Talk:White Dog (1982 film)

Horror

This really isn't a horror movie... at all. It's a drama.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.145.218.210 (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

And it's not out of a print. A poor transfer of White Dog (better than none, right?) is available via 5 Minutes to Live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.164.65.177 (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and removed from that project. Also removed comment pointing to illegal copies of the film. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking more, some reviewers do consider it a horror film, so readding the horror project tag. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

To Do

More possible reviews[1][2][3][4][5] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

DVD Cover

Is that really the DVD cover from Criterion? Their website shows a different one. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is. All retailers I checked are showing the black cover rather than the white one. The one on Criterion may be a special on if you buy direct from them or an earlier version that was changed later. Will be able to confirm one way or another in a few days as my copy is finally on its way to me :-D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case then let it be for now I suppose! I hope Criterion chooses the other one, but..who knows. that's just one gnarly looking dog. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

My DVD just arrived and it is the white cover rather than the black one. Updating now :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah! You beat me to it. I just saw the White cover in a store yesterday. Good job! Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Article now promoted. Congrats! - Mgm|^(talk) 09:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

black dog trainer???

I have a serious question about the lead paragraph, it reads: The film depicts the struggle of a black dog trainer named Keys (Paul Winfield) trying to retrain a "white dog". I think the article is trying to say that the dog trainer is black, not that the dog trainer trains black dogs, right? As it is written, it is hard to tell if the dog trainer trains "black dogs" or is a black trainer who trains dogs. This is further complicated, when you read the second half of the sentence wherein it talks about a "white dog." If the movie is set in America, you might want to consider "African American" or is there a particular reason (eg derived from the movie/book) that distinguishes Keys as a "black dog trainer?" Again, I think the article intends to say that the trainer is black, not that he trains black dogs.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Almost all sources use the phrase "black dog trainer" or "dog trainer who is black". It is one of the key points of the article. African American wouldn't be appropriate as it is, technically inaccurate and not used within the film nor any references. I have tried to reword it to better clarify that he is a black man who trains dogs. Technically, the dog is both a white dog, and a "white dog" (which is what those dogs were often called). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I kind of guessed that "African American" wasn't appropriate, it has become so ingrained in American culture that I figured there was an explicit reason not to use it here. Part of me wondered if a "white dog" is a dog trained to attack blacks, would a black dog be a dog trained to attack whites? But I was pretty sure that wasn't what was being said. Thanks---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No prob (and good question on whether they would be called black dogs, though maybe not since its also a trucking term). Would be curious to read more historical accounts from that time from both sides. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

End of the film - reason for the dog's attack

I corrected the end of the plot. As it was before, it makes no sense. Why should the dog turn generally against white people all of a sudden? In the movie it is said that a "white dog" can be achived by letting a black abuse/mistreat a young dog. That makes sense IMO, the dog (and any other animal, even humans) should develop a fear of the abuser and correlate that fear by its attributes (here: the skin color). But during the re-education no abuse by a white person takes place. Moreover, Julie is white, too. As I can tell, the dog sees Carruther and he bears a resemblance to its former owner, the white racist. This lets the dog attack Carruther. Any other opinions? ---- 84.151.152.144 (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have undone your "correction", this is purely your personal opinion while multiple reliable sources clearly note that the film shows the dog's thinking was reversed. In the source novel, this was done deliberately, while in the film, it was a tragic result. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I haven't seen the film or read the book, but Romain Gary (2004), White dog, University of Chicago Press, p. 278, ISBN 9780226284309 says, "... I had a long talk with Keys. He didn't train that poor dog to attack whites. He just trained him to attack any strangers who entered the house...." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources state that the training was deliberate. However, in the end, this is more about the film than the book. Multiple reliable sources also note the dog changed from attacking blacks to attacking whites. And considering the dog attacked Gary himself (obviously not a stranger) in the novel, I suspect that quote needs some more context. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

