Plague Dogs

Between Kestrel's Eye and this movie I would actually rather want to watch Kestrels Eye even though there was no narration. The idea of Plague Dogs was just cruel and the movie presented the audience with emotion which was the whole idea of watching the movie. Emotions are shown through killing of animals and even in the end when the audience gets to make up thier own conclusion about what happens in the end. Of course the audience would feel some sort of happiness because we would think that they dogs would reach the island without drowning and escaping the hunters. I never understood the idea of animal testing and even though this movie was a cartoon I am still dumbfounded on the idea of animal testing especially on dogs, a human pet.

I understand that the filmmaker was trying to show the audience the idea of animal testing and the physical and psychological effects on the animal. I liked how the film showed the dogs escaping the lab, but then again I didn't like how the movie started off in the opening soon. The point of the moive was to show what the animal goes through in situations like these and they themselves know that they need to escape these bad events. The movie portrays the human as the bad guy because throughout the movie humans are always the bad guys and hunting the two dogs. The producer showed the effects of emotion very well throughout the movie because there was never a time where a certain emotion wasn't present.

Overall the movie was difficult to watch because of certain scenes and the way they were presented. This movie made my view of animal experiementaion even worse especially with dogs. The film was a good assest to lecture becasue it was a movie full of emotions, and the idea of our emotions are appropiate to a given situation. I believe that any emotion that the audience has is appropaite for a given sitation just because of the given events in the movie.

Film Response: Plague dogs

This movie was very eye opening as it expressed the horrors of animal testing through an animal's perspective. I have always strongly disliked the idea of animal testing, and this film has reinforced my opinion. It follows the life to two dogs who have been tested on for various reasons, and their lucky escape from the lab. Through a series of events, we find out more and more about how they were tested and what for. We learn that one of the dogs was tested for endurance through drowning and getting revived over and over again, while the other dog had undergone some brain surgery, all for human benefit. This film allowed the veiwer to live out the point of view of the animals in experiment labs, and how this kind of "testing" not only affects the animals physically, but psychologically as well. As humans, I think it is often hard for us to sympathize with animals, expecially when we do not always know what experiements are actually going on, as portrayed in the film. It is also difficult for us because we see the benefits
of this testing for humans, and there is no direct effect to us if the testing goes bad. This film allowed humans to go inside the head of the dogs, and see the other side of the picture. Although it was very hard to watch, I think this film is important, especially in our world today where so many people do not take animal life or feelings into consideration. The point of the film was to invoke strong emotion and empathy for the dogs, and to give the person watching it another point of view. When people hear about animal testing and the animal activists promoting better treatment, there seems to be a stigma attached that they think aminals are equal to humans. This movie did a good job at allowing anyone watching to feel pity for the dogs, without preaching for animal rights. It allowed us to see that animals really do have a lot of the same emotions that we have, and they react the way that we would in the same situation. This film was a good way to promote animal rights and to portray the same desires in animals, humans, and all beings, the desire to live.

Film Response

In the movie Plague Dogs it showed what effects a dog goes through when subjected to animal testing and what psychological effects there are. In my opinion it was the most depressing movie I have ever seen. In the end when it showed the dogs swimming in the ocean and just as they are about to give up they seemed to get some strength and hope back in that there was an island out there so it made it seem like they wouldn't die because they had a will to be saved. This movie helped argue the fact whether there is emotion put into what we consider to be animal cruelty and the feelings towards animal testing. I guess what he was trying to get at was whether there is emotion that is played into our decision to label cruelty wrong because we feel for that animal.

The film was a great example of showing what an animal goes through and feels when subjected to the cruel intentions of a person. With dogs they are willing to go back to the owner even though they might do harmful things to them because they are a loyal creature. It shows that animals do express the same feelings that humans do and that they possess the same qualities as humans. Throughout their experience both dogs had this strong will to survive and humans do the same thing if they are ever in that type of situation, the will to live is something that is too strong. It can also be seen in the end of the movie when they are about to givve up and then all of a sudden they keep swimming at about the same strength as when they started. Through this film it can be seen that animals do have the same characteristics as humans do and that we should not treat them the way that was portrayed in the same.

Blog #11 - Film Response

The Plague Dogs, shown over the last few class periods, was an eye-opening and unique movie. As a child raised on Disney movies, I was expecting a completely different movie when Skitter's and Rawf's animated characters popped up on the screen. I was expecting some struggle for the dogs' freedom but not quite as many disturbing scenes as the movie contained. I was also appalled by the inhumane actions by the humans in the movie and the complete lack of "luck" that the dogs possessed. It seemed that everything that could go wrong for the dogs did: from the exhilarating escape to the prospect of starvation, from the hunting of sheep to the hunting of the dogs by humans, from the inexplicable cruelty of the laboratory doctors to the gruesome death of the only man that showed Skitter kindness.
While watching the movie, I found myself being pulled deeper and deeper into the plight of the dogs. My emotions were stirred by each scene and by the end of the movie, I was hoping against hope that just one human would just show the dog's some kindness. The closing scene was truly the most heart wrenching - the dogs swimming to their death, still waiting for some relief from their pain. This movie definitely accomplished its purpose - it made me think much more about animal rights and exposed just the "tip of iceberg" in regards to the inhumanity of animal experimentation.
Like discussed in class (in light of the past Midgely section), I believe the author did employ emotions to his advantage while making this movie. He was able to be very emotive - placing emotions inside of me that he had hoped to raise with his production. While Midgley cautions against emotive propaganda and art being used inappropriately, I believe the author used emotion quite liberally but within his rights. When dealing with a topic that is so often "pushed under the rug," one has to present a strong case to raise any type of awareness, and I believe that this movie did just that. The movie's producer had to make a statement with his work and expose all facets of animal cruelty to raise awareness regarding animal rights.

