Director: Norman Tokar
Cast: Walter Pidgeon, Gilles Payant, Emile Genest

Over the years, I have certainly spent a lot of time in my reviews for this web site talking about actors, from whether they are well cast to if they deliver good performances. Of course, when I am talking about actors, the vast majority of the time I am talking about human actors. After all, just about all actors in movies are human. But for a change, I would like to talk about another kind of actor you sometimes find in movies. That being actors who happen to be animals. I on occasion watch movies that feature animal actors, some for this web site and some on my own time, and over the years doing so I have managed to make some interesting observations. For example, there is the undeniable fact that some animals make much better actors than others. Some months ago I watched the family movie Elephant Tales, and I couldn't help but notice that the elephants in the movie weren't all that memorable despite them having the crutch of human actors providing voices for them. Just think about elephants for a moment and you will see what I mean - elephants are big, slow, and awkward. While circuses have proven that they can be trained to do tricks, I haven't seen any tricks with elephants that manage to show emotion or some kind of personality coming from these massive animals. Another family movie that I had a problem with the featured animal was The Golden Seal. While seals are another animal that has been proven can do tricks, in the case of this particular seal I didn't see any humanity with what it was made to do. Lumbering about awkwardly while barking out loud repeatedly does not a character make.

Certainly, there are a number of other kinds of animals that are more intelligent, with the theory coming from that that they can act more human. The pig, for example, is one of the most intelligent animals on the planet. However, there haven't been that many movies featuring pigs, probably due to the fact that pigs grow big pretty quickly, resulting in movies like Babe having to train multiple pigs to play one role. Chimpanzees are also highly intelligent and can be trained to act human. Though the problem with chimpanzees is that they can't be fully tamed and can sometimes act hostile, risking the safety of human on the set. So it probably comes as no surprise that one animal that has been used over and over in movies - and made to successfully act human - has been the dog. There are so many reasons for the popularity of dogs used as animal actors in movies. One being that they have some intelligence, maybe not as much as pigs or chimpanzees, but enough that they can be made to do an incredible number of things. Another reason for the popularity of dogs in movies is that millions of potential moviegoers are comfortable with dogs. So many people keep dogs as pets, and even people who are not dog owners are more often than not familiar with them from various pet owners that live near them. A third reason as to why dogs are a popular animal actor is that they are eager to please people. They will go through huge amounts of training because they have an instinct to do what their human masters command them to do. Humans have a need to feel wanted and respected, and it's nice to see an animal help out humans willingly.

There have been many different kinds of dog movies made, but one of the more popular versions is the classic "boy and his dog" theme. I think these particular dog movies are popular because to children, dogs come across as more magical and fascinating than to adults. Kids in the audience can relate to movie kids finding joy and wonder in a dog, and adults can remember when they felt the same way... and even still find some of that feeling today. When I came across Big Red, it occurred to me that I hadn't yet reviewed a "boy and his dog" movie for this web site. I had reviewed movies with boys with seals, bears, and other animals... but not dogs. So I decided to correct that oversight. This particular one looked interesting, because it was a Walt Disney movie, made when Uncle Walt was struggling to keep making high quality family movies when his audience's taste was turning to his goofball comedies. Which would this movie be? The "boy" of the movie is a young Quebec orphan named Rene (Payant) who is drifting across the province looking for some kind of home or work after his uncle has died. His travels take him to Wintapi, a huge estate owned by the rich and powerful James Haggin (Pidgeon, Sextette). Haggin takes Rene in because he feels the boy can help with his latest acquisition - which is a magnificent Irish Setter by the name of Big Red. Supervised by Emile (Genest, The Cincinnatti Kid) a man who along with his wife Therese (Janette Bertrand) works for Haggin, Rene gets to work trying to train Big Red, who Haggin believes is untrainable. To Haggin's surprise, Rene not only finds a way to train Big Red, but a deep bond forms between the boy and the dog. This concerns Haggin greatly, since he feels Big Red is growing too dependent on Rene, and Haggin decides to separate Rene and Big Red. But Haggin soon learns that there is no bond like the bond between a boy and his dog.

