These dogs aren’t sad because they’re in a shelter and going to be killed soon, they’re sad because they had to watch HBO’s sorry excuse for a documentary called One Nation Under Dog.
HBO is now airing its downer documentary “One Nation Under Dog” that claims to be inspired by Michael Schaffer’s book, One Nation Under Dog: Adventures in the New World of Prozac-Popping Puppies, Dog-Park Politics, and Organic Pet Food. The book sounds like a quirky take on the strangeness of dog culture from someone who recently had their baptism by fire; the official description of the book confirms this:
A witty, insightful, and affectionate examination of how and why we spend billions on our pets, and what this tells us about ourselves
In 2003, Michael Schaffer and his wife drove to a rural shelter and adopted an emaciated, dreadlocked Saint Bernard who they named Murphy. They vowed that they’d never become the kind of people who send dogs named Baxter and Sonoma out to get facials, or shell out for $12,000 hip replacements. But then they started to get weird looks from the in-laws: You hired a trainer? Your vet prescribed antidepressants? So Schaffer started poking around and before long happened on an astonishing statistic: the pet industry, estimated at $43 billion this year, was just $17 billion barely a decade earlier.
One Nation Under Dog is about America’s pet obsession—the explosion, over the past generation, of an industry full of pet masseuses, professional dog-walkers, organic kibble, leash-law militants, luxury pet spas, veterinary grief counselors, upscale dog shampoos, and the like: a booming economy that is evidence of tremendous and rapid change in the status of America’s pets. Schaffer provides a surprising and lively portrait of our country—as how we treat our pets reflects evolving ideas about domesticity, consumerism, politics, and family—through this fabulously reported and sympathetic look at both us and our dogs.
Such revelations are not rare, this blog is driven by my own bemusement at the current state of dog culture.
The HBO documentary, despite listing Michael Schaffer as a consultant an explicitly stating “inspired by” in the credits, has little to nothing to do with the advertised contents of the book. I suspect that the producers simply liked the title and threw Schaffer a credit as partial payment to use it. There is no wit, insight, nor affection on the film. In fact, it’s the opposite. The only segment that is remotely related to the consumerist pet industry is the footage about cloning, and instead of Prozac, dog parks, organic food, and adventures; the subtitle of the film reveals its mawkish content: Stories of Fear, Loss, & Betrayal.
The entire first part can be summarized: dogs bite people and their owners can be assholes. There is no moral or lesson or any take away other than a large hunting dog can rip a little girl’s ear off and get away with it if you hire the right attorney. If the film makers wanted to cover new and important ground regarding dog culture and “fear” they should have investigated dog fighting rings. What we get instead is something that an intern at some small town’s public access channel’s version of 20-20 or Nightline would get a C- for if they turned it in at their Broadcast Journalism 101 class at the town’s second-rate community college.
The second part can be summarized: some people like dogs so much they fashion their lifestyle around that bond. There’s a scene with people at a grief counseling group for dead pets that has no message, no argument, no point really. It’s exactly what you’d expect from people upset that their pets of 15 years died; if the implication that this is ridiculous and these people are fools for missing their pets then the only ones who look bad are the producers. Any episode of a “reality” animal show on A&E has more punch and interest than this whole segment.
The other key scene is an extended interview of a rich family who paid $155,000 to clone their dog. Other reviewers find this so shocking they mention it multiple times in the same paragraph. I find this sum unsurprising and unexceptional really. There are countless families in America who purchase homes with yards big enough for their dogs that easily add this sum on to the price of the property; the rent I pay is significantly higher because I need said space for my dogs and there’s no hope of recouping rent. An extra $900 per month (the difference between a $500 room rental and a $1400 small house with small yard rental) over the 15 year lifetime of a dog is $162,000.
People who show dogs regularly purchase RV mobile homes that can cost that much to be able to travel around to dog shows, I even know people in less tony dog sorts who do the same. There are also a plethora of similarly expensive things people of much more modest means purchase all the time that no one would consider worthy of a headline in the newspaper. A pack-a-day cigarette habit can cost you $30k over the 15 year life of a dog; the first 3 months of treatment for lung cancer can cost $35-50k, plus $15-20k per year maintenance, and another $40-60k in the last six months of life. I won’t hold my breath for Sarah McLachlan to come out with a public service video called: Think of the Lungs, Will You Save Them?
