2010 New Release Database

[Boner M]

Pretty sure it is an objective fact that Dogtooth does not go in a routine direction, let alone the most routine one.

[DavidSeven]

"Routine" definitely isn't the right word to use. But if trans is trying to say that he wishes the film was more dynamic in that the experience of the first 10 minutes didn't feel exactly the same as or mostly a logical extension of the other 80, then I can see where he's coming from. Don't think that's enough to totally devalue the film, but you know, tranny has his quirks.

[transmogrifier]

Pretty sure it is an objective fact that Dogtooth does not go in a routine direction, let alone the most routine one.

I would have to disagree with you here. Once I understood the premise after 5 minutes, I knew exactly where it was heading. The movie spent 80 minutes confirming that. I'm not talking about the details obviously (the cat, the movie quotes etc) but the broad story beats (self-mutilation, incest, crazy stories of what's outside, an "amusing" vignette where one of the parents makes a show about going outside - the plane and the trip in the car to get it - the simmering physical violence of the father to underpin the mental violence inflicted on his kids...., the bid for freedom) NONE of this was a surprise. It was all pretty routine and dare I say, uninspired.

So I think you need to brush up on your definition of objective. It has a non-routine premise, but then goes off in a direction that made it seem like the story had been sketched on a napkin in 5 minutes.

[transmogrifier]

Oy.

Well, I'll just call it boring from now on and spare you the mental anguish involved with someone trying to explain why.

[Raiders]

Does the sad inevitability of where the film is heading really act as a detriment? I don't think a surprise ending is necessary. The beauty and brilliance is in the details. The film fully supports and satisfies the ending; it doesn't just end that way because it must (and honestly, it's pretty much the perfect ending, predictable or not) but because it is exactly where the father's lies and deception were leading.

[transmogrifier]

The meat of a film is all about the interplay of plot, characterization, atmosphere/tone and theme, with cinematography, score and mise en scene serving to enhance those things. A film can be weak in one of those areas and still be great based on the others.

For me, Dogtooth is deficient in three of those for things, and therefore cannot be judged by me as a good film. So the inevitability of the ending is not a bad thing on its own - God knows many films are pretty obvious about where they will end up - but for me, it is just one of the symptoms in a poorly thought film, where the characters are made to serve what is a pretty prosaic plot born of a good premise.

[Derek]

Well, I'll just call it boring from now on and spare you the mental anguish involved with someone trying to explain why.

To be fair, you didn't really explain anything at all. You just listed a bunch of "broad story beats", said you knew they were going to happen beforehand and then used that as a weak justification to once again dismiss the film as routine. The film focuses on an extreme authoritarian figure so of course many of his broad actions are not going to be shocking or original, but I also don't think they have to. I'm not sure why you want the film to deviate from its internal logic simply to explore something "different" - Raiders already explained why Lanthimos didn't try to redefine sexuality, on top of the fact that trying to do so would delve into the biological/instinctual, which is not redefined, rather than the behavioral, which is and which the film focuses on. You belittle the film by making it seem like some sort of feat that you knew exactly where the film was heading after 5 minutes (congrats, btw!) when the film is so much more about the journey, about how it takes you there through the intricacies of decontextualized human behavior than it is about the broad beats that you so deftly critique by listing them, as if having violent outbursts and a bid for freedom are automatically weaknesses rather than tropes the film uses to convey its thesis. You seem to want the film to be less human and more alien than it is, which to me, sounds like you aren't really on the same page with what the film is doing.

I dunno, I appreciate you responding with more than just a few words, but reading your posts in here make me feel like Pauline Kael has returned from the dead to bitch and moan about more nonsense. You're not meeting the film on its own terms, but rather forcing yours on it or at least that's how it appears to me. And I'm certainly not here to say the film is flawless or can't be criticised - Bosco's criticisms that actually make sense.

But I do agree the new PJ Harvey album is pretty damn great, so let's go talk about that.

[transmogrifier]

To be fair, you didn't really explain anything at all. You just listed a bunch of "broad story beats", said you knew they were going to happen beforehand and then used that as a weak justification to once again dismiss the film as routine. The film focuses on an extreme authoritarian figure so of course many of his broad actions are not going to be shocking or original, but I also don't think they have to. I'm not sure why you want the film to deviate from its internal logic simply to explore something "different" - Raiders already explained why Lanthimos didn't try to redefine sexuality, on top of the fact that trying to do so would delve into the biological/instinctual, which is not redefined, rather than the behavioral, which is and which the film focuses on. You belittle the film by making it seem like some sort of feat that you knew exactly where the film was heading after 5 minutes (congrats, btw!) when the film is so much more about the journey, about how it takes you there through the intricacies of decontextualized human behavior than it is about the broad beats that you so deftly critique by listing them, as if having violent outbursts and a bid for freedom are automatically weaknesses rather than tropes the film uses to convey its thesis. You seem to want the film to be less human and more alien than it is, which to me, sounds like you aren't really on the same page with what the film is doing.