A look at the movie's credits makes clear that Walt Disney put in a lot of effort to make Big Red a high quality family movie. It was based on a best selling book by acclaimed youth author Jim Kjelgaard, it had a song and some music written by the talented team of Richard and Robert Sherman (who later won Oscars for their songs for Mary Poppins), and Disney went to the expense of having the movie actually shot on location in Quebec itself (though a few scenes were shot in California.) However, most critics at the time (and apparently audiences as well) didn't think much of the finished product. Which is a kind of shame, because for the most part the movie is a solid piece of family entertainment. For one thing, the look of the movie is generally top grade. While a few seams show here and there (like the outside of the Haggin compound clearly constructed on a large soundstage), the movie is otherwise great to look at, especially when it comes to showcasing the gorgeous Quebec countryside. But first time feature film director Norman Tokar (who went on to direct fourteen more movies for Disney) shows surprising assurance in other areas as well. Except for one slightly embarrassing scene involving a moose, he does not intrude on the otherwise serious and sentimental story with intrusive attempts at humor, seemingly realizing that cheap laughs don't belong in a boy and his dog story. More importantly, Tokar manages to keep the movie moving at a comfortable speed, with no scene going on too long or too short. The pacing will satisfy both modern kids who want something new on a regular basis, as well as parents who want the movie to take the time to add real substance on a regular basis.

I also liked how director Tokar, while indeed putting much of the focus on making this "boy and his dog" tale one that could be appreciated by viewers from any culture, didn't hide the Quebec setting or characters. Surprisingly, much of the dialogue is in French, though Tokar cleverly presents almost all this French in a way that you can get the gist of what is being said even if you don't know the language. Most of this French is spoken by the character of Rene, a character I had to admit kind of threw me off initially. Played by child actor Gilles Payant (who never appeared in another movie), Rene starts off being kind of annoying with his mush-mouthed voice. But he eventually won me over. Payant in quick time starts to show his character's love of Big Red, a love that always remains at a realistic level. He loves the dog, and is willing to go out of his way several times for it, but his love is never laid on too thick. Payant also does well in his scenes with the human characters in the cast. Like with the dog, he well compliments his character's writing to be determined, but not too determined. Care was also given to the writing of the other characters in Big Red. From the plot description I gave two paragraphs ago, you probably concluded that the character of James Haggin is a cold and unfeeling monster of sorts, at least at first. Surprisingly, that is not the case. While Rene makes several big mistakes in front of Haggin, Haggin never once loses his cool. Though he is clearly not a softy, which we learn in the opening scene where he buys Big Red completely for the purpose of eventually making money from him, he is never a brute or a bully. Every so often we get a hint that he's nursing a great hurt from his past, which explains why he is often standoffish while at the same time giving him some sympathy. And we do get to see him slowly change as the movie progresses, making for some nice character development.

Walter Pidgeon give a fine performance in the role of Haggin, complimenting the writing of his character very well like Payant does with his. When both actors are paired up in a scene, there is some nice chemistry, warm without coming across as phony or contrived. I think a nice movie could have been made with those two characters alone. Though as I've indicated, the movie focuses more on the relationship between Rene and Big Red... and does a pretty good job here as well. One thing I greatly appreciated about this particular "boy and his dog" tale is that the dog is not portrayed as being some sort of super genius. Initially, the dog is shown to be quite a handful, getting into a mess of things and also engaging in some reckless behavior that risks its own life at times. Big Red is eventually brought under reasonable control, but even then he more often than not comes across as an ordinary dog, albeit one that's had some (believable) training. But the dog all the same has an attribute that most dogs have that make them so appealing - an ability to love. When Rene meets Big Red for the first time, Big Red almost immediately licks his face and climbs all over him. You can't help but feel fondly for a dog that loves its master as much as Big Red does. I certainly did, and though I did have a few minor quibbles with the portrayal of this relationship (one or two more scenes of the two together before the first time they are separated would have made their realization of a great bond more convincing), what we do get to see really captures the spirit of what a great "boy and his dog" movie should have. So I'm really puzzled by why most critics at the time didn't find Big Red to be as charming as I did. All I can theorize is that maybe all those critics never had a pet while they were growing up.

(Posted August 2, 2020)