Dogtooth (Giorgos Lanthimos, 2009)

[MacGuffin]

I wanted to start a new thread since I imagine when this comes out on DVD, everyone who thinks they'll like it will.

Dogtooth is amazing. I think I like it better than Enter the Void. (Edit: but maybe not quite) Here's a film that manages to do so much with so little.

With an economic runtime and an almost episodic nature, Yanthimos is able to create an otherwordly sense of dread, but interestingly enough, the dread always seems to perspire from the almost cult-like residence of the family's household. For example, the few scenes that take place on the outside world almost feel safe compared to any of the scenes at the family house. The only things out of place in these scenes (where the father is at work or driving Christina around) are things caused by the father himself--the blindfold, for example.

It never feels like Lanthimos is ticking off a laundry list of atrocities. The film is structured in a way where the patriarch is always trying to maintain the upperhand and constantly struggling. At one point he remarks about how there's no one to trust anymore. It's in this way that the film serves as a legitimately thought-provoking commentary on the modern family and their relationship with society. The adults' efforts to separate the children from society (and indeed, attempt to reinvent their society through isolation) are loving, but insanely and terribly misguided.

When it comes time for the Match Cut awards, it's going to be difficult to give Best Cinematography to Enter the Void over this. Thimios Bakatakis works with Yanthimos to create this rich world with striking watercolors and eloquent sunspots (and an extremely dark night scene where the family pool lets off a radiant blue in the night). But the compositions are most striking. Upper bodies are framed at weird positions, objects and landscapes generate true claustrophobia--the film is shot like The Headless Woman on steroids.

A masterpiece; see it!

[megladon8]

Wow, great review! I'm definitely intrigued.

[NickGlass]

I'm not exactly sure I understand your comparison between Dogtooth and Enter the Void--or are you just pointing out that both films may seem taboo, yet they have different styles? Sorry, the connection just seems flippant and I'm confused if you're trying to get at something deeper between them.

[MacGuffin]

I'm not exactly sure I understand your comparison between Dogtooth and Enter the Void--or are you just pointing out that both films may seem taboo, yet they have different styles? Sorry, the connection just seems flippant and I'm confused if you're trying to get at something deeper between them.

I was only comparing them as movies that stand among the years' best.

[Spinal]

Argh, this movie is so frustrating. I watched it for a second time and I'm still not convinced it completely works. It starts from a compelling premise. It has the courage to be audacious. But most of the scenes just don't land. I don't know quite what it is, but it all seems to just lack authenticity. As if the director is borrowing heavily from Trier, Breillat and Haneke, but not asserting a style of his own. The dancing scene comes and I want to buy in totally. And then the family starts acting like dogs and I'm like, you are so full of shit. I sorta kinda get what he was trying to say, I think, but it's a fairly shallow allegory. Eh, whatever.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I'm seeing this tonight. Can't wait.

You're 'meh' review has sold me totally, Spiney.

[Boner M]

As if the director is borrowing heavily from Trier, Breillat and Haneke, but not asserting a style of his own.
I don't really buy this, since neither Haneke nor Breillat have a style that's completely their own. Plus, the former tends to pin down and trap characters, while Lanthimos' compositions trap them as much as he lets them protrude out of frame, just as his the children naturally veer away from the rigid system imposed on them. As for the alleged sincerity of Lanthimos' vision, how is the family barking like dogs less "full of shit" than a fox growling "chaos reigns"? The film's a flat-out absurdist comedy.

[Adam]

AA Dowd wrote this


What insight can you gain into 21st-century living by diving headfirst into this screaming-mad nightmare? A twisted cautionary fable about a deranged couple raising their grown children in Pavlovian captivity, "Dogtooth" takes allegorical aim at all forms of social conditioning, at the way not just our families, but our governments, our religions and our media fundamentally shape who we are. Yet the film operates on such a primal, alien wavelength—unfolding like singular science fiction, its tone wavering from dreamy to coldly clinical to vaguely menacing, often within the space of a single scene—that it eludes tidy topical allusion. Yorgos Langthimos, merciless master at the helm, has the exacting aesthetic prowess of cinema's great scolds. But he also has a wickedly-pronounced, pitch-black sense of humor. That's the ultimate provocation here—staging this madness as comedy, staring down its atrocities of infernal, parental manipulation with a bloody, broken-toothed grin of triumph.

[Spinal]

I'm seeing this tonight. Can't wait.

You're 'meh' review has sold me totally, Spiney.

Just trying to be a jerk or what?

[Spinal]

I don't really buy this, since neither Haneke nor Breillat have a style that's completely their own. Plus, the former tends to pin down and trap characters, while Lanthimos' compositions trap them as much as he lets them protrude out of frame, just as his the children naturally veer away from the rigid system imposed on them. As for the alleged sincerity of Lanthimos' vision, how is the family barking like dogs less "full of shit" than a fox growling "chaos reigns"? The film's a flat-out absurdist comedy.

The comedy in the film is not very funny. Mostly it's labored.

