There’s a scene in I SHOT JESSE JAMES (1941), his first picture, where one of the characters literally punches the camera. This famously led filmmaker and critic Jean-Luc Godard to classify Samuel Fuller’s style as “Cinema-Fist.”
I don’t think there could be a more appropriate description.
IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN
WHITE DOG
READ ON WITH CAUTION.
THERE WILL BE SPOILERS....
Subtlety isn’t Samuel Fuller’s strong suit and I mean that as a compliment.
After seeing a handful of his films the one thing I can tell you about the man is that he knows how to make a point. There’s no tiptoeing around when you’re watching one of his pictures. His messages are like bricks to the face.
Filled to the brim with lurid subject matter his movies deal with thieves, psychopaths and pedophiles. Other times they’re about heroic soldiers and cowboys answering their call to duty. The one constant throughout all of his films is a dedication to the truth.
I use the word “truth” specifically because I don’t think Fuller’s films are necessarily realistic. They are often times exaggerated and larger than life, dripping with cinematic style and off the wall characters. But this does not prevent them from showcasing the hard truths of our world. In fact, I think it makes their lessons more poignant, as in a Shakespearean play.
Some might see Fuller speak and think he’s some sort of cigar chomping goon, calling everyone and everything a “bastard” or a “son of a bitch.” While the word “goon” might match his gruff outer shell, it certainly wouldn’t come close to describing his insight and intellect.
A BRIEF HISTORY
Fuller’s father passed away when he was 7 years old and his mother took him and his 7 siblings to live in New York City. When he was 12 he got a job as a copyboy, a few years after that he was working as a crime reporter for the New York Evening Graphic, a tabloid newspaper. Fuller worked through the mid-30’s as a pulp novelist and screenwriter, but enlisted in the United States Army when we became involved in World War II. He took part in the landings of Africa, Sicily and Normandy. Fuller fought on Omaha Beach. Upon returning from the war (decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star and Purple Heart) Fuller began his career making B-pictures including classics like FIXED BAYONETS! (1951), THE STEEL HELMET (1951), PICK UP ON SOUTH STREET (1953), SHOCK CORRIDOR (1963) and THE NAKED KISS (1964).
SOME THIRTY YEARS LATER
WHITE DOG (1982), Fuller’s last American production, is arguably his most important work. Taken from an true life experience, Romain Gary wrote this story about his and his wife’s (Jean Seberg) similar encounter with a “white dog.” The production seemed doomed from the start, going through a list of notable directors (Roman Polanski, Tony Scott) that all had to drop out for one reason or another. Finally, with an impending writers strike looming over Paramount’s production schedule, they pushed WHITE DOG along, hiring Samuel Fuller, who was known for being able to get films done quickly and on the cheap. But problems arose when Fuller wouldn’t follow the studio's request to keep the racial content of the film at a minimum. In fact, Fuller’s intention was to intensify the racial aspects of the story and to focus more of the film's narrative on the dog’s psychology. The studio just wanted “JAWS with paws.”
(Take a look at this trailer that was never released. It is a black and white reversal dupe and contains what sounds to me like an 80’s horror film score. Watch it both with and without the commentary. It’s very enlightening and shows just how easily a trailer can be manipulated to sell a film as something it isn’t.)
The film begins with an up and coming Hollywood actress hitting a white German Shepherd with her car. After nobody claims the dog, she decides to keep him and after he saves her from a rapist the dog becomes like family. This scene does play a little odd with her boyfriend’s warnings of living alone in the mountains coming just a few scenes before. Also, after the rapist is captured by police, the dialogue sounds like something out of a comic book. “That’s the same damn rapist I caught last year!” But for me, this is part of the pulpy charm of a Fuller picture.
After a series of unwarranted attacks, some known to Julie (the actress) some not, she brings the dog to an animal trainer named Carruthers. It is here she learns that her beloved German Shepherd isn’t just a plain old attack dog, but a “white dog.” An animal trained to kill people with black skin. A black trainer named Keys approaches Julie and the dog and vows to her, against Carruthers’ wishes, that if he can’t break the dog in 5 weeks, he’ll shoot him. This sets up the thrust of the film, and asks two major questions: Is racism something that is learned? And if so, is it possible that it can be unlearned?
One of my favorite moments in all of Fuller’s films is when Keys comes down to eye level with dog. They stare at each other like characters from a Sergio Leone movie.
The music by Ennio Morricone (Leone’s only musical collaborator) swelling on the soundtrack. The most primal image in the film follows-
-It’s as if Keys is literally looking at racism incarnate. The most pure form. A maniac dog that sees only in black and white.
What follows is a series of physical and mental battles between Keys and the dog, Key's trying his best to make the dog okay with his "black skin." These play out in a large metal dome and remind us of sparring matches from a film like SPARTACUS. Little by little we see the dog begin to wear down, until one stormy night when it escapes the compound and goes on the attack once again, setting up the films most suspenseful moments....
----------
And boy is this film suspenseful. Not only was Fuller interested in social commentary throughout his years as a director, but he was also a damn fine filmmaker, technically speaking and surrounded himself by the best in the business.
