“Adam and Dog” by Minkyu Lee

Now nominated for an Academy Award, we first wrote about Minkyu Lee’s remarkable short Adam and Dog about a year ago. Here’s the whole film:

“This is a short film that me and a group of my close friends made. It was put together by artists who work at various studios, including Disney Feature, Dreamworks and Pixar; The animation is done by myself, Jennifer Hager, James Baxter, Mario Furmanczyk, Austin Madison, and Matt Williames. Glen Keane also helped by being a consultant on the film, and also doing some visual development. It is a completely independent film without any major studio involvement. We are really excited for people to see it, and wanted to share.” – Minkyu Lee


  • JK Riki

    Finally got to see it in theaters, glad others can enjoy it now too! It had some great moments, and was a brilliant take on the Garden story. Very cool. My only disappointment was the quality seemed to vary at times, where one bit would be absolutely top-tier outstanding and then suddenly a few spots seemed like it needed a big injection of in-betweens. Weird, dunno if it was on purpose. Anyway, I enjoyed it! :)

    • http://www.facebook.com/teodor.ajduk Teodor Ajduk

      no in-betweens, please.

      this is better

    • http://twitter.com/ChriSobieniak Chris Sobieniak

      It does seem to shift between 1′s, 2′s and 3′s I’ve noticed. One moment it might be very fluid, the next choppy. It didn’t really bother me seeing it for the first time but I can see how some might be turned off a little when it comes to how the movements are executed. I feel the strength of the film is in it’s visual palette and atmosphere (the use of long shots and extreme long shots gives us far more to enjoy than for the titular characters included). The story itself, while paced pretty lengthy, says all it wants to say pretty adequately and I found myself pretty satisfied at the end.

    • AK

      I actually really enjoyed the inconsistency. Maybe because it made me really appreciate who was making it, and how it was made. I wonder if it had all the perfect in betweens, would it have felt different…
      thoughts from a student.

    • JK Riki

      Interesting that some folks enjoyed the lack of smoothness in places. I’m all for variety as well, though I personally think dipping into 3s is a bad, bad plan. At least when there are 1s involved. If it was 2s and 3s it might not be so jarring, I guess. 1s to 3s instantly pulled me out of the world they had created and screamed “HEY DON’T FORGET YOU’RE WATCHING A FILM IN A THEATER.” After seeing the brilliance of the bird eating from Adam’s hand and then suddenly it was like watching the 8-bit staccato of Wreck-it-Ralph… Really sucked me out of the experience. Which I guess was even more disappointing for me since it was SO nice otherwise. Great little story, compelling, lovely to look at… The choppiness just made it seem like YouTube was streaming poorly, except it was on a theater screen.

      Ah well, all the best to the team in their hunt for an Oscar! I hope we see more great 2D from them soon. (And hope even more they’ll stick with 1s and 2s. :) )

  • Skip

    Well done. I’m rooting for Paperman to win the Academy Award, but should it go to another short, this would be my choice.

  • Katie B

    Really lovely spin on the story, warmed my heart and wet my eyes. Excellent animation all around, the birds were especially well done! The colors, wow the colors and environments! Truly paradise! Best of luck!

  • lola

    Paperman ain’t got nothin on this. I hope it wins the Acadamy. As for the ‘rough’ bits, I didn’t feel like they were rough at all. It’s nice to see variety in animation, though I’m sure they would have added more inbetweens if they had the time (even though I don’t think it needs it).

    • Greg

      Yeah especially the mouth shapes on Adam were great, and his teenage-boy bum-fluff moustache was great. Agree with the great texture with 1′s, 2′s and 3′s.

  • Greg

    Yeah what a greeeat film, although wtf with the yellow/purple airbrush bg’s at certain points? They popped out like dabs of primary acrylic on a rembrant. Also great to see a penis on screen, he had more hair on his upper lip than down below, how old was he? A well justified call to get the pink flute past the censors. Beats paperman hands down and I’m sure the good Lord will put a word in.

    • http://twitter.com/ChriSobieniak Chris Sobieniak

      I’ve seen plenty of Oscar nominees in the animated short category get away with far worse depictions of frontal nudity, this is fairly pedestrian.

  • Daniel

    Adam and Dog is better then the other nominations on sooo many levels.

  • Anonymous

    As beautiful as that was, visually… That was way too long.

