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.

[–] rzervou 9 years ago

I have read your comment and all the replies given and I would like to say some things too for this fruitful dialogue among the people who loved the movie.
I have seen the movie 2 months ago on T.V., without having heard of it before or of the original story, and I can't stop thinking of it. My first reaction, though, was identical to yours: anger for the abandonment of the poor animal by the family and the indifference of the community, pit for the fate of a gorgeous dog. Next day I saw Hachiko Monogatari on Youtube. That was even worse. The daughter doesn't want to know anything, the wife moves, the relatives are cruel, the gardener dies, the station is a crowded place that has nothing to do with idyllic Belridge, many passengers are aggressive towards Hachiko. More realistic though.
I started to compare from an anthropological point of view the two films that reflect two different world views, the Japanese and the american, or better say the hollywood way as performed by a Scandinavian. I then started to see under a different point of view those aspects that infuriated me at first, just as they infuriated you.
With a closer look, the society described in the film is a rather alienated one and I think this is steming from Hallstorm's scandinavian origins. The third pole of the movie, Caty, Parker's wife, is dominated by common sense and very reserved in showing her feelings, as she personally admits. The death of her beloved couple devastates her, that's for sure, and how does she react to that unbearable loss. In a rather egoistic way. She leaves everything that reminds her of the beloved one behind, the house, his piano, hs beloved dog. She doesn't want to remember, she wants to forget and survive.
The comes the other pole, the subleme love of the dog, Hachi. When she leaves to forget, he stays to remember. He cannot imagine himself living in a place other than the one he used to be with his beloved one. The house is gone (meanwhile we may guess that he resided there and went to the station each day at 5), the new one is far away, he opts for living in a shelter close to the station so he may go each afternoon in a desperate vigil that soothes his grief. He doesn't want to hide its mourn, like Cate, he wants to demonstrate it.
This is the way I think the movie must be seen, a hymn to love as the most precious of feelings, yet to be taught to the humans by a dog. Sticking to details, though infrustating, lead us away from the point. If we take into consideration the capabilities shown by those three fabulous dogs,the tenderness of both the director and Richard Gere to them and the celestial soundtrack by Kaczmarek that composed the most wonderful dying scene I have ever seen in cinema, the film deserves its post of 190 to the top 250 films ever.

P.S. thank God reality is less merciless! Real Hachiko lved in the former gardener's huse, as mentinoned above, and, after 1928, he had a room in the station, where the new head loved him and treated him as his own pet.
Moreover, the magic continiues!!! In Cochabamba, Bolivia, dog waited six years in the very place his human was shmashed by a taxi and died. His was not a gorgeous Akita that knows only one owner, he was a humble mix-bred, named after Hachiko. He resistantly denied every effort to be adopted, even by a couple of american toursts who were moved by his story.All the people around loved him, gave him food and a place to sleep and got really upset when, once he died some place else, he was buried there and not close to them, who really loved and cherished him. The news presenting his story were backed by the 'Goodbye' film of the original movie!

[–] paramitch 9 years ago

Thank you for this very thoughtful and interesting reply. I definitely agree that there are other elements to the film here that can be interesting -- the difference in the American translation of the story from the original Japanese one, the potential difference due to Hallstrom's own background, etc.

I still don't agree, however, for the most part. I'll always think the American version is not really a successful or very good film, and I will always be bothered by the movie-logic in the film where a bunch of supposedly nice people abandon the beautiful, sweet and loyal dog their loved one adored most.

But thank you to you and all -- it's made for a really interesting conversation!

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

[–] masurra 9 years ago

I have only seen half the movie yet but I got extremely irritated about TS point 1. Wth is wrong with these egoistic people. That dog lived only for his master and waiting for him at the station. How could they not take him to the hospital to see what happened to him? Instead we see them leaving him in the barn while they go to the funeral! Now the dog had to wonder what happened for a long time. Totally unacceptable and total lack of empathy for the dog.

Total aholes, I don't give a crap what happens to these people in the second half.
_______
"if seagal was thinner this could have been a theatrical product."

[–] paramitch 8 years ago

I agree. I felt very much the same way when I watched. I was furious! That poor dog.

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

[–] !!!deleted!!! (67791493) 8 years ago

Masurra, this story is from a different culture, and time, firstly, and that culture, while different than ours, needs to be respected. I, too, was upset at their not realizing dogs have brains, eyes, hearts, and connect with their human owners. I wanted to scream! (and did as I recall) So it was difficult watching them treat the animal like it had no feelings and was this dumb lump of fur that his dad played with. Secondly, it was hurtful to the dog, almost abusive (neglect) because it had no closure.

The question that gnaws at me is would Hachi been able to find a new life beyond his owner had he been allowed to witness the funeral, sum it up for himself? I think so. I think it was the not knowing that forced the instinct of the BREED, we need to keep in mind, these are ONE DOG dogs as explained by his PICKING his owner at the station.

GFW

[–] rj-27 9 years ago

You have hit on the most important point with regard to human/animal relationships. Our respective cultures have more to do with how we view the animal world and its place with humans than just about anything else, including religion and faith.

In many parts of the planet, especially "third world" countries, dog is more likely to end up on the menu than be a pet.

Here in the US, we grow up with dogs, cats, hamsters, birds, turtles and yes, goldfish. Nurturing the animals we love is a deep part of our culture. So, naturally, when a beautiful domesticated animal is left to his own devices and fend for himself, we consider it cruelty. And to a point, rightly so.

Framed from the point of reference where the man's wife (gradually) and daughter (immediately) also show love for his faith-filled companion, we can't understand how that affection can be so readily turned off.