Did I say Haneke and Breillat have a syle that's completely their own? No. They do however add something distinct that is special and unique. I don't think Lanthimos does.

"Chaos reigns" is one of the most startling, haunting moments of recent cinema. It fits perfectly with the film's bold themes of nature as a merciless, unfeeling force that cares nothing for the exploits of man. It is full of meaning, full of import. The family barking is a tired obvious realization of a tired obvious metaphor.

[Ezee E]

This is very much "Haneke-ish."

[Spaceman Spiff]

Just trying to be a jerk or what?

Not at all, just that your complaints sound like things I'd probably like.

As for Spiney, it just sounds so right.

[Spinal]

Not at all, just that your complaints sound like things I'd probably like.

As for Spiney, it just sounds so right.

Everything about the film sounds like something I would like on paper. I think the soul's missing though.

[Raiders]

The comedy in the film is not very funny. Mostly it's labored.

How is it labored at all? It springs fully and organically from the very seriously disturbed method of autocracy the father wields over the children and the ways in which their lack of any form of social normalcy intervenes. Labored is second only to "forced" as the last words I could think of to describe what we see.


"Chaos reigns" is one of the most startling, haunting moments of recent cinema. It fits perfectly with the film's bold themes of nature as a merciless, unfeeling force that cares nothing for the exploits of man. It is full of meaning, full of import. The family barking is a tired obvious realization of a tired obvious metaphor.

I'm honestly not trying to be a jerk, but this made me roll my eyes. I'm fine if you buy into Trier's vision, but the mere image itself is an absurdist statement and it is far from subtle itself (a self-cannibalizing fox in a film about the uncaring aspects of nature and the foils of man and woman their own undoing? Please.) The image in Lanthimos' film springs from the fact that the characters doing the barking don't know it isn't a natural form of expression. It isn't that the children are "reduced" to an animalistic state but that their only form of expressions is primal at best; to go further, that when humans either choose not to, or aren't given the chance to, think for themselves with the full gamut of human expression at their behest, then we aren't any more mature in our own emotion and expressions than a family pet. The film is calling out its own form of Pavlovian experimentation. Obvious isn't in itself a critique and I don't think there is anything tired when put into the context of this film.

[Boner M]

"Chaos reigns" is one of the most startling, haunting moments of recent cinema. It fits perfectly with the film's bold themes of nature as a merciless, unfeeling force that cares nothing for the exploits of man.
Eh, don't see it, but different strokes.


The family barking is a tired obvious realization of a tired obvious metaphor.
They were trained to bark to keep the cats away. It's a plot point as much as a metaphor, and of a piece with the film's humour and tone. I don't see this as evidence of artistic charlatanry, certainly no more than a lot of von Trier's stunts.

EDIT: Dammit Raiders.

[Spinal]

Gotta head out the door, but one example of the forced comedy of the film:

The film sets up the fact that the kids are fed false definitions of words by the parents. However, they seem perfectly capable of engaging in long conversations without misusing words. Whole scenes go by and they use all the appropriate words. It is only when the film wants to score a cheap giggle that the words get mixed up. It's really quite lame.

[Spinal]

And yes, I know that they were responding to the cat. This is why I saw the film twice. To make sure I had all the events down because I knew this was not going to be a pleasant experience for me on this website in regards to the film. It still lacks much of the poetry and imagination of Trier's vision. It's kidstuff by comparision.

[Raiders]

Gotta head out the door, but one example of the forced comedy of the film:

The film sets up the fact that the kids are fed false definitions of words by the parents. However, they seem perfectly capable of engaging in long conversations without misusing words. Whole scenes go by and they use all the appropriate words. It is only when the film wants to score a cheap giggle that the words get mixed up. It's really quite lame.

Incorrect, sir! The children are taught regular expressions and vocabulary. They understand verbs, pronouns and regular phrases as well as all the objects within the house and property. Only words, specifically nouns and things, that have to do with either travelling (highway, road trip) or things that they either don't have or get to know exist because it points to the outside world--or because it is "taboo"-- (sea, cunt) or provoke violence (shotgun) are given different, more colorful definitions. It is actually very exacting by the filmmakers and the father.

[Raiders]

The language thing--in addition to being a plot necessity (confusing their speech keeps them further separated)-- is also relatively brilliant in being both darkly humorous but also being a microcosm of the film as a whole; that life stripped of context is not only alien and strange, but begs the question why and how certain words (read: customs) and combinations of words comes about.

[Spinal]

Incorrect, sir! The children are taught regular expressions and vocabulary. They understand verbs, pronouns and regular phrases as well as all the objects within the house and property. Only words, specifically nouns and things, that have to do with either travelling (highway, road trip) or things that they either don't have or get to know exist because it points to the outside world--or because it is "taboo"-- (sea, cunt) or provoke violence (shotgun) are given different, more colorful definitions.

What? You mean words like salt?

[Raiders]

What? You mean words like salt?

No, "telephone" was the word. They were told it was the salt shaker (not the salt itself) to avoid knowledge of communicating via telephone.

