Thursday, March 18, 2010

1982: THE PLAGUE DOGS

What’s it about?

Two dogs named Snitter and Rowf escape from a secret government research station in the wilds of Scotland. After being subjected to cruel experiments during their time there, they are only too happy to get away. But what they don’t realize (being dogs) is that their escape route took them through another laboratory where scientists were working with the bubonic plague.

The government at first tries to cover up the escape, but soon a dragnet is being cast for the dogs to prevent the possible spread of infection. As the days pass, the two dogs resort to killing sheep to eat, and before long the army is called in. Led by effective (but compassionate) commander Patrick Stewart, it seems certain they will quickly get the job done.

Is it any good?

Based on a novel by Richard Adams (who also wrote WATERSHIP DOWNS), THE PLAGUE DOGS is yet another animated sci-fi movie that isn’t really appropriate for kids. This is despite the fact that it’s a movie about two talking dogs (one voiced by John Hurt) and their animal pals, including a crafty fox named “the Tod”.

To be honest, this is the only movie I can think of where the talking animals are all anatomically correct. There’s no reason why dog testicles shouldn’t be in a kids’ movie, I suppose, but they just usually aren’t. After all, any kid who has owned a dog (or who has even played with one) would quickly be exposed to such anatomical realities, and yet for some reason it still seems strange to see them onscreen in a cartoon where someone deliberately drew them.

That’s not really what makes this movie less than ideal for kids though. The main reason is what I will call “adult themes” -- that is, the hopelessness of the dogs’ situation. It’s not their fault if they are infected with the plague, but all the same they need to be hunted down and destroyed. And the fact that the dogs understand none of this -- they talk, but they are still fairly simple-minded -- only adds to the pathos of the situation.

There’s also some cussing and a couple scenes of fairly shocking violence. Besides killing sheep for food, the dogs are also ultimately responsible for two human deaths -- one an accident, and the other in self-defense. In fact, the cut of the movie that I watched is an abridged version that apparently leaves out some even more disturbing material -- such as implications that Snitter and Rowf (while starving) make a meal out of a dead human. The animal experiments at the beginning of the movie are pretty tough to watch as well. In particular, Rowf is repeatedly thrown into a tank of water with no exit and allowed to practically drown -- presumably to measure his endurance or something.

Snitter, meanwhile, was subjected to experimental brain surgery before the start of the movie. It’s not really clear what the point of this surgery is, but it’s explained once as removing the wall between the subjective and the objective. Mostly, it results in Snitter having flashbacks to previous moments in his life at inopportune moments. During these flashbacks, he’s blinded to the world outside, and only sees what his memory shows him. This experimental brain surgery is really the only part of the movie that would traditionally be considered science fiction. But the whole thing is about animal experimentation and the arrogance of science and all that. If a movie about the ramifications of scientific research doesn’t count as science fiction, then we may have to reassess what science fiction is.

As far as the normal movie things go, I liked the story a lot -- even though there didn’t seem to be any possible happy ending. (Spoiler alert: In an odd twist of the usual paradigm, the book is apparently cheerier on the ultimate prospects of the dogs than the movie is. I haven’t read the book myself, but the comment boards on IMDb were pretty vocal on this subject.) There were some particular scenes that I thought were overwrought -- the accidental human death especially comes out of nowhere and is handled in a way that made me laugh out loud in a totally inappropriate way. The animation is pretty neat though. In addition to featuring more realistic character designs, the movie also has a dull, muddy look that fits well with the Scottish setting and the dispiriting, quasi-misanthropic themes. If you’re a fan of animation (especially animation for adults) or if you’re just interested in movies that are unique or unusual, then I’d definitely recommend checking it out.

THE PLAGUE DOGS would also make an interesting double feature with THE SECRET OF NIMH (1982) -- another animated flick from the same year which is coincidentally also about escaped laboratory animals. I’m not going to write about THE SECRET OF NIMH separately, but it’s worth a mention here. It was directed and produced by Don Bluth, a former Disney animator who left the company and started competing directly with his former employer by putting out high-quality cartoon movies like THE SECRET OF NIMH, AN AMERICAN TAIL (1986), and THE LAND BEFORE TIME (1988). In fact, Bluth’s movies often went head-to-head with Disney’s animated releases and beat them at the box office. To be fair, the 1970s and 1980s were not exactly rife with animated Disney classics, and some folks credit Bluth’s movies with shocking Disney out of its slump. After the 1980s, Bluth continued to turn out animated films and achieved some mainstream success again with ANASTASIA (1997) and notice among sci-fi fans with TITAN A.E. (2000).

