Heart of a Dog (2015) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
24 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
A beautiful piece of poetry on film
jen-lynx26 December 2015
I am a Laurie Anderson fan. I have been since her album "Big Science" was released in 1982. I remember listening to "Walking and Falling" over and over on my SONY Walkman as I walked many paths and feeling like she really got it, whatever it was. I continued to follow her, through her release of "Home of the Brave" in 1986 and saw her perform live at the Zellerbach Hall in the 90s. Her marriage to Lou Reed seemed so perfect. So, when I heard she made a movie, I had to check it out. As I left the theater, I could only ask myself, "Why did it take so long?"

"Heart of a Dog" is a beautiful tribute to life, love, and the fleeting nature of time. It is everything you would expect from a Laurie Anderson movie and then some. It is not a documentary, it is a cinematic essay on loss and love and death and remembrance. It is poetry on film. Laurie Anderson is, in my mind, first and foremost a poet. She has been graced with an understanding of the power of language, not only in the actual chosen words, but in the cadence of their delivery. The influence of Burroughs is obvious. In "Heart of a Dog", she translates that poetry to imagery, mixing home movies, weird distorted images barely recognizable, to straight up film moments, it all comes together as the ultimate Laurie Anderson expression.

If you are not a fan, this may not be the film for you, or it may be a gateway into the mind of a creative genius. It is not so much a film as a stream of consciousness visual essay. If you are a fan, then make all haste to see this film. It is everything you can imagine a Laurie Anderson film to be.
21 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Video meditation over death
Joerg-Ruppe5 November 2015
Now Laurie Anderson isn't really a musician, she is an artist using all kinds of modern media and her concerts are more impressive than her audio CDs. I wasn't really sure what to expect of this film and fortunately it isn't as artsy as many of the works of video artists often are are, where - as usually in modern art - you have to make sense of the material yourself, somehow; no, this is a very watchable film with Laurie spreading out memories and thoughts about her rat terrier Archie and her mother, both of which have passed away rather recently. Also of course, her husband, the rock musician Lou Reed, had died only 2 years ago so the topic of death seems a very natural one in those circumstances. Still, this is not a sad or bitter film but at best maybe a melancholic but often also a happy one with an emphasis on cheerful memories. It is a meditation on life and death spoken in her very soft singsong voice.
18 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
lots of heart, not that much dog
AlsExGal29 January 2017
I had to watch this a few times to get everything I could out of it. I will tell you if you are expecting some kind of tribute to Ms. Anderson's dog in the vein of "Marley and Me", then you are going to be very disappointed. Instead Ms. Anderson weaves in stories about her dog, her Buddhist beliefs, her past back to her childhood, and the growth of the surveillance state into one very interesting piece. At the point where her dog, rat terrier Lolabelle, dies, the dog exits the narrative.

The opening pretty much gives you an idea of how avant-garde things are going to get, because it is about a dream she has where she has her dog sewn into her stomach by surgeons so that she can give birth to her. There are fun things that anybody could enjoy such as dogs wearing sandals - apparently this is a "thing" in Asia, and how Lolabelle went blind in her old age, and afterwards Ms. Anderson put some keyboards on the floor so the dog could "learn to play". The terrier actually got pretty good at "playing". Lolabelle actually did charity performances and even a Christmas album! I guess the one thing I really noticed is how Ms. Anderson is so unquestioning of her Buddhist beliefs and teachers. Case in point -when her dog got to the end of life and was in pain, the vets were recommending euthanasia. Ms. Anderson consults a Buddhist teacher who said that death is a process and you have no right to interfere with that process with either humans or animals. So unquestioning of that unconventional path, she took Lolabelle home from the vets - I'm hoping with tranquilizers and pain killers for her - and let her die on the living room floor in her regular dog bed.

Is this just a "thing" Americans have? (I'm American by the way) Whatever spiritual advice they are given by their chosen religion they follow it, regardless of common sense or compassion? I guess the fact that the piece raised questions with me is a good thing. I will say the visuals are very well done and Ms. Anderson has a calm and soothing voice. Not for everybody, but I would give it a chance. In fact, you'll probably have to give it several chances to get it.
12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
This Film Has Heart: Perhaps Best of 2015
helen-5112221 December 2015
In her poetic film collage essay, Laurie Anderson is more beautifully and thoughtfully herself than ever. She has had a long career, but was most well-known in the 80's as an experimental performance artist, composer, and musician who especially explored the mix of spoken word and music. Those who know her albums such as "Big Science" and "Home of the Brave" will appreciate the return of the fragmented rhythm and quizzical tone of Anderson's speech, opening with voice-over sentences such as "This is my dream body – the one I use to walk around in my dreams."

