Review CLVI - The Plague Dogs

Review 156
The Plague Dogs (1982)

Christmas came and went and we're heading toward the new year. It's already 2017, guys. That's crazy. 2016 was a stress-induced, depressing personal journey that I'd rather never relive, but some great things came out this year, so it wasn't a complete waste at least. All I can say is people will try to bring you down, but if you persist in your conquest, you'll make it. May you move forward in your endeavours.

With that said, with the passing of Richard Adams on December 24th, I couldn't not say a word. I didn't follow his work explicitly, but I loved his novel, Watership Down. I also reviewed the movie adaptation, so I figured that I'd review The Plague Dogs, based on his novel of the same name, and directed by Martin Rosen, the same director of Watership Down. With the familiar voice of John Hurt, Christopher Benjamin, and James Bolam. Now, I never read the original source material, so I'm reviewing the film purely on itself. Take that as you will.

Rowf (Christopher Benjamin) and Snitter (John Hurt) are two dogs living in a animal-testing facility, who can only dream of freedom. However, a chance at liberty brings the dogs the new high, until the media catches wind of the whole escape, claiming the dogs may be rabid and carrying the plague.

Guys, if you thought Watership Down was depressing, The Plague Dogs is worse. It was a hard film to watch, especially as a dog lover and animal enthusiast who had worked in an animal lab (almost contradictory, right?). Now, before I continue with this review, I want to be clear: I am not against animal testing one hundred percent. If ever I take a medication, I am fully aware that it was tested on an animal at some point, and if that medication could save my life, I wouldn't deny it or condone it for its animal testing. We live in a world dominated by hierarchy whether we like it or not - in the wild, it's kill or be killed. The same applies to the human race. So for practical purposes, like medication testing (which, honestly, is sometimes experimented on people to an extent), I do not disagree with animal testing.

Now that we have that out of the way - because this isn't a black and white issue in the least - I am against animal testing which serves no purpose. Regulations have been imputed since the making of this movie and Richard Adams' novel, but at the time, it's true - animal testing was kept more of a secret. Animals were tested for the sake of testing with no real valuable data obtained (like shocking a puppy for no other reason than to conclude that "it would hurt", for example). Even if valuable data is obtained, if an animal suffers longer than necessary, than again, I am against it. Now, The Plague Dogs takes on a more global message, but again, recall the stance of animal testing at the time. Watching Rowf's massive phobia of water and seeing Snitter's panic attacks just broke my heart. And honestly, the film doesn't mess around at all - just as in Watership Down, the violence is real. There's one scene in particular with a gun that just scarred me for life (you'll know which one it is) - yeah, I admit I'm a pansy. And just this dogs running away just breaks my heart... But I'm sorry, that's my emotional reaction. I watched this film maybe a year ago, and it still affects me. But I'm a big softy, so take it as you will. The Tod (James Bolam), the fox character, also gives you the feels as he tries to help these hopeless dogs.

The film itself, along with a less certain ending, The Plague Dogs really hits hard. But the animation has that low-budgetness of Watership Down. It's fine, and honestly, thinking back on the film, I remember the story nonetheless. Still, I could see myself reading the book to delve deeper into the story, which really was the highlight of this thing.

If you're an animal lover, The Plague Dogs will be hard to watch. It shows the harshness of the world and the cruel world animals can face, particularly before particular bills were put in place to help out our fellow companions. Really, I can only give you an animal lover perspective, so if you don't care for animals at all, what can I say? I don't know how much you'll enjoy the film. I think it's a worth, but prepare the tissue box - at least, I know I definitely needed it.

With that said, thank you Richard Adams for your charming-yet-hard-hitting stories of animals. From rabbits to dogs, you showed us imaginative escapes from a different view. Rest in peace.