[Pop Trash]

I'm not sure movies that are obviously "Spinal-esque" are going to be liked by Spinal himself anymore. The dude likes Lars and the Real Girl and Babel for Jebus' sake.

[Watashi]

Lars and the Real Girl and Babel are the shit. Don't be hatin'.

[MacGuffin]

Babel is just too easy, too simple. It feeds the viewer everything and that's why Hollywood loves it.

[Rowland]

Dogtooth and Antichrist are both awesome.

[Boner M]

Babel is just too easy, too simple. It feeds the viewer everything and that's why Hollywood loves it.
http://images.fan-de-cinema.com/articles/little-miss-sunshine/paul-dano.jpg

[endingcredits]

I had problems, like Spinal, with some of the allegory; e.g., the all too blantant figurative representations of Pavlovian behaviourism, but the precise, yet awkward arrangement of human forms won me over on this.

[Mysterious Dude]

Any ideas about why the parents treat their kids like this?

There is a Mexican movie from the seventies that is very similar to Dogtooth in content, called El castillo de la pureza. It's also about a man who keeps his three kids locked up in the house, but his wife is also a prisoner (and not so much an accomplice) and the dad is clearly insane. He makes them manufacture rat poison in the house, which he then goes out to sell. He makes a few speeches about what a rotten world it is out there and how superior the kids are going to be to other people.

With Dogtooth, I don't quite get what the end result is supposed to be. Why do they keep the kids in the house? What is gained by anyone?

[Watashi]

I think the dad is just mentally unstable.

[Spinal]

No, "telephone" was the word. They were told it was the salt shaker (not the salt itself) to avoid knowledge of communicating via telephone.

You're right. Movie watching fail. Twice. Argh, I suck at watching movies. :sad:

[Bosco B Thug]

I have very little problems with the film. I think it does what it sets out to do extremely well. So I don't really agree with Spinal on any of the specific criticisms against the logic of the film, the tone of it, or the integrity of it. But I do agree with him that it doesn't feel like it goes anywhere above and beyond its immediate vision. I actually think Antichrist is kind of lazy, too, but its sprawling and abstract. Dogtooth is too neat.


Any ideas about why the parents treat their kids like this? I'd say a weird fetish of the family unit, and deep belief in repression tactics, as the themes of the film suggest. It works.

[Spinal]

But I do agree with him that it doesn't feel like it goes anywhere above and beyond its immediate vision.

Right. It lays out a situation, but never really takes it to the next level. Maybe if I found the film to be at all funny, I'd like it more and not need any more from it. As it is, it feels like a half-baked tragedy that fails to fully explore the emotional consequences of the father's oppression.

[Spinal]

With Dogtooth, I don't quite get what the end result is supposed to be. Why do they keep the kids in the house? What is gained by anyone?

I agree with this as well. It seemed more like a trivial game than there being anything truly at stake for the father. We don't know the source of his fear. We don't know what he stands to lose. It just comes across like he merely enjoys fucking with them. And that's not very satisfying.

[Spinal]

On the positive side, I loved the casting of the two daughters. I could watch their faces all day. Such a compelling duo.

[endingcredits]

I dunno, I felt like the ellipticity and lack of background information made the film more potent psychologically.

[elixir]

Yeah, I think it was better that they didn't try to explain exactly why the father kept them like that.

[Spinal]

I dunno, I felt like the ellipticity and lack of background information made the film more potent psychologically.

The trade-off for ambiguity is that there's not much at stake. The kids want to leave. Why? To do what? Why should I care? What are their aspirations?

The father wants to control their lives. Why? What does he stand to lose? What does their obedience do to fulfill him? Why should I care?

I think the failure to address these issues puts a cap on how deeply the film can reach us emotionally.

Compare and contrast with Antichrist which lays out the emotional stakes in a virtuoso opening sequence, yet doesn't sacrifice poetry and mystery.

[endingcredits]

The trade-off for ambiguity is that there's not much at stake. The kids want to leave. Why? To do what? Why should I care? What are their aspirations?

The father wants to control their lives. Why? What does he stand to lose? What does their obedience do to fulfill him? Why should I care?

I think the failure to address these issues puts a cap on how deeply the film can reach us emotionally.

Compare and contrast with Antichrist which lays out the emotional stakes in a virtuoso opening sequence, yet doesn't sacrifice poetry and mystery.

You're getting too sentimental. I'm not really considering emotion here.
I was referring to the immediate psychological potency of the film in terms of how the characters behaviours emerge and are reinforced through conditioning. That, for me, doesn't require exposition or predicate itself on the need for emotional stakes.

[Spinal]

You're getting too sentimental. I'm not really considering emotion here.
I was referring to the immediate psychological potency of the film in terms of how the characters behaviours emerge and are reinforced through conditioning. That, for me, doesn't require exposition or predicate itself on the need for emotional stakes.

It's not about being sentimental. Every film needs emotional stakes.

[Watashi]

Yeah, why is Carl an old man in one scene than can carry a house in the next!