Despite the film's seemingly stream-of-conscious, no-plot, hodge- podge approach, Anderson has meaningful ideas to express, and she's woven together an elegant and smartly structured tone-and-picture poem. The movie combines her personal stories and musings with quotations from renowned philosophers, ink drawings on paper, printed words, animation, scratchy old 8mm home-movie clips, new footage of landscapes, surveillance camera footage with time codes, graphic images such as computer icons, and her ingenious use of music. As always, Anderson excels at language, and here she combines various types of on-screen text with her own lyrical voice-over. I often leave a movie wanting to run home and download the soundtrack, but in this case I am yearning for a transcript. These are words worthy of reading and contemplating. "Try to learn how to feel sad without being sad," is just one of the many sentences that could use more time to resonate than one viewing allows.

But one of the surprises of this project may be Anderson's sophisticated and inventive cinematography. As the film explores a variety of deaths – the death of Anderson's dog, the death of her mother, the death of her husband (Lou Reed), and the mass deaths of 9/11 in New York, it seems the movie is often shedding its own tears. Many sequences are shot through a pane of glass that is dripping with water, like life itself is crying. And then she turns footage of an ocean upside down, with the foreground still raining, so the sea that has become the sky is weeping too. In front of everything, Anderson seems to be saying, is a gentle, pervasive sadness.

And yet, the movie is not even remotely maudlin. It discusses 9/11 in way that actually adds fresh insight, which seems impossible after so many anniversaries full of remembrance ceremonies, and so many other films that have also integrated that tragic event.

Perhaps the strongest moment in Anderson's film is when she takes her dog outdoors in a big field and enjoys watching her run and play in tall grass and aromatic dirt, as dogs do. And the camera pans up to the bright blue sky; it is such a beautiful day. And then we see pretty white trails in the sky, moving in circles. Anderson tells us they are birds. And then she sees that they are hawks. And she describes the look in the eyes of her dog, Lolabelle, as the dog peers up and realizes that she… is prey. The dog understands that these birds have come for the purpose of killing her. And Anderson bemoans the new reality that now the dog must not only be aware of the ground and the grass and the other earthbound creatures, but also that huge, untouchable expanse of sky. The sky is now a danger. And the dog will never view the sky the same again. Cut to footage of 9/11 as Anderson compares her dog's feeling to hers, and ours, when we suddenly understood that "something was wrong with the air"; the sky brought danger and those flying planes were there for the purpose of killing us. And "it would be that way from now on."

Anderson goes on to talk about the strangeness of living in a post- 9/11 surveillance state, where we are always being recorded. But she does not take the obvious path of complaining about the social injustice. Instead, she takes a clever twist and points out that all your actions are now data. And that data is always being collected, but it will not be watched until after you commit a crime. Then your story is pieced together, in reverse – footage of where you went and what you did, being viewed backwards from the most recent moment. And then she throws in a quote from Kierkegaard: "Life can only be understood backward but must be lived forward."

And intermixed with philosophy, Anderson keeps her wry sense of humor. At one point, she talks about a dream in which she gives birth to her dog. She illustrates the tale with bizarre comic drawings, and then she tells us that the dog looks up at her and says, "Thank you so much for having me," as if it has just been invited to a tea party. Ha. Later she talks about her own childhood memory of a trauma and reveals how our minds naturally clean up memories, leaving out certain details, and in that way you are holding onto a story and every time you tell the story, you forget it more. Cut to the computer icon of Missing File. The associations keep piling up, and they do indeed add up. It uses a complex and intellectual style, very astutely, to access emotional and intimate realities that are difficult to reach through overt methods. This film does tell a story, in its own subtly layered way.

