MovieChat Forums > White Dog (1982) Discussion > what in their mind?!

what in their mind?!

posted 11 years ago by garysan
16 replies | jump to latest

The dog kills the rapist, attacks the young actress, kills the man on the truck (the girl finds out the dog covered of blood and says almost nothing), attacks the young black worker, then kills the man in the church, and almost kills the old man at the end. Well... didn't the woman and his friends think to put a stop to this kind of situation, didn't they? I think human life is still more important than an almost useless "test" on a dog. And if you want to do a test you have to be sure to not damage the others.

[–] rokhaund 11 years ago

They didn't know that the dog had killed before. The man in the church was its first victim that they knew about. It didn't kill the rapist. The girl just assumed the blood was from an animal or something. But you're right. What they did was stupid and illegal. The racial theme just didn't work and it seemed like our 'heroes' were wrong assuming the dog was racist. The rant to the owner was unjustified and the dog just attacked random people. A tumor would have been a better explanation for everything that had happened.

[–] clyons 10 years ago

The scene in the church kind of destroys the movie. I think they felt like they couldn't do all this build-up without the dog actually killing someone, but once that happens, and Winfield's character continues with his now-pointless quest (with even the girl saying it's time to just give up and put the dog down), you just can't believe in him. How were black people supposed to see this film as a positive racial message? Fuller could be really stupid about some things--his attempts to put racial messages in his films almost always backfire, because he doesn't have any real empathy for minorities. I mean, The Crimson Kimino suggests that the Japanese-American's belief that some people are racist against him is all in his mind. Seriously? No racism in America against Japanese people maybe 15 years after the Japanese internment camps in America were closed? Tens of thousands of innocent loyal Americans imprisoned without trial. What could possibly have given him the idea that there's any ill feeling there?

What convinces Winfield to kill the dog? When he attacks a white man.

I think people who see this as a powerful anti-racist movie are not thinking straight. It's TRYING to be anti-racist, but it ends up being the opposite.

[–] guigui-paul 10 years ago

The main topic in the film is probably the idea or learning, the importance of education, more than the obvious anti racism part of the screenplay.
This great scene when Kristy McNichol meets the dog's true owner...here you have Fuller's opinion about what he thinks of racism...

http://www.myspace.com/guillaumep
http://darioargentofr.blogspot.com/

[–] clyons 10 years ago

Yeah, that it's just a few crazy old southern redneck cliches--and that scene lasts less than two minutes. In the novel this is based on, the people who trained the dog were southern policemen--the old man is handsome, distinguished looking, charming. Racism doesn't always have an ugly outward appearance. It's not a great scene. It's one of the weakest moments in the entire film.

Fuller was a liberal--of course he thought racism was wrong, but he was terrible when he tried to write about it. I just roll my eyes at one scene from his war film The Steel Helmet, where a black GI tells a Chinese communist soldier trying to make him turn on his comrades that sure, his country won't give him equal rights, but he'll buckle down, and do his best, and maybe in 50 years he can sit in the MIDDLE of the bus. Honestly, imagine being a black man watching that film--do you feel complimented that Sam Fuller thinks you're that patient? Not much more than 50 years after that film was made, a black man was President of the United States! Middle of the bus, my ass.

He made another movie where the hero is a Confederate soldier who never once admits he was wrong to fight for the perpetuation of slavery. He thinks HE's the oppressed one. Beautifully shot movie. An absolute failure of a script.

Fuller was not in any way an effective messenger when it came to anti-racism. Again, I know his intentions were good, but he threw the NAACP off the set of White Dog, when they were just concerned he was doing a movie about a dog that eats black people.

He made some really good films, but none of them involve racism. Once he got on that subject, he was hopeless. He just did not have any ability to see things from the perspective of a minority, even though as a Jew, he WAS a minority.

To understand him, you have to see his limitations. Great director--very limited writer. He insisted on writing all his own screenplays, and much as I hate to say it, most of them aren't that good. His dialogue seems really corny now, for the most part. He never knew when enough was enough. He had great story ideas, but he should have handed them to a better writer.

[–] guigui-paul 10 years ago

I didn't think the meeting with the dog's owner was especially "cliché", it was a well written and acted scene IMO...surprising because the owner at first loooks kind of innocent and somewhat charming...and the disturbing idea that his little daughters will probably become like him.