[Spinal]

Yeah, why is Carl an old man in one scene than can carry a house in the next!

A very good question.

[Pop Trash]

It's not about being sentimental. Every film needs emotional stakes.

Doesn't the film have emotional stakes? At least from the point of view of the one daughter?

I thought her dance, then breakdown, then tooth bashing, then escaping into the trunk of her dad's car had a pretty clear thoughline of emotional turmoil.

[endingcredits]

It's not about being sentimental. Every film needs emotional stakes.

The film has emotional stakes. You just want them served to you in certain way that the film doesn't cater to.

[Derek]

I agree with this as well. It seemed more like a trivial game than there being anything truly at stake for the father. We don't know the source of his fear. We don't know what he stands to lose. It just comes across like he merely enjoys fucking with them. And that's not very satisfying.

I thought it was pretty clear that he was doing it to protect and shelter them from the outside world. When he confronts the maid who gave the one daughter the copy of Rocky and the other VHS, he said she was messing with his family. It's true that the film never explores the reasons for the father's oppression or what might have caused his isolationist attitudes, but I like this because 1) it avoids shallow psychological trappings, 2) the ambiguity and sheer alienness of their insular community prevents it from being read a social/political commentary or grander allegory.

What's at stake for his father is losing what he has created over the period of 20 years. The entire world he has constructed and pieced together for his children, nearly every fiber of their daily lives would be shattered if this alternate reality were to be penetrated. I think viewing the film from the outside in (what's the father running away from, what's wrong with him, what happened to make him want to do this, etc.) is the wrong way to go about it. The family's world, as the film presents it, must first be taken on its own terms, without context and social norms/mores, and only then be viewed as an examination of human behavior. I really don't think the film can be reduced to a mere Pavlovian metaphor either. Certainly social conditioning plays a large part in it, but the father doesn't train or condition his children as much as he fashions a completely alternate reality for them to exist in. He allows them to follow their instincts and essentially do everything they want, while acting as a guiding force that steers them in the directions he wants them to go. Personally, I found the results to be incredibly unsettling and telling in terms of how far environment goes into shaping even our most basic behavior.

[Derek]

The trade-off for ambiguity is that there's not much at stake. The kids want to leave. Why? To do what? Why should I care? What are their aspirations?

Maybe the one daughter wanted to be a boxer after seeing Rocky. She coulda been a contender. I imagined that the other daughter wanted to be a veterinary pharmacologist. That helped me care about them more.

[Pop Trash]

So the ending was left ambiguous, obviously, but what do you all think happened had the story continued?

Is the implication that the daughter would be found by the father in the trunk of his car on the outside, thus shattering any illusions she had about the insularity of the "world" she was living in before?

[Watashi]

I didn't see the ending as ambigious at all.

I thought it was clear that the daughter was dead.

[endingcredits]

It's far being Pavlovian metaphor. It is Pavlovian, which is fine. The dog barking scenes just seemed like an necessary allegorical signalling of this.

[endingcredits]

I didn't see the ending as ambigious at all.

I thought it was clear that the daughter was dead.

Really?

I though the black frame at the end was her POV from the trunk

[Watashi]

Really?

I though the black frame at the end was her POV from the trunk

I don't remember that shot at all.

[Pop Trash]

Really?

I though the black frame at the end was her POV from the trunk

Yeah I mean, the dad could have picked up some groceries after work, opened up the trunk and...

VOILA! there's his daughter: crazy, scared, hungry, thirsty, and bloody.

[endingcredits]

I don't remember that shot at all.

I just checked.

It's definitely there, although after watching again I'm not convinced that that's what it's supposed to be. But I like the idea so I'll stick with it

[Derek]

Wasn't she told that the trunk was something else (or that "outside" meant the trunk of the car)? I thought the final shot was a punchline to her completely misguided and absurd attempt to escape and her complete inability to do so given her limited understanding of her own reality.

[endingcredits]

Wasn't she told that the trunk was something else (or that "outside" meant the trunk of the car)? I thought the final shot was a punchline to her completely misguided and absurd attempt to escape and her complete inability to do so given her limited understanding of her own reality.


Yes, I agree the trunk scene is significant. That's why she jumped in there instead of just 'running away'. Going 'outside' of her environment carried only an internal meaning for her.

[Spinal]

I thought the final shot was a punchline to her completely misguided and absurd attempt to escape and her complete inability to do so given her limited understanding of her own reality.

This was the closest to the way I read it. And since I wasn't really connecting to the film's sense of humor, it didn't do a whole lot for me.

[Ezee E]

I think the dad was terrified at everything in the outside world. The VHS tape at the beginning had the 9/11 footage erased over, and I think that's telling us about the cruelty in the outside world.

[Adam]

It's been a while since I've seen the movie, and I agree with those who say its better that the initial reasoning behind the whole farce is left unexplained, but wasn't it vaguely implied the family had some sort of tragedy in the past? Maybe they really did have an older child who was killed somehow and the cat story comes from that? And don't the father's coworkers think his wife is dead?