It is sometimes a meditation on how to go on living despite despair – "the purpose of death is the release of love," but it is also clearly Laurie Anderson's own personal tale. This is a tender memoir. It's Anderson's love story, about her dog, her mother, her husband, and her city. In the most uncommon and evocative way, this film has heart.
33 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A guilty pleasure
reid-hawk27 August 2016
I don't really know how describe how I feel about this movie. At the risk of sounding like a basic white girl, I'd say this movie is just so random. It's an art film that seems to try too hard to be artistic, with nearly everything about every shot seemingly randomly selected out of a hat. Is this shot gonna be hand held? Maybe we will reverse an image from a street camera for about three seconds then loop it for 30- seconds. How about a close up shot? Lets cover the camera lens with rain drops over these next three shots for no reason. The sound quality also cuts out many times, with parts of the speakers words seeming disjointed and stitched together. Yet I can't help but almost love this movie. It's narrative seems almost stream- of-conscious like; it rarely makes too much sense or flows well together, yet Laurie Anderson obviously wants to get a message across. This messages seems to mainly be about the important events in her life, her love for her deceased dog, and how her Buddhist beliefs and practices affected all of this. There truly is nothing like this film that I've ever seen, which is perhaps the best compliment I can give a movie. It's an avant garde and experimental documentary made for the modern era. Lots of it fails and comes of as pretentious, but what it lacks in artistic skill it makes up for with it many moving and thought provoking stories told by the immediately captivating voice of its narrator. It's a case of the visual aspect of a film failing the actual content of the film. I love it. I hate it. I recommend people to try it and decide how they feel about it for themselves.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Tremendously moving and beautiful
runamokprods15 September 2016
Tremendously moving and beautiful, and the best capturing of Laurie Anderson's unique combination of off-beat humor, heartbreak, poetry music, images, animation, stories, Buddhist philosophy and artistic experimentation yet on film.

In theory it's the story of Anderson's relationship with Lolabelle, her beloved terrier, as the dog moves through life towards aging and death. But it is also clearly thematically about her love for, and loss of her husband Lou Reed, and her pondering of her own mortality and the meaning of life.

Yet as dour and daunting as that sounds, Anderson never loses sight of the joy that abides with sorrow, knowing that there is no love without pain, and no pain without the seeds of joy.

And while it's a heady mix, and resolutely refuses to act anything like a 'normal' movie, Anderson is also the most accessible of experimentalists. She has no interest in torturing or confounding her audience, just catching them off guard and getting them to think new ways - - but always with a smile, a wink and a chuckle at it all. She's a tremendously important artist, and this film is great for fans and newcomers alike.
12 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
intensely personal, meditative journal
tsimshotsui15 May 2017
This is one of the cases where the film is intensely personal and completely unrestrained and unrestricted that it really is a matter of connecting with the filmmaker themselves or not. Unfortunately, I was the latter. There are moments of poignancy and relevance for me especially as a dog-lover — the film's highest point for me being the realizations after a certain death— however, the film's diary/journal format means that it delves into other related, and others sometimes random, subjects and thoughts that one might not be into exploring.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The Essay
boblipton26 November 2020
Laurie Anderson mourns the death of her dog in a series of seemingly random reminiscences.

I started out strongly disliking this essay on mourning, and never really warmed to it. There are too many details noted that don't add to the issues discussed. Ah, but Robert, I hear you saying, maybe this wasn't meant for you. Or maybe the extraneous details are the distractions that the world, Maya, throws up -- there's a lot of Tibetan Buddhist terms offered -- from understanding self, which seems to be the ultimate goal of this film. Well, yes, but I am watching it, and this is the world we're living in, illusory or not. Deal with it.

That's a little extreme, even for me, but it's my antithesis to the goopy thesis of people who mumble about how they're not religious, they're spiritual. Ms. Anderson's essay, like all good essays, talks around everything, like a adult going into the attic of her recently deceased parents to clear the house for sale. She picks up a thing from her childhood, examines it, puts it down, moves on to the next item, goes back. It seems random, but by the end, you've caught a glimpse of yourself in the seemingly random details. The fact that she keeps going to Aunt Minnie's soup tureen to no purpose is part of the misdirection to hide the purpose of the essay.

I still have great issues with this. Essays are short for a reason: they're something to go to and think about. At 75 minutes, Ms. Anderson's movie leaves you little to think about. It tells everything, and you can accept it or not. Some things should be left for the audience to work out.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
a poetic, thoughtful, and at times humorous meditation on impermanence and loss, by an influential American artist
jennielivingston29 January 2016
Brilliant memoir/essay film/experimental film about impermanence, family history, and love. If you like first-person cinema (Agnes Varda, Ross McElwee, Sarah Polley, Jem Cohen, Thomas Allen Harris, Doug Block, Su Friedrich, Jonathan Couaette, etc.) you'll love this film.