The photography by Bruce Surtees is nothing short of brilliant. The fluid tracking shots. The slow motion photography. The canted angles and composition. Not a shot is wasted in this picture. All of them pushing the narrative forward. Sparse and tough.
The score, as mentioned above, by Ennio Morricone, is one of the best he has ever written. It is both sad and intense. The main theme sends chills down my spine and is rhythmically haunting.
----------
...On the prowl, the dog has a close call with a small child, in one of the great singular shots of terror ever filmed. Never have I seen a static shot like the one above played for so much suspense.
Then, there is of course the murder in the church.
Probably the most mentioned scene in the film and probably the most sad. One wonders how Paramount planned on making this into a simple exploitation feature when you see this moment play out.
The man walking down the sidewalk has no set-up. We don't know if he's got a family. A wife. Friends. We don't know where he works. We barely even see his face, save for a quick tilt up from his shoes. But this sequence turns into the most utterly heartbreaking scene in the picture (most likely because we are spared the visuals of the actual murder).
Keys' speechless reaction is some of the finest acting you could ask for in a picture like this and it really hits home the significance of his plight. (Also done without speaking a word in a great dolly-zoom.)
-----------------------
Fuller states that the most significant scene in the film is the one in which the owner of the dog comes to claim him back. By his side, two little granddaughters, clenched tightly. When Julie asks if he was the man who trained the dog, he replies in a proud manner. "Since he was a pup." She replies back, "You bastard! You sick son of a bitch!" She warns the little girls to stay away from him. And at one point, even compares them directly to the dog. "You got two puppies there!? You going to teach them to be as sick as you are?"
It's pretty blatant what Fuller is doing here. He talks about it here, in an interview with Richard Schickel (CLICK HERE FOR INTERVIEW)
The question is, just because racism is taught does that excuse it? According to the linked interview above, Fuller believes that racist hate is a completely learned phenomenon. Something that isn't inherit in human nature. So, wouldn't this mean that the old man, the person that Fuller visibly despises was taught the same thing since child birth as he's teaching his grandchildren? And wouldn't this mean that the old man himself is somewhat of a white dog? Grown up to hate? And wouldn't this mean that nobody is at fault because it is just a never ending circle?
Where do we draw the line on things of this subject. Or do we ever? Is a Klan member a member for life the second he puts on the hood, or is there a caring individual somewhere deep inside?
---------------------
The finale of the film, again, plays out like a shootout from an old western. We have Julie, Carruthers and Keys in a triangle formation. The dog, supposedly 99% cured of his hate, must take the final step. Roaming loose with Keys just a few yards away.
This again is a cause for controversy. Some say, that the dogs sudden shift at the end and his decision to attack Carruthers is sign of his "insanity." That once you go homicidal, you are homicidal for life.
I personally believe that Carruthers and the man who raised him are quite similar looking and the dog's final attack was its last act of rebellion. Like a kid finally realizing that his dad is a racist and recoiling in disgust.
WHITE DOG was never released wide in American theatres. Paramount decided to shelve the project instead. I will leave you with Fuller's words on the matter. Hopefully this will spark some good discussion.....
"Shelve the film without letting anyone see it? I was dumbfounded. It’s difficult to express the hurt of having a finished film locked away in a vault, never to be screened for an audience. It’s like someone putting your newborn baby in a goddamned maximum-security prison forever ... Moving to France for a while would alleviate some of the pain and doubt that I had to live with because of White Dog." —White Dog: Sam Fuller Unmuzzled, Samuel Fuller, as quoted by J Hoberman, Criterion Collection[8]
76 comments:
The pictures got screwed up. I'll work on fixing it. I hate blogger.
A fine write-up of a troubling movie in many ways. Not just for its content but in how it, at times, obsesses with it. For me, the most troubling aspect of the plot is Fuller's decision to have Keys aware that the dog killed the man in the church. Had Keys been unaware, in other words, simply saw the dog on the sidewalk, prowling, with blood, then shot it with a dart and brought it back, I would have felt better about the message Fuller was trying to impart. But leaving a murdered man on the floor and telling no one. Just so you can see if you can try and cure one dog. It didn't feel like the characters true stock to me.
My favorite shot in the film is the circle around at the end before he attacks Burl Ives. What a great shot and I agree, he is cured and is taking out his anger on his former owner. There's a reason Fuller shows us the former owner only moments before - Because he wants that in our heads when he attacks Ives.
I'll say more as we get rolling. Great choice Joseph.
Great write-up. I, too, have only seen a handful of Fuller's films, and while I think THE STEEL HELMET is probably still my favorite, I think WHITE DOG is the best example I've seen of what everyone says is Fuller's pulp brilliance.
As a piece of filmmaking, WHITE DOG is pretty extraordinary, I think. My favorite shot is when the camera is on the sign "CARRUTHERS & KEYS", the pans over to focus on "KEYS", then tilts down to show Paul Winfield walking towards the camera. This is Keys, and he is important. The shot is both blunt and elegant, stylish and clear as a windowpane.
