? (Aaghghgh!)

Meanwhile we get cuts from the poor old limping dog sleeping in the snow waiting for his dead master to the joyful kid who is weirdly looking at photo albums of Hachi and what a special dog I guess he used to be. This didn't strike anyone as pretty cold-hearted? The family abandoned this dog. Now this very kid -- who is overacting like crazy with his delight of the sweet Gere-Hachi pictures -- doesn't for instance ask, "Hey, can we go visit him? Can we make sure he's okay?" Nope. Nothing.

So then we get the poor old dog dying alone in the freaking snow FINALLY experiencing some happiness at reconciliation with his master after death, then this jerky kid finishes his big presentation about "his hero," the dog he never even bothered to visit while it was ALIVE? It didn't feel real to me, it felt movie-manufactured and clumsy.

Sorry. It's just a movie, and I liked the movie, and was really touched by Hachi and Gere. But I do not think this was anywhere near "Top 250" IMDb material. And the family's treatment of the dog really made me sad -- by the end, I was crying for the dog, but also crying because the family's treatment of him was pretty shameful. My family is Scottish, and I grew up on tales of Greyfriars Bobby (learn more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyfriars_Bobby), who in real life also waited patiently for 14 years after the death of his master. But in Greyfriars Bobby's case, he was adopted and cared for by the whole town. He did not die old and alone in the elements. The movie could have given him a more humane yet believable support system.

Plenty of people romanticize the dog's actions in waiting for his master, but that didn't mean that abandoning him to his grief was the only right choice. For instance -- would Gere's character in the film, the Professor, have been happy at the way the next ten years of his dog's life progressed after he died? I don't think so.

Thanks for the chance to share my 2 cents.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I keep thinking I'm a grownup, but I'm not.

[–] jhlui1 10 years ago

i believe if the writers had figured out how to transpose the original story's setting after WWI (when most of Japan was worried about taking care of the human survivors and food being quite scarce, so many pets were abandoned as people relocated), the revised story would have made a little more sense. But a well-off suburban family doing the same looked quite out of place. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093132/

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Prelude-in-C-maj 10 years ago

I enjoyed the movie and I cried, and the story moved me --- but I was thinking EXACTLY the same thing!!

Particularly when the daughter just lets him out, all but saying "Do your thang, whatever dude"!!!!

NO pet owner or loving family member of another member's beloved pet would dream of just letting a domestic pet simply run away with their blessing, to a life in which "freedom" in the modern world can potentially mean scavenging for rotten food in trash cans, being hit by a car, being abused by people with bad intentions, having no vet care every again, and living a likely short and violent life.

It's nice that both the movie dog and the real dog managed to live ten more years, but in cold, wind, rain, snow and needing to rely on scraps fed by the people who were kinder to it than the wife and daughter, in the end!

I just couldn't get past the daughter just letting him go. Of course, on the other hand, if she hadn't, there would be no movie. I don't know how they could have worked around it -- maybe had all family members emigrate and Hachi escapes on the way to the airport. Having the daughter just open the backyard gate and basically shrug sucked bigtime.

I still really like the movie but that just didn't sit well with any sense of what people who care anything about their pets would ever do.

[–] paramitch 10 years ago

Oh, thank you -- great minds think alike!

I was so angry at exactly what you mention -- all these privileged and wealthy characters abandoning the dog for storyline purposes (especially the laughable moment Gere's daughter abandons Hachi, his beloved dog, PERMANENTLY!).

I was shocked and upset; I kept waiting for someone to step in and care for this gorgeous and faithful dog, but no, I was just supposed to cry buckets of tears and be moved by the fact that this dog honored his brief time with his owner better than the (privileged, wealthy) humans around him for the next decade.

So gross. I'm not a fan of the movie. The more I thought about it, the more angry I have become. And I resent its play on viewer emotions when it is in reality a story of total animal abandonment and cruelty (and unbelievably, by a wealthy and emotionally attached family? Okay...).