[Spinal]

The VHS tape at the beginning had the 9/11 footage erased over...

What? I guess I missed this too.

[endingcredits]

It's been a while since I've seen the movie, and I agree with those who say its better that the initial reasoning behind the whole farce is left unexplained, but wasn't it vaguely implied the family had some sort of tragedy in the past? Maybe they really did have an older child who was killed somehow and the cat story comes from that? And don't the father's coworkers think his wife is dead?

I think the father telling his coworkers that his wife is dead was a tactic to avoid work related social events.

[Ezee E]

What? I guess I missed this too.
Yeah, it's basically the opening scene of the movie after the cassette tape is played I think.

[MacGuffin]

What? I guess I missed this too.

Don't worry, I missed that too. Seems there is very good reason to revisit this soon.

[EyesWideOpen]

I think the father telling his coworkers that his wife is dead was a tactic to avoid work related social events.

He doesn't tell his co-workers that his wife is dead. He tells them that she is crippled.

[Milky Joe]

I noticed the stuff on the tape, but wasn't sure what it was, let alone that it was footage of 9/11. That'd be a little heavy-handed.

This one knocked me out.

[DavidSeven]

Oh OK, it's the arthouse version of The Village. I get it.

Just kidding. Though the Shyamalan-style stoicism in both films gets tiresome. I still kind of dug this, but I agree with some of the criticisms. I'm not sure I got a lot more out of the whole 90 minutes than I did out of the first 15. Many of the later scenes are audacious enough to be sufficiently stimulating, but I never felt the film really escaped its initial staginess. It just never really feels organic; never removes its sheen of phoniness. Maybe that's part of the charm. Certainly a memorable experiment.

[Spinal]

It just never really feels organic; never removes its sheen of phoniness.

Yes. The "call me Bruce" scene is perhaps the worst offender.

[Raiders]

There are times I truly dislike this website.

[Watashi]

There are times I truly dislike this website.
At least we scared Irish away.

Things are looking up.

[Milky Joe]

It just never really feels organic; never removes its sheen of phoniness. Maybe that's part of the charm.

Or maybe it's part of the the point.

[Ezee E]

There are times I truly dislike this website.
Where else would you even be able to discuss Dogtooth?

Where else would the number of people who watched Dogtooth outnumber those that watched say... The A-Team by 4x?

[DavidSeven]

There are times I truly dislike this website.

Oh, come on. I'm still positive on it as a whole. I think it's an interesting perspective, but I don't know if it's an honest one. For example, I don't know if I buy that premise that a lack of real world context would necessarily lead to this sort of stilted personality the children exhibit in unison. Perhaps it would have been more believable if the eccentricities built on each other from scene to scene rather than feeling like such isolated quirks. But that would have taken more skill, more intricacy, than I think might be here. Maybe the film's more about exaggeration than true humanism, but if that's the case, I don't think it quite gets there tonally. Close though.

[DavidSeven]

Or maybe it's part of the the point.

That's deep, dude.

[Raiders]

It would be a mistake to take my statement seriously.

[Ezee E]

It would be a mistake to take my statement seriously.
Way to realize the faults of your actions.

[MacGuffin]

Btw, I just noticed that Kino is releasing this on Blu-ray March 29.

[Boner M]

Where else would you even be able to discuss Dogtooth?
Word. You know a film's reached a point of uber-significance when D7 ends up seeing it.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Yes. This was awesome. As a deconstruction of the nuclear family, it is invigorating and its blacker than black humour really stings. As an absurdist nightmare, it delightfully skewers with reckless abandon as it goes from wacky weirdness to pure horror many times within the same scene. I absolutely adore go-for-broke filmmaking (when it works, that is), but this is just as revelatory as it is audacious. The complaints that the film doesn't have a soul misses the point. Of course, there's no soul to these characters - they have been programmed to not think, to not feel and to not question by the parents. Nevertheless, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing - the performances from the three "kids" (especially the girls - who are just beautiful, by the way) are fantastic at how much pathos it elicts despite the monotony of their delivery, and the lifelessness of their expressions, but without feeling forcefed as von Trier is wont to do (although not with Antichrist - which has been mentioned in this thread [I think it his best film].)

More movies should be so gleefully tonally discombobulating.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Oh yeah, and best movie of the year.

[Spinal]

The VHS tape at the beginning had the 9/11 footage erased over, and I think that's telling us about the cruelty in the outside world.

Yeah, that's not 9/11 footage, but I can see why you would think so. It's just them spotting an airplane and speculating that it might fall.

And yes, I'm watching this for a third time. And, with Raiders' help, enjoying it more. Funny how a small thing makes a big difference.

[Boner M]

And yes, I'm watching this for a third time. And, with Raiders' help, enjoying it more. Funny how a small thing makes a big difference.
The match-cut hype machine really caused some major cognitive dissonance, huh.

[Watashi]

Can I keep bugging Spinal to watch Toy Story 3 over and over?