And Joseph, I'm with you completely on your interpretation of the (unbearably sad) finale. In his essay included in the Criterion disc, J. Hoberman says the ending is "irrational", but never explains what he means. But what's irrational about it? Like you say, we've just seen the bastard who raised the dog to be a monster, and now the dog is torn between his different forms of training. He thinks about going after Keys first, because he's black, and that's what he knows. Then he remembers Keys's training and kindness. Then he thinks about going after Julie, because she's white, which he's begun to associate with the torment of his early life. Then he sees Carruthers who bears an unmistakable resemblance to that "sick son of a bitch", and he snaps, and goes after him. It's like a confused attempt at revenge, and I thought it was perfect, and perfectly heartbreaking.
Thanks Greg-
I do agree that I find it hard to believe Keys wouldn't say anything about the dead man, but I'm willing to go with it for the sake of the film.
It is a bit ridiculous when they are drinking and eating and laughing only a few moments after, but I suppose we have to let me movie take some liberties to do what it is trying to do....
Bill-
Obviously I'm with you on the end, but I think you broke it down better than I did. I never thought about the fact that he kind of runs at Julie.
But yes, I read the criterion article as well and never understood how he could just call the ending irrational. The weird thing is, I've read that in many places. Go figure.
Yes, the ending is perfectly rational as we all three agree (Joseph, Bill and myself). He's going after his former owner. There isn't much reason for Fuller to introduce the owner at all much less RIGHT BEFORE the ending otherwise.
I don't know how else to interpret that ending....
Joseph, I'm not saying that incident detracts overall from the film for me, just that it didn't seem like those characters. They seem hearty, rugged and determined and responsible and, I believe, would have ended it right there.
Of course, I also understand that Fuller wanted to give extra motivation to Keys, to put him on a true personal mission. I just didn't think it was necessary.
When I said the 'incident' in the previous comment I was referring to the church murder.
I got that Greg. I was talking about the ending too. And like I said, I think I agree with you.
That was literally the one problem I had with the movie. Wondering if those characters would actually continue on.
I guess Julie doesn't want to. She says to kill the dog.
It's Keys' obsession. He kind of reminds me of Quint from JAWS at that point. Kind of blinded by the cause.
The aftermath of the church killing was my one problem with it, too. Mind you, the killing itself is brilliantly done -- cutting from the dog to the stained-glass window, with the dog glancing at it too, and Morricone's wonderful score playing over it...that felt like a horror film sequence to me, and I loved it -- but, as Greg says, simply leaving the man lying dead on the floor was a bit...obscene. For a little while, I thought the film wouldn't even acknowledge it, but of course they did, and they did so in a way that made me able to slip back into the groove of the film. Ultimately, it wasn't so much what Keys's motivation was, but rather simply the idea that the man was left shredded on the church floor. Maybe that's why Fuller didn't show it -- so we wouldn't be forced to think about it too much.
Pardon the pun but I do believe, like you said Bill, Keys' reaction is key. It's probably the saddest moment in the film.
That scene also reminds me of a horror film. It almost looks like an EC comic. Those stain glass church colors... The bright red blood and that image of the dog. Frightening...
By the way, is that Fuller who walks towards the camera with the light behind him during the film shoot? Sorry, but I didn't think to check on that.
Overall, this movie is one that often short circuits for me, meaning it blinks on and off between being brilliant and being mundane. One of the blinks off for me was the casting of Kristy McNichol who simply cannot hold her own against Ives and Winfield (though she can against the guy "playing" her boyfriend, who was just rank awful). The film shoot scene with McNichol and the other actress, as well as the hospital scene between the two, is some of the blandest acting I've ever seen. Bland to the point of being kind of funny in how bad it is. I've only seen five Fuller movies and I get the idea that he isn't an actor's director but someone who relies on the talents of the actors to see the movie through. In McNichol, he put his trust in the wrong person.
By the way Joseph - Just so you know, most people take part in these discussions from work and a lot of people aren't at work due to the massive blizzards we've got here on the East Coast. Some may even be without power and unable to join in. Just a warning that this may be one of the slower starters for discussion with more people coming in later in the day.
And I have a meeting in a half hour.
though she can against the guy "playing" her boyfriend, who was just rank awful...
"The guy"??? That was one of the Simons from SIMON & SIMON!! "The guy", indeed!
On Facebook yesterday, when I mentioned I was watching WHITE DOG, one person (who loves the film) made reference to his incredulity over the scene where Burl Ives throws a dart at an R2-D2 poster and refers to him as "the enemy". Again, what's so inexplicable about that? Carruthers is an old time movie guy, working with real animals and real things to make movies work, and he hates seeing special effects begin to dominate. It's not hard to get.
Why do so many people find this movie so baffling?
I loved the R2-D2 moment and feel Fuller put that in for nothing more than his own satisfaction.
As for Simon, sorry, but he blew. And he blew on the show too. Kristy McNichol was also a big tv star, doesn't mean she can act.
