As someone who was raised to abhor racism & any discrimination for that matter, maybe there is some truth to the idea that a person's beliefs (whether questionable or not) all begin with how they are raised. This could very well transfer to the animal kingdom if WHITE DOG is any indication.

Just from reading the synopsis of the film, I was prepared for a movie that would not be making its points subtly, but rather pulling no punches whatsoever. Director Samuel Fuller was always known for telling it like it is, as well as maintaining his independence from the Hollywood mainstream. At first, Paramount had intended to distribute this movie after owning the rights to Romain Gary's story for years. However, I can guess that the powers that be were still very afraid of the adverse reaction WHITE DOG was likely going to generate, mainly by people who either had not seen the movie, or had misunderstood it. That was why Paramount pulled out before the film's American release, and to this day, it has not been seen in our theaters.

It is thus easily understood why Fuller never made another American film (to which I say, good for him!) because even as liberal as we Americans often claim to be, sometimes a certain subject such as that portrayed in WHITE DOG hits a little too close to home. Fuller dared to talk about racism (a problem still alive & well even decades after the advent of civil rights) without any sugarcoating whatsoever, and it was this take-no-prisoners approach that meant curtains for the film even before it had a chance. No surprise, European audiences & critics loved WHITE DOG, and understood the movie for what it was: a statement against racism, not condoning it. Furthermore, Fuller dared to put forth the theory that racism can be taught to another person (or in this case, animal) by careful teaching. Whether or not deprogramming in the opposite direction can happen is unclear. WHITE DOG succeeds by not giving any clear-cut answers, and that is another reason why Americans probably would not have taken to it well: for every message picture we get, we expect to see some solutions for the problem. WHITE DOG does not do that.

To say WHITE DOG is a film ahead of its time would be an understatement because I do not think even today, a movie like this could be green-lighted by a major studio. Coalitions & interest groups would likely protest loudly enough to force WHITE DOG off the screen. Some would say the violence is to blame, and yes, it IS graphic. But the film does have a PG rating, so it is not gore of the highest order. Even when the film did make it on to American cable, cuts were made so that the dog merely bit its victims rather than killed them. Others would say the mere plot of the movie itself is hateful enough, but sometimes an unvarnished approach to a brutal subject is necessary to get the point across. All I can say is be prepared to have the film's message beat you over the head, for I highly doubt Fuller would have done it any other way. It will also cause heated debate & discussion, yet another result that Fuller (R.I.P.) would also have appreciated totally.

Adapted by Fuller and Curtis Hanson from the Romain Gary novel (to whom the picture is dedicated), WHITE DOG was the iconoclastic director's last Hollywood effort – and one of his most remarkable, in my opinion. However, due to accusations of racism, the film was never released to theaters in the U.S.; undaunted, Fuller took it to Europe instead!

Having watched it twice myself (first on Italian TV and now on DivX, both viewings compromised by the full-screen format – since it was originally filmed in Panavision – and the latter even more so by the VHS quality of the source!), I have to say that I really don't see it as a racist picture at all. On the contrary, the film deals extremely tactfully with its delicate subject matter, and nowhere does it condone such views! One perhaps tends to forget that, hand in hand with the racial angle, the film also tackles another very sensitive issue: animal cruelty. This is handled just as effectively, particularly in the scene towards the end where the dog's previous redneck owner appears out of the blue to reclaim it.

Despite the violence it commits, the dog is never portrayed as a 'monster' that should be destroyed like the ones we encounter in conventional horror films. However, it does carry undeniable connotations with the genre – notably Robert Louis Stevenson's perennial "Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde". Like the leading character of that story, the dog seems to register two diverse and entirely opposing personalities – docile, protective and even playful with its mistress (Kristy McNichol), then turning suddenly into an unstoppable beast out for blood whenever a colored person crosses its path!

The 'reconditioning' scenes with Paul Winfield are exceptional, and really give one an idea of what trained animals have to go through before they finally learn to 'perform'. The rather bleak final scene (so typical of Fuller) is especially powerful – and poignant. The film is accompanied by a simple yet tremendously effective score by the great Ennio Morricone. From the cast, both McNichol and Winfield are superb; Burl Ives is admirably cast against type; Jameson Parker (from the SIMON & SIMON TV series) appears as McNichol's boyfriend; and there are nice cameos by the likes of veterans Marshall Thompson and Dick Miller, director Paul Bartel and even Fuller himself (as McNichol's agent).

Twenty-five years after the fact, it seems that Paramount has had enough time to reconsider its position and accommodate this important motion picture with an official release, at long last – which is rumored to be coming via a Criterion DVD, no less! I truly hope that we will soon see this fascinating and thought-provoking film receive the exposure it so well deserves: if anything, it ought to be made available for its valid sociological aspects – which it doesn't exploit for sensationalistic value but rather aims for maximum eloquence with a direct, realistic style that really shouldn't offend anybody...

That is the question here ... and if you already know the premise, you know that it is imperative ... but is it possible? Have to admit was surprised to hear about this ... I mean everyone knows Cujo, but this seems not to have gotten any buzz at all. Considering the subject matter I am not too surprised. Also it is not as exploitative as some might have liked it I suppose ... it does delve more into the drama aspect of the story rather than exploit the horror element of it (it does that too though, never fear - pun intended).

So while it is shocking and has some quite extreme scenes, some might find it a bit long. Maybe even pointless - now I obviously would disagree with assessments like that ... but I understand if someone would be thinking this way. Good actors and a really good director, who may be better known as a screenwriter (he also co-wrote this apparently) ... I don't think this will sway anyone in their beliefs but it might shock people to see what other humans are capable of ... without having any remorse ...