Heck, if we consider what most people spend on their dogs measured against their income or net worth, I don’t think the rich Florida couple is so far out of line as to evidence some problem with America and our relation to our dogs. When the day comes that gene therapy and genetic medicine starts producing real cures for humans and dogs alike, we’ll actually owe a debt to the advancement knowledge paid for by sentimental rich Floridians and the edgy Korean scientists who pushed the envelope.
The third part is really the worst and its most memorable footage is as misleading as it is maudlin. Whereas the rest of the footage appears to be current (within a 2-3 years) and captured by the production team for the explicit creation of the documentary, the producers make no effort during the documentary to mention that the scene where dogs are gassed in a dumpster is actually over 14 years old and lifted from a short film by Randy Benson called Man and Dog. That documentary won a Student Academy Award in 1999. The only clue that the footage is lifted is a mention at the end of the credits, “”Gas Chamber footage provided by Randy Benson.” There’s no hint at all that it’s sorely out-dated.
The original documentary, shot in 1998, was a full 15 minutes and told the story of the lone animal control officer working in a rural North Carolina county. The final title card explained how 7.5 million animals were put to sleep by animal control in 1998. The title card in One Nation Under Dog lists the figure as 2 million today but makes no mention how far this number has dropped since the original footage was filmed.
The new documentary also fails to mention that within a year of being shot and debuted the “shelter” shown in the video had been razed and replaced with a new facility where the dogs were given more humane lethal injections and no longer gassed. If you’d like the view the most emotionally disturbing minutes of that film, where the dogs are gassed, the video is available on youtube. A re-cut of this footage is what appears in One Nation.
..
I can only imagine that this footage was included in this 2012 documentary because the producers were lazy and uninspired and the focus groups came back “your documentary is boring, aimless, and lacks any emotional punch.” Then someone remembered that over a decade ago they saw some really shocking footage of dogs getting gassed and they figured, what the heck, this will spice things up like putting hot sauce on rancid eggs. Never mind doing something timely, never mind doing something relevant, never mind even doing a follow up or capturing this issue still happening, never mind presenting any of the advancements the last decade has brought (Can you say No-Kill?). No. Rehash some controversial and shocking footage and pass it off like it’s current and original work.
One Nation Under Dog the documentary is shallow drive-by “journalism” at its worst. Lots of sound, very little fury, and all signifying nothing.
* * *
Comments and disagreements are welcome, but be sure to read the Comment Policy. If this post made you think and you'd like to read more like it, consider a donation to my 4 Border Collies' Treat and Toy Fund. They'll be glad you did. You can subscribe to the feed or enter your e-mail in the field on the left to receive notice of new content. You can also like BorderWars on Facebook for more frequent musings and curiosities.
* * *
You are fooling yourself if you think the gas part was simple laziness. It is included because it is “shocking” and makes a false impression that while people “party” with dogs A, they are cruelly eliminating dogs B. The whole issue about spending money on dogs — I didn’t watch HBO (don’t get it for one thing) but I doubt they pointed out that in this day of bad economy numbers, unemployment, etc, all that spending means jobs in making those silly dog costumes, grooming those dogs, making, maintaining and repairing those RVs, not to mention the employed veterinary personnel. In my town the local dog show was for years the second largest economic event in the entire year. It brought in business for the hotels, eating places, even gas stations and the local walmart. And how ’bout those expenditures for skiing? skate parks? People have something they like as a hobby, they spend money on it. People have an emotional investment in something, especially a live animal, and they spend more. Are some silly about it? sure. And they might blow almost that much if they were into gambling at Vegas too.
I don’t think it’s simple laziness like some last minute plagiarism, and I made it clear that the reason they included it was because it was shocking and emotionally evocative. It’s lazy film making–this is a criticism of the HOW, not the why–because they reused old footage instead of presenting their argument with current footage.
Based on this film we don’t know if this gas chamber business is common or rare, and the film doesn’t even work up enough steam to suggest that one might want to campaign against gas chambers in favor of more humane methods. Based on the film we are mislead as to how many dogs die each week. No title card that says “3 out of 4 of these dogs wouldn’t die today compared to when this footage was taken.”