I think I agree with the OP on this point: the writers failed to make the transition of the dog's life after the death of his master believable from the point of view of our culture. This only adds to the emotional volcano that erupts as the poor animal goes from youthful and beautiful to old and decrepit, still dragging his tired worn body to the only place he know will give him what he seeks. But of course, it cannot. And we grieve with him because we know the truth.

Democracy is the pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. H.L. Mencken

[–] danavenell 9 years ago

The story is from Japan. They are neither a third world country or eat dogs.

Kylo Ren is one of the weakest force users we've seen. That's a fact.

[–] rj-27 9 years ago

Understood. My point was to contrast the world view of those cultures that cherish dogs as pets vs. "third world" countries that would just as soon serve them up as an entree.

I know the story originated from Japan, and that Japan would not ever be classified as "third world".

Democracy is the pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. H.L. Mencken

[–] !!!deleted!!! (67791493) 8 years ago

I think a dog's loyalty despite its realizing the reality of it or failing to accept it is extremely heroic... and missing SO much in today's world, our own societies, that seeing this, through the tears even, or in spite of them, tells us something. Love is being stubborn, loyal, fixated. Love is never leaving the door.

GFW

[–] rzervou 8 years ago

Such a focused remark, aiming at the very essence of the movie. A study on mourning, on love, the evidence of a feeling that could almost be called devine, as it is hardly understood by men.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (67791493) 8 years ago

Such a focused remark, aiming at the very essence of the movie. A study on mourning, on love, the evidence of a feeling that could almost be called devine, as it is hardly understood by men.

Thanks. I've suggested this to another poster who will see it so it'll be interesting to see their take. I mentioned that it was a movie about "LOVE" as we'd just shared White Fang which is about that too, but born from something entirely different.

GFW

[–] ProOctane 8 years ago

To the original OP I understand what your saying but I saw it from a different perspective.

1.The family's unrealistic almost immediate abandonment.
The first time we meet Cate (wife) the director gives us the impression she's not a dog person at all and had no interest in adopting the pup it was ultimately Parker's (husband) growing bond and affection with Hachi that she allowed the pup into the family.

Now lets take a step back and let me point out a couple visual and script queue's the film brought up but wasn't fully explained. Visual queue when Parker first met Hachi at the station he picked him up and kissed him from that moment we can assume Parker loved dogs and most likely has or had one in the past. Script queue when Parker's playing the piano and Andy (daughter) takes a seat holding the pup she states "You have to keep him the house has been so empty since Luke's been gone" now unless I missed something I assume Luke was there former dog who passed away which would explain the kiss and Parker's obvious feelings towards Hachi and dogs in general but also the way Andy "You have to keep him" feels as well as she most likely grew up with a family dog.
So your point saying the mom instantly gives Hachi to the daughter is perfectly understandable to me.
A: She's not a dog person
B: Grief
That's not to say she never loved Hachi it's evident that she did but she never could bond with animals like her husband and daughter did so the handball makes sense to me.
Hachi runs away once and she basically decides he "needs to be free."
Now the biggest flaw I saw in the movie was the depiction of time sometimes it worked e.g. the marriage and seasonal tree other times it didn't but the baby in the car seat when Andy took Hachi looked different then the baby in the stroller bumping into a depressed almost catatonic dog so my guess it was around 3-6 months after Parker's death and tried to integrate him into the family and it didn't work not for lack of trying or love as made clear Andy's last words to Hachi "You know we love you Hachi we want you to stay here with us, If you have to go thats ok too", but the bond was so deep no matter what they did Hachi could never really be happy and in some ways she didn't see Hachi as a run of the mill average dog she humanized him and the only way she could help him was let him free not abandon him.
2. Hachi's tragic ultimate life and situation.
Why couldn't we have seen them visit Hachi at his station since it was evidently somewhat accessible?
I agree with you. It would have been nice to see to occasionally see them do that but considering in the film years pass by in seconds who's to say they didn't and for emotional impact the director never wanted to show it but Iagreed it would have been good to see that.
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.
Once again she wasn't a dog person after 10 years Hachi still returning to the station everyday what could she do, it was admirable, Hachi was where he had to be and she knew their was nothing she could do to change that.
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?
Sorry for your lose I know it was some time ago but who's to say they didn't or a least didn't try.
The film portrayed he was well looked after by the local venders and commuters alike. From what I've read on the real story not the American film adaption he was looked after and had a home but it never stopped him from returning to the station everyday.
3.The "Hachi, my hero" crap
Unlike yourself and a lot of IMDB posters I actually found the who "Hachi, my hero" crap an integral part of the story was it 100% necessary no it wasn't but it showed how a story like this can affect the next generation although most people think loyalty is the foundation the film was built upon I see it as love story in it's purist form and the only way a story like this is going to be remembered and cherished is from our offspring and what it means to them.
That's the way I see it not saying your wrong; opinions are subjective.

Overall this film is the most heartfelt film I have ever seen and I'm not exactly the emotional type.

[–] paramitch 8 years ago

Thanks for the detailed reply, but I just cannot agree, so will agree to disagree.

Also, you seem to excuse so many characters, as the wife, by saying, she's "not a dog person."

That dog was the single most wonderful important thing in her husband's life, aside from his family. Who willfully abandons their spouse's pet -- not just a family member, but a BELOVED and cherished pet -- after they die? Maybe some do, but they are not good people and it does not make for a heartwarming story.

The tragedy of "Hachi" is not the death of his owner but of the utter failure of his owner's family afterward to offer him even basic care or consolation. There is no way I will ever consider this movie worthwhile or worthy of recommendation, especially for pet owners.

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

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] matrixflower 8 years ago

Oh pleeeeaaaaassseee.... settle down everyone - It's a MOOOOOOOvie.

Designed to get the desired effect - a good howling from one and all. It succeeded.

  

I don't think we have to call in the pet censorship board just yet, hey.

Matrixflower :)