  • eron

    Absolutely stunning. So powerful. The Dog is the perfect creature and is truly a gift to mankind. I shed some tears at the end. I am so impressed with this story, how little they needed to show to get the point across and still have it be so meaningful. Amazing job. this deserves the oscar.

  • jorge verdugo

    I love this short the dog is so dog XD I love that

  • http://www.facebook.com/jpcassidy John Paul Cassidy

    Very beautiful film! There’s going to be quite a competition with the Short Film category at the Academy Awards. :)

  • Gray64

    That was great! I will agree that some of the atmosphere shots went on a bit long for my taste, but still, this is flat awesome. My local newspaper, which apparently doesn’t know beans about animation (big surprise), described this as “anime flavored,” which it most certainly ain’t. I’d say it’s visual influence is, if anything, more early-90′s Disney, though edgier and with a more varied color palette. This is great, great work. I’d always liked the fable that of all the animals, the dog alone refused to abandon man after the fall.

    • http://www.facebook.com/william.bradford.102 William Bradford

      What one could pull from that is that the attempt to create, not necesarilly a melancholy feel, but somthing other then light happiness, not to mention good natured nudity, is somthing you never get to see tastefully outside of Japanese animation. Also, they’re will to forgo inbetweens here and there in order to afford a more unconventional style of film

  • Max Braslavsky

    For me, everything was going fine and dandy up to the point when the fleeing Adam looks back at the dog — It gave me quite a start since I didn’t recognize the guy. He looked changed, unkept and ugly with a mad look in his eyes. I even thought : “Hey, Eve has run off with some other dude. Strange shift in the story but why not?” Actually had to replay the scene to make sure. And then, it struck me like WOW. Adam had turned into that ugly bum… simply because he’d had gotten laid, people ! Hence, remember : getting laid is bad for you. It’ll make you look ugly and lost. Point one, brilliantly and ever so subtly made. Now. When Mowgli opts on following the girl and leave his friends and all the jungle fun behind (his lost paradise), at least, we get to see the girl and her lovely eyes. Bear with me, friends. The only thing we can catch a glimpse of from Eve, here, is the tip of her nose — For She Is Hiding In Shame Behind Her Luscious Hair ! Ooh, bad, bad, guilty woman ! (the source of all evil since money hasn’t been invented yet.) We’re not allowed to see the woman’s face. Think hard now. Rings a bell, anyone ? The woman has got to keep her face hidden. Yeop. That’s taliban crap, right here. Right here. Point two. Funny how extremes seem to join at the edges sometimes, isnt ‘it ? Don’t get me wrong, some fierce talent gathered to work on that short. But let me misquote Stan Lee by saying : With great talent comes great responsability. We’re not talking ones and twos here. This is about purpose. Subject matter. All right, I’ll even go for that scary word : ideology. Images are like words, they’re important although we’re led to believe they’re not. I’m left agast when faced with such middle-aged imagery. This is 2013, for crying out loud.

    • Matthew

      No, you’ve got it wrong. Adam didn’t appear that way “simply because he’d gotten laid.” That was about the fall of man. They disobeyed God by eating from the Tree of Knowledge (it’s not shown, but that’s what happens in the story.) It was a brilliant scene when Adam turns around with mad eyes, clothed in animal skins. It NEEDS to give you quite a start – the whole world just changed in an instant for those two people, and they were changed, too.

      • hellohue

        He doesn’t have it ‘wrong’, in the same way you haven’t got it ‘right’. It’s interesting you mention ‘it’s not shown, but THIS is definitively what happened’, because even though Adam and Dog might share parallels with the story of genesis, it does have its own story to tell, and I think that ambiguity is what makes it interesting.

        What I will say is, it’s really interesting for such a high-profile short to have such an agenda. Its ambiguous storytelling with religious overtones is very admirable (even if I am not religious and don’t believe an ounce of the story in the bible and how the fall of man has anything to do with modern humanity) and daring for something that could have easily been a ‘nice’ story with good animation and innovative background art to please everyone (paperman). The film really pleasantly surprised me in that, judging from the trailer that I saw about a year ago, its tone was more slowly paced and ultimately sombre than what I expected, considering the studio links it has. I feel like I’m still digesting it, and that’s what good art should do.

        • Matthew

          The crux of the Adam and Eve story is the act of eating from the tree, not “getting laid.” There’s nothing impressionistic about that. This film is based on the story in the Bible. The point of view is impressionistic. I don’t think the filmmaker was getting hippy-dippy about the events of the Bible story.