It’s also a lazy argument instead of a measured, considered, and sophisticated one that’s logically valid. Juxtaposing rich dogs raised from the dead with gassed dogs might work for simple minds, but it’s a shoddy platform to build from.
The footage is lazy like Lady Gaga is lazy. She does “shocking” things, but they’re stolen from “shocking” things Madonna did 15 years ago. Ignorant children might find it new and innovative, but when you saw it the first time, it’s just pathetic and desperate.
The ONUD documentary stated that the gassing footage was undercover.If so, it seems to me that this would not be easy to obtain successfully. You need a willing volunteer, who is good with sneaking around with a camera and still getting a clear view, all while working with other shelter folk.
If that were the case, I could sort of forgive the re-use of that bit of film, because it would not be easy to get. Also I don’t know exactly how many still kill this way, but I would not be surprised if it was still common, because it seems to be a cheap and efficient method and even shelters in places like NYC are losing funds. Show me a kill shelter in rural West Virginia and ask me to guess if they will take the one-at-a-time route of lethal injection with drugs under a licensed professional. My guess would be “no.”
Stepping back a bit though, I wonder if this really was undercover footage, or by “undercover” did that mean that a few of the staff were in on it, w/o the knowledge and consent of their managers. The view was just too clear and there were several workers around.
Gas chambers are outlawed in many states and some counties. It’s still legal in PA, OH, MI, and NC (though not all counties). That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s common, though.
Some basic research and facts would have made that documentary much more interesting.
We are getting HBO for 3 months right now, so I saw that.
The dumpster scene, sensationalism, not reporting how the numbers of kills is way dawn- if you stay away from PETA shelters!-rehoming is way up, and increasing, though it is not perfected yet, it will be- in favor of one more dose of disgust, fear, and all the normal people who have dogs without indulging in excesses. I am glad for the pet industry jobs, but they are turning dogs into a high maintenance product.
They certainly did not tell the truth about the puppy farms industry. There are still a few creepy places, but the corporate dog raising centers, which are quickly making the backyard puppy farms obsolete, are indoor facilities with temperature control, exactly the “right” amount of space for a bitch and her puppies, proper food, some socialization. This kind of operation is what is filling the AKC registration numbers right now and its outlets are pet stores. I dislike this, but they are not back yard operations as seen in the video.(Those guys register with places like the Continental Kennel Club, not the AKC.) In fact, some are hardly distinguishable from the big time breeders who show their several-to-many breeds of dogs with professional handlers to legitimize the corporate farms behind their endeavors.
Kate Williams recently posted..WaWa Watch 6-13-2012
I should have said , ” and skipping over all the normal people who have dogs without indulging in excesses.”
Kate Williams recently posted..WaWa Watch 6-13-2012
I’ve read a few reviews of the documentary. The ones published with an eye toward the general public tend to be positive; ones written by people within the current canine culture tend to be negative, like yours. Broadcast on HBO, one assumes the film was meant for the general public. Personally, I thought the film was somewhat haphazard and think that each segment might have gone on longer and presented a more thorough investigation of each element the producers were trying to examine. However, this was broadcast on HBO, not C-Span, so I think you have to consider the context. Judging things outside of the realm in which they were meant to function leads to problems, in general. From a technical perspective, I thought the editing and videography were particularly well done. Written as an, at best, disjointed narrative, this helped the film, imho, succeed in developing some continuity across a disparate subject.
The more vivid part, the “betrayal” segment seems to be what bothers people. Your criticism that the footage was actually shot 15 yrs ago seems to me a specious argument. Are you aware of ANY AC facility that would allow a film crew to record this today? Many AC facilities will not even allow a still camera through the door. Gassing animals occurs daily in open AC facilities across the country, an unfortunate fact. Some use equipment like the re-fashioned bin shown. Facilities with larger budgets might have purpose built equipment. And simply because this facility has been torn down and replaced* do you not think that there are 500 facilities in rural areas across the country that are not as equally decrepit, disgusting or unhealthy? As far as including this footage at all, well, 95% of all comments and reviews have centered on this portion of the film. It is a significant concern for a large portion of the canine culture. I think a larger representative truth of this issue was captured in the film, if not the specific facts you mention. So I do not understand in what way the inclusion of older (credited) footage was misleading. Granted, there have been improvements: more states are banning the use of gas chambers, No-Kill thinking has challenged the status quo, euthanasia rates have decreased (getting a handle on real figures though is next to impossible) and there are not as many AC facilities that look like a hoarders back yard as there used to be. However, there are still many places across the country where the footage is an accurate representation of what goes on and I think the producers were correct in including the footage in order to communicate something to a public that is generally oblivious.