First: Please name some of those "multiple reliable sources" you mentioned. I found none so far. Moreover, and IMO very much proving my point, when the dog changed into attacking whites, why does he not attack Julie in the first place? Julie was not involved in the dog's re-training, he only saw Keys. After being released by Keys, Julie comes close and pets the dog, and he enjoys it. THEN the dog sees Carruther and gets angry. Your point does not make sense, sorry. ---- 84.151.132.177 (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Read the article. The sources are there. Every bit of the article is sourced. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I watched parts of the movie now again and think we both went wrong. The explanation seems to be in the movie itself. Watch from minute 47, when Keys explains Julie that noone ever succeeded in de-training a White Dog. Keys: "Tampering with the dog's twisted mind just boomerangs." Julie: "Noneone." Keys: "Homicidal maniac. He could turn on... anybody." Julie: "Even me?" Keys nods. So I think this is what happened - the dog got finally mad. What you think? ---- 84.151.132.177 (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Except, as you noted, he didn't attack her. But in essence, that is the boomerang...or it could be, he was now attacking anyone, white/black who wasn't those two.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that it makes any sense to call it "purely personal opinion"; by all appearances it's set up for exactly that interpretation. The penultimate scene is Julie meeting the original owner, an older portly white man like Carruthers. The dog doesn't attack black Keys, doesn't attack white Julie, but it does attack the character who is similar in race, size and age to his owner. It's certainly in keeping with the elsewhere-described bluntness of Fuller's approach to have a simple ironic twist like that at the end. "Attacks Carruthers because he's gone totally nuts" makes a lot less sense than "Attacks Carruthers because he reminds him of his abusive owner, a character introduced literally five minutes prior." Danwroy (talk) 09:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Romain Gary - correction

Romain Gary died in 1980, not 1981. By the way, removed reference to his wife (Jean Seberg's) "mysterious death" from article. The cause of death was determined by the French authorities, and is not relevant to this article in any case.--Bagration1944 (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is relevant to the production of the film and has been restored. It is cited with reliable sources. At the time it occurred, it was mysterious circumstances.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I accept that her death may be relevant to this article. However, I don't think that the term "mysterious death" should be used. The French Authorities, and Numerous reliable sources, such as the NY Times and the LA Times term her death as a suicide. By the way, it is an excellent article.--Bagration1944 (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the LA Times, Sept. 9, 1979, French authorities were quoted as saying that she apparently committed suicide. This link is to a LA Times blog containing copies of the old articles. This would indicate that the cause of death was known in 1979. Again, I am sorry for changing the article without discussing the matter with you first, but I hope you accept that I was acting in good faith, and with more reason than a mere hunch. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2009/03/the-jean-seberg.html --Bagration1944 (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagration1944 (talk • contribs)

An editor is obligated

... to look at the actual edits before reverting them. I do not automatically dismiss changes made to any of the dozen pages I moderate. Varlaam (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I did look at the edits, thank you, and did not find those changes appropriate. I do not see any "grammatical corrections" as you claim in your revert summary, but the addition of inappropriate WP:OR and a badly written expansion of the plot to add in a single scene. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Poorly written. Are you a speaker of English? You failed to notice the plural subject with the singular verb?

I am a professional technical writer.

In addition, I have 100 plot summaries at the IMDb. I have 200 reviews at the IMDb. Policies I established at the IMDb in 1999 and 2000 are still in place a decade later.

What are your qualifications?

Varlaam (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am a speaker of English, thanks, as were the multiple people who have reviewed this article and copy edited it. Had you made only the grammatical error, that would have been fine, however you hide it among an addition of other content. I have now fixed that extremely minor error. You also appear to have a long history of incivility, which you are demonstrating here. This is not IMDB. If you'd like to write a summary for this film there, go ahead. Wikipedia has actual standards here, unlike IMDB. I'd also like to remind you of WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN, the latter of which you should already be well acquainted with per your talk page. You are no more qualified than anyone else here, and if your idea of a "plot summary" is to included your own synthesis and side commentary, they have no place here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Varlaam, I've run into this issue before. You do not "moderate" pages. That implies ownership, which I've told you over and over again isn't how Wikipedia operates. And there is no reason to attack other users. We are all equal here no matter what our background is. I wish you would stop attacking editors and instead focus on the article. Questioning someone's ability to speak English is attacking them as implying that they are not qualified to edit this article. Please stop. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 05:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Annual review