      • http://www.facebook.com/william.bradford.102 William Bradford

        Well whether you agree with the ideaology of it I think the story of Adam and Eve is kind of locked down, and trying to change it because it’s outdated and a bit ignorant would be innacurate. Hence why I think they didn’t want to get into WHY innocence was lost and they had to leave the beautiful forest.
        I think the point of this film is even though all the other animals didn’t follow Adam and Eve from the forest, DOG still did.

        • Eric Graf

          Dog was the one piece of paradise that Adam retained after the Fall. That’s how I took it, anyway.

        • Matthew

          I agree with your points. This Bible story is locked down. That’s why the filmmaker didn’t have to show them eating from the tree. It’s definitely implied. (There’s a scene where a panther eats a smaller animal – another indication of the fall.) The film works well by just implying what happened, because the focus is on the dog and his relationship to Adam.

        • Max Braslavsky

          “Locked down” is the word, William. It really sums it all up. Humanity have been spending an incredible amount of time wrestling with “locked down” beliefs and behaviours. And it doesn’t appear it’s going to change anytime soon. A girl in india got raped and murdered by guys thinking they could get away with it because she was from an “inferior” caste. That’s what “locked down” is about. You’ve made my point better than I could have.

          • Matthew

            Max, the story is written down. It’s literature. It’s thousands of years old. It exists. The story is locked down the same way any piece of literature is.

          • Max Braslavsky

            Discussing or even challenging scriptures is not denying them. I find it’s even quite the opposite. Thanks for your thoughts anyway.

          • Matthew

            You are missing my point entirely. I am saying that the story is written down, so we know what happens in it. The story is well known and has been known for thousands of years. That is why we know what happens in the film, even though it doesn’t show all the events. This has nothing to do with challenging scriptures. You brought that up for some reason, just like you brought up “getting laid” for some reason. I still don’t understand why. You seem determined to attach your own agenda to the film and the comments here. Awaiting your next cute reply. :)

          • http://www.facebook.com/william.bradford.102 William Bradford

            Well, for all we know, the filmakers opinion was that god was a big chauvanistic jerkface for throwing them out for no good reason. They stuck to what happened in the book, but this film doesn’t say whether they deserved or who was to blame, only how the dog was willing to leave paradise to be with Adam and Eve.

          • Matthew

            Anything like that would have to be shown if the filmmaker wanted to get the point across. He doesn’t address it, so I think we can safely assume the events play out as expected. The statement he makes is that the dog leaves the garden to be with Adam, like you said, and that is shown. I don’t know how a sarcastic rant about getting laid was even thought up and why was it used to attack the film?

          • mee

            I have a question, because when I try to recall what’s actually in the locked-down story, I admit to confusion and maybe I’m misunderstanding. The way I think it goes is that with egging from the serpent, Eve eats from the God-forbidden Tree of Knowledge and gets Adam to too, and that’s it, now they know shame and want to cover up, cover their nudity. It’s not having sex with Adam, it’s eating forbidden fruit that leads to nudity prudity and shame and banishment. What you said. Unless we’re talking Biblical euphemisms, where “knowing” someone “in the Biblical sense” means “had sex with,” and use your imagination with serpent. Since here we don’t see the snake or the tree, but we do see nude Adam fondling Eve… how off is Max really for saying Adam’s disgrace was “getting laid”? The way it’s shown, isn’t it the same thing here?

            In short, no tree, no serpent, only Eve, covered up… what Max said. An Eve that we can’t evaluate for ourselves, we just take as original trouble incarnate, as God gave, so animator gave. Eve as patsy, it’s locked down. Meanwhile, Adam finds a dog and a dog finds Adam. You’re only as locked down as you choose to be… I think is what Max said.

          • Matthew

            In the story (which is written down and available for all to read) Adam and Eve disobey God by eating from the tree and are banished from the garden because of it. Anyone can see what they want to see in the film, and they can think up anything they want, but to attack the film for something that was concocted in the mind is not useful. It’s not really there, after all. The “getting laid” event is not there. And the discussion of being “locked down” is an added-on agenda. I’ve clearly described what I meant two times now. The story exists exactly the way it is written. How did a discussion of “locked down” BELIEFS come up and why is it relevant to this? It was brought up in order to agitate. Every discussion of a Bible story needs an agitator, apparently. It can’t just exist as a story.