There is a reason, beyond the obvious economic ones, why AC’s tend to be sited next to the dump, the jail, or the sewerage treatment plant. (Or all three.) This is, to my mind, because the public does not venture that way often, and generally speaking, the public would prefer to remain uniformed. So again and in that sense, I think the documentary was valuable in at least airing some dirty laundry.
* Inquiring minds might want to know, with what? Nearly every publicly financed shelter I’ve seen is poorly designed, from a health, safety and welfare perspective not to mention the architectural standards evident which are either non-existent or simply some poorly considered vanilla box meant to please SOMEONE. There are notable exceptions however.
And there’s the problem, the “general public” reviewers think this is accurate and compelling when it’s those people who need to know the truth and the current state of affairs in dogs. It’s the general public who are, due to their numbers, an important segment of the culture. They are the ones who can provide homes for dogs from all sources, they are the ones who will vote on laws about dog ownership, they are the ones who are largely ignorant of the important movements, like No-Kill, within the more serious dog culture.
In some ways you have an even GREATER obligation when you aim to educate the masses versus those who are already highly proficient and well read in the area of your presentation. The masses don’t have the same ability to cross examine and critique what you’re saying.
spe·cious/ˈspēSHəs/
Adjective:
1. Superficially plausible, but actually wrong: “a specious argument”.
2. Misleading in appearance, esp. misleadingly attractive: “a specious appearance of novelty”.
There’s nothing specious about my argument. The use of the footage is actually very specious. How would you feel if you were watching a documentary on the most recent US war in Iraq and the most evocative footage was actually decades old and from a massacre during the Iran-Iraq war which occurred before many of the troops of the recent war were even born?
* This documentary itself had footage from SEVERAL AC facilities. They obviously allowed the film crew. I’ve seen no shortage of footage that’s current from numerous other facilities, several of which have regular TV shows being produced on their grounds. I’ve seen plenty of footage from other documentaries. That argument holds no weight.
* If gassing animals is inhumane and if it’s a common practice today, this documentary provides no evidence of either. It certainly provides no context that this is an established and common element of the dog culture today, or ever. There’s no story here, no news, it’s simply a turd on the lawn.
* If this is a problem, show me current footage. If it’s common, it can’t be hard. We’ve seen footage of puppy mills from under cover workers and I’m sure they didn’t get waivers signed before hand. As it is, this entire segment is evidence of nothing except what happened at one rural shelter so long ago that few dogs alive today were alive then.
And this is thus a horrible failure of the documentary to present anything new and be relevant on its own merits.
So if I make a movie about modern warfare today and chop out a minute and a half of Saving Private Ryan and include it in the film because it has emotional punch and needs to be seen IMO, despite the fact that it was already released in 1998 in its own full length film, that I should get a pat on the back for being edgy and modern and current simply because I insert a little “extra footage supplied by Spielberg” card at the end of the credits?
If there is a larger truth, including this footage only weakens the argument. If it’s still a problem and you can’t find me anything newer than obsolete footage from 1998 then you’re a hack and I have no reason to believe you nor to become invested in your message.
The film had NO problem putting dates on other footage they used. They showed news paper clippings that had dates and even put white on black text across the screen “In November 2009, …” for the first segment. They fail miserably to link the Taffet case to any great trend in dog culture, but at least they were honest about the timeline.
Why not tell the truth about the gas footage? It’s inclusion is entirely voided by my observation that not only does that facility not exist in that state, it hasn’t been that way for almost as long as that footage.
If you want to make the argument that this happens all the time and there are 10 such facilities like this in every state, you better get off your lazy film maker ass and show them to me.
From the footage you don’t know that it’s 15 years old. That the facility hasn’t even existed as pictured for 14 years. That dogs there are no longer gassed in that manner.
That’s misleading.