If you are looking to see a traditional documentary (social issues doc; biopic; historical film) and aren't familiar with literary memoir, art installations, animation, or personal essay (either written or filmed), you may find this film difficult or confusing, as did the previous reviewer.

But if you love memoir and poetry, and have been thinking about stuff like: 1) it's hard to lose beings we love 2) where do we go when we die? 3) what are the connections between big political losses and changes and smaller, more personal losses and changes? 4) what is the connection between suffering and empathy and meaning? 5) how do our own particular hardships affect how we relate to our families? YOU'LL LOVE THIS FILM.

If you love humor, subtlety, formal innovation, Buddhist cosmologies, intelligence, mystery, and (yes) dogs, GO FOR IT.
18 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Poetic Art Musings
iquine21 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
(Flash Review)

This opens with a surreal dream story of a woman that had a living dog sewn into her stomach so she could give birth to it. Ummmm.....Wow! This is a personal film full of poetic stories of the artist's life, existential musing, ponderings and remembrances who also is the narrator. A bulk of the time is given to her dog who lost its sight yet learned to play a keyboard, while fewer stories revolve around her family and childhood. Other stories drew a correlation from free and wide open lands with the security presence and data collection soon after 9/11. Possible indicating her personal fears and anxieties about the world today. While occasionally interesting, these stories were seeming randomly assembled while relating together in a conceptual manner; a manner in which requires thought and a second viewing to add clarity. It was different and sort of thought-provoking with the use of mixed media. Certainly not for everyone.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Of course, it's not really about a dog at all
MOscarbradley28 July 2017
Of course, performance artist Laurie Anderson's film "Heart of a Dog" isn't really about a dog or dogs in general, at least that's not solely what it's about. Anderson narrates the picture, (and hers is the only voice we hear), which is a post 9/11 essay on New York, on America, on language and on loss, all of which is par for the course for Anderson who lulls you into a sense of false security with what, superficially, is the story of her beloved rat terrier, Lolabelle.

Even the slightest knowledge of Anderson's work will tell you what you're letting yourself in for, so this isn't a conventional 'film' as such but something akin to performance art on film. Indeed seeing this in a cinema almost defeats the purpose; best to see this in a gallery, sunk deep in an armchair, sipping on something cool and try to forget about 9/11 and Anderson's paranoia and fears and keep telling yourself...it's all about a dog.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Deeply personal essay/film by Laurie Anderson
paul-allaer11 March 2016
"Heart of a Dog" (2015 release; 75 min.) is a non-fiction movie by musician/performance artist Laurie Anderson. As the movie opens, we see a cartoon-animated Laurie Anderson inform us that "this is my dream body" and that in her dream she gives birth to an adult dog whom she calls Lolabelle. It's not long before Laurie starts reflecting on her dying mother, 9/11, SIDS, and a bunch of other things.

Couple of comments: Laurie Anderson, best known for her minimalist music such as "O Superman" from the early 80s, is no stranger to movie making. Here she takes two particular tough periods in her life, the decline and death of her rat terrier Lolabelle and the decline and death of her mother, to weave a collage of images and montage of sound, supplemented by Laurie's spoken words in which she explores "the connection between love and death" (Laurie's words) and everything in between. One might call it a stream of consciousness, except that Laurie is not rambling in the least. Let me tell you. it makes for one amazing movie experience. It's like being in a dream. if not a trance, where things somehow become a lot clearer. Let me also mention that I was vaguely aware of the movie, along the lines of: "that's the documentary about Laurie's dog", and I almost did not watch the movie for that reason. As it turns out, the movie devotes only about 10-15 min. to the dog, and the movie is not even a documentary. So it was a complete misconception on my part what this movie was about (and to be honest, the movie's title only reinforced that misconception). Last but not least, Laurie's husband Lou Reed (who passed away in 2013) isn't mentioned a single time, but an excellent song of his, "Turning Time Around", does play over the movie's end titles. Please note: you don't have to be a fan of Laurie Anderson to appreciate this movie (but it certainly doesn't hurt if you are).