What Fuller didn't like in the original screenplay (he rewrote it with the help of Curtis Hanson) was

SPOILER

that the dog's trainer finally trains the dog to...attack white people!
Was this idea in Romain Gary's book too?
Fuller found it was a racist ending

SPOILER'S END

http://www.myspace.com/guillaumep
http://darioargentofr.blogspot.com/

[–] clyons 10 years ago

Gary's point was that racism corrupts everything it touches--there were a lot of hate-filled people in the black community, arguing that the only sane thing to do was fight back. Nobody knows what actually happened--there was a real German Shepherd that showed up at his house. He admits in the book that he's changing things about the story (he could have been sued by some of the people in it if they'd been identifiable). But he said that everything involving the dog was told just the way it happened. It's a much bigger story than Fuller's, that deals directly with human racism.

There's only one racist in Fuller's movie--think about it--that one old man--that we see for maybe two minutes. He doesn't look innocent or charming to me. He looks like the standard racist cliche. There's no attempt to make him human. But in any event, one thing Gary doesn't do is have a black man try to retrain the dog, and then keep trying after the dog escapes and kills a black person. That did not happen. Gary would have shot the dog himself if that had happened.

Read the book if you want to know if you think it's racist or not. It's one of the most powerful anti-racist statements ever made, and it indicts everyone. But not the dog, who is blameless. He's not some force of evil, like in the movie. He's there to indict the reader--how is the person watching White Dog to feel indicted? It's some crazy old man training dogs to be vicious--he's the only racist in the film. The only one.

Gary's book is about human racism. It shows us many different forms of it--it shows us many racists in the white community--even in France--it also shows people in the black community who exploit white guilt--and one black man who has been so eaten up inside by the way he's been treated that he does a truly unforgivable thing. Gary was a far better subtler writer than Fuller, and he knew more about the subject. The book is superior on every level.

Do you think anyone has ever watched White Dog and changed their mind about race? There's only one black character who has any significant amount of dialogue. And he is even crazier than the trainer in the book.

[–] guigui-paul 10 years ago

I don't think that Keys is especially crazy in the film, he is just very obssessed (like the dog..) and probably too "idealistic"...but overall it is a movie, a fiction, not reality.
And i don't think that Fuller wanted to make a film with heavy didactic speeches about how racism is ugly, he just lets his direction and images speak for themselves and let our minds make what they want of them.
When i watch the film honestly i find the dog's attacks shocking and disturbing, they are not enjoyable to watch, there's just ugliness in these crimes, the horror of this dog attacking black people, so (at least for me) the anti racism topic is delivered with punch.

"But not the dog, who is blameless. He's not some force of evil, like in the movie."

I don't see the dog as a "force of evil"...the dog committs horrible things in the movie but BECAUSE he was forced to learn these bad things...the real evil if there is one in the film is the "good old grandpa" who taught everything to his dog and his little daughters.

http://www.myspace.com/guillaumep
http://darioargentofr.blogspot.com/

[–] clyons 10 years ago

I don't think that Keys is especially crazy in the film, he is just very obssessed (like the dog..) and probably too "idealistic"...but overall it is a movie, a fiction, not reality.

Winfield does an excellent job with a very badly written role. But the fact is, there's no excuse for what his character does, and it is actually racist to show him continuing with his quest after the dog kills a black man--then giving up and shooting the dog once he attacks a white man. Unintentionally racist, sure--most racism isn't intentional, you know.

And i don't think that Fuller wanted to make a film with heavy didactic speeches about how racism is ugly,

There are several of those in the film. You're not actually talking about the film itself, you know. The film never shows us actual human racism, which it could do easily. Where are all the racists? Just one old man we barely get to see--who never even talks to a black person.

he just lets his direction and images speak for themselves and let our minds make what they want of them.

No, that's not what he does. He aspired to it, but he didn't pull it off.

When i watch the film honestly i find the dog's attacks shocking and disturbing, they are not enjoyable to watch, there's just ugliness in these crimes, the horror of this dog attacking black people, so (at least for me) the anti racism topic is delivered with punch.