[Ezee E]

I swear there was even footage of a news anchor talking with rubble falling behind him.

[Spinal]

After my third viewing, I think this is a very good film and disagree with much of what I've posted in here so far. Thank you for your time. I will try to do better in the future.

[Bosco B Thug]

After my third viewing, I think this is a very good film and disagree with much of what I've posted in here so far. Thank you for your time. I will try to do better in the future.
While I understand your decision, I'm sad me and three-stars couldn't satisfy you.

But you still agree with that thing I said, right? Good, then I agree not to make a scene.

[DavidSeven]

Yeah man, I think he (Spinal) was a bit harsh on the film verbally, but three stars feels about right to me.

[Raiders]

Yeah man, I think he (Spinal) was a bit harsh on the film verbally, but three stars feels about right to me.

You're on a roll lately. A WRONG roll, but hey, we all have to be good at something, right?

[DavidSeven]

You're on a roll lately. A WRONG roll, but hey, we all have to be good at something, right?

One of these days, you and I will agree on a point that the rest of the forum thinks us crazy for having. And I will say to them, "condemn me if you will, but at least Raiders agrees."

One of these days, Raiders.

[Pop Trash]

As I suspected, this was much better the second time around. Despite not having much of an emotional connection to it (which I think was a big part of Spinal's initial complaint), this flick is still awesome. The director seems like a cool guy too, judging from the interview on the DVD. Very eloquent with the English language. I just wonder where he goes from here?

[Pop Trash]

I swear there was even footage of a news anchor talking with rubble falling behind him.

You're imagining things. It's footage of a plane taken from their backyard. You hear the "kids" voices on the tape.

[Boner M]

As I suspected, this was much better the second time around. Despite not having much of an emotional connection to it (which I think was a big part of Spinal's initial complaint), this flick is still awesome. The director seems like a cool guy too, judging from the interview on the DVD. Very eloquent with the English language. I just wonder where he goes from here?
His new project (http://www.ioncinema.com/news/id/5776) sounds really promising.


This is the story of a hospital night nurse who provides peculiar services to families that have lost their loved ones. She is part of a group called Alpis, whose members offer, for a certain fee, to replace the recently deceased in their random everyday exchanges with the mourning families...

[Pop Trash]

His new project (http://www.ioncinema.com/news/id/5776) sounds really promising.

Sounds very intriguing. Glad he isn't making The Tourist 2 next.

This one (also Greek and produced by him) could be good too: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1691323/

[Boner M]

Sounds very intriguing. Glad he isn't making The Tourist 2 next.
...or Dogtooth U.S.

[Pop Trash]

...or Dogtooth U.S.

My Big Fat Greek Wedding: The Quickening

[number8]

I don't know why I've been missing this discussion all this time.

I'm a little surprised that some of you guys are probing for the father's motives. It never really mattered to me because whatever it is, it would still be fucked up and strange. I took this as darkly humorous extension of homeschooling. What is the reason for parents to homeschool? You can delve into various motivations, but the common denominator is because the parents don't trust the outside world to give their kids a better education than the one they provide themselves. The dad really wants his children to be a certain way, and wouldn't risk a contact with the outside to taint that. The way the dad gets angry at the security guard for giving the son Rocky and Jaws seem extreme at first, until you remember that there are creationist dads who would react the exact same way if someone gives their homeschooled son Darwinian books. Remember the scene with the dog trainer? He said the dog is now at Level 2, and it's where you decide what kind of dog you'll end up with. That's what we're seeing here. Teen age is the Level 2 of human development.

[Bosco B Thug]

Yeah. One reason the 9/11 footage would've seemed terribly inadequate, if in fact used, is it wouldn't contribute anything to (and would work against, really, to further number8's point) the fact that the Father is clearly highly, abnormally deranged.

[Spinal]

I'm a little surprised that some of you guys are probing for the father's motives.

I think you missed the part where I recanted.

[number8]

I think you missed the part where I recanted.

I think we've all established that missing things is your forte.

[Spinal]

I think we've all established that missing things is your forte.

:|

[Spaceman Spiff]

...or Dogtooth U.S.

Dog2th?

Sorry.

[number8]

:|

IN YOUR FACE, JOEL.

[Ivan Drago]

Wow. Copying my thoughts from the awards thread:

Apart from the vag licking and the incest at the end, it wasn't as raunchy as I thought it would be going in. I found the film to be very hypnotizing both tonally and visually. I was engrossed in the story from beginning to end. One of my faves of last year for sure. Whoever was the first person on this website to see it and recommend it to us needs to be commended.

[Boner M]

Whoever was the first person on this website to see it and recommend it to us needs to be commended.
Commend away! (http://www.match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=192410&postcount=49)

[Spinal]

Wait, are we equating raunchy with bad? :confused:

[baby doll]

I was less upset by the incest than the violence. That dude really, really hates the movie Rocky.

[Ivan Drago]

Wait, are we equating raunchy with bad? :confused:

I was equating raunchy with gross, like eating shit in Salo.

