Sunday, November 12, 2006

I do my best thinking when conscious, so today hasn't produced much. I guess I could provide a public service announcement:

Do not go see "Fur." It is not about dogs or any other furry creatures. It is about some weird photographer lady...might be a perfectly nice movie, but just don't go in expecting it to be about us. (I guess I'm just talking to the Seeing Eye dogs out there, since they're the only ones allowed into the movie theaters. But when it comes out on DVD, everyone else can remember this post and know not to pick it when they break into their owner's Netflix accounts.)

There ought to be some sort of truth-in-advertising investigation about this. There are a lot of movies which seem to capitalize on tricking the dog consumer, putting "dog" in the title despite being a blatantly humanid-centric film. Or worse: being cruelly anti-dog, like "Amores perros." Of course, I, as a Mexican dog, knew that "perros" would be a slang term with negative connotations and that the movie would not be about dogs, but I could see how a slightly less linguistically capable dog might confuse it with "Por el amor de perros" ("for the love of dogs"), and boy would they be in for a tough surprise.

Some other movies to avoid if you are seeking a canine experience:

Wag the Dog, My Life as a Dog, Dog Day Afternoon, Reservoir Dogs, Dogtown and Z-Boys, Dogville, Mad Dog and Glory, Un Chien Andalou.

As far as getting some tips for movies with great dog performances, I refer you to this excellent website:

The author has catalogued every movie which features a dog, plus breed descriptions and sometimes some good background tidbits (e.g. "Three episodes starring a German Shepherd Dog who had to retire early because of an injury. In the third episode there is a border collie.")

Of course, you have to wonder how many of these dogs actually got to enjoy the meats of their labors. If Hollywood ever comes calling for me, there will be a steak-a-day clause written into the contract.

No comments: