I havent read all posts in this one, but the dog was actually given an injection for sleeping, so they could use a real dog looking real dead.
So it was a dog but it was put to sleep.
This was just told in danish television by the young son to Lucas(Mads Mikkelsen) at the Pre Oscar show.
So I guess we all agree the dog was sedated. Does that mean it's OK?
What kind of sick director would heavily sedate a dog to make a point in his film?
And what was the point??
That in some Danish towns, if a guy is suspected of molesting a child then one of the neighbors is very likely to kill his dog?? I think everyone that knows Denmark and Danes will think this very highly unlikely!
That town that is portrayed in the film (Høje Taastrup?) must be a really unusual place!
-Teenage kids show porn on their iPads to their little sisters!
-Children always say the truth but only the first time. If they say they were saying stupid things afterwards then they are not saying the truth anymore.
-Even if the police declares that the guy is good to go and is not a molester, the guy who killed his dog will still take a shot at him while he's hunting.
-And your local store will still refuse to sell you goods (which otherwise in Denmark would bring catastrophic ramifications to the store owner).
And what in god's name is the link between hunting and child molesting?
you seem awfully touchy over a work of fiction
shareYes, I think that film is a crime against filmmaking and story-telling
It is wrong in so many ways
It has no substance and no merit
Some of the acting was OK but the script for example is very amateurish
I liked Festen by the director. That one was interesting. But other works of his I have seen were pure Sh*te!
No offence- just my humble opinion
OH MY GOD
I think that film is a crime against filmmaking and story-telling
That in some Danish towns, if a guy is suspected of molesting a child then one of the neighbors is very likely to kill his dog?
That town that is portrayed in the film (Høje Taastrup?) must be a really unusual place!
I agree with everything you wrote ahmad!
I never drink, wine
[deleted]
The dog definitely looked real to me. Most likely sedated by anesthesia.
What kind of sick director would heavily sedate a dog to make a point in his film?
And what was the point??
Yes but they always make you sign a waiver because the animal could die under anesthesia.
Passion is just insanity in a cashmere sweater!
[deleted]
It could have been a strong sedative.
share"Prosthetic dogs" are very realistic. Check out the Border Collie in "Rob Roy." I think that's the first film where I spotted that term in the credits.
~If you go through enough doors, sooner or later you're gonna find a dog on the other side.~
Could have been a dog that recently died at a shelter that had a very close resemblance to the living dog that played Fanny. Highly unlikely that they would have killed the real dog for a movie.
"Visions are worth fighting for. Why spend your life making someone else's dreams?"
i'm pretty sure that they sedated the dog to make it look dead. that's what was done in Amores Perros, and there are a lot of 'dead' dogs in that movie.
shareIt says in the end credits that no dog were harmed.It been restated a number of times across this thread as well, but it seems a certain percentage of posters want to believe a dog was killed in the film or a dead dog was used, just like the local populace fell over themselves to believe Klara in the film. Says something about the credibility of Vinterberg's story IMO. share
It's very possible that the dog suffers from narcolepsy which is quite common in dogs especially purebreds. If this were the case it would be very easy to get the dog to pass out (simply by getting it excited), and since no anaesthetics are used in this process it would not violate any animal rights regulations.
share[deleted]