When the rest of your documentary uses “Facts” that are presented as current and then you toss that in, it’s misleading. When you don’t even point out in the body of the film that you’re just lifting this from another person’s work, it’s misleading.
Hell, this entire documentary is misleading, they use the name and title from a popular book and yet their content has very little to do with what was presented therein.
That’s misleading.
See this is a laugh. This documentary does nothing to document the state of the shelter system. It doesn’t even make the argument that gassing is inhumane and that other alternatives are better. There’s no argument at all, just a collection of footage spliced together with very little narrative.
The closest thing to documenting and journalism is the “x many dogs are killed in shelters every year” card. That’s about it. Everything else is just voyeurism. There’s no context, there’s no list of facts and figures, there’s no trend analysis, there’s no interviews with key players, there’s no history, there’s no philosophy, there’s no call to action, there is only the barest of footage cut out and plopped on the screen because it has dogs crying in it.
It’s not even airing the dirty laundry. It just shows you an image of a bowl with some shit in it. That’s not informative, people might not look at their shit, or other people’s shit, but we all know it happens, every day. There’s not even an argument being made that this shit is worse than other shit or that there’s too much shit, or that it’s unethical shit or anything of the sort.
We can have sophisticated chat over the impact of the kill footage, but that’s not even relevant in the manner in which it was shown here. Had they done the work and gotten current footage, that conversation might be interesting, but as it is, they have shown me nothing relevant. Why bother to talk about it in the context of the 2012 documentary when it would best be talked about in the context of the 1999 Man and Dog.
Except for the scatological digressions, an interesting explanation of your initial critique. You are right, your criticism of the film isn’t specious. It is not even superficially plausible.
In hypothetical film #1, a WWII doc., by the logic of your critique, you couldn’t use the Spielberg footage as it a) was staged and b) was shot 50 yrs after the fact. Your critic might argue that bodies don’t really look like that when they get blown up! Utah Beach didn’t have any land mines on it! On 6 June 1944 at 0600 GMT, in this part of Normandy, the sun was not at the angle shown in the clip! The location for this scene was not even in France! Ad nauseum.
Suppose there is another film maker working on hypothetical documentary # 2, this one is about the family Felidae, cats. There is a budget established. The film has segments dealing with different aspects of cats. One segment deals with cat fanciers in North America. Another deals with habitat destruction in SE Asia. Another chapter talks about the evolution and geographic distribution of cats. The last segment deals with diet. In an introduction to this segment, the film states that ALL felidae are carnivores. He/she is able to shoot footage of a domestic cat eating a mouse, a Lynx eating a rabbit, and the budget even allows the director to get footage of a Jaguar eating a monkey. The final shot shows a lion ripping apart a gazelle; blood, guts and body parts flying everywhere. The film maker uses stock footage for this shot as they can’t afford to go to Africa. The credits of the documentary properly note photographers, locations, dates, etc. Your critic sees the film and shouts foul! The footage of the lion was shot 10 yrs ago at a game park in Botswana! There are not even lions in this part of Botswana anymore! Furthermore, the lion didn’t even kill the gazelle. A game ranger shot it and threw it off the jeep to the lion. This is completely misleading! All it proves, complains your critic, is that some cats are carnivores and lions eat stuff that people throw them. One could throw them a head of lettuce and they would eat it! There wasn’t even any mention of cougars, bobcats, ocelots or leopards! The critic finally states that the film proves nothing about the “truth” of cats or even that all cats are carnivores. What a lazy film maker!
Additionally,
-Indeed some camera crews are allowed in to sheltering facilities. The facility in suburban Memphis that the shelter segments were shot at appears to have allowed them limited access. The argument was that very few facilities, at least that I am aware of, would allow a camera crew into to film the staff destroying animals. If you are able to find one, have at it. Good luck and I would suggest you contact the producers of the HBO film as I suspect that is the reason older footage was used.
-“Undercover” footage is problematic from a legal perspective, and the videos you mention regarding puppy mills are usually filmed after, or during the “bust.” Regarding the rest of the argument, again, there is substantial supporting evidence. A 30 sec. google image search leads me here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8530764@N06/). There is, additionally, common sense to appeal to.