But a dog attacking people would be disturbing in any context. Nobody's arguing the attacks are enjoyable, but don't you think somebody who really hated black people could enjoy watching them? And don't you think black people watching this movie might feel this was some kind of racist porn? Not intended as such, certainly. But without showing any real background--without showing white people being racist to black people--how is this an attack on racism? There had been many many films before this that showed that racism. Why does he have to use a dog as a metaphor in 1980?

I don't see the dog as a "force of evil"...the dog committs horrible things in the movie but BECAUSE he was forced to learn these bad things...

The dog is a monster. He actively seeks to harm black people. The dog in the book merely reacts to the presence of adult blacks--mainly black men. He escapes Gary's car at one point in the book, finds an unattended black toddler in a stroller--and licks his face affectionately. He sees black adult males as a threat--which when you get right down to it, is the basis of most racism against blacks. But he doesn't go hunting for them.

the real evil if there is one in the film is the "good old grandpa" who taught everything to his dog and his little daughters.

First of all, they're obviously his grandchildren. And once again, I can't understand how you think this is some great indictment of racism, when we see him for all of two minutes, and he never says anything racist. We know he must be one, because he trained the dog. But in 1980, this simply doesn't amount to anything. Fuller failed to make an effective anti-racist film. Many many filmmakers had done better than this, decades earlier.

[–] guigui-paul 10 years ago

"The film never shows us actual human racism, which it could do easily. Where are all the racists?"

Maybe because Fuller didn't want to make a film strictly about racism?...the film is about education, learning, conditioning, above all.

"And once again, I can't understand how you think this is some great indictment of racism, when we see him for all of two minutes, and he never says anything racist"

The owner says "...and the best of the lot!!" with a big smile, or something like that.
And then Kristy's character becomes angry pissed off against him, being rude and telling the little girls "never listen to him, never, he made the dog a monster"...this brief scene clearly makes Fuller's point, in my opinion.
We just disagree on our view of the film Clyons...did you like something in the film, even if you weren't convinced by Fuller's screenplay?

http://www.myspace.com/guillaumep
http://darioargentofr.blogspot.com/

[–] guigui-paul 10 years ago

"The film never shows us actual human racism, which it could do easily. Where are all the racists?"

Maybe because Fuller didn't want to make a film strictly about racism?...the film is about education, learning, conditioning, above all.

"And once again, I can't understand how you think this is some great indictment of racism, when we see him for all of two minutes, and he never says anything racist"

The owner says "...and the best of the lot!!" with a big smile, or something like that...he implies strongly that he is so proud that the dog was trained to attack black people.
And then Kristy's character becomes angry pissed off against the owner, being rude and telling the little girls "never listen to him, never, he's a sick man, he made the dog a monster"...this brief scene clearly makes Fuller's point, but that's just my opinion.
We just disagree on our view of the film Clyons...at least what did you like in the film, even if you weren't convinced by Fuller's screenplay?

http://www.myspace.com/guillaumep
http://darioargentofr.blogspot.com/

[–] clyons 10 years ago

Maybe because Fuller didn't want to make a film strictly about racism?...the film is about education, learning, conditioning, above all.

Now you're just making stuff up. The film is obviously supposed to be about racism, and anyway, without seeing how the dog was originally trained, how does that work? If that was the intention, he should have just scrapped the idea of adapting Gary's book (which he barely did anyway) and shown us the entire story from the dog's perspective. How he was trained to hate black people, then ended up being retrained by a black man. I don't think Fuller and Hansen had a very clear idea of what they were doing here. The film is inherently confused and divided against itself.

The owner says "...and the best of the lot!!" with a big smile, or something like that...he implies strongly that he is so proud that the dog was trained to attack black people.

Why, in the year 1980, did they feel the need to 'imply' anything about racism? There were big famous Hollywood films that out-and-out attacked it, made decades earlier! And didn't use dogs as metaphors. You've never seen a Sidney Poitier film? It was not any kind of revelation, in 1980, that racism existed. And btw, Gary's book was a best-seller in America, back when it came out. An excerpt was published in Life Magazine. I honestly don't think this movie would have reached many people if it had been released back when it was supposed to be. It didn't have an audience--offensive to black people, and whites simply would have ignored it.

