So Eric kills 7 people just so he could bury his dog? I mean was it hard for him to simply ask the guys who stole his car to take out something from the trunk? I mean, yeah I know they stole it. But when they confronted him the first time, they didn't really try to hurt him or anything until he got physical with the old man.
Its strange that he went through all of that for a dog..
He had nothing to lose. He probably didn't feel he had to explain himself or lower himself to beg the thieves to get the dog out. I think he probably wanted to die and just couldn't do it himself. He just didn't care. Maybe hunting them down gave him something more to live for now that his dog was gone.
If you question that basic point, I don't think this style of movie is for you. Today every protagonist in films needs some big noble motivation like having their family killed or abducted or trying to save the world. This movie is a throwback to the 70s age of the anti-hero. Asking that question is like asking why Kowalski decided to speed across the American west in "Vanishing Point" when he could have just obeyed all the rules of the road instead, or asking why The Wild Bunch didn't just pay the Mexican General to let their friend go instead of having a suicidal bloodbath. If you have to ask, you just don't grasp the spirit of the anti-hero archetype.
I presume the car and the dog both were the last things he had from a decade ago, since the "collapse", so they had great emotional value, since everything else in the world was going to hell.
Plus, Eric is more-or-less like a rabid dog, moulded by the decaying society into someone who lost perception on reality.
He probably wanted his car back out of principle, without owing anyone an explanation. There's a lot of pain and grief involved if you lose a dog you loved.
I really did like the movie, it reminded me a bit of the movie The Road. A bleak desolate world. It's just that he went through all of that for his dog, which seemed a bit silly. But hey, I get it.
shareAnd not only a dog, but a dead dog. It may be silly to some, but there are more horrible things happening in the real world, for more absurd reasons.
share[deleted]
EmilyStrange » 5 days ago (Mon Oct 6 2014 12:39:05) IMDb member since August 2003
It wasn't for the dog itself, but more for what the dog represented...
The veterinarian eating the dogs?
Yes, you heard right. But did that scene feel correct? The woman was quite nervous.
Earlier, she had said "I don't want your money, I've found ways of living just fine without money." I wasn't sure what that meant. But after seeing the scene with the dogs in cages (why were they in cages? why were they all quiet, no barking? did that make sense, her keeping dogs and keeping them caged up in a back room quiet? Not taking Eric's money?) and her half-assed explanation ("the owners came and dropped them off, and they never came back") it made sense. Eric was interested in this, because he was weighing the 'loyalty' (or more accurately 'disloyalty') of the owners that didn't come back for their dogs.
Do you really think that this lady vet was keeping the dogs in a back room, stacked in cages, submissive and silent, to protect them?
**flat**
No she didn't have them in cages so she could eat them later. She said she kept them in cages because if they got out others would catch them and use them for food. Thats why people left the dogs with her. They knew the dogs would be safe.
kitkat
Yes. That is what she said. Did you hear her voice? Did it sound confident or sincere? See Eric's reaction? See the dogs stacked up in cages, silent and submissive? Is this a life for a dog? Is there any reason they couldn't roam free within the home? Or outside? Do you recall the long trek to the vet's home, and the likelihood of someone sneaking onto the property to capture a dog to eat for food?
This is a nuanced film, where dialogue is not explicit like a soap opera. Here is a woman, with her companion now shot and she is alone, trying to explain herself and her life to a stranger she has just watched kill three men at a distance with three bullets.
There is an awful lot implied in this thoughtful movie. Not everyone will infer what is implied.
**flat**
Yes I saw his face. Did he kill her like he did everyone else who was cruel to dogs. No. She was keeping them safe and apparently he must have believed her since he fefy her alive
kitkat - There is no next life. And I'm going to live
She just saved Rey's life. Didn't want money, or anything. She did it because she could help save a life. Did you understand that the dogs had been abandoned by their disloyal owners? And what that meant to Eric.
Believe what you want. This scene was included for a very good reason. What reason would that be? How did it move the story along, provide perspective, or (hint!) provide character exposition? With your interpretation, it explains nothing about the vet or Eric that we don't already know. With the interpretation I noted, it makes an entirely different look at both the vet ("I have found ways to live without money" what did that mean? Exactly?) and Eric's sense of justice.
While you're at it, is this the one thing from my post above that caught your attention? What did you think about the rest of the examples of disloyalty? Did you notice them, or did reading my post make you see it for the first time? Read a few more threads here, I've posted some information and interpretation that you can really use as I don't think you quite grasp the story or themes throughout.
Admit it, the interpretation I presented never even occurred to you and now you are stuck defending your predisposition. Well, good luck with that, and enjoy all the movies you will watch in the future.
**flat**
I don't need to defend my position. You have your opinion and I have mine. I've watched plenty of interviews between the director and actors and am pretty sure I grasp the story line just fine. Now I have no wish to get into a p*ssing contest so this is where I stop. Will just have to agree to disagree Now I'll get back to real life
kitkat
kitkat8562 (Sat Oct 11 2014 19:23:16)
**flat**
No she didn't...
Jay. Time to let it go.
shareActually, she said she kept them in cages to keep others from eating them. It was the only way she could protect them.
shareIt was more then just about the dog. Eric felt that he had lost so much in his life, including his wife and her betrayal, and of course the collapse of society and its laws, that I think the dog was a symbolic trigger. He loved dogs, and it was important for him to bury is, but it's important to realize that he was a broken man looking for a semblance of civilized society in a broken world.
share