– There is no “larger truth.” That’s the point. And the footage is obsolete in age, not in content. Dogs are still gassed in Yadkin County, NC. Not in the same mechanism and though the film does not make that fact explicit, what does that change? What the viewer might assume from the footage shown remains accurate in the relevant details.
– I think it is a little bit beyond the scope of this film; to document the state of the shelter system, to argue the merits of the several forms of euthanasia, to present “trend analysis” or interview who some might think are “key players.” To argue that the film is bad based on what is not included is a mistake. The film is not simplistically didactic or a piece of propaganda. It assumes adult viewers.
Actually, I didn’t like the documentary all that much either, but for reasons other than the one you mention.
all the best,
h
You’re conflating examples.
I mentioned a documentary about the recent war in Iraq that would use decade+ old footage from a different war from a different time. That’s what this documentary did, it presented 15 year old material without any context or explanation and played it off as current and timely and representative of reality. It’s not. It’s representative of a reality 15 years ago and that reality was no longer even relevant 14 years ago. That’s manipulative and lazy.
If gassing dogs is still a problem, I’d want to see NEW and current footage and have someone explain on camera how widespread this is and what is keeping this inhumane form of death popular and widespread, etc. Same with the puppymill footage. I’d want to see someone size up that issue of these back woods hutch things and then show what an institutional licensed puppy mill looks like for comparison and education.
I’m not against showing dogs getting gassed, I’m against deception and distortion.
The Saving Private Ryan example was for a MOVIE where I simply stole the punchy footage and spliced it into my new movie. The purpose of this example was more about the re-use of someone else’s work because the second film maker lacked the talent, time, money, skill, whatever to do their own work and make their own compelling footage. The old footage didn’t go unappreciated, it won an Academy Award!
Regarding your example of using stock footage, perhaps you missed the several controversies over deceptive and staged footage in nature documentaries. One example is the Disney nature film which showed lemmings “jumping” to their deaths. In truth they were being thrown over a cliff by a turn table. This deception was so effective that it has spawned an entire cultural belief about suicidal lemmings. Or the Marty Stouffer controversy (very much like the John Varty controversy) about using tame animals as bait for wild predators to get shots on film. Several other controversies on various films for clever editing to disguise shots of animals in zoos or zoo like conditions to appear as if they were on the open ranges in the wild.
All the manipulation you state is worthy of criticism! Film has an even greater obligation for truth than prose as film has immense power to influence. When something is presented as observed fact when it’s actually staged, that is fraud and worthy of the fiction bin, not the documentary bin.
The critic in your example is right, except about the lettuce. Manufactured footage is not evidence of anything, certainly not PROOF. If it was staged it just LOOKS like evidence, but it is not. It doesn’t even matter if it’s staged to look real and mirrors what IS real, it’s still not proof of anything. It’s still a recreation.
This film was so lazy they don’t even make any claims with their footage, they just poop it out there. That’s even worse, they leave it up to people to make uninformed assumptions as to how common or widespread or timely the footage is.
Truthfully I’ve been speaking with friends for some time now, that we are in the age of the doc, and as such, it’s looking like ANYONE can make one and get it released.
Maybe aspiring filmmakers are under the impression that documentaries don’t need the creative writing skills that other films do. Just film some things happening in front of you in real life, interview folks, keep the interesting statements, slap together, voila! Instant film. Instant 15 minutes of fame.
Film school students thinking of pursuing documentaries may want to review GOOD HAIR!
Never did I think a full length doc could be made revolving around cultural hairstyling that would hold my attention. Yet here it is!
It has one central theme; the lengths African Americans go to for hair styles.
It went from the corrosive materials behind straightening (watch it and you’ll be amazed at how you think of a salon trip as a potential child abuse case – 8 yr olds having hair straightened), the insane expense and trouble of the weave, heck, there is even a trip to India to the human hair sourcing and the industry behind it, plus culturally accepted sacrifices of the women and their economic necessity.
Okay, so Chris Rock can narrate just about ANYTHING into something you’d want to hear,but that’s just all part of well planned infotainment, right?
Anyway, it WAS a pretty well organized flick. Budgeting was clearly pretty decent, but you don’t need a great budget to organize thoughts. You DO need great writing and organization to grab attention for such a potentially mundane subject.