Film Response

After watching two films in class I'd have to say I'd rather watch Kestrel's Eye. Although Plague Dogs was animated and gave the animal's human life qualities, it was, at times, sad to watch. I love dogs and it was sad to watch the Snitter and Rowf go through some of the things they did. I feel kind of weird saying a cartoon made me sad, but I guess that is exactly what the creators of the film were going for when they made it. The film did it's job to evoke emotion and draw the viewer into the various hardships the dogs had to experience.

I thought the opening scene of the movie was extremely harsh, however, to look at the film from a more positive stance, it can be said that it accuartely depicted what some animals go through in labs or during different experiments. I thought it got a little slow at times when it kept showing the dogs being hunted by the humans. It was intersting to see the plot develop as word spread that the dogs were dangerous. Eventually, it seemed as if the creators of the film were overdoing the idea that the dogs were harmful. It was sad to see the way that the humans treated them along their journey. It definitely depicts humans as the "bad guys"; especially the workers in the lab who acted like they knew nothing about the experimentations.

It seemed as if other aspects of the film were created in order to evoke emotion as well. For example, the fox's death, Snitter's scarred head, and even the humans that died throughout the film were prominent parts of the film. Injury, death, and suffering are all topics that bring about a multitude of emotions, depending on the person they affect. As terrible as this sounds, it was not as sad to watch the hunters die as it was to watch the dogs suffer and be hunted by the humans. Like I said before, since the humans were portrayed as the "bad guys", it caused me not to feel as much emotion or sympathy towards them. Essentially, the dogs didn't do anything wrong yet they were the ones being tortured.

The Plague Dogs

The Plague Dogs is a cartoon animated movie that highlights the cruelty of animal testing and experimentation. The movie emphasized that there is a place for emotions in moral decision making. The movie originated by following the adventures of two dogs who were originally involved in animal testing. The two dogs were able to escape the lab, however it was a close call. After they escaped from the lab they had to become strong dogs and be able to fend for themselves while hiding from the experimenters that were looking for them.

This movie gave individuals and idea of how animal experiments are run, and how extremely sad it is to watch the animals suffer. The director gave the dogs human like qualities, such as being able to speak which allowed the viewer to connect with the animals even more. The movie showed very intense footage such as watching Rowf swim until he couldn't swim anymore. This scene was very sad to watch. I am sure that this scene touched many people. Along with watching the dogs live on their own in the wild. The movie raises awareness about animal experimentation, and truly shows how an animal must feel going through such experiments and being on their own in the wilderness.

The movie was a difficult film to watch because it was so depressing to watch the dogs flee from humans who wanted to kill them or bring them back for more experiments. Also the accidents that the dogs provoked were very grotesque and hard to watch. Overall the movie provides a good point on educating people about animal experimentation. However I think that they could have made the movie less gruesome when showing how the dogs lived on their own once they escaped.

Plague Dog film response

This film was hard to watch. I'll just start with that first. I am an avid animal lover and even though this was animated, it was hard to watch because it invoked strong feelings and I could identify with the dogs. However, I am sure that was the film makers goal. By using images and personification of the animals, I was manipulated into feeling strong about the content in this movie. Many times it was hard to watch, espiecally in the begining. There was definatly a strong emotional case in this film against animal cruelty in testing facilites.

While I know I was manipulated when watching this film, I do feel like the author/film maker had a viable thought behind it. From this I can conclude that there was approriate emotion (if not abit strong at some points) and a thought that goes along with it. This film really made me look into animal testing and really made me wonder whether or not stuff like this still goes on. What they did to Ralph was cruel because I feel that it was not the best way to collect what they deemed valuable information. I feel that they could have run that experiment differently and avoided the path that they did.

I think it would be a good idea for all animal reasearchs to read Midgley's book because I feel she brings up some valuable points in the chapter on emotions and thought. I like that there are a serious of questions that reasearches should probably ask themselves. It starts with are the experiments really neccessary? (Any reasearcher will say yes). Ok then if you are using animals who deifines how they live an ordinary life? Who makes that criteria? (In this aspect Midgley says that a naturalist/ecologist outside of the influence of the reasearcher defines this. It is only through studying an animal in a natural habitat that we can decide this). The reasearcher should then ask is the experiment the only way to provide information by harming the animal? Is the information really that viable or can it be gotten another way? As Midgley points out, we are so rarely in lifeboats that a reasearcher should answer yes to this last question.