In any event, THE SECRET OF NIMH is pretty exciting and surprisingly dark -- as it opens, the main (mouse) character’s husband has just been violently killed, her son is sick with a serious case of pneumonia, and a human farmer’s equipment is about to plow her home under and kill everyone still inside. There’s a lot of tension and action -- including some bloody swordfights -- but it still looks a lot like a kids’ movie and is clearly intended to be enjoyed by children. But since it contains hardly any pandering at all, there’s no reason adults can’t like it too.

I will say that the “message” of the movie strikes me as a little lame in places. The escaped lab animals I referred to earlier are rats who were made hyper-intelligent by the National Institute of Mental Health (the “NIMH” of the title, natch) and who then used their newfound smarts to escape the lab. They now live under a rosebush in this farmer’s yard, and in the past few years have figured out how to tap into the power grid and provide electricity to their colony. That’s not the lame part, though. The lame part is that in this movie, increases in intelligence and knowledge are linked directly to increases in moral awareness. The rats are preparing to move out of their home because they have realized that stealing is wrong, and they no longer want to rely on the human power grid to serve their needs.

To be fair, there is some internal disagreement among the rats about whether the move is really necessary. But the ones who want to stay and continue stealing are depicted as both morally corrupt and also not as intelligent as the others. If you don’t know stealing is wrong, says the movie, then you really aren’t that smart. That’s fine, I guess. But if the rats who want to stay aren’t even intelligent enough to be capable of moral awareness, then why should I feel satisfied when they get their comeuppance? Where’s the justice in punishing folks who don’t know right from wrong? Granted, it’s not 100% clear this is what the movie is saying, but that’s because the motivations the rats have for wanting to leave or wanting to stay are glossed over. THE SECRET OF NIMH is still an exciting, interesting movie -- but it doesn’t feel like as much thought was put into the moral center of the movie as was put into the world of mice and rats.

3 comments:

  1. I've never heard of The Plague Dogs, though I am very familiar with The Secret of NIMH. The problems you seem to have with NIMH are mostly not there in the book, if I remember correctly. It's been years since I read "Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH," but if I am remembering it correctly, the "evil" rats of the movie are not even present in the main story of the book. And they weren't actually evil. They had differing ideas from the other rats, so they split off from the group prior to the events of the book. I imagine they were added to the movie in that way because the book, aside from the humans trying to kill the rats, doesn't really have a central villain. And, based on the Children's Movie Formula, the story must have a central villain.

    Also, there's none of that "magical powers" stuff that goes on in the movie. I never actually saw The Secret of NIMH when I was young, just read the book. So, as an adult, when I finally saw the movie, I was taken aback that, as well as being super-smart, Nicodemus had apparently developed magical abilities. Never in the movie is it explained, it's just presented and there it is. Audience, please accept this, no questions asked. (I was also slightly amused that the higher up the Rat Hierarchy you go, the more clothing you get to wear... I can only assume this is based on how smart and/or self-aware you are, like Adam and Eve.)

    Don't get me wrong, I love this movie. As a fan of animation, it's definitely high up on the scale. But I do agree with you on your assessment of its problems.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I recall in the book, it's never clearly stated that the dogs have been exposed to the black plague... in fact, it turns out they haven't. The lab has been doing research on the black plague, and the media blows this out scale so that now everybody wants to kill the dogs.

    I really enjoyed the book- except for one part at the ending, which is almost unforgivable. I'm going to spoil it here, because I think it's so stupid.

    The dogs have escaped all the humans by swimming out into the ocean. Now they should have drowned easily, except Rowf is pretty good at swimming, due to all the lab tests. But anyways, it's pretty clear they're going to drown or wash up on shore and be shot or euthanized.

    ...until the book introduces two new characters: Richard Adams and another man, who are in a boat, talking about, of all things, Watership Down.

    And they save the dogs.






    Blech...





    It's a shame, too, because the rest of the book is incredible!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yikes, that ending sounds horrible.

    SPOILERS FOR THE MOVIE... The dogs do come into contact with infected rats during their escape, but it's never 100% clear if they are infected or not. They occasionally talk about how they don't feel so well, but they also survive a long time in the wild with no visible symptoms of the black death.

    The ending of the movie is also more or less exactly where you wanted the book to end. Except it is left "ambiguous" but NOT REALLY because if you are more than eight years old it is obvious what ultimately happens.

    And Julia, the book of THE SECRET OF NIMH sounds pretty great! Perhaps I will seek that out someday...

    ReplyDelete