Review XCIX - Watership Down

Review XCIX
Watership Down (1978)

Hello everyone! I'm back and here to review a film you may have heard of. Remember when Donnie Darko was one of those cool films? One of those kind of weird films? Well, now I know films like Qui êtes-vous, Polly Maggoo? (don't watch it - it's bad), so Donnie Darko is really just typical American bullshit now. I say this after thinking the film was god-send when I was a teenager. Anyway, remember that scene with where they discuss that film there and Donnie's like screw the rabbits? I'm going to talk about the film they watched, Martin Rosen's animated film Watership Down, based on the awesome book by Richard Adams. And I really liked that book. I even read it again before watching the film for the first time so I could compare. And yes, it isn't fair, but the 1978 version of Watership Down is considered a classic, so I wanted to be especially critique-y about it.

Fiver (voiced by Richard Briers) has a vision one day that the warren he lives in will be destroyed. His brother, Hazel (John Hurt), is quick to believe him, but unfortunately the Chief Rabbit (Ralph Richardson) does not listen to their warnings, so they gather a group of rabbits to head off and face the storm. They include Bigwig (Michael Graham Cox), Blackberry (Simon Cadell), Pipkin (Roy Kinnear), Silver (Terence Rigby), Dandelion (Richard O'Callaghan), and Violet (no voice actress so you know she dies early on). The group will face new dangers with only Frith and El-ahrairah on their side.

All right, so, the film was very 70s. This doesn't mean it's a bad thing, but given it's animated, you can really feel it's dated in the techniques used. However, I still liked it. The story is about rabbits, so it's only dated in terms of the animation quality - otherwise, I think any child could understand the film. But by god is the violence real. People talk about The Lion King and the death of the dad (Mufasa was his name? I dunno. I didn't grow up with the movie and I didn't like The Lion King when I saw it). Guys. Watership Down takes it to a whole new level. The field covered in blood? That's only the beginning. There's blood and death all around this film - it's crazy. And that's why, while the book could probably be read to a child of six or seven, I'd wait to show them the movie. I could see a six-year-old crying in fear after this film. Maybe I'd be too soft a parent, but damn, guys, this film is violent. But I like it for that. It doesn't sugar coat anything. It shows the savagery of animals - including humans - and really puts death in your face. I mean, the book does it too, but when a child is that young, they might have an active imagination, but the details of DEATH might escape them. Anyway, violence aside, I didn't mind the film. I hated what they did to Kehaar (Zero Mostel... Now I understand), making him just some comic relief (as expected given the voice actor), and I was kind of sad that they took out some details, but I had to be realistic in my expectations given the film is a little less than an hour and a half and the book is almost 400 pages (my edition was, anyway. Either way, long!). They really did do their best to include all details from the book, just changing things around a bit. So really, the film did a good job of adapting the book. I would have liked to hear more from the characters, but again, if you're looking for the full story, go to the book. And as a stand-alone, the film was good. It was hopeful, cute, violent, and heroic. Hazel was awesome, Fiver was cute, Pipkin had the deepest voice and that was totally unexpected (I laughed every time, you have no idea)... It works. There's something to be said for it. And if you're interested, I'd say go for it. I had a good time, even though I balled my eyes out. I guess some things never change, even as an adult.

"But wait!" you say. "Is Donnie right? Are the rabbits not representing people?" Richard Adams, the author, claimed the book was about rabbits and nothing else, i.e. there were no political statements being made by the book. This gets more debatable. I've heard the argument countless times that maybe the author didn't mean for the pipe to be a penis (Freud), maybe we just assume that it has a deeper meaning. And that can be true. Still, though, I find it much more fulfilling to get more out of a story than just a superficial layer. And in fact, I think good authors can try and do that. Look at Stanley Kubrick and how deep his films can be. He is for sure trying to do something more with his films, and it's something he even seems to encourage. While some won't really want to look deeper than just, "He killed her with the penis-shaped statue" (I'm on a phallic roll here!), if it's something that interests you, why not? If you see something more and it helps you understand something, why not? And if the story is just entertaining to you, then why not? It goes either way. Maybe the rabbits represent us, maybe they don't. I leave it up to you (but you're wrong if you think differently than me).

Bottom line, Watership Down is a fun film, short, sweet yet bitter, and worth a watch if you're looking for something... different. It is violent, so I wouldn't advise it for young children. But what do I know? And the book? Read it. I don't care how old you are - read it. It was so fun.