"Heart of a Dog" showed up out of the blue and without any pre-release buzz or advertising at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati last weekend. The early evening screening when I saw it a few days ago was not attended well (three people, including myself), and I noticed that it will drop out of the theater after today. That's a shame, as this is a remarkable movie in many respects, and by all means deserves a wider audience. If you are in the mood for something very different, all the while realizing that is a deeply personal essay and film from Laurie Anderson, I encourage you to check it out, be it in the theater, on VOD or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray. "Heart of a Dog" is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!
13 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
heart of a dog
mossgrymk20 December 2020
Way too Hippie/ mystical for me, but when Andersen stops trying to be Wise and instead focuses on the personality and quirks of her terrier Lolabelle the film comes alive. Not enough of those moments, though.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Nothing to do with dogs
adbogolubov28 March 2016
The movie started with nothing but still grey sky for the first five minutes, and then still blue sky for the next five, with a slightly pretentious voice talking about a dream. Ten minutes of nothing on the screen, but I decided to carry on since I'm also eating dinner. Maybe it's just artsy and me, a mortal, can't understand it. But I ended up fast forward for many times. The director of this movie(I reluctantly call it so) tried her best to make something deep, thought provoking, political and philosophical. Wittgenstein was quoted at a point,911 was mentioned a lot. But what she really did was to weave a superficial, self-satisfying monologue about life and death, dogs, and whatever else there is along with bad, amateur camera work. She forgot about her audience. This is not for others, it's for herself. She turned the movie into a bad abstract art that has a weak conveying power. Not impressed.
11 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
An important piece of cinema art
thepartydjz25 April 2016
Acclaimed Media Artist Laurie Anderson has created another extremely imaginative and intriguing film that will leave viewers spellbound. Her style of storytelling is so unique and at times disturbing that you will wonder if what you'd just seen is real or a product of a mind that has recently passed beyond mortality.

The wife of music legend Lou Reed uses many literary passages, music and images to tell the story of the life and passing of her dog Lolabelle. But it's much more than that. She infuses her own life stories and experiences to create this moving piece of artistic cinema.

You will laugh, possibly cry, and think. You will wonder, imagine and think. You may find yourself scared and freed from reality simultaneously but most of all you will think.

If you are a fan of Batman or Spiderman films, pass on this one. If you are a thinking free spirit relax and enjoy.
13 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A beautiful essay
plieshout18 February 2017
Heart of a dog is one of the most moving and interesting art movies I have ever seen. The story seems to be about the rat terrier Lollabelle but when the story begins there is that absurd tale of Laurie giving birth to the dog after surgeons have implanted the dog in her uterus and when it ends you realize that is really about a mother/daughter relation. The poetry in the movie is beautiful and absurd as ever and the images are stunning. You get really drawn into the story. Like her mother said in her last words; "Take care of the animals". Laurie did take care of her animal.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
it's an art movie, not a dog movie
ignominia-131 May 2016
Heart of a Dog, a movie by Laurie Anderson is one of the most nourishing movies I have seen in a long while. I loved her drawings, the abstract and nostalgic imagery and mostly her storytelling voice. The film content - love, memory and mostly loss - filled a personal need for intensity that only few other art works, books, and movies, have been able to do. At times my emotions could barely stand absorbing what I could only call its beauty. Laurie should have just been a story teller, all the other trickery she has used through time distract from the real source of her art. Of course if the viewer expect a story about dogs, this is not the movie for them, but I can list HoaD to very few other movies that seem to be about nothing and they are about everything.
12 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
75 minutes of your life that you can't get back.I
jessytelly28 April 2016
I dvr'd this based on HBO's description, "Laurie Anderson reflects on the passing of her mother, her husband (Lou Reed) and her dog" What I saw was one minute of reflection about her mother in the beginning and one minute at the end. There was absolutely ZERO reflection about Lou unless you want to count the one grainy picture of him during the movie, or the picture of him and the song of his during the end credits. The dog was well represented and saw significant screen time in the film and was obviously more loved than the mother or husband.Ms Anderson even stated that she did not love her mother during the film.I was very interested to hear her feelings on her husbands passing and got absolutely nothing. She really should have just made the movie entirely about the dog.
9 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
An artist's meditation on deaths, etc.
petrelet4 December 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Well, I am pretty sure that Laurie Anderson created the movie she intended to.

That may sound like faint praise, but if you appreciate Anderson's work (as I do) it will make you want to see it. I will let you know up front, though, that despite the blurb not a very high percentage of the movie is really about her dog, so if you are looking for a dog movie per se this isn't really it.