I also love the look of this film. The pulpy mixture of menacing eye close-ups with slow motion reactions and attacks felt like the kind of moviemaking I miss these days. It's like years ago, I was watching Texas Chainsaw Massacre with a friend, and you get those extreme eye close-ups and the jagged editing and the hand held clumsiness and my friend said, "Man you just don't get that anymore. Everything's so polished now, it doesn't feel real." I agreed. A movie like Chainsaw should feel like a cheap production - that's exactly what makes it so effective and so oddly real. This movie does have it's polished eighties look, yes, but it retains enough of that pulpy exploitation feel to really work for me.
That boyfriend was pretty lame but it didn't bother me. It's almost half expected.
I don't think that was Fuller, but it sure as Hell is a good stand in. I love how the flicker the cinemtographer comes into play at the end if that scene. "In France they call that artistic!"
McNichol didn't bother me either. She's definitely not the same caliber actor as Winfield, but I think she holds her own.
That R2-D2 scene is hilarious. Totally believable and gives. Us some much needed comic relief by that point in the film.
And Greg, no problem about the slow start. I have to actually go to work at 1pm. And here in Chicago the snow is pretty bad....
I'm not saying he was good. I'm just saying he was Jameson Parker.
And yes, WHITE DOG is true pulp filmmaking, of the type that is, well...dead. Nobody, literally nobody, does this anymore. Everybody who works with genre material, and wants to make "pulp", is way too self-conscious about what they're doing. The closest we have is Tarantino, but his stuff is a little too grand. Not in a bad way, I love Tarantino, but his ambition lately has kept him from making genuine pulp. I wouldn't trade what he's doing now for anything in the world, BUT if anyone was going to carry on the tradition represented by WHITE DOG, it would be him, but he's moved on.
I miss rough edges on films as well. We'll never get that again. Not the way things are going. You're able to make polished looking film now for less than $100
The closest thing we get now to a rough looking film is one that shakes the camera. This is a trend I hope to see DIE.
You're able to make polished looking film now for less than $100...
True and that's the problem. Novice filmmakers want to look like professionals out of the starting gate and back in the day they just wanted to make a movie no matter what it looked like. Bad sound, bad editing, bad lighting, bad acting - Didn't matter, as long as the film got made.
The closest thing we get now to a rough looking film is one that shakes the camera. This is a trend I hope to see DIE.
That's because it's trying to be shaky, not because it has to be because they can't afford a crane or camera mounted push-cart on tracks. I agree, that trend can't die fast enough.
Fair warning: The wind here is getting scary. Branches hitting the house, snow and ice everywhere, etc. If I suddenly disappear, it's because I've lost power which I'm hoping will not happen. Really, really, really hoping that won't happen.
I chickened out. I love the Sam Fuller films I've seen, but I just cannot take animal films. I'll never see Au Hasard Balthasar for the same reason. I hate that we put animals down that have been trained to kill.
Joseph, I apologize. TOERIFC is supposed to coax us toward films we wouldn't see. I just couldn't do it.
But I can say that while my hubby loved McNichol, I agree that she's a serviceable actress at best. He loves WHITE DOG. I probably should send him over to comment.
Marilyn, although the film is quite sad, for various reasons, it doesn't quite play out how you seem to think. Not that how it DOES play out would necessarily thrill you, but it's very pro-dog, if that helps at all.
Marilyn, please do send Shane to comment if he likes. I'd love that.
Where in the hell is Ed? Fox? Rick? Pat? Guys come on, don't let me down.
I don't know if this is really an animal film. Is it considered that? Maybe BENJI from Hell?
And yeah. You can't make a film look rough on purpose. It just has to be rough.
It's a crappy day out. I don't blame people for doing what they have to do, LIKE CLEAN THE DRIVE WAY!
I don't know where the others are, but I don't expect to see Fox. I mean, really, that guy's become a Buddhist monk now, or something.
Joseph, I didn't mean it was "pro-dog" in the sense that it was an animal film, like LASSIE (although J. Hoberman seems to sort of think so, as he calls it an "animal film" in his essay). I just mean that in spite of everything, the movie loves that dog. It doesn't blame the dog, it wants the dog to succeed, and, of course, the dog DOES succeed, in a way, but it's still got the mind of an animal, and can't make the connections, or tell the differences, that we can. That's why the ending is so heartbreaking.
Joseph -
I had hoped to participate whole heartedly today, but the the usual reliability of Netflix deliery schedules failed me. I was expecting to recieve "White Dog" yesterday,but it didn't get here. I did manage to watch some clips on YouTube, including some of the scenese you've disucssed in detail. (The church murder and the whole sequence leading up to it.) I hope to watch this sometime soon and revisit your post. But, a great write up and one that piques my interest in the film evem more.
Oh yeah. For sure Bill. That's what I kind was getting at in my write-up. Don't you think that the old man was trained the same way as the dog, to hate? Just like the way he was most likely bringing up those girls?
But Fuller seems to treat him like he's an evil creature, while he holds sympathy for the dog. I thought that was an interesting dynamic...
I wrote about White Dog just after the DVD came out, so I don't have much more to say. I've seen almost every film Sam Fuller made, and racism has been a theme in several of his films. Back when Denver briefly had a cinematheque, Fuller was invited. Had the guy in charge not been chicken, we could have seen Fuller's version of White Dog theatrically. Pick-Up on South Street was screened instead. At least I got Fuller to autograph one of his novels for me.