[Spun Lepton]

I haven't read the thread because I haven't watched this, yet. I queued it because it sounds very interesting. However ... is it a comedy or a drama? Netflix has it under Drama, but the box cover has a quote that says, "Hilarious!!" Which is it?

[Raiders]

I haven't read the thread because I haven't watched this, yet. I queued it because it sounds very interesting. However ... is it a comedy or a drama? Netflix has it under Drama, but the box cover has a quote that says, "Hilarious!!" Which is it?

Not a drama. The film is pretty much devoid of any overt drama. I would best describe it as a satirical, mildly disturbing, psychological black comedy.

[Spun Lepton]

Not a drama. The film is pretty much devoid of any overt drama. I would best describe it as a satirical, mildly disturbing, psychological black comedy.

Cool, thanks.

[Spinal]

But not really a laugh-out-loud comedy. I've come around on the film, but I still don't really get the "hilarious" quote.

[EyesWideOpen]

If I was categorizing it I'd put it under drama.

[Rowland]

Hah, I'm reminded of this:

http://www.filmforum.org/films/death/LAZARESCU_ONESHEETMED2.jpg

http://www.impawards.com/2006/posters/death_of_mr_lazarescu_ver2.jpg

[Boner M]

http://www.impawards.com/2006/posters/death_of_mr_lazarescu_ver2.jpg
This is still one of the greatest things I've ever seen.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Yeah, I thought this was pretty brilliant, but I'm struggling to see why anyone would call this a comedy, let alone hilarious. I found it disturbing on almost every level. I didn't laugh once.

[Milky Joe]

Yeah, I thought this was pretty brilliant, but I'm struggling to see why anyone would call this a comedy, let alone hilarious. I found it disturbing on almost every level. I didn't laugh once.

Pretty much with you here. It's profoundly disturbing, mostly. Though I did laugh when it cut to the Dad all bloody, explaining that the 'monster' had killed their 'brother.'

[Raiders]

I found it frequently funny. Not sure what to tell you. I don't see anything stopping many of the scenes from being both disturbing and uncomfortably funny.

[Spinal]

I found it frequently funny. Not sure what to tell you. I don't see anything stopping many of the scenes from being both disturbing and uncomfortably funny.

Did you see it with an audience or on your own?

[Raiders]

Did you see it with an audience or on your own?

In my living room by myself.

[baby doll]

In my living room by myself.Ditto, and I thought it was pretty hilarious in spots.

[Spinal]

The dad showing up bloody is definitely cut to get a laugh. Although I didn't, I can see that it's kind of editied with a comic intention. The dancing is kind of funny. Beyond that, I'm really struggling to think of much.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Pretty much with you here. It's profoundly disturbing, mostly. Though I did laugh when it cut to the Dad all bloody, explaining that the 'monster' had killed their 'brother.'

I guess there were a few moments that I found amusing, bloody dad included, but nothing made me actually laugh. I was too disturbed.

[Bosco B Thug]

Well, you didn't have to laugh and it's all tempered by how troubling it all is, but I'd call it a comedy. The misused words, the sexual naivete, the US pop culture references, cats claimed to be dangerous beasts, the son's stand-off with one.

[Spinal]

Oh yeah, the cat. That's definitely pretty funny, although it gets really violent really fast, making it hard for me to laugh, personally.

[Boner M]

I watched it with an audience first and a housemate on second viewing and the laughs came thick and fast on both occasions. Post-coital Rocky quote might be the the funniest scene of the year.

[Spinal]

I checked IMDb's memorable quotes and found that some of the translations are different than I remember. I'm pretty sure when I saw it, it was 'carbine' instead of 'shotgun'. And I think it was 'pussy' instead of 'cunt'. Could different subtitles be a part of the issue here?

[Kurosawa Fan]

I checked IMDb's memorable quotes and found that some of the translations are different than I remember. I'm pretty sure when I saw it, it was 'carbine' instead of 'shotgun'. And I think it was 'pussy' instead of 'cunt'. Could different subtitles be a part of the issue here?

'Carbine' and 'pussy' are definitely the words that were used in the version on Netflix.

[Watashi]

I laughed hard at "lick my keyboard".

I wrote my English paper about this film a few days ago.

[DavidSeven]

If I'm in a Greek video store, I'm most definitely not going to the Comedy section to find this film.

[dreamdead]

So. Dogtooth. Provocative and difficult to come away from it with ambivalence, but like others here, the major change from the first half hour is only upping the ante. Thematically, it ends more or less where it begins by refusing to answer the "now what?" ending, and so it's a formal success in black humor taken to its endpoint, but it lacks the last touch to render it meaningful.

[Raiders]

So. Dogtooth. Provocative and difficult to come away from it with ambivalence, but like others here, the major change from the first half hour is only upping the ante. Thematically, it ends more or less where it begins by refusing to answer the "now what?" ending, and so it's a formal success in black humor taken to its endpoint, but it lacks the last touch to render it meaningful.