I think the studio withdrawing it from release was the best thing that could have happened to it--created the myth of it having been 'banned' for being too out there, which has given it a cult following. The fact is, it was kept under wraps because it was racist. Not INTENTIONALLY, no. But as with The Crimson Kimono, when Samuel Fuller made a movie about racism against minorities, he ended up insulting the minority he thought he was defending. It was a subject he needed to stay the hell away from.

And then Kristy's character becomes angry pissed off against the owner, being rude and telling the little girls "never listen to him, never, he's a sick man, he made the dog a monster"...this brief scene clearly makes Fuller's point, but that's just my opinion.

How are these little girls supposed to be helped by this? Some total stranger yells at them that their grandfather is a sick man--you think any grandchild that ever lived would be anything other than upset and scared by this odd behavior? The grandfather would just tell them this girl was the one responsible for the dog being killed, which is kind of true. They'd probably grow up being as racist as him. Fail. You can't defeat racism with a strident twenty second tirade, man.

We just disagree on our view of the film Clyons...at least what did you like in the film, even if you weren't convinced by Fuller's screenplay?

Basically just the editing, the imagery. He knew how to play on emotions--but of course, so did D.W. Griffith. Who he resembles in a whole lot of ways. To manipulate is not to educate.

[–] guigui-paul 10 years ago

"Now you're just making stuff up."

ok, so what is the point of all these scenes between Keys and the dog in the cage, according to you?
Is it about racism? or rather education, learning, conditioning?
The film in some ways has "A clockwork orange" feel to it...how a human being lives in violence and how we try him to unlearn violence, reconditioning him...but violence is part of the human being and this leads the ending of "White dog", you can't erase violence.

"You can't defeat racism with a strident twenty second tirade, man."

That's why the film's ending is disturbing, the experiment has failed and the dog's owner probably won't never be punished for what he did to the dog, and the children will be probably taught hatred and racism from their grandfather...very pessimistic, bitter ending.

http://www.myspace.com/guillaumep
http://darioargentofr.blogspot.com/

[–] clyons 10 years ago

ok, so what is the point of all these scenes between Keys and the dog in the cage, according to you?
Is it about racism? or rather education, learning, conditioning?

That's one of the few things Fuller actually got from the book, so maybe you'd be better off asking Romain Gary. Granted, he's dead. So's Fuller. 

The film in some ways has "A clockwork orange" feel to it...

So the point was to rip off Stanley Kubrick? I'm not saying you can't like the movie--there's some good stuff in it. But it's not this deep meaningful exploration of human nature.

Here's another way they could have gone--he's trying to reprogram the dog, but the dog ends up reprogramming him. That's actually suggested in Gary's book, one could argue. Keys just isn't much of a character in the film--he's got no flaws, other than being stubborn. Winfield was a great actor, but he couldn't really find much to work with in this one.

how a human being lives in violence and how we try him to unlearn violence, reconditioning him...but violence is part of the human being and this leads the ending of "White dog", you can't erase violence.

Which is a lie. You can--certainly with a dog. So the film basically says "We're all violent racist creatures and there's nothing anyone can do about it." Which in a sense, is telling people who are racist and/or violent that it's not their fault. Well, it is.

That's why the film's ending is disturbing, the experiment has failed and the dog's owner probably won't never be punished for what he did to the dog, and the children will be probably taught hatred and racism from their grandfather...very pessimistic, bitter ending.

Yes, but also very stupid.

Read the book. Bitter, pessimistic--but also hopeful. We not only can change, we can't stop changing. It's an inevitable part of life. So we can try to shape that change into something better. Yes we can.

Fuller was an idiot about race. Why pretend otherwise, just because he had a knack for disturbing visuals? Being a talented filmmaker doesn't mean you have any deep insights into the human condition. When he was doing a movie about something he knew--war, journalism, the underworld--he could make some good points. Race was just not his wheelhouse. He was out of his depth. Gary was not.

[–] guigui-paul 10 years ago

"So the film basically says "We're all violent racist creatures and there's nothing anyone can do about it."

Maybe, maybe not! It's up to you to make your own conclusions about the film's ending..."the rest of the story is written by you".