Ugh. Hachi may be a hero but the people in this movie (other than Gere) sucked.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I keep thinking I'm a grownup, but I'm not.

[–] elbieswan 10 years ago

I agree with you on every single point. I had the exact same feelings about this. They were not responsible dog owners, and just letting Hachi go was not a loving thing to do. It was cruel. I think Parker would have been very disappointed to know that his beloved dog was neglected and unloved for the rest of its life.

Now I know people say it's based on a true story, but that story was based back in the 1930s. If you look up the true story, Hachi went to the Professor's gardener's home every night, so he had a home nearby and someone who cared for him. There's no reason why the producers of this film couldn't have had him going to the shed in the backyard of his former home every night where the new owners adopted him and yet understood his need to wait every day for his beloved Professor.

[–] psdhart 10 years ago

Now I know people say it's based on a true story, but that story was based back in the 1930s. If you look up the true story, Hachi went to the Professor's gardener's home every night, so he had a home nearby and someone who cared for him. There's no reason why the producers of this film couldn't have had him going to the shed in the backyard of his former home every night where the new owners adopted him and yet understood his need to wait every day for his beloved Professor.

I did not know that aspect of the original story, the ending should have been happier

what I did not like, was the fact he seemed to have been effectively abandoned, by the daughter and the others and left to live outside the station for a few years

[–] ficoce 10 years ago

Here's a dog that had a job to do every day and had people that cared for him. Instead of letting him do what he wanted to do, people naturally tend to think he would be better off owned; enslaved. The movie is about loyalty, not obedience.

[–] paramitch 10 years ago

I'm not unhappy or arguing because Hachi went to wait for his master every day.

But I do disagree with the filmmakers' decision to have Hachi abandoned by his owner's family and friends to the point of homelessness, so that in the end we're watching an old, frail dog stumble through the snow without even a comfortable place to sleep out of the elements.

I loved and appreciated Hachi's loyalty and also had no expectations that he "obey" or lessen himself for others.

But I do think giving a loyal and loving dog a place to sleep doesn't have to equal "enslavement." As the other poster pointed out, in the original story, Hachi had a safe, warm bed to return to each night.

So for me, the filmmaker's decision here is just weird.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I keep thinking I'm a grownup, but I'm not.

[–] ficoce 10 years ago

I see your point. The film kind of went to extremes for effect. Showing it exactly how it was, which was Hachi probably didn't have a traditional owner, but was taken care of by a whole community - it wouldn't make for a very interesting movie. The dog lived a full life. Dogs that are abandoned and not cared for only survive a few years.

All breeds don't socialize the same way. I had a Chow years ago and she was pretty much a one person dog, like many Chows are. They have an aggressive reputation, but it's really that they choose who they want attention from and unwanted attention is almost like an assault to them. If Hachi had been a Lab or Terrier, he probably would have found a new "owner" within a week or died within a few years. A one or no person dog would be great for a community. They have a pack to take care of them, without having to form much of a emotional relationship.

Dogs with a thick bi-fur coat don't need much of a "place to sleep". The coat is cool in the summer and warm in the winter. Their nose and pads of their feet being the only things exposed, (that's why they curl up to cover them). If they can find an enclosed space, like a box or under the snow, they can be comfortable sleeping in -40 below. We try to give them human attributes, but when you have a water resistant fur coat with wool base layer and you sweat through your tongue - you are comfortable as long as you can stay dry and out of the wind.

[–] dianafrance75 9 years ago

I couldn't agree more with your observations.
Another thing that bothered me, Hachi was made to stay in the cold, drafty shed in the backyard. What ??? And, this was when Parker was alive.
I was sad and angry at the end of this movie, not at all uplifted by the message of loyalty and devotion.

[–] lisa-45530 10 years ago

I agree with everything you have said about this movie which is playing at this very minute on FAMNET Channel. This will be the 3rd time this year I have watched it. Don't ask me why? It is has got to be the most depressing and sad movie I have ever watched: This beautiful dog wait endlessly alone for an owner that will never come back. I have yet to get through this movie without crying my eyes out for Hachi and Hating his good for nothing awful Family. Did you notice at the end of the movie the boy who proclaims Hachi his hero has a puppy named Hachi? That really pissed me off (I can say pissed me off here?)

[–] paramitch 9 years ago

I was so furious at this too!!!

My reaction to the kid: "So, kid,if Hachi was actually your "hero," (cough) maybe you or your utterly selfish family could have, like, fed or sheltered the dog instead of just ignoring his plight and then talking about him after he collapsed and died, old, freezing, and alone."

AGHGHGH.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I keep thinking I'm a grownup, but I'm not.

[–] classic-melody-206-77894 10 years ago

I think in a lot of ways they were trying to stick with the original storyline of the Japanese movie as much as possible yet in an American setting. Obviously in America, dog is man's best friend.

In the original [I guess spoilers ahead if you ever watch the Japanese] - the family was even more cruel - originally the dog was supposed to be taken care of by the daughter, because she wanted a dog. But she gets pregnant with her bf and would rather focus on her new child than the dog. So the dad takes care of Hachi. Also, the wife is visibly jealous of the dog in the Japanese movie. So yes, there is a bit more tension within the family. There are scenes of the wife trying to find Hachi a good home, but essentially, Hachi keeps running away. Even the new house owner hated dogs so Hachi felt even more shunned from his old home.

The Hachi, my hero crap I agree with.. It was pretty cringey and they could've done a better job with the son.

[–] MrJJay 9 years ago

You and all the others who agrees with you should watch the movie again, this time paying more attention as all of you seem to have missed the point of the film and what the director intended to portray.

Hint: You say the family is cruel but don't you think it's much more cruel to force him stay even though he does not want it. Dogs are not machines, they have self-will, just like humans. Watch the movie again with this point of view and you'll see what i mean.

[–] paramitch 9 years ago

We'll have to disagree on this one.

Abandonment is not kindness. The family could have easily supported Hachi's waiting ritual each day while still giving him a home, food, warmth, companionship and shelter every night for him to return home to.

Dogs are domesticated animals with deep bonds to humans who are not meant to live in the wild. Setting them "free" is actually the essence of cruelty.

The saddest part of Hachi's story in the film to me is the waste of potential companionship and love -- the dog could have been given the chance to bond just as deeply with another family member (like the idiotic kid who called the dog his "hero" while colluding in completely ignoring him).

Instead, they just assumed the dog was a lost cause and kicked it to the curb. Pretty much literally.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I keep thinking I'm a grownup, but I'm not.

[–] BlackhawksWin 9 years ago

The thing about this movie is, it's really not unrealistic what the family did to the dog after his death. It seemed clear from the beginning the wife didn't want/like the dog. I'm a dog lover but know quite a few who could care less if they lived or died unfortunately. I've seen first hand, people give dogs away they've had for years after their loved one died (who was the person the dog bonded with) It does seem like it'd make sense for people to keep these dogs as memories but I guess if you're not an animal lover, you're just not. That just can't be forced. If I'm not mistaking, the real Hachiko had an awful time with the family after the mans death, the rest of the family was cruel to him until he got media attention =(

As for leaving something comfortable for the dog, in reality it sounds like a no brainier but things like that can't be permanently left in a public area like this. Even though it's heartbreaking to see, bedding, blankets, etc would be removed for public safety & codes. I mean cities do it all the time for homeless people, especially here. If you have blankets, boxes, etc even on a secluded sidewalk, the city will remove them if you don't, especially if there's a complaint from someone. When it comes to the movie, it doesn't matter how many animal lovers surrounded Hachi, there will always be people who don't like animals and who would've demanded the city remove any blankets or bedding left for Hachi. As a matter of fact, in todays society (a small town could get away with it before a big city could) Hachi would've been picked up by animal control whether people liked it or not.