Crying when animals get hurt in movies....

[JJJJ]

I am somewhat of a dog-lover, and I always get somewhat emotional at movies when dogs or other "cute" animals get hurt/die. I never/rarely get emotional at movies when humans die/get hurt.

Last night however, this went overboard, as i actually cried at the movie theatre when Marley the dog died in the movie Marley&Me. I didnt even like the movie, and thought it was a really boring piece, but when the dog got sick and had to be put down, tears were actually rolling down my face. It was somewhat embarrassing to leave the movie theatre....

When our family dog, who i really loved, died a couple of years ago i never even thought about crying, but for some reason i get really choked up when i see dogs dying in movies. I dont think I even cried that much when my father, who i was really close to, passed away, but a random average movie about a dog gets me all choked up?

Anyone else have this same "syndrome"?

[RationalBiker]

Anyone else have this same "syndrome"?

I'm not sure if this is "going one better", but I actually cried reading the book Marley and Me. For me, I could relate significantly to the loss of a loved Lab who looked and behaved quite a bit like Marley.

[Jill]

Movies are good at influencing mood and having us live the life of the characters with the music and all the other tricks they use.

I think even if you don't anthropormorphise animals, you can recognise the value they have to people. If you empathise with the characters in the film in some way, it's natural you'd feel sad if they lose a value.

[JASKN]

When our family dog, who i really loved, died a couple of years ago i never even thought about crying, but for some reason i get really choked up when i see dogs dying in movies. I dont think I even cried that much when my father, who i was really close to, passed away, but a random average movie about a dog gets me all choked up?

I have noticed that my emotional reaction to death "delays" somewhat. When the actual death happens, animal, family or friend, I am calm and collected. Then, later, some random event will remind me of the animal or person who died, or the scenario at hand will be similar to when the death occurred, and that is when I get emotional. Perhaps this is what happened to you.

[aequalsa]

Movies are good at influencing mood and having us live the life of the characters with the music and all the other tricks they use.

I think even if you don't anthropormorphise animals, you can recognise the value they have to people. If you empathise with the characters in the film in some way, it's natural you'd feel sad if they lose a value.

I agree, Jill. And what's more, in movies, animals are almost always anthropomorphized in a positive way. They rescue the child from the well or fend off the wolves. Unflinchingly loyal and always good, one can't help but be affected by them. Human's, on the other hand, in our postmodern world, are most often portrayed as having mixed premises and serious faults. When they die, it isn't the destruction of only positive values but of a mixed bag you hadn't admired that much in the first place.

Imagine an action movie where a random vicious, guard dog attacks a hero and gets shot quickly. Very few would cry because the dog was only a trained killer. No attachment.

Or, on the flip side, take a less mixed movie like 'The Shawshanke Redemption'. If he were to have been killed at the end rather then succeeded there would be great cause for tears.

Another other possibility is that people will very often view animals incorrectly, mistaking their unconditional needs for unconditional love. They give their pets food, water, back rubs and positive feedback, while leaving them alone with no other interaction and the pet is always happy to see them(Unlike humans with their more complex requirements and alternative sources of need satisfaction). Little surprise they are happy every time they see you. If someone kept me locked alone in an empty room for 12 hours a day, then came and gave me food, water, and affection my tail would wag every time I heard the lock turn as well.

So if you find yourself responding to an animal because it is clearly a hero, then I see little problem, but if it is because you trust the animals more, because humans are inherently bad, then, probably, some premise checking is in order.

[RachelColoredGlasses]

I don't think it has any necessary connection to anthropomorphism or even an unhealthy valuation of animals above that of humans. Those things we value in general are in general valuable to us and evoke emotional responses.

Consider that car lovers hate to see high-end cars wasted on the unappreciative and may even feel sad at the destruction of a fine machine. Those who value fine art cry out at the prospect of a private owner destroying one of his own pieces, even though they themselves might never have benefited directly from the piece. And when a person of high intelligence decides not to exercise his fine abilities and instead turns to drugs or crime, we bow our heads at the tragedy of wasted potential though that particular intelligence has nothing directly to do with most of us.

Benevolent men value the very idea of values. We love the idea of others prospering, and the thought of life flourishing in places we'll never visit. And in the case of dog-lovers, the idea of pain caused to any canine is an ugly thought that properly brings out strongly negative emotions. And crying because a dog dies who belongs to people you care nothing about is a response not to some floating abstraction but to your own values.

Edited March 24, 2009 by RachelColoredGlasses

[aequalsa]

I don't think it has any necessary connection to anthropomorphism or even an unhealthy valuation of animals above that of humans. Those things we value in general are in general valuable to us and evoke emotional responses.

Consider that car lovers hate to see high-end cars wasted on the unappreciative and may even feel sad at the destruction of a fine machine. Those who value fine art cry out at the prospect of a private owner destroying one of his own pieces, even though they themselves might never have benefited directly from the piece. And when a person of high intelligence decides not to exercise his fine abilities and instead turns to drugs or crime, we bow our heads at the tragedy of wasted potential though that particular intelligence has nothing directly to do with most of us.

Benevolent men value the very idea of values. We love the idea of others prospering, and the thought of life flourishing in places we'll never visit. And in the case of dog-lovers, the idea of pain caused to any canine is an ugly thought that properly brings out strongly negative emotions. And crying because a dog dies who belongs to people you care nothing about is a response not to some floating abstraction but to your own values.

Could rephrase your disagreement with me. I don't understand how what you wrote is in contradiction to my statements. I agree about the values, which is why I used the example of an attack dog getting shot. It is a disvalue to the hero whom we identify with. Thanks.

[K-Mac]

I'm not sure if this is "going one better", but I actually cried reading the book Marley and Me.

Ditto. I think anyone that has ever had a beloved pet would have a hard time not getting choked up at the end of that book. That book made me laugh out loud, cry and laugh through my tears...just like my real life pets.

I have not seen the film, but I have become emotional when animals/pets are killed/injured. Dances with Wolves

(when the main character's "pet" wolf and horse are senselessly shot and killed)

, Where the Red Fern Grows

(when the dog dies for its owner)

, etc. People have close connections with some of the animals we've domesticated, so I think it's perfectly normal and fine to react to their deaths/injuries with concern or sadness.

[Jackethan]

I agree that people have very loving connections with their pets, this is not uncommon or unhealthy. Some people have loving connections to inanimate objects, at least to a memory that that object might be connected to.

However as to the phenomenon of getting worked up about movies and not at real life there are two very plain differences when watching a movie:

1) It is not real, this means your mind is not struggling against your emotional response so that you can react calmly to the situation, you're not forced to accept the reality, and there is no need to try and hide the emotion.

2) There is nearly always music playing, or in a movie where there usually has been music playing, when the music stops can be equally dramatic. If you watched the scene on mute you likely wouldn't have any response, but when the beautiful music plays, already illiciting an emotional response, and you think of a symbolic situation which you may or may not have even experienced, it is very easy to want to cry. That's the magic of movies.

[RachelColoredGlasses]

Could rephrase your disagreement with me. I don't understand how what you wrote is in contradiction to my statements. I agree about the values, which is why I used the example of an attack dog getting shot. It is a disvalue to the hero whom we identify with. Thanks.

I think on the specific point about primarily identifying with the hero I don't really have a disagreement. I'm trying to frame in my head why I took the tone I did, which is indeed somewhat in disagreement with you. Let's see if I can articulate this...

I think it's that I feel a solidarity with life that is similar to the solidarity that I feel with rational men. Of course I don't feel the former nearly as intensely as I feel the latter; I don't actually burst out into tears every time something dies. But that something must die that I might live I think is worthy of acknowledgment - and in the case of dogs, because of their special relationship with man, that acknowledgment might include tears.

In the specific case of the attack dog trained to carry out the ends of evil men, the tragedy lies in the fact that a perfectly good living entity is being used as a tool of destruction. I totally support the hero in the necessary killing of such a beast. It has to be done in order to serve his values. But I don't revel in the death of the dog. Nor am I claiming that I think you do.

But that's my point: Decent men do not celebrate the necessity of death. Of course death is natural and even helps us define the value of life. But it's inevitability, even in the context of our hero defending his greater values, is regrettable.