This article was promoted as a Good Article a year ago this month. I'd like to conduct an annual review of changes made in this time span. The changes are reflected in this diff. There are no major changes, so I only have a few small thoughts:

• De-link drama in the lead sentence; I don't think drama film is much more helpful since it is not that useful in context of this article.
• The "writer" field should exclude "and" and use <br /> instead.
• The "released" field should de-link Cinema of France and Cinema of the United States per WP:EGG. Maybe try to implement these links in the article body somewhere?
• "Jaws" links to Jaws (film series). Any reason why it cannot just link to Jaws (film)? This film came out after the first and second Jaws films.
• In "Distribution", the word "domestic" is used. Since this is the English-language Wikipedia, I think it is best to clarify that the discussed release was for the United States.

Thoughts? Erik (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea :-) Made the suggested changes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I am hoping to find a way to automate the process so we can just get a heads-up from a bot rather than manually checking when to do annual reviews. Erik (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Quotations Inappropriate

Those quotations should be integrated into the article. Wikipedia is not a magazine.174.3.110.108 (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The quotations are appropriate; we have guidelines on how to include them per MOS:QUOTE. Per WP:NFC, "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited," and no one quotation is extensive. Erik (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Will you please just STOP stalking/hounding me already. The quote is fine here the same in all the other articles you ran through, and as User:Father Goose told you before. Don't hurt articles just because you have a beef with me. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow

Well, my congratulations on an excellent article on a film that grossed only $45,000. It may be a new record for WP...we should look into it, the quality of an article for the lowest-grossing films ;) Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Low gross, but very well known film due to the suppression of it and its semi-cult status due to its years of unavailability except for the late night spotting on TV. Thanks for the compliment, though there is still much to do. There are many more resources out there on this one :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What does the gross have to do with anything? It's a Sam Fuller film, one of his most well-known in fact. Danwroy (talk) 08:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Racism

The plot summary states that the ending "leaves the impression that while racism is learned, it cannot be cured". Yet the dog was apparently cured, and attacked Carruthers, who is white, not a black person. So was the dog "cured"? In any event the idea that a dog can be used to illustrate racism is absurd. The dog was trained to attack people of a particular colour. It was not a racist dog. It could have been trained to attack women - would that make it a male chauvenist?—Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnC (talk • contribs) 04:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean that the lead section states that. From what I can tell, that statement is based on the "Reception" section, which has reviews commenting on racism, which reliable sources show to be a key element of the film. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

UK release date

As per http://www.bbfc.co.uk/AFF036570, it was certified by the BBFC in June 1983. As per http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/event/2894, the film was part of (and I saw it at) the 27th London Film Festival in November 1983. It would be extremely rare for a modern film to have had a release prior to being in the LFF, and no commercial release would have been possible without BBFC certification. I don't know about when it was shown in France, but it's safe to say that "..1982. Later in the year, it was released in the United Kingdom by United International Pictures" is wrong. Lovingboth (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Perpetuating Myth

The plot of the movie suggests that one has to train dogs to be racist. From my experience and the one of many others that it is not true. Dogs are "racist" by nature. If the owner is White, it will bark and even attack Blacks, without the owner training it that way. --197.228.43.17 (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"From my experience" is just another way of saying "I think".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c5a:657f:e631:740a:7bf7:46b6:f763 (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 3 November 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

---

• White Dog → White Dog (1982 film)
• White Dog (disambiguation) → White Dog

– With six other topics listed on the disambiguation page, including both the book that this film was adapted from and a new film adaptation of the same book, it's not at all clear that this film is highly meganotable enough to earn WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rights for the undisambiguated title. The film is most likely undisambiguated solely because its article was the first one to exist, when in reality the book itself is of at least equal notability. So the dab page should be at the plain title, with this film disambiguated like the other topics. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Taking into account the seven entries listed upon the White Dog (disambiguation) page, there is indeed no indication that Samuel Fuller's 1982 film left such an indelible historical imprint that its renown dwarfs the combined notability of those remaining six entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Shwcz (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support. No primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.