this actually looks boring but i couldn't resist posting since it combines two things you love : talking animals/animals in clothes and colonial times
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We are obsessed with eachother. These things we have found are amusing.
two dog posts in a row! didn't even realize. since watching marley and me, maybe i have been feeling more animal friendly. i even pet a cat for an extended period of time last night.
ReplyDeleteUm i have a lot to say about this:
ReplyDelete1. This could be awesome but instead seems really really weird
2. I actually hate animals in clothes (although I like bears in hates and rabbits in bow ties), but I like people in animal suits (not a sex thing, it's just funny)
3. No laws without Paws doesn't really get the No taxation without representation point across. Plus -- what is this, The Lord of the Flies ?-- let's specify, Americans weren't jockeying to live in a lawless land, they just didn't want their everyday necessities being taxed by the British
4 In fact, I think this is a pretty dangerous message and doesn't capture the concept of the revolution at all. The conflict between cats and dogs, which the movie presents, conjures an immediate syllogism to a conflict between two races (because cats and dogs are two different species), and not two geographically and culturally unique societies. Maybe I'm taking it too far, but it seems to portray feelings of hate towards those who are different rather than the straining economic and cultural byproducts affecting Americans when under British rule. In fact, I feel like young kids, who have not yet been educated about the facts of the revolution, will come away from the movie remembering little more than the doctrine 'cats are evil and dogs are cool.'
Love the American Revolution, but instead of confusing children with an off-kilter interpretation that seems to be presenting the actual facts, why not just portray the facts in a simplistic and meaningful manner?