It will not surprise anyone who knows Anderson's musical work that this work can't really be described as some kind of narrative or clearly spelled out philosophical message. It is more like a collage, if you will, including some stories or descriptive language about the dog, about episodes in Anderson's life, about deaths and instances of the danger of death, about New York after 9/11, about Tibetan Buddhism and its view of death. This all sounds rather grim, but it isn't. After death (in the Tibetan Buddhist view) there is a 49-day period or process called the "bardo" in which the soul prepares to enter a new form. It seems to involve a reprocessing and re-recognition of experiences somehow, and in fact the movie itself may be sort of a picture of the bardo. The collage is displayed on a background of images and sounds including Anderson's own creative work.

I really don't think I can say much else that would enable you to better predict whether you would like the film or not. I didn't watch it and have epiphanies and come away feeling that I understood my place in the universe much better, but I don't feel as if I wasted my time; Anderson is a brilliant and interesting person, and spending an hour and a half with her thoughts is well worth it - to me anyway.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
O dear!
jamesggmarshall23 December 2015
I am sure that I am going to get into trouble but I believe in all honesty that this film was a total dud. There are are very few films that I walk out of (I see at least 60 a year) but this was one of them. I have had dogs as pets - lots of them. I admire them for their faithfulness and their ability to put one in a good mood. But to base a complete film on a dog and to impute feelings that a dog supposedly has is ridiculous. I have no issue at all with someone making a film on this topic but to expect me to pay money to see it - which I did - is too much. This film is simply one person's egocentric take on her own perceptions - nothing more, nothing less.
9 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
This film is one of the most beautiful gems ever created
aylaboo-628-88203331 March 2018
Straight into my soul, her voice, the imagery and the sheer poetry of the strength of love and loss and coming into being.... and leaving.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
the relationship between dogs and the status quo
lee_eisenberg13 November 2021
I first learned of avant-garde artist Laurie Anderson from a compendium of photographs by Annie Leibovitz, with one of the photos showing Anderson. My mom explained to me what Anderson was famous for. I've now gotten around to seeing Anderson's experimental documentary "Heart of a Dog", focusing on her love of her pet dog Lolabelle. In the process, Anderson also addresses the proliferation of security cameras and similar things after the 9/11 attacks.

What is the connection between these topics, you might ask? Maybe that question isn't meant to have an answer. The documentary is poetic and philosophical. Not any sort of masterpiece, but I like how Anderson told the story. She is one clever artist, and I recommend the documentary.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Overall pretty good
mrpinbert11 May 2016
What attracted me to go watch this is that it seemed more like a feature length essay video, which it was.

The images are quite spellbinding and the narration is overall well written and pleasant to listen to.

I found the first 30 minutes completely captivating and put me into an introspective mood.

Then something happened that I can't quite explain. But the movie just completely lost my interest. I think that might be due to it dwelling for too long on the same sentiment. I was afraid that I would suddenly grow to hate this movie even though at first I was quite captivated.

Then, thankfully, it turned a new leaf and I was captivated once more for the last 40/30 minutes.

It is poignant, emotionally charged and quite beautiful to look at. But it did only have a few moments that really stood out for me.

A favorite of this year for sure. But definitely only a lower ranking favorite for me overall, and a movie I will most likely only re-watch once.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Grating
gbill-7487710 January 2024
The parts of this film that actually relate to dogs are mildly interesting, like imagining how different breeds would respond verbally to commands if they could, but they are few and far between. I really didn't connect with much of the rest, which meandered through the state of New York post-911, the growing surveillance of American citizens by the NSA, the nature of life and death, the supernatural, childhood memories, and various philosophical musings culled from Western and Eastern teaching. What could have been right up my alley felt a lot less profound than I think it was intending to be, and the soft-spoken narration style which often oddly paused every few words quickly grew irritating too. It's ironic that Anderson complains about the slow style of reading volunteers at the hospital had when she broke her back as a child given her own vocal style here, which was perhaps a similar kind of torture, at least to me.

I have to also say, losing a dog is incredibly painful under any circumstances, but I thought Anderson's decision to not euthanize hers to be incredibly naïve and selfish, as dogs can suffer immensely without the ability to explain themselves, and in some cases it can result in traumatic trips to the emergency room at the end of their lives, as opposed to peacefully letting go at home with a vet's assistance, surrounded by loved ones. It's hard to judge anyone for going through these gut-wrenching moments in life in the way they deem best for them, but I found myself at odds with someone who seemed to feel so smugly self-assured, and that feeling never let up. Just not a good match for me.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed