keeproductions wrote:The title of the film is fleeting in its meaning, although referenced abundantly. In a playful sparring match, Ingemar exhibits his angst with barks and growls. At his former home, Ingemar's dog was as close as a family member. Interpretably, he seems to appreciate the mutt's lack of responsibility and default happiness. There is an incredibly evocative slow-motion chase, late in the film (a flashback), in which the boy chases his dog underneath his mother's bed (the scene includes a shot of her trademark scream). It is a moment that epitomizes the happiness Ingemar has as a child. But it is just that — a moment whose tragic briefness punctuates an existence filled with continual oppression. This scene encapsulates the film; Ingemar longs to age, to confront life with experience, yet he longs to retain the amenities of his childhood. The film represents the point at which such amenities begin to fleet.
It's interesting that this reviewer brings up all sorts of theories on the title of the movie, but doesn't even broach what appears the most obvious to me. Ingemar appears to have a close affinity with the Soviet space dog Laika. Through all of his narration describing those less fortunate than himself, he comes back to Laika again and again. Laika was universally loved, hailed a hero, etc. but in the end was just a end to a means and was left to die when the usefulness was gone and then forgotten. Ingemar certainly feels adrift, unwanted, and many times forgotten.
Obvious stuff, I know. Just surprised it wasn't mentioned above.
I finally watched this last night, and am absolutely amazed at how badly whoever that was missed the point of the movie! First, it is a lovely film, and I enjoyed it immensely. But of course Ingemar identifies with Laika and Sickan! Both are sent off and killed by humans at their own whims, while he copes with being sent away multiple times by a mother he loves and longs for attention from...and feels guilty for contributing to her illness and eventual passing. Just like the dogs, he feels cast off, presumably to be put down once he outlives his usefulness or gets too annoying. His response to accepting Sicken's fate isn't to cry for the pet, but to despair at his own abandonment and being left in the "kennel" of his uncle's home - where he has even been cast out to share a bed with an elderly widower every night!!
As for the flashback, he again COMPLETELY misses the point....it was a moment of immense sadness, of his attachments to Sickan, and epitomizes the constant difficulties in the home with mom. Indeed, it's so obvious that i'd really like to know who that reviewer is so I make sure to never ever read anything by him ever again. I'm also curious as to what "Interpretably" is supposed to mean
Finally, I also couldn't help but wonder how the U.S. ratings board would have demanded Hallström's arrest for child pornography for showing a pubescent girl's breasts. It's such a perfectly composed scene of adolescent curiosity mingled with embarrassment and overwhelming fear and anxiety. There's nothing remotely titillating about it, but of course American censors would have an aneurysm were it attempted now...It saddens me that it couldn't be made today - thanks Chris Hanson!
