Generally within the first two weeks of the semester, my film students learn that I do not see many movies with animals in them. They also learn early on that I cannot handle Renee Zellwegger except in Bridget Jones’s Diary. I make an exception because of the delicious Colin Firth! (You may read more about my strong feelings for Mr. Firth in the post “Christmas with Orson, Meryl, and Colin.”) But I digress…

“Well, what about My Dog Skip?” they ask.

“Nope,” I quickly respond.

“Okay, then Snow Dogs? Lassie’s films? March of the Penguins? Beethoven? K-9? Babe? Turner and Hooch? Because of Winn-Dixie? Benji’s movies? Eight Below?”

“Nope to all of the above,” I say. And to the last one you mentioned, “Hell no!”

“Well, surely you’ve seen Old Yeller?” They always save that one for last.

“Yes, I have,” I admit while cringing. “However, I was eight,” I explain. “It was forced on me (in school, I think), and I will never see it again.”

I eventually tell the students that I have seen Homeward Bound, 101 Dalmations, Bambi, Seabiscuit, Finding Nemo, The Lion King, and Free Willy. Additionally, I’ve read Charlotte’s Web and Where the Red Fern Grows. Someone also handed off The Dogs of Babel to me with no warning (thanks, Jen!). But honestly, I probably will never screen or crack open any of those works again. Although I am a member of PETA, my stance has little do with the organization’s mission that “animals are not ours for entertainment.” Furthermore, it’s not that the creatures in the movies are just so cute I can’t stand to watch them.

The primary reason I do not see/read many texts that feature animals as main characters is that somewhere in the narrative, an animal–often the one in the lead role–will inevitably be hurt and/or killed, leaving behind an image of a grieving human who clutches onto nothing but fond memories of his/her pet. Yes, I know that some movie animals–like the one in My Dog Skip, for instance–make the trek to “The Rainbow Bridge” because they are old and not because, like Bambi and Old Yeller, they are maimed or shot. For this reason, some tell me, “You should watch the movie. After all, nothing bad happens to the dog; she just dies of old age.” Sorry, but I’ll still pass. While I am completely aware that untimely deaths are a part of life for those of us who adopt pets, watching this occurrence on a 50-foot screen is just not how I care to spend $11.00 or two hours for that matter.

With the above in mind then, it’s quite clear that I will NOT be attending a screening of Disney’s upcoming film, Oceans (2010); see trailer below. Despite its majestic mise-en-scene and almost unreal cinematography, I don’t think I’ll be able to bring myself to go. Case in point: yesterday, my husband watched on DVD Ocean‘s “sister film” Earth (2009). I, in turn, drove to the local library so I didn’t have to hear James Earl Jones inform me that at least two or three of the animals in the documentary (a baby elephant and a polar bear perhaps?) don’t make it.

I maintained a similar position this time last year when I refused to see Marley and Me (2008). I understood that the story about a hyperactive, destructive golden retriever and his affect on a young, white suburban family was going to be heartwarming, but I also was aware that it was going to be heartbreaking. I knew this first, because I had skimmed the last chapter of the novel on which the movie is based (bad news, folks) and second, because the movie contains an animal. Again, Hollywood is notoriously predictable.

Some may argue two things about my adamance here: first, that as a film professor, I shouldn’t discount any movie; and second, that my stubbornness is causing me to miss out on some wonderfully told stories. Regarding the first point, actually there are several movies that the masses should overlook (e.g., most contemporary horror films; movies in which characters, usually women, are raped; and those that contain superfluous violence). My critics’ second point–that I am denying myself touching bits of storytelling–definitely holds more weight; these people do have a point. Still, these are films I’m just willing to forego.

Over the centuries, people have speculated why the word dog is the reverse of the word god, claiming that “dogs demonstrate the closest thing to ‘god-love’ that humans can experience.” Consequently, it’s no surprise that the adjectives we often use to describe our understanding of God’s positive attributes are the same that we usually cite for what our pets also provide: protection, comfort, forgiveness, loyalty, understanding, compassion, friendship, and perhaps most significant, unconditional love.

In a mere two-hours’ time, however, Hollywood will inevitably put an end to at least one of these spiritual qualities, all while informing us that an animal’s life is short-lived, much more fleeting than our own. But this is a prompting that I don’t really need to see, much less one magnified onscreen. After all, I am reminded of this fact at least every February 24 and April 2 (if not before), the days when my two sweet cocker spaniels, Baxter and Scout, were born.

Scout and Bax