Sidebar: Lady Gaga’s form of entertainment is painfully obvious as a ripoff. Although I thought of her more as a lame pop version of Marylin Manson. I dunno, maybe it has something to do with her horsey face under heavy makeup. She is an insult to the Shock rock king at any rate, even if she does have a decent voice and classical piano skills.
Madonna copied Monroe, who no doubt copied someone before her. That is the nature of pop, which is why ink and dramatic piercings just don’t raise eyebrows like they used to.
Not sure what those photos are supposed to document or prove. Only one has a digital date stamp and that conflicts with the flickr “date taken.” Many of them look like they are taken from old film, they do not look like current photographic quality at all. So again, we have documentation of this happening at some point in the past. Meh.
And it does matter. The “relevant details” are NOT consistent with modern reality. Do you really think people are well served if they are being shown a quantity of animals gassed when there were 4 times as many animals PTS? No, they are being fed misinformation. One dog gassed is not the same as 100 dogs gassed is not the same as 1,000,000 dogs gassed.
The film claims to be about the dog culture in America. How can you call it relevant to the NATION when it’s one rural city 14 years ago and there is no evidence as to how this is indicative of the wider culture now, across America? Yet they DO make claims about nation-wide statistics in other places during the film speaking to their desire to do this.
It is bad for what is not included. This is a legit complaint. If I made a movie called Dog Culture and only showed clips of Westminster BIS dogs being raised up in silver bowls, it’d be just to criticize what was not included. Heck, if we want to get to just what was shown in this film, why did they show the gassing but we didn’t see the PTS of the Rhodesian Ridgeback? Why not show what the freezer full of dog carcasses looked like in that case? How about showing what the cremation looked like?
See, not all those scenes fit with what people want to view and are comfortable with. We don’t want to show things that might make activity we deem nice and humane to look inhumane (not all euths go well even with the injections) and we don’t like to think about our dogs burning before they come back as ashes…. so that footage would make the romantic notion of “cremains” less rainbow-bridgey and more burnt steaky. So if we want to prop up needle injections, let’s show the footage in a positive light, then if we want to shame gas chambers we’ll show footage which makes people cringe. Make no mistake, this documentary was not even close to objective. It was very much cherry picked.
Spending money on an interest is simply a lifestyle choice. If I would rather buy the best food I can find for my dog than have some other item someone else would spend money on that is no one’s business. There could easily be hit-pieces produced attacking anything anyone choses to spend their money on so why did they even bother?
I’m grateful to find that there are improvements in shelters and re-homing in recent years. Our local shelter is very nice, and they do a great job rehoming pets.
as a person who once majored in History, I find that information that isn’t labeled “reinactment” or properly dated gives a false image. You don’t show footage or photos of WWI aircraft and present it as if it were footage or photos from WWII. It’s false and misleading. period. If you don’t have footage to show of a particular event, you label it “REINACTMENT”. You don’t present it as actual footage. Speilburg didn’t present Saving Private Ryan as a documentary. He made a very accurate MOVIE. compare to the PBS series “the Civil war”, which was presented as a documentary.
It’s always possible to find “fringe” folk in any group — there are those who are into history, reinactment folk (who may well spend a fortune to be as accurate as possible), you have serious anthropology reinatments such as on the you tube http://www.youtube.com/user/falchion49 site. then the Society for Creative anacronisms, all the way to the latest “reality show” that had full armored “knights” fighting it out in “jousts”.
You don’t show images of Victorian horses in head high and extremely overloaded weights as an arguement that the carrages in NY City Park are abusive.
I shouldn’t have used a war metaphor and the Saving Private Ryan example (used to show different arguments) in the same response. SPR was used because it was the most memorable movie from the year the old footage came out and of course it also won Academy Awards. Plus it had a very memorable horrific scene.
But yes, it does also speak to changing standards of morality. For example we no longer use Flame Throwers as troops or on tanks. If I were to make a documentary or movie that aimed to influence people about the morality of warfare techniques, I would be remiss to include footage of flame throwers without being clear that things have changed and how they have changed between WWII, the late 70s when they were put out of service, and today.
Frankly if you stuck WWII footage in a film about modern warfare and no one noticed the non-desert backdrops, the outdated equipment and uniforms and all those other little things, I’d probably drop my head and cry.