          • mee

            Matthew, if you’re so invested in the Biblical story as “written down and available for all to read,” why is it okay with you to add the dog? Dog is not in that story. If that can be changed, why isn’t it a fair criticism to ask why Adam gets the dog and the face time and Eve gets the blame and the veil? And if Max is reading this, is your anger all about the veil? If Eve was not veiled in shame, would you like the movie?

            Pretty much I’m enjoying your debate (though mystified), but on the “getting laid” issue — that’s what I saw implicated on screen too. No tree, no serpent, no fruit dribbles. Yes man-woman fondling. So I give that point to Max, though in the end I don’t see that it makes much difference whether it was sex or eating fruit. This isn’t a movie diagnosing O-rings so we can learn from our epic fails.

            Also want to ask, where does “knowing” someone “in the Biblical sense” come from if not from the Tree of Knowledge? I think it’s just understood as something you can read this way or that, this is a metaphor for that, but perhaps you can tell me another passage that explains it.

            Thanks for your help.

          • Matthew

            Dogs were in the story. The garden was filled with animals. The film is focused on a dog in the garden, and the Bible story plays out (offscreen sometimes) while we watch the dog’s activities. I’m not at all concerned that every film about Adam and Eve should be exactly the way it is written in the Bible. But this film is based on the Bible story and it’s not about changing the events that lead to the fall.

            Maybe the cuddling scene should have been reworked so that it’s not so distracting. That scene seems to be the cause of this whole debate. If the scene showed Adam and Eve sitting apart from each other, and not touching, would that solve the problem?

            Regarding “knowing” someone, the story does mention that Adam “knew” Eve and she conceived Cain, but that happens after they leave the garden.

          • mee

            If I understand Max’s point, and probably “a female”‘s point above, it wouldn’t solve their problem with the film and might make it worse. Which is: Eve has gone from costar to third banana. Her place on the marquis has been usurped by Dog and she’s dumped — fallen — lower than low, to practically invisible — I mean, we (the filmmaker we) don’t want to look at her too closely and here’s why, and anyway in this story she hardly matters. And as then, here and now Eve stands for half of us and we are sorely in need of enlightenment and recognition, not darkening, or perpetuating darkness.

            Now if Max or a female want to make Eve and Cat… I wonder… would that be evening out or doubling down? Maybe Minkyu Lee’s next project?

            Also, your last paragraph, hello.

          • Matthew

            Just one other thought. I was thinking about “no tree, no serpent…” and that is definitely a fair issue to raise. It would have helped to clarify what actually happened. If the dog had spotted a serpent slithering off in the grass, it would clue you in. It would make you think of what the serpent did in the Bible story. But it would ruin the whole impact of the scene where Adam turns around with mad eyes. That scene is very shocking. We aren’t expecting it because we’ve been watching the dog’s activities. We have no idea that Adam and Eve have been off talking with the serpent and eating the fruit. It starts raining and there’s the scene with the panther, those might clue you in, but they happen so fast and don’t really give it away. I don’t think it would be nearly as effective if we were shown the tree or the serpent ahead of that scene.

          • mee

            “But it would ruin the whole impact of the scene where Adam turns around with mad eyes. That scene is very shocking.”

            Right, and as you instantly cast about to understand what happened, what bomb set that off — Eve. Sex. Adam did something. It’s not just a silent given in the story and part of all of our background scenery, it’s da bomb.

            I’m going to struggle here and hope I get something right though I don’t know if I can. This isn’t just any story. This is the story. People still find their highest meanings in the name of this story. If you think man is sinful and that garbage can only beget garbage endlessly, metastatically, and if you wanted to cut out the cancer and get back to healthy, you’d want to go back there, to the Garden. You and Max say that in your own way, you insisting that the story is given and “grow up,” Max that we need to use the power of those images responsibly and grow… well. Ok, I get that. But here’s what’s interesting to me, is that you caught the scene I caught, which is the shot of the panther and the dead rabbit. You took that as a sign of the fall. But what did panther and bunny and man and woman do in the Garden before the fall? Why make men and women if not for sex? Why make panthers and bunnies if not for prey? Which makes me think of something that has perplexed me the vegetarian for a long time, which is, aren’t we set up to fail just by our nature? “Thou shalt not kill” and everybody’s somebody’s food, everybody eats somebody sometime. Jesus wanted us to eat his body and drink his blood in communion. Maybe the thingest thing from how you read The Tree of Knowledge isn’t sex, it’s eating. Maybe knowing is knowing is knowing. Life has to eat, has to reproduce, or it’s not life. What’s up with that?

            Wandering — because we’re in a Bible story here, it kind of won’t get explored much, it is as you say locked down. But it’s something I thought Twilight was going to play with. In the first movie, Edward asks Bella if she hasn’t wondered the most important question: What does he eat? Then he describes himself and his family as vegetarian vampires, because they’ve sworn off killing humans. And the lion fell in love with the lamb. And Bella eats nothing but salads and pasta. And Edward can’t die, vampires are immortal — yet they eat, or have an uncontrollable urge to drink blood anyway. So I was really looking forward to where they were going with those themes, like they were onto something. But they lost it, Bella went on to want to become a vampire and killing animals effortlessly and drinking their blood like it was her perfect state, what she was meant to be. Sigh. Still, she kept insisting Edward had a soul when he didn’t think he did.

            Kind of a mess… excuse me… I guess I’m still digesting. Now that Dog is out of the garden, will he just eat nuts or berries as before? Did he start eating meat when the panther did? That shot at the end where Dog goes back to the garden and then turns around and goes to Adam — there’s no shocking Dog closeup at that point, we don’t know if Dog has changed too. He (she? it? wouldn’t we be seeing something different at 2:58, say, or 9:14?) (are we its until we fall?) doesn’t seem to have. In fact, why DID the panther change with the fall and not the dog? Or was the panther always killing bunnies in the Garden, we just didn’t see/”know” all the killing going on yet? Or did the panther not exist until the fall? It kind of all falls apart for me the way Twilight did.

            I guess what I’ll remember is how beautiful the Garden was, and how nice unconditional love is, and if I think more, how much I just don’t get.

          • Matthew

            One other point – I think the film assumes that you know the story. Otherwise, how would you know what happens at the end? You might just think that the two people put on clothes because it started to rain, and maybe they were heading off to find someplace dry. However, the story is so well known that the film can get away with not showing some of the events. It doesn’t mess around with the story, except for imagining it with the dog as a focus, and having the dog leave the garden at the end. It’s purpose is not to alter the important events of the story. Like I said, you can imagine whatever you want, but let’s be honest about what the film actually is.

          • mee

            “you can imagine whatever you want, but let’s be honest about what the film actually is.”

            My hackles just went up. Grrrr.

      • Max Braslavsky

        Hey Matthew, thanks for going through the trouble of explaining the Adam & Eve episode to me, I find that sort of sweet. But I’ve been to sunday school too, so you don’t need to. I was just trying to be a little sarcastic in my remarks because I know how touchy those religious topics are — I didn’t bring them about, the film did. That the irony was lost on you is my fault exclusively. When I see how angry some people get about these questions nowadays, I just wish Ward Kimball could come back among us and play some of his Dixieland Trombone, just to lighten up the mood !

        • Matthew

          Yeah, you weren’t very clear about your sarcasm, unfortunately. Kind of a nasty thing to do, anyway.

        • Matthew

          I’m curious why you chose to be sarcastic about the “getting laid” business. You knew what the Bible story says, and almost anyone watching the film would know what happens, because it is such a well known story. I don’t understand the purpose of attacking the film in that way, when the “getting laid” thought came from YOU. It’s not in the film or the story.

          • http://twitter.com/ChriSobieniak Chris Sobieniak

            He wouldn’t be the first, my late mother thought the same way.

    • You’re a Silly Billy

      Wow jumping right into ‘taliban crap’ because of a simple design choice (and shouldn’t that be ‘muslim “crap”‘ anyway?). The thing is, we didn’t need to see her face because the story wasn’t about her. It was about Adam and Dog. Ring any bells? Oh right, that’s the title of the film.
      And she sure did look like she was hiding in shame. Ya know, chillin out there naked and aloof and stuff.
      Reading your ‘analysis’ left me aghast when faced with such thoughtless and baseless accusations. This is just the story of Adam and Eve told from a different view point for crying out loud.

    • http://www.moviecappa.blogspot.com/ Mike Caracappa

      So Max, let me get this right. When you watched the film, you knew the woman Adam was running off with in the woods during the storm was Eve. You admitted that just now in your comment. So it means that you knew the story was using the Adam and Eve myth as a framework. Since Adam and Eve would be the only two people alive on the planet, there couldn’t possibly be any other human males around except Adam, and if you know the Adam and Eve myth like everyone else, it’s not very hard to pick up on when you see Adam and Eve covering themselves and you see his distorted face, you already get what happened.

      So I guess my question to you is, what does this have to do with the filmmakers sending a message to people that sex and women are blasphemous? It’s like your personal bias about religion drove you out of the story and out of your way to come to this conclusion, but its made you forget that the film is not about Adam and Eve at all, it’s about the Dog and witnessing the events from his point of view. And from the dog’s point of view, it’s about his relationship with Adam. So it only makes sense that we would see Adam’s hideous face and not Eve’s, because Eve is a secondary character in the story, and the dog has no relationship to her. And I don’t think the dog really cares about the biblical stuff going on. All he cares about is Adam, which is probably a clue in to the one true aspect of the story which is important, and that is a dogs relationship to a human being.

      I accept the idea that maybe you just weren’t thinking about this and you just got distracted. But I think you know as well as I do that Minkyu Lee, Glen Keane, James Baxter, and the rest of the animators who worked on this had no intent of telling people what to think about woman, and I think we in the highest case scenario, anything that MIGHT have appeared that way was accidental and unintentional.

      What do you think?

      • Max Braslavsky

        Hey Mike, thank you for letting me expatiate, although it feels a little like explaining that the joke was funny to an unwilling audience. To make a long story short, I’m just going to copy-paste your own assertion that “Eve is a secondary character in the story.” That’s it, right there. All I’m saying is Eve is secondary character in our WHOLE history. Just acknowledging what has become a cliché. Just growing tired to see that same old cliché served again and again and again, religiously or otherwise. That’s all, really. That story with the dog following man even though he has fallen ? Moving. Charming. Fine. But that “Guess who’s to blame” moment totally broke the spell for me.
        As for the crew involved, I totally agree with you they didn’t have an “Eve bashing” agenda. I know some of them professionnally and there’s no doubt in my mind they were well meaning. But that’s the rub. Nobody explicitly made the statement, yet the statement was made. And passed onto the public. That’s why I mentioned responsibility.

        • http://www.moviecappa.blogspot.com/ Mike Caracappa

          Well, for one, nobody got your joke because it was poorly written. And secondly, I would engage in a debate with you, except to be truthful, I really don’t know how to take your comments seriously. It’s not my sense of humor that I question, it’s the fact that you made sarcastic remarks to the guy above, who also took you seriously when he thought you were misinterpreting the Adam and Eve myth. And your response with him was to get sarcastic again, telling him “you went to Sunday school too” when he didn’t get your joke, and that we should all just lighten up. So really I don’t know if your intention is to make me look foolish or take me seriously. So sorry, but I have no reason to debate you.

          • Matthew

            Exactly. I thought Max was being serious, too. Whenever the topic of the Bible shows up on message boards, there’s always tons posts like Max’s, but the people are serious. All I was doing was trying to explain what the story actually is. It is a real story and should at least be respected as a classic piece of literature. I think the smarmy attitudes people give to the Bible these days is rather played out. I’m tired of it. People should grow up a little.

          • Max Braslavsky

            I promise to give that “growing up” business some serious thought, starting today.

          • Max Braslavsky

            I grant you that, Mike, I ‘ve always had trouble when to switch the “serious button” on or off and it can be a little confusing at times. But I know bias when I see it and it’s all the more creepy when it’s not really conscious. Sorry if I’ve upset anyone over this.

          • Matthew

            Indeed, the serious stuff was mixed with the sarcastic stuff so randomly that it was impossible to decipher. Sarcasm is tough. It’s better in small doses. That way you can control it.

          • Max Braslavsky

            Sir yes, Sir.

          • Matthew

            I didn’t give you an order.

          • Max Braslavsky

            Ok, now, I’ve had it. I didn’t want to do this but you SO had it coming — no more Mr Nice Guy. The jury’s out : I sentence you all to ANOTHER THOUSAND YEARS OF CHEAP, CHEESY SYMBOLISM IN ANIMATION and that’s final. Of course, Mee, you’re exempted.
            Gentlemen…

        • Powell

          I dont know if this helps or not but watching the film, I knew from reading the Biblical story that BOTH Adam and Eve were to blame for their fallen state. The Bible says Eve was deceived but Adam sinned Willingly. I didnt attach a blame to Eve as the reason for ruining everything but instead attached it to the rebellious human nature of both people.

    • mee

      Max, have you seen Mr. Pascal? By Alison De Vere? Another Bible-inspired animated short, I wonder what you’d say. I’m so glad it’s posted on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guWz-YH_rCc

      I think it’s better than Adam and Dog, but then again I’m feeling tone deaf here, I liked Paperman better too, what am I missing? It’s not just that I liked the stories better and enjoyed watching them more, but something of what you said, Max: With great talent comes great … I’d change the word to possibility. You don’t have to just illustrate, you can create anything you can imagine. AaD feels on the side of illustration; De Vere took the Bible story as the starting place and imagined something more … something I hadn’t seen before, simple and powerful. Put something in my hands, made me see things another way.

      Not to say this isn’t a beautiful movie, because it is. I especially loved the night scene with the fireflies at the beginning. What someone else said here — I think I’m still digesting it.

      Ok, I’m going to make up my own meaning. God was in everything, God was in dog, God was Dog. Dog always loves man and is with us no matter what, unconditional love. Even when we fall, even when we’re shamed. Maybe.

      • Max Braslavsky

        Mee, your doubts as well as your faith honor you — they’re nothing short of an oasis in this desert of certainties. I’ll go and check that Alison De Vere thing right away.

      • mee

        wow, sideways from the New York Times, “An Artist Finds a Dignified Ending for an Ugly Story”

        - snip -
        http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/arts/design/julia-pastrana-who-died-in-1860-to-be-buried-in-mexico.html?pagewanted=2

        Last Thursday Ms. Barbata confirmed the identity of Pastrana’s body in Oslo before the coffin was sealed. Ms. Barbata and a University of Oxford forensic anthropologist, Nicholas Márquez-Grant, noticed that Pastrana’s feet still had bolts and metal rods that were used for exhibiting her body. The bolts were removed and placed at the foot of her coffin.
        [...]
        “Her story has always had a bad ending,” … “The big difference is that now it has an appropriate ending.”
        - snip-

  • DarylT

    lovely animation but honestly got a bit confused by the end

  • Michael Sporn

    There is little I would complain about graphically or animation-wise in this excellent short. Visually, the film has a strong sense of purpose and a definite personality. Well done. The only complaints I’ve heard at past screenings were the same as Max Braslavsky’s. The change in Adam bothers people, and the feeling is that it’s a bit too strong on its religious message. This didn’t bother or affect me any of the many times I’ve seen it. My one curiosity is over the size of the elephants at the film’s head.. The animal is skyscraper height. Even if it’s supposed to be a mammoth (which were well extinct before the age of dogs or humans) they were not dinosaur-sized, but elephant-sized. Certainly that one gaffe cannot hurt such an otherwise beautiful and masterfully made film with so strong an emotional presence. Congratulations on all the well-deserved success.

  • Syl

    This is wonderful. Each time I watch it again, I see how clever and well written/directed it is. I really hope it’ll get the academy award. This goes well beyond Paperman, (if we even even have to compare them).

    The only two points I would personally comment on would be:
    -The Mammoth in the beginning is a bit unnecessary (plus wrong in the context of the garden of Eden story). I guess it was put there to show it wasn’t any kind of garden but I think there was really no need for it. Getting it progressively is even better.
    -Adam being able to mimic real animal sounds. I think it would have been so much more touching and funnier to have him trying to akwardly mimic animal sounds with his own human voice. Here it feels unconnected to him and a bit weird. I wonder what is the reason behind this choice.

    But these are only personal thoughts.

    I also spotted some compositing mistakes like characters going above an overlay, missing reflection in the water (in the puddles shot), or the very last shot when the layer suddenly disappears instead of fading nicely. It would have been even more perfect if these little details had been adressed.

  • A female

    Moral of the story:

    If you feed wildlife they will want to follow you around for more food, thus making them dependant on mankind for survival. Also, women ruin everything!

    What a ham-fisted, overly dramatic, and inherently sexist waste of supreme talent.

    • another female

      I did not get any of that from this film. It’s a simple retelling of the myth of Adam and Eve. Even people not familiar with that story wouldn’t conclude that Eve purposely dragged Adam away from Dog, it was his own doing.

      I find sexism in almost everything I watch and the only thing I saw in this was that the characer’s design was of just another pretty white girl. But even THAT barely bothered me because the story isn’t about her at all. It’s about the DOG.

      You don’t have to enjoy the film but that doesn’t mean you have to start seeing ghosts.

    • Max Braslavsky

      Don’t worry now, we’ll defeat the whole bunch of’em… in a century or two.

  • Sam C

    This short blew me away. Simply fantastic and an excellent depiction of the Biblical story. Those that are “confused” need to revisit the story of Adam and Eve to appreciate this short. I agree with Lola, “Paperman” got nothing on this.

  • big bad balloon

    Great visuals, great story. Femi-nazis and bible thumpers can complain all they want – this was the most enjoyable piece of animation I’ve seen in a long time. Sincere, honest and smart.

    • Max Braslavsky

      Ha ha ha ! “Femi-nazi” ! Big Bad Ballon, you make my day ! I guess “Commie leftover” is next in line…
      Cheers

  • Lou

    Beautiful work, to all involved. Very moving film.

    Whether or not you are religious, whether or not you know the story of Adam & Eve is beside the point. For me, the film is a great metaphor for unconditional love. For the Dog to leave Paradise willingly into the unknown was a beautiful visualization of that.

    What a powerful ending..and a beautiful piece of visual storytelling. Congratulations.

  • Tomm

    Just lovely

  • Gray64

    Interestingly, I recall reading that Glen Keane had said he wanted to make a few animated films based on Biblical stories. To be sure, he didn’t “make” this one, just consulted on it, but given his interests, I can see why it was something he’d want to be involved in.
    Just as a general comment, “Adam and Dog” kind of depends on the audience knowing the generally accepted version of the story of Adam and Eve (if you want to get speculative and obscure, you could point out that Eve’s name is never mentioned, so she could just as easily be Lilith). It would have been counterproductive for them to try to change it. Also, imagining that Adam and Eve had to leave Paradise because of sex seems to come out of nowhere, and isn’t even implied anywhere in the film. The “original sin” was disobedience, not sex. The film doesn’t concern itself with the reasons for the fall, and neither, for that matter, does Dog. Man leaves the Garden, and Dog loves Man, so Dog leaves the Garden too. The end scene, with Adam and Eve both welcoming Dog, is particularly sweet.

  • http://twitter.com/mr_s_henderson Steve Henderson

    I was an atheist until seeing this film and now worship the animation of James Baxter.

  • Katy

    Wow, very beautiful! It could have been shorter but was pretty so I can forgive its length. It’s a shame the story turned out to be a bit of a downer.. it could have been a nice opportunity to rewrite/ retell the story for a modern audience (as was done carefully in the 2006 stop-motion Peter and the Wolf).
    I guess messing with any bible story would be controversial, but I enjoyed the first half much more – when we met Eve it could have been wrapped up with a nice happy ending like the dog getting his mate too and then everyone living in a cave together…. ahhh sigh…
    (I grow weary of pathos in animation)

  • Fritz60

    After watching syrup-laden Paperman, who cares about its innovative animation, the story is awful and it all looks so déja vu, I wondered why it won an Oscar. Then I watched head over heels, clever script, but again goes for the mushy beady-eyed conclusion… and it is by now one stop motion too many. Now I have watched Adam and Dog… the script tells a very unusual story of a well known tale: very clever. But it is the visual impact which is thrilling. So much poetry! And so many things unsaid but craftily evoked… To mention but a few: that every paradise holds menaces (the black panther, the bad weather), building trust and friendship (along the lines of the Little Prince and the fox), the eternal theme of attachment and subsequent loss, loyalty (the dog), selfishness (Adam once he meets Eve), and the final castaway scene is a moral masterpiece: when humans had it all, they were just happy go lucky and self serving. Once cast away from Paradise, they can create bonds (the dog becomes relevant again, his affection is valued, his role is explained to Eve who acknowledges him). A clever turn to the Biblical tale: adversity can make you better and more considerate towards the others. This short has so many layers… but it is the visual impact, matching many different moods with landscape, colour, movement etc. which is absolutely tops. My winner, definitely!

  • Alexei Baboulevitch

    Saw this as part of a theatrical screening of the 2013 Oscar nominated animated shorts, and I thought it was the best one. I loved the non-religious treatment of the story, the Miyazaki-like focus on the environment, the parts of the story that were left unseen, and of course the scruffy character of the dog. Really fantastic all around.