The screenplay is by Neil Paterson, adapted from his own short story "Scotch Settlement". This short story is quite superb, and I've read it with pleasure many times. The film is thus very true to the story, with a few additions to make the result more cinematic.
The story of two orphaned small Scots boys who end up living with their grandparents in Canada is simple enough: lacking parental love and affection, they wish for a dog which their stern grandfather won't allow: "You can't eat a dog." The older boy then "finds" a baby (it had been left by itself while its young minder went off to play) and they decide to take it as their own. They are found out, the older boy Harry is tried and let off; the grandfather sells his precious boots to buy the dog the boys so much wanted.
The acting is superb. The two boys are played to perfection by the young actors: I've seen many films with older and "better" actors who don't bring such assurance to their roles. But for me the star of the show is Duncan Macrae as the stern, unbending, righteous, upright and god-fearing James MacKenzie. Macrae perfectly portrays the harsh and rigid Presbyterianism of the Scots emigrants, but also endows his character with just enough humanity to prevent him from being a monster. He is nicely counterbalanced by Jean Anderson as his wife; a softer more humane character.
The only thing I didn't like was the ending. The original short story (which is narrated by Davy, the younger boy) finishes off with "I was mighty content, not only on account of the dawg, but on account of I now knew ours was a good family, not like some. In our family we was all on the same side." The film finishes with a repetition of James MacKenzie dictating the letter to buy the dog. "Yours in good faith .... James MacKenzie." His names are the last words in the film. But I still think that words by Davy would have been more impactful.
This is quibbling, however. It's a corker of a film, and old and black-and-white as it may be, it stands up very well indeed.
The story of two orphaned small Scots boys who end up living with their grandparents in Canada is simple enough: lacking parental love and affection, they wish for a dog which their stern grandfather won't allow: "You can't eat a dog." The older boy then "finds" a baby (it had been left by itself while its young minder went off to play) and they decide to take it as their own. They are found out, the older boy Harry is tried and let off; the grandfather sells his precious boots to buy the dog the boys so much wanted.
The acting is superb. The two boys are played to perfection by the young actors: I've seen many films with older and "better" actors who don't bring such assurance to their roles. But for me the star of the show is Duncan Macrae as the stern, unbending, righteous, upright and god-fearing James MacKenzie. Macrae perfectly portrays the harsh and rigid Presbyterianism of the Scots emigrants, but also endows his character with just enough humanity to prevent him from being a monster. He is nicely counterbalanced by Jean Anderson as his wife; a softer more humane character.
The only thing I didn't like was the ending. The original short story (which is narrated by Davy, the younger boy) finishes off with "I was mighty content, not only on account of the dawg, but on account of I now knew ours was a good family, not like some. In our family we was all on the same side." The film finishes with a repetition of James MacKenzie dictating the letter to buy the dog. "Yours in good faith .... James MacKenzie." His names are the last words in the film. But I still think that words by Davy would have been more impactful.
This is quibbling, however. It's a corker of a film, and old and black-and-white as it may be, it stands up very well indeed.