Don't you think?

[K-Mac]

That's the magic of movies.

Good point!

[aequalsa]

But that's my point: Decent men do not celebrate the necessity of death. Of course death is natural and even helps us define the value of life. But it's inevitability, even in the context of our hero defending his greater values, is regrettable.

Don't you think?

I see. What I was referring to more, in reference to the original poster, was that people generally do not get worked up over an animal dying per se, but rather when an animal they identify with on some level dies as a major plot device.

I did not mean to imply that the guard dog's situation is not regrettable in the abstract. Just that emotional responses don't tend to happen with regard to things on that level, primarily because they do not catch our attention or interest.

[chuff]

I am somewhat of a dog-lover, and I always get somewhat emotional at movies when dogs or other "cute" animals get hurt/die. I never/rarely get emotional at movies when humans die/get hurt.

Last night however, this went overboard, as i actually cried at the movie theatre when Marley the dog died in the movie Marley&Me. I didnt even like the movie, and thought it was a really boring piece, but when the dog got sick and had to be put down, tears were actually rolling down my face. It was somewhat embarrassing to leave the movie theatre....

When our family dog, who i really loved, died a couple of years ago i never even thought about crying, but for some reason i get really choked up when i see dogs dying in movies. I dont think I even cried that much when my father, who i was really close to, passed away, but a random average movie about a dog gets me all choked up?

Anyone else have this same "syndrome"?

A similar thing happens to me, you're not alone. Although I do think that when my father passes I'll cry a bit more than you've stated you did for yours. And at the end of such movies as Valkyrie, I cried. And the end of The Watchmen got me choked up as well.

Secret Window is one where I was very upset the dog died. There are definitely others but I can't think of them at the moment.

Plus I agree with most of the above statements that I read through.. Dogs such as the ones in The Watchmen & the ones in Resident Evil (2?) & similar movies, I was glad died. So it all has to do with attachment, I suppose.

Edited March 25, 2009 by chuff

[TheEgoist]

A beautiful painting is inanimate. It is not irrational to mourn its destruction. It isn't irrational to feel bad when you see a skyline blasted to ruins, even though a skyline does not have some inherent value.

Connecting to an animal in a film is perfectly fine and healthy. You connect it to former dogs of your own, to your love for them. It represents a close value to you.

[Axiomatic]

I seriously almost threw up whilst watching this movie, especially the end when the final speech tries to make out that dogs are basically better than human beings for their stupid loyalty. That being said I've never owned a dog and never wished too, but went to see this movie on a date. There are so many parts of the movie that are distubring, like when try to make out that the world class jornalist on the cutting edge of action ends up the worse for not having a family and kids. What is also appauling is the way the main character sacrifices his dream for a substitute role that he does'nt even enjoy. His tirrade on the immorality of the builiding of infrastructure in his town also gave me a gag reflex. Quite honestly I was proud of myself for being able to sit right the way through this total garbage of emotionalist liberal tripe for the full duration.

[RationalBiker]

I seriously almost threw up whilst watching this movie, especially the end when the final speech tries to make out that dogs are basically better than human beings for their stupid loyalty.

I haven't seen the movie yet but I will tomorrow on Blu-Ray. If this is what the movie portrays, it is not exactly what was being relayed by the author at the end of the book. Throughout the book, the author constantly relates value that the dog has added to his and his family's life, but never once does he equate the dog on the same or higher level than any of his family members.

That being said I've never owned a dog and never wished too

That's understandable, some folks are not pet people. I don't know if I would have chosen to have pets myself if I hadn't grown up in a house that had them. However, I don't regret being a pet owner for a second. In many ways, Marley is the Tippy (mixed breed but mostly yellow lab) that was part of my family for so many years.

... this total garbage of emotionalist liberal tripe for the full duration.

My assessment of the book is somewhat different, though as I have said, I haven't seen the movie yet. While there are aspects of Grogan's political ideas expressed in the book, they are tertiary to the main story, the man's relationship with his pet. It is on that level that the book, and I suspect the movie, intends to connect with the audience, with those people who have shared similar experiences with pets of their own. I can understand why a person who has not had a pet may not appreciate the story in the same way if at all.