Hey Pat-
No problem. I've been there before. Netflix sometimes acts up a bit. They are usually okay, which makes they goofs even more annoying....
You should watch the picture. It's really great.
Peter, that's awesome! Did you swear at you?
My favorite scene dealing with racism in the films I've seen is that one in THE STEEL HELMET. Where Korean is asking the black American why he's fighting for a country where he's not even free do what he pleases.
It's just brilliant!
Don't you think the old man was trained the same way as the dog, to hate?...
Well, it has to start somewhere. The training begins at a specific point. In any case, the old man is a human being, with, theoretically, a rational, reasoning, empathetic mind. It's possible for a human being to break out of that kind of thinking on their own, and in my opinion they shouldn't need to be deprogrammed to do it, whereas a dog would need that. If at his advanced age, that man is still training German Shepherds to attack black people, then I say fuck 'im.
Joseph - That's probably my favorite seen in STEEL HELMET.
"Scene". Grr.
Even if the old man was programmed as well, so to speak, that still doesn't excuse it because, as Bill says, he's a thinking human being who can make a choice to stop thinking that way. Plenty of people are raised one way only to grow up to become someone else. Too bad the old man didn't actually go to the arena cage to reclaim his dog. Then maybe he would've been attacked instead of Ives. At least that would have made the ending clearer for J. Hoberman.
That's true. I didn't really think about that, but you're right. I have no idea how a racist mind works. Especially one that isn't just racist, but actually seeks to physically harm.
I suppose a rational person, at some time in their life, would say... this is bullshit.
And Greg, nice jab on Hoberman! He wrote a good article, but I still don't get how he doesn't see the point of the end.
Hoberman said something else strange in that essay. I meant to bring the booklet with me to work, so I could quote it, but I'll have to wait until I get home. It had something to do with racism not coming out of nowhere, but from "the Law", and that this idea is somehow expressed in the film. Damn, I wish I could remember it...
Hey y'all, I like the comments so far and I can only throw in a couple of things. Cristy has been pretty much the steadfast actor of a few sleeper films I like The Forgotten One and this one for sure and I think she left a lot of room for the dog in her scenes out of respect for the film. The hate thing was very heavy handed unless you're used to seeing dogs as weapons. In the South we had a lot of that. I had to adjust to my friends hysterical reactions to my own Lab which gave me reason to look further into this grevious phenomenon . I can only say Fuller always gives a truthful view, as was pointed out earlier, which he does here in one of the saddest and most poignant ways since the beautifully made A Patch of Blue.
Bill, I rented this from Netflix so I don't have the booklet but I'd be curious what that quote is because as it stands it makes no sense to me.
Luckily, that essay is on-line! Here's the relevant quote:
Fuller altered Gary’s ending, making it more pessimistic and irrational. He modified the character of the black trainer (Paul Winfield) and changed the protagonist from an activist movie star to an aspiring actress (childlike TV star Kristy McNichol, in her first “adult” role), whom the dog initially saves from a white rapist. In Fuller’s world, unlike Gary’s, racial paranoia doesn’t drop from the sky but is associated from the onset with the paternal protection of the Law...
See what you can make of that...
Shane, I grew up in the South seeing lots' of dogs chained up in yards, something I don't see a lot of anymore either here in Maryland or there in South Carolina when I venture back. But it does still exist. About a half a mile down the road there's a fenced in dog that viciously growls and barks at anyone that walks by, which can't be helped as it borders the main road and a bus stop. Someone's treatment of it taught it to be that way.
I have friends in Vermont who own a pit bull and they've never been anything but absolutely gentle with her. As a result she's one of the sweetest dogs I've ever known. Hell, when they brought her here one summer our cat, Middy, freaked out and jumped on her head scratching and hissing away while I pulled her off. The dog's reaction? Nothing. She just laid there and let me pull Middy off. It was actually pretty funny how indifferent she was to it.
racial paranoia doesn’t drop from the sky but is associated from the onset with the paternal protection of the Law...
I don't understand what he's saying there. At all. I'm not even sure what he means by "racial paranoia." Is that an offshoot of racism where you're paranoid that people of a hated race are out to get you? So the owner of the dog trains it to kill black people because they're viewed as dangerous? Is that maybe what he means? And so the racist training evolves from the need to be protected against criminals? Is that it? I really don't know. I'm not sure if he's referring to the roots of racism itself or the specific racist beliefs of the owner. Or both. Or neither. Was he maybe drunk when he wrote that?
The "racial paranoia" thing makes sense to me. I think racism often stems from some particularly bizarre paranoia: they want our women, they're tainting the gene pool, they're all criminals, etc. It's the "paternal protection of the Law" part that baffles me.
If you click on the link, the very next sentence is a grammatical mess. I don't want to spend too much time slamming Hoberman here, but I think some critics get to a point where the lose sight of clarity, because they're the ones saying it, so it MUST mean SOMETHING.
Greg, I was telling Marilyn that as a boy I would watch the older guys and some adults go out a shoot windows out in "niggertown". This juxtaposed my previous life in the army as a dependent where everyone at least tolerated if not accepted each other based on merit. I remembering feeling like I had been moved to a constant nightmare of pain and hatred. This movie captures in the racist and dog the true flavor of the South for me.
Okay --
Sorry I'm late. I loved this movie. It reminded me of Shock Corridor in the way Fuller uses the B-film to say something socially profound and unfiltered that may not be popular in Hollywood. When Keys sees the dead man in the church the mix of Fuller's camera and the aforementioned brilliant score is some great bit of melodrama, but it's also Fuller saying something about racism that still really wasn't being said in movies in the early 80's...just like the themes he tackled in Shock Corridor and The Naked Kiss were taboo for the early 60's.
This was a great write-up, Joseph, and here are a few of my favorite things you say:
I use the word “truth” specifically because I don’t think Fuller’s films are necessarily realistic. They are often times exaggerated and larger than life, dripping with cinematic style and off the wall characters. But this does not prevent them from showcasing the hard truths of our world. In fact, I think it makes their lessons more poignant, as in a Shakespearean play.
I love this and totally agree with you. Like I mentioned above with Shock Corridor there is an over-the-top -- and for lack of a better term 'shocking' -- attitude to Fuller's film; a kind of anarchy that gives the viewer a sense of 'anything goes' when watching a Fuller film. That's what I love about Fuller. There's clearly signs that the man knows how to make an aesthetically pleasing film (I liked the pans and tracks and zooms in White Dog) and as was mentioned in a previous comment I like the rough edges around films like this.
Melodrama has always worked perfectly with Fuller's attitude towards filmmaking, it matches his manic nature as a filmmaker. So I think two reasons why Fuller's films are so uncomfortable for some people is because viewers don't always like melodrama (they often don't know how to interpret it) and they don't like Fuller's unfiltered take on touchy subjects.
I also loved this observation:
It’s as if Keys is literally looking at racism incarnate. The most pure form. A maniac dog that sees only in black and white.
This is brilliantly said, Joseph. I really don't have anything else to add. I'd like to second how much I appreciated you choosing this movie as it was one of the only Fuller films I had yet to see. This has been a great discussion, too. I look forward to checking in on it throughout the day.
I swear, from the moment this essay began, I felt this strange urge to read the words out loud. And I'm typing in a college library right now. But I was so much in agreement that I almost wanted everybody to hear.
Joseph, bravo. This is the first time I've visited your site, but you have done strict justice to this milestone of a film. I watched that Criterion clip you supplied of Fuller's interview with Richard Schickel, and grinned when I saw that oversized cigar he was waving around. Is he correct about the scene with McNichol and the dog's owner being the first scene in (Paramount) history where an adult swears in front of kids?
White Dog is a film that I love from beginning to end, but the heart of the film, for me, is the scene where Keyes says that if he fails, he'll get more white dogs, and adds, "I'm going to keep on working until I lick it". At that moment, I was on the verge of crying. Not only is Paul Winfield's performance in that scene Oscar-worthy, but his delivery of those lines encompasses so much... power. This is the best movie ever made about racism. I'm sure of it.
The first of Fuller's films I ever saw was Shock Corridor, one of my favorite films of the 1960's. Spoilers for anyone who hasn't seen that movie, but there's a scene towards the end where Peter Breck is in a violent brawl with Chuck Roberson and is trying to get him to confess that he "killed Sloane"; and the scene drags on for what seems like forever until Breck is literally strangling Roberson and forces him to scream out the confession in tears. It's a necessary scene, but at the same time hard to watch, since the hero has to to torture the villain in order to expose him.
Fuller was always known for that sort of raw political incorrectness, which I think addresses the issues that Greg and Bill are having with the church scene. It is ugly how they decide to leave the dead man on the floor, but Fuller's characters have been known for making unwise decisions like this. In Shock Corridor, the Peter Breck character is willing to jump to fast conclusions and beat up people senslessly in order to catch the bad guy in the insane asylum- and for that, in the end, he becomes an insane, incurable man himself. In White Dog, Keyes, the Burl Ives character and the McNichol character leave the scene of an accident, and that comes back to haunt them. P.S.- for anyone interested, Pickup on South Street is playing on TCM tonight.
Of the two Criterion essays on White Dog, I personally don't care for the J. Hoberman article. This is partially because Hoberman has a snarky attitude that you see in almost all of his reviews (including his hatefully biased criticisms of Spielberg in the past), and despite his undeniable admiration for Fuller's film, his snarkiness shows when he dismisses the ending as implausible. Wtf?
Ironically, I much prefer the Armond White article. That final line he writes about how the film "bites the hand that takes it for granted" is just universal.
Adam:
That scene with Winfield you're describing was my favorite, too. It's a powerful moment that isn't too hammy...which is hard to come by in these kind of B-pictures. Although whenever I heard Winfield I couldn't help but think of Luscious Sweet
Be back soon guys..... at work....