When i first saw the film as a kid, in the 80's, i thought that the dog attacked Carruthers because he looked a bit like his owner, old grandpa...but you can say that the dog doesn't attack anymore black people but is "racist" against white people now...or just that the dog's mind snapped (Keys even says this at one moment, because of all the heavy stuff the dog endured, his mind can snap at any time)
In my opinon the dog attacks Carruthers because his mind gradually snapped in the experience and because the hatred, violent part of his being couldn't be erased, removed (a bit like Alex in the Kubrick movie)
I will definitively read Gary's book, to know his version of this story.
http://www.myspace.com/guillaumep
http://darioargentofr.blogspot.com/

[–] clyons 10 years ago

Maybe, maybe not! It's up to you to make your own conclusions about the film's ending..."the rest of the story is written by you".

Yeah, that's a different movie. And that movie is more than a bit racist itself.

When i first saw the film as a kid, in the 80's, i thought that the dog attacked Carruthers because he looked a bit like his owner, old grandpa...

That does seem to be the implication, but it makes no sense. The dog just realized "Hey, I was used by this old bigot, I'm going to get even with him"? He doesn't attack all white people--he's fine with the white girl. The old man isn't anywhere near him--he runs right over there, in the presence of his trainer, who he's seen with this old guy in the past. You can't make good points about human or canine behavior if your film misrepresents both. Not that we saw ANY human racism in this movie at all.

However, if Fuller had gone that way, here's what would have worked better--the old man who trained the dog shows up, trying to get his dog back--he's angry and aggressive towards Keys (maybe uses a few racial epithets), who the dog loves and accepts as his pack leader now. The dog, defending his new pack leader, kills his old one, and Keys has to shoot him--he breaks down and weeps bitterly over the dog's body. They're brothers now.

That's ten times as good an ending as the one in the film. And I am not a particularly good writer.

but you can say that the dog doesn't attack anymore black people but is "racist" against white people now...or just that the dog's mind snapped (Keys even says this at one moment, because of all the heavy stuff the dog endured, his mind can snap at any time)

Yeah, that was b.s. That has no basis in reality at all--if you retrain a dog, you retrain a dog--if it's done right, the dog just says to himself "Okay, I thought these people were dangerous, but I guess that isn't true now." Dogs are not as mentally complex as us. Their minds are much more stable, far less prone to insanity.

They just needed to explain the dog suddenly attacking a white man for no reason, because Fuller wanted a big violent finish (Fuller was an intelligent guy, but not exactly the deepest person you could imagine)--in the book, of course, the reason is that the dog has been retrained to attack white people. One kind of prejudice has been replaced with another. Still a bit of a stretch (and Gary admits in the book that he fabricated most of the dialogue exchanges, and that the human characters are 'composites')--but if you'd know a few German Shepherds, you'd know it's not impossible this could happen. What we see in the film is impossible. Could not happen. Not in a million years. Dogs do not break down mentally from being retrained.

In my opinon the dog attacks Carruthers because his mind gradually snapped in the experience and because the hatred, violent part of his being couldn't be erased, removed (a bit like Alex in the Kubrick movie)

In my opinion, it's a sloppy fix to a problem Fuller and Hansen created by rewriting the original story to try and avoid offending anyone, and in the process, of course, they ended up offending everyone, and particularly black people.

I will definitively read Gary's book, to know his version of this story.

Good.

[–] clyons 10 years ago

The reason for the rape scene (which isn't part of the original novel) is to give the girl motivation to try and save the dog's life. The trainer played by Winfield is motivated by this notion that there are racists out there training dogs to attack black people, and if he successfully retrains the dog, he'll have proven them wrong somehow. It doesn't make any sense--the only dog attacks on black people we hear about in the movie are from this particular dog.

If you have a dog who is a constant threat to humans, sure--put him down. But the fact is, it wouldn't be hard at all to retrain the dog to stop attacking black people. It's just a matter of conditioning. Fuller didn't know anything about dogs, and he wanted to make a point (not that it's easy to figure out what his point is), so he cobbled up this explanation that the dog could just snap and start attacking anyone. He's a good dog--not dangerous to anyone but black people, because he's been taught they're a threat to him and others. Once he realizes that isn't true, he'll stop being 'racist'.

The story in the book makes a lot more sense--the dog never actually hurts anybody until the very end of the book--and never once does he bite a black person.