Imagine if dogs could smile

Be the 1st to vote.

Upon reviewing the very phony sounding story of a woman and her whippets, it reminded me of another well used and therefore researched element or technique used in scripting.

The use of animals, specifically dogs, has 0;scientifically” been shown to evoke the greatest emotion from people. I would argue that assigning a cute or friendly name to said animal adds an extra dimension of emotion evocation.

Have you ever noticed that people seem to cry more when a dog dies in a movie than when a person does? There’s now some science to back that up.

Researchers have found people get more emotional reading a story about a beating if the victim is a dog rather than an adult human.…

No tags for this post.

4 thoughts on “Imagine if dogs could smile

  1. babette

    “Anthropomorphism has ancient roots as a literary device in storytelling, and also in art. Most cultures have traditional fables with anthropomorphised animals, who can stand or talk as if human, as characters.

    The word anthropomorphism was first used in the mid-1700s.[1][2] The word derives from the Greek ???????? (ánthr?pos), “human”, and ????? (morph?), “shape” or “form.” (WP)

    “And there is another charm about him, namely, that he puts animals in a pleasing light and makes them interesting to mankind. For after being brought up from childhood with these stories, and after being as it were nursed by them from babyhood, we acquire certain opinions of the several animals and think of some of them as royal animals, of others as silly, of others as witty, and others as innocent.

    —Apollonius of Tyana[16]

    Disney was certainly inspired by Aesop’s fables as well as Les Fables de La Fontaine (Jean de la Fontaine) and others. Such tales or yarns carry a message in their narrative as do parables. Fables entered our culture as myths and legends and became useful in teaching morals to children.

  2. lux

    It’s due to what I call Disneyfication — the personification of animals by Hollywood pioneered by Disney. We so often see animals portrayed with human characteristics (talking, singing, dancing, etc) in Hollywood productions that we don’t notice how bizarrely sick it is. Children are the major target of this as it hits them in the formative years. They grow up watching animals talking to them on TV and doing all sorts of human things, even teaching them reading, writing and arithmetic, etc. Seeing this, of course, would make a child assume that animals are their intellectual superiors. The end result is an implanted concept of “animals = humans” which is, of course, the same as “humans = animals.,” In other words, “I am an animal and not a very bright one at that” which makes it far easier to herd, fleece and lead them to slaughter.

    It’s all done in a cutesy, warm & fuzzy manner, of course, thus making it seem like innocent fun and under the guise of teaching an appreciation of animals, etc but its actual purpose is not quite so benevolent.

    Dogs are probably the easiest creatures with which to push this agenda because dogs show emotion, an unusual trait in animals, so they are useful in convincing the public of the idea that “animals are people” (i.e., “people are animals”) as so many people believe today.

    1. ab Post author

      Mickey Mouse has much to answer for! Do you think any part of the Disney story was organic or was it all diabolical from genesis to present?

      1. lux

        I can’t prove anyone’s intent, of course, but my opinion is that this sort of thing was the intent from the beginning.

        Look at all the humanized animal productions that come out of Hollywood. I don’t think an industry that is known to be a social engineering propaganda machine is creating all this stuff just because they want to entertain kids. Hollywood always has a message and this is what I believe that message is: Identify with animals — animals are good. The message also “complements” another often-seen theme of movies and TV: Humans are bad.

        Just the fact that most people show more emotional distress from cruelty to animals than cruelty to humans demonstrates that the propaganda has worked. I don’t believe this would have been the case prior to Disney.

        For example, in the 1920s Crosman, a major manufacturer of airguns, had an ad that touted one of its rifles as being especially good at dispatching noisy howling cats.…

        Crosman is still around but I don’t think they’d get away with running that kind of ad anymore.

        BTW, I only mention the Crosman example because it illustrates how the public attitudes towards animals have changed since then, not because I advocate shooting cats — which I don’t. I only wish to point out that the public sentiment regarding animal treatment has greatly changed since the 1920s and I think that Hollywood, especially Disney, are the ones that changed it.

        Now, one might argue – “Isn’t today’s kinder viewpoint on animals a more civilized and preferable one?” I agree that a kinder attitude toward animals is better but I also believe it can be taken too far. When it gets to the point where cruelty to animals causes grief but nobody gives a shit about cruelty to humans then I believe it has gone too far and it illustrates a malevolent intent. I believe there was never any real purpose there to help animals, only a purpose to make it seem that way in order to covertly manipulate humans into a lesser opinion of themselves.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. logo

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.