Bill, it's a fear mostly of all things of manhood...jobs, women, family etc. Southern lower class white males weren't generally educated far past the 8th grade in the '50s and '60s. So anyone was seen as a threat, women wanting an education, men of any race other then the WASP. Black women were seen as a sign of prosperity used as occasional help.
A note on hatred toward women in the South. A movie about shock treatments which strikes home for me is 3 faces of Eve. Dr. Thigpen was the doctor who used shock on my mother-in-law at the request of her husband so he could be free of her to run around. This was not an uncommon usage of the mental health system even as portrayed on such recent TV dramas as I'll Fly Away.
Fuller's film is all the more admirable because in 1982 it was a tough job to deal with racism in an original way. The basics of white on black violence and hatred had been covered and by the early eighties everyone went to school together down South (my high school was probably half and half black/white by 1980) so the idea of dealing with racism felt done. But this movie says no, it's not done. It's still out there, still everywhere, just doing a better job of hiding itself these days. I don't think the studio wanted to accept that.
Shane, the actual Dr. Thigpen who wrote the book? That one? He gave shock treatments to your mother-in-law? That's something. The show Mad Men deals with husbands manipulating their wives (with lead characters Don and Betty Draper) into therapy to put them in their place by having the doctor reveal all confidential info to the husband after each session.
As for the South and racism, well, it's obviously famous for it but I grew up there and my roommate in Charleston in the early nineties, STeve, a black man from Chicago told me he'd experienced much worse in Illinois then he'd ever encountered in the South. My wife, also from Chicago, has said the same thing. She heard the "N" word regularly there, not so much her time in Kansas (a good fifteen years). So, I'd say it's pretty much everywhere while the South gets hit harder with it than any other region due to the historical baggage (slavery, the Civil War and Jim Crow of course).
For me, racism was pretty out in the open when I was a kid. Now people hide it better as they realize society is less and less tolerant of it.
And it just goes to show, Greg, that if you deal with racism in an unfiltered, non-Hollywood way (i.e. with a big, good looking cast and slick production values a la Crash) the studios will shrink back in fear. Which is a shame because this film says more to the topic of racism (as does Fuller's Shock Corridor) than something like Crash could ever hope to. Studios are only afraid of the films that will challenge. Crash and other films of its ilk don't challenge...they placate and remind everyone that they're safe in their own little world because they're not like the people in those movies. Thank God for filmmakers like Fuller, though, who dealt with shades of gray instead of broad strokes of black and white (ahem...Paul Haggis...)
I'd also like to add that -- and I'm sure anyone who's read Hoberman's essay probably agrees -- I REALLY want to read the original book by Romain Gary now. It sounds quite different, quite personal (without actually being a true story, from what I gathered) and entirely fascinating. Fuller, who was friends with Gary, said the treatment of the black trainer in the book was racist, but Hoberman's description sounds like it could be quite powerful if handled well. Black characters can be unlikable without rendering the whole book racist.
I messed up my comment. I didn't mean to imply with my parenthetical statement that Crash WAS a non-Hollywood film without a slick production and good looking cast...that's what it is. I thought I typed something else before that parenthetical aside. Sorry about that.
Also, my mom was from the South -- Alabama -- and she didn't have a racist bone in her body, nor, she said, did her parents (I never met them). So let's not paint with too broad a brush.
Bill:
I agree. I just bought the book from Powell's. I can't wait to read it.
Speaking of "shades of gray", Kevin, I'm sure you, and everyone else, noticed how much gray Fuller used, at least in the opening and closing credits. Possible in the movie itself, though I didn't notice. No need to comment on it, really, but I thought it was pretty great.
Yeah, I loved the opening credits design. The shifting between black and white and grey.
And Kevin, I knew what you were saying about Crash, no need to explain. And you're right. Hollywood's okay with that kind of treatment or with a Guess Who's Coming to Dinner treatment but something like this makes them nervous.
Bill, no sweat my brush is only as broad as my experiences. In 1972 it was my screwdriver which removed the signs in City Hall of Atlanta which said Colored from the restrooms and water fountains. I survived with a modicum of racial sanity as did your mom. Most of those I grew up around didn't.
I thought the book was based on a true incident too. Was it not?
By the way, it's not on his Wikipedia entry but I used to watch the Westminster Dog Show pretty regularly back in the day (and really, REALLY appreciated BEST IN SHOW) and Paul Winfied and his partner were always there with their pugs. He really loved dogs so I've often wondered if that was a factor in him taking the part. And strange how both of his most famous roles revolve around a dog central to the story.
In 1972 it was my screwdriver which removed the signs in City Hall of Atlanta which said Colored from the restrooms and water fountains.
That's pretty damn cool.
I've got to head out now and get some dinner ready and start more of the digging out process.
Before I go let me thank you Joseph for picking this wonderful movie, perfect for this kind of discussion.
Next, a big thanks to Bill, always reliable and insightful. And thanks to Shane (and Marilyn for sending him over), Peter, Kevin and Adam. Good discussion guys. Thanks again.
Oh, and Pat! Sorry about that. Hope you get to see it soon Pat.
That is cool, shane. And your comment about your experiences is more than fair.
