I still can't stop thinking about it, so that says something. However, I'm really troubled by the behavior of the characters in this movie. Ultimately, the storyline doesn't work in the 21st century.
I was troubled that Parker let his dog roam the streets and follow him without even a collar on. And the wife, whose name I can't even remember, doesn't seem to ever attach to the dog for no valid reason as the dog is adorable and loving. The fact that the poor animal is forced to sleep in the tool shed when these people have a huge house with a wonderful sun porch for just the two of them is more than annoying. In fact, the dog is NEVER shown in the house as a grown animal. Makes me think his loyalty is misplaced and nowhere near deserved by these people. Even after her husband dies, she never even says goodbye as her daughter loads the dog up. There is no explanation given as to why she doesn't keep the dog as any creature loved so much by a beloved husband should be cherished and taken care of. The daughter makes a half-hearted attempt to keep the dog, but gives up quickly and never goes to see how the dog is doing. Oh, and how do they explain to the son that they just left grandpa's dog to fend for himself? Makes no sense.
The one with the most concern is the Japanese professor who at least attempts to give money to the local vendors for the dog's care. They refuse as they're willing to take care of him, but there's no true care going on. Couldn't the station master give him a broom-closet to sleep in? A dish with some real dog food in it? A blanket or two? And the hot dog vendor only offers some stray scraps of leftover hot dogs. That's not nutrition. And in the true story, apparently the station master did allow the dog to live in the station and made a home for him (which would have worked MUCH better here) rather than allowing him to live under an old train in all kinds of weather. The ending does work well in its uplifting vision of dog meeting master upon his death.
The filming is well done, and the black and white images of life through a dog's eyes are creative and just enough to make the point. The setting couldn't be more beautiful and adds to the haunting tone of the story.
The screenplay is ultimately really flat to match the characters. The daughter makes an impassioned plea for the dog to stay, telling him how much they love him and want him, and in the next breath says goodbye and opens the gate. Okay, so the premise is the dog needs to do what the dog needs to do, but that's like saying a ten-year-old should be allowed to do what he or she feels like doing. It doesn't make sense. No one goes out of his or her way to help the dog in any meaningful way, not even in a superficial way. And when the wife shows up at the train station ten years later to visit her husband's grave, her interaction with the dog is trite.
Maybe the film would have worked if set in the original time period (1920s) if not the original country. And after writing this I know why I can't stop thinking about it. I'm haunted by the loyalty of an animal who is ultimately so neglected and ignored.
This film is a sad commentary on human behavior and the emotional, physical waste of this beautiful animal is, even to anyone who isn't a major animal lover, a horrible tragedy. There is no redemption in this film. Just sadness.
I was troubled that Parker let his dog roam the streets and follow him without even a collar on. And the wife, whose name I can't even remember, doesn't seem to ever attach to the dog for no valid reason as the dog is adorable and loving. The fact that the poor animal is forced to sleep in the tool shed when these people have a huge house with a wonderful sun porch for just the two of them is more than annoying. In fact, the dog is NEVER shown in the house as a grown animal. Makes me think his loyalty is misplaced and nowhere near deserved by these people. Even after her husband dies, she never even says goodbye as her daughter loads the dog up. There is no explanation given as to why she doesn't keep the dog as any creature loved so much by a beloved husband should be cherished and taken care of. The daughter makes a half-hearted attempt to keep the dog, but gives up quickly and never goes to see how the dog is doing. Oh, and how do they explain to the son that they just left grandpa's dog to fend for himself? Makes no sense.
The one with the most concern is the Japanese professor who at least attempts to give money to the local vendors for the dog's care. They refuse as they're willing to take care of him, but there's no true care going on. Couldn't the station master give him a broom-closet to sleep in? A dish with some real dog food in it? A blanket or two? And the hot dog vendor only offers some stray scraps of leftover hot dogs. That's not nutrition. And in the true story, apparently the station master did allow the dog to live in the station and made a home for him (which would have worked MUCH better here) rather than allowing him to live under an old train in all kinds of weather. The ending does work well in its uplifting vision of dog meeting master upon his death.
The filming is well done, and the black and white images of life through a dog's eyes are creative and just enough to make the point. The setting couldn't be more beautiful and adds to the haunting tone of the story.
The screenplay is ultimately really flat to match the characters. The daughter makes an impassioned plea for the dog to stay, telling him how much they love him and want him, and in the next breath says goodbye and opens the gate. Okay, so the premise is the dog needs to do what the dog needs to do, but that's like saying a ten-year-old should be allowed to do what he or she feels like doing. It doesn't make sense. No one goes out of his or her way to help the dog in any meaningful way, not even in a superficial way. And when the wife shows up at the train station ten years later to visit her husband's grave, her interaction with the dog is trite.
Maybe the film would have worked if set in the original time period (1920s) if not the original country. And after writing this I know why I can't stop thinking about it. I'm haunted by the loyalty of an animal who is ultimately so neglected and ignored.
This film is a sad commentary on human behavior and the emotional, physical waste of this beautiful animal is, even to anyone who isn't a major animal lover, a horrible tragedy. There is no redemption in this film. Just sadness.