I dunno, I appreciate you responding with more than just a few words, but reading your posts in here make me feel like Pauline Kael has returned from the dead to bitch and moan about more nonsense. You're not meeting the film on its own terms, but rather forcing yours on it or at least that's how it appears to me. And I'm certainly not here to say the film is flawless or can't be criticised - Bosco's criticisms that actually make sense.

But I do agree the new PJ Harvey album is pretty damn great, so let's go talk about that.

See, to me, all you have done here, in defence of the film, is basically say "You didn't get it."

Trust me, there's not much there to get, I'm afraid. Tell me what the film gives you that 20 seconds spent wondering about the basic premise while standing in a shower would not?

And the film DOES deviate away from the central premise by having the father bring in an outsider and basically let her wander around the house as she wants.

I knew that my claim of knowing what was going to happen after five minutes would be met by scorn, but to hell if I'm going to lie about it. It's how I experienced the film - I sat there, liking the first 20 minutes, hoping to hell it wasn't just going to give me what I was expecting after 5. But it did. You claim that I can't criticize the film for being something that it's not - but what else is there to do when boredom slowly creeps up on you as you realise the film is only ever going to trade in the broadest behavouralist terms imaginable? You seem to think that this is sacrosanct, like the very premise of the film only allows for this single-minded (boring) approach. You liked the film for what it did, I get it, but I didn't, and I offered some ways it could have been more trenchant and valuable in terms of its themes (why NOT look at biological/instinctual if the other option is to show people act crazy because they are brought up that way? A better film would investigate just how susceptible our biological instincts are to being recontextualized - kind of like how porn has grasped a corner of the male psyche that had previous biological uses in the past - rather than a tiresome slog to a predetermined destination predicated on the rather obvious observation that people who are brought up in a strange environment will act strangely. Why IS that so interesting to you? How does the film bring anything new to that generalization? Short answer - it doesn't. )

The redefining of words is funny, but shallow. A braver, better, more intelligent film, would have redefined the very essence of their humanity, the role of their cocks and pussies and urge to fuck other things realigned with their unique environment. Instead, it is merely used as an icky kind of moral tut-tutting with the eventual devolution to the inevitable (boring) incest.

I couldn't care less if you don't find that my criticisms make sense to you - they make perfect sense to me.

[transmogrifier]

Also:

Love and Other Drugs - nay

Phony as all hell, from the acting (Hathaway, who I normally like, is too calculated in her mannerisms, and Gyllenhaal looks like he was given the direction to simply be "the complete opposite of that buzzkill Zodiac guy you played, with 87% more mugging than that implies") to the chainsaw editing, and even the last scene speech, which most screenwriters should be able to nail in their sleep, is a cheesy cue-card to the Oscar-voters of yore. One of those cookie-cutter movies where the plot is essentially annoying characters randomly doing annoying things and inspiring other annoying characters to either (a) pout, (b) cry, (c) look confused or (d) do that thing where they leave all tough but are secretly CRYING ON THE INSIDE PEOPLE!!!!, stitched together by a mix of dull backstory "motivation" and "Hey, everyone's happy/sad/busy!!" montages.

Granted, not every one of these movies also thinks to include an Anne Hathaway nude scene every five minutes or so, but even they dry up, and you're left with the vague desire to just cut to the chase and do a Google image search and let the two morons talk past each other for the next hour.

[Bosco B Thug]

Bosco's criticisms that actually make sense.

Sorry trans, but I'm going to take the hell out of this compliment. Happy. To. Know.

But I do agree with trans on a number of his points, a less complicated one being that the gags are pretty obvious; a more complicated one in that it holds way fast to its internal logic, as befit for its vision of a parable-like tale with yes-somewhat-rudimentary moral progressions and conclusions. Main difference is I'm a lot fonder of both the journey (my most important thing, it exhibits a genuine and probing empathy with the children) and its internal logic (as a case-study so preoccupied with behavioralist hypotheticals, it's a very clever, consistently mentally tickling movie).

But I'd have to agree that calling its internal logic "routine" is valid, in that it points to the film's premise of extremes and exaggeration. As for fallacies in its internal logic, the film posits the conditioning and isolationism as so air-tight, it makes sense sexual development has little room for spontaneity or surprise passions. One could entertain ways it could've been a more gritty and realistic tale of development free of social contact, but one such way it becomes a tale of an inbreeding hick family and another way it's Trash Humpers.