Greg - From what I gathered from Hoberman's essay, the book is a "non-fiction novel", which is a very, very loose term. The two most famous examples of it are IN COLD BLOOD, which is mostly factual, and THE EXECUTIONER'S SONG, which I understand to be entirely factual, but written as a novel.
But the way Hoberman described Gary's book makes me think that it's sort of an extrapolation of his feelings being married to Seberg at the time, his disapproval of her association with the Black Panthers, and a fictional central plot. It's very possible I'm misreading Hoberman's description, but in the Criterion booklet, there's a piece by Fuller (where he "interviews" the dog) where he says that the idea that the black trainer was a black Muslim who retrains the dog to kill white people was racist. If it was all true, then that's what happened, and can't be racist. But that's a pretty loony turn of events anyway, so I'm thinking it's an experimental novel of some kind.
Thanks Greg and bill, by the way that is a loony turn there bill I'll have to check it out. Thanks for letting me in for a chat and I'm off to the library. Trudging across the tundra....
Joseph thanks to you for picking one of the most intriguing movies I've had the pleasure to puzzle over I hope to do it again!
Shane-
Thanks for joining in on the conversation. It's nice to get a perspective from somebody who witnessed this type of behavior first hand. To know Fuller isn't just taking liberties with the subject matter just proves how after the truth he was. Great to know, sad to hear.
I do though agree with Greg when he says racism is everywhere. I live in Chicago and it certainly hasn't disappeared. It just goes under the radar now, like you were saying...
Bill/Greg-
Hoberman sounds like a long winded asshole if you ask me.
Kevin-
Thanks for the kind words.
"It reminded me of Shock Corridor in the way Fuller uses the B-film to say something socially profound and unfiltered that may not be popular in Hollywood."
I totally agree with you here. This is the number one main reason I love Fuller so much. You nailed it right on the head.
Adam-
Again, thanks for the kind words. I didn't think I was capturing what it is I wanted to say about this picture, but this wonderful discussion sure has fleshed out a lot of what I was thinking.
"White Dog is a film that I love from beginning to end, but the heart of the film, for me, is the scene where Keyes says that if he fails, he'll get more white dogs, and adds, "I'm going to keep on working until I lick it". At that moment, I was on the verge of crying. Not only is Paul Winfield's performance in that scene Oscar-worthy, but his delivery of those lines encompasses so much... power. This is the best movie ever made about racism. I'm sure of it."
This speech by Keys is probably the most vital to the picture. We have to know just how committed to the cause he is, especially when he covers up the murder of the man in the church. Winfield really sells this moment. He makes us get behind him and that's important.
Thanks to all that participated today. I'm glad it went over so well! And can't wait for the next one...
I believe Seberg found a dog. And I believe that dog attacked their black gardener.
This sparked Gary's idea for his novella. I could be wrong........
Loved the opening credits to this film.
And the music. I think I could write an entire post based on Morricone's musical cues.....
I'm really sorry I flaked out on this one. I haven't seen this one yet. Great job on hosting the discussion, Joseph, I'm just sorry I couldn't participate.
Joseph,
I'm late to this, but read your entire post. What a fascinating story behind this film. I had no knowledge of it and no knowledge of the history behind your blog name.
The trailer and the commentary that accompanies it is fantastic. I'm definitely going to check it out.
This is why we blog, Joseph. To get people interested in movies they didn't even know existed.
Well done.
Thanks Ed, no problem. You should watch the movie though at some point. It's a great film and deserves an audience.
Piper-
I'm glad. I hope like Ed above you choose to check it out. Fuller is one of the most fascinating filmmakers I've ever encountered.
Fantastic insights on a shamefully neglected film. I think what sank it was the powerful confrontation between McNichol and the dog's owner, seeing the face of evil be so mundane. I reviewed the movie a while back and I like the ambiguous ending; does Carruthers get attacked because he's white, or because he looks like the owner? Is hate taught, or is only the target taught?
Yesterday I watched Pickup on South Street for the first time. Quite a remarkable noir melodrama. I don't know if I would put it on the same level as Shock Corridor or White Dog, but it's definitely close. What I found interesting was that even though it's an anticommunist film, it's not conservative: Richard Widmark's pickpocket character keeps dissing the FBI agents for "waving the flag", which made me snicker.
Thelma Ritter's death scene in that film is just as painful as the church killing in White Dog, too. Her role in the film is small, but it's a scene stealer.
Tommy-
Enjoyed your review and your take on the ending. Personally, I believe the dog goes after Carruthers because he looks like the owner, but I like how it is left on an ambiguous note.
Adam-
I LOVE PICKUP ON SOUTH STREET! It's such a great film, from the performances to the photography. Being on this Fuller kick, I just streamed from Netflix UNDERWORLD USA, which I had never seen before. It is just as good if not better than PICKUP ON SOUTH STREET. Fantastic B-picture noir, on par for me, with THE NAKED KISS.
Ritter's performance is legendary.
I totally match with everything you've written.
cheap hotels | payment card industry data security standard pci dss | best auto insurance rates | | intrauterine devices
Post a Comment