Not sure I follow what you mean by a "now what?" ending. The ending is definitely a resolution and answer. It leaves the character's fate open-ended, but its implications and how it is supported by the rest of the film are pretty definitive.

[dreamdead]

Not sure I follow what you mean by a "now what?" ending. The ending is definitely a resolution and answer. It leaves the character's fate open-ended, but its implications and how it is supported by the rest of the film are pretty definitive.

This ending comes off like the art-cinema version of Inception's spinning top; it feels artificial and coy whereas the rest of the film is rather masterfully and aesthetically blunt. While I was likely coy myself about suggesting little has changed, the lack of resolution beyond a desire to escape seems to delimit my ability to read Lanthimos's intention--while something like Assayas's demonlover likewise intimates a final sense of entrapment, that text is mitigated by the breaching of the fourth-wall, which moves the film out of insularity. While Lanthimos offers us the workplace and attempts to broaden out the visual/narrative space, his refusal to show the older daughter's fate comes off to me as teasing when this mindset is nowhere else in the film.

I like the film, and find it linking with texts like Pasolini's Salo in its reveling of audacious excess, but feel more at a loss at what Lanthimos means to indict.

[Raiders]

This ending comes off like the art-cinema version of Inception's spinning top; it feels artificial and coy whereas the rest of the film is rather masterfully and aesthetically blunt. While I was likely coy myself about suggesting little has changed, the lack of resolution beyond a desire to escape seems to delimit my ability to read Lanthimos's intention--while something like Assayas's demonlover likewise intimates a final sense of entrapment, that text is mitigated by the breaching of the fourth-wall, which moves the film out of insularity. While Lanthimos offers us the workplace and attempts to broaden out the visual/narrative space, his refusal to show the older daughter's fate comes off to me as teasing when this mindset is nowhere else in the film.

I like the film, and find it linking with texts like Pasolini's Salo in its reveling of audacious excess, but feel more at a loss at what Lanthimos means to indict.

If by her "fate" you mean whether she has bled to death or is alive, then I suppose so. But, her plight is still resolved in that she is trapped in that trunk (she cannot escape) and either will be found out by her father, likely back in the confines of their house and yard, or she will die either from bleeding or suffocation. Either way, the imprisonment of her from the outside world and the slow perversion of the outside world into this controlled society has led to her belief that through the trunk there is a vessel to explore the alien terrain, but rather it becomes the height of bleak humor as she has indeed made it beyond the fence but through her own ignorance is stuck in the trunk, unable to escape.

I don't know, to me it's just a damn funny and resonant image.

You ask about what the film is intended to "indict" and I don't think there is any one thing in particular. Rather, the film comes at a scenario so specific and defined that while we can attach a whole wealth of forms of social conditioning (government, media, cults, families), I think it is better to look at the film from a perspective of what the children's ignorance shows us about accepted and normal human behavior and the kind of context with which we live and with the words we speak. The film is creating, as arguments often do, the hyperbolic scenario in order to make its points and statement. It is so simple for the father to confound and create an entire misunderstanding of our world through a few changes in word definitions and lies (such as the airplane). Our own society is no less arbitrary or specific in our ways, but we simply have made them to become what is and what is not and we are right to do so because over time human nature defines some aspects of our existence. This film convincingly creates its own small, insular society for these three children and watches as human instinct and curiousity eventually overwhelm and as our normalized society seeps its way in, becoming these bizarre bouts of odd pop culture for the older daughter (it parallels something like Dante's Explorers where the alien race there learned of our culture solely through movies and news clippings). Thus, in contrast to the silliness of Shyamalan's The Village where we get clawed monsters and laughable bumpkin lives, Lanthimos creates a more poignant and incisive study of societal paranoia and the attempt to create your own people, essentially playing God and master as one would with a dog, and squelch all the natural tendencies and desires created by our world. The results are always tragic.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I like the film, and find it linking with texts like Pasolini's Salo in its reveling of audacious excess, but feel more at a loss at what Lanthimos means to indict.

I'm not a fan of such reasoning, which seems to be more prevalent nowadays.

Why does the movie necessarily have to 'indict' or 'mean' or 'symbolize' something? Why can't the movie just be? That is, a slice-of-life portrayal of an incredibly warped family. It works on its own like that. It doesn't need a social or political message.

[Boner M]

Oh OK, it's the arthouse version of The Village. I get it.

This ending comes off like the art-cinema version of Inception's spinning top.
I find this interesting.

[Watashi]

I found it to be the arthouse version of It's Pat.

[transmogrifier]

I found it the art-house version of meh.

[Peng]

Second time since 2010, and I wondered during it how I would feel if my first watch had been after a few more Lanthimos under the belt, since that first time's positive shock still reverberates throughout this rewatch. It still feels like the most concentrated-dose shot of his manifesto, of starting out with a deadpan, perverse universe already and having it been chipped at by even more absurd force for a compare/contrast of revealing something both strangely positive and unbearably dark about human nature. One reason I liked Poor Things second best in his filmography is because it feels like a spiritual sequel to this one. 9/10