MUBI

Dogtooth is a disturbing and complex movie. The film depicts the life of a married couple who chose to raise their three children in isolation and cut off from the outside world. The film portrays the life and times as the elder try to keep up the illusion by all sorts of bizarre means and care for their children’s needs, at what cost that may be (including their sanity). The movie has its funny moments, but the overall tone of tragedy and bleakness quickly dismisses any awkward chuckles with a grim reality which swirls into a brutal and Utopian vision of a patriarch who actually prefers dogs over people. The film is very non-Hollywood, which results in an cinematic realism that makes the film the more touching and hard to endure. The filmmaker was both courageous as well as observant enough to focus on the youths’ emerging sexuality to be the primary agent of trouble, but look out for the man-eating cat and planes crashing in the garden, whoever catches them first, can keep them. Get the picture ? No ? Then go and watch it.

Official Review on my site

A film categorized as satire generally goes by the standards of comedy with sarcasm, irony, or even wit. In that case, if one would like to label this as satire it would be that of extreme-satire. Dogtooth centers around a family enclosed within the boundaries of their own home whom never leave nor know of the outside world. The parents of three unnamed children in their late teens and early twenties have performed what many might consider psychological mind tricks on their kids. These parents have convinced their children that certain words mean different things in means of “protecting” their innocence. Only the father gets to leave the premises through means of his car, for the ground is said to be of danger to anyone who has not had their dogtooth come out and regrown.

The cinematography in this film is especially worth noting since it gives a sort of “emotionless” tone, one that parallels that of the family in subject to its setting due to its stationary position inside the borders of the home, but its hand-held rhythm outside of the house. Even the dialogue in this film is cold and stale, giving its audience the feeling of an audiobook playing back its chapters on screen. Also, when analyzing Dogtooth, one can’t help but compare the extremist parents to those who view video games, television, and movies as bad influences on their children in terms of how they grow up and how they view the world. If this film is considered a satire, the ridicule they claim to portray could easily be interpreted to be upon those parents. One must realize that you are not what you have seen, you are you according to how you have been raised.

However intriguing this piece is, Giorgos Lanthimos does a fantastic job in forming an environment of complete control where the audience is released into a fantasy land. The children believe airplanes are the size of one’s fist, cats are monster-like creatures in the prowl for human flesh, fish can magically appear in pools, and mothers can monitor the growth of their babies depending on how well their children behave. Aside from this, we are emotionally distant, however on purpose, from the family. No names are given to the children, with each one being titled in the order they were born in: eldest-youngest. By the end of the film, we are left to ponder wether or not the conditions these parents set for their family was actually enough to restrain the human mind from achieving the curiosity so prevalent in our history.

Thank you for reading,
Omar Antonio Iturriaga

O cinema de Lanthimos pode ser comparado ao de von Trier e Haneke. Tem um diminuto público no qual não me incluo. É claro que obras como Anticristo ou Violência Gratuita dividem opiniões, mas todos admitem que aquilo é algo artístico e não combatem ferozmente. O grego Kynodontas (ou em inglês Dogtooth) não consegue o êxito de ser considerado um filme de arte, uma vez nem entrete nem amedronta, e termina sendo uma mistura mal realizada dos filmes dos dois diretores citados. Fica em cima do muro entre ‘crueldade desmedida’ e ‘humor degradante’ beirando o bizarro, com crianças, planos vazios e gritos retidos. Deve ter um público específico, que, infelizmente (ou felizmente) não sou eu. A grande dúvida é como conseguiu a tal vaga no Oscar Conservador.

In order to appropriately digest the material in Dogtooth one must foster and ascertain a particular state of indulgent, preferably humored, appreciation for morbidity. The concept of open-mindedness certainly applies here; of without which one would most unwaveringly condemn any sort of value a film like this may hold.
At its core, Dogtooth is part dark comedy and part Freudian psychoanalysis. The former indicates the tone and the latter dictates how we are to perceive the events of the film and in what context are we to evaluate them.

Greek auteur Giorgos Lanthimos’ film has much to praise with intriguing and downright haunting vocal and aesthetic compounds similar to those found in Austrian filmmaker Michael Haneke’s oeuvre. In comparison, both filmmakers (though I have only seen one from Lanthimos) rely heavily on interpretive studies and less on storytelling or narration. Metaphoric observation is immense in consideration to understanding Dogtooth’s societal merit as well as its artistic language. I particularly enjoyed the looming thread of instability, vaguely pronounced yet streamlined as if all the eccentricities of the characters were fastened to it, giving the film a looming sense of unassuming terror.

While I had nothing to detract from the film’s prose, I did indeed find it quite alarming when applied to Lanthimos’s lack of abrasive and unconvincing analysis. He has disguised his film with an artful production and fantastic performances yet only hint’s at elements of meaning through a somewhat basic and often infuriating pseudo-analysis of sexuality, social conduct and violence. We see these areas of speculation but are never able to evaluate them. In this regard there is a lesson to be learned by studying Haneke. His greatest achievement, The Seventh Continent, works by way of using interpretive analysis through its slow-burn, behavioral expression and systematic circulation. The problem with Dogtooth is that it never goes deep enough and simply flat-lines before we can discern anything. We are allowed, or should I say forced, to invade this home where some terrible form of narcosis has taken over the minds of these poor individuals, yet during our unfortunate stay we not only learn nothing about their condition, but find very little, if anything at all, to assimilate to any kind of necessary comparison. The stagnant air of desolation keeps us at bay from the [albeit humorous] atrocities instead of relating it to the audience. Lanthimos uses this vulgarity in a distinctly perverse method and seems to shed, intentionally, all empathy in favor of brute ridicule and scorn. This willingness to portray the victims as a part of some elaborate joke is as harsh and scheming of a method of fabrication as one would likely find necessary in the art of film save blatant manipulation or gimmick; i.e. Saw, Hostel (a level to which I don’t quite think Dogtooth has fallen).

With such a provocative concept I would liked to have seen more believability and substance, as well as sympathy and vindication, but instead we are stuck with a perception of society that is cryptic and ignorant of its own potential.

I’m sure this is happening, somewhere in the world. Wasn’t too keen on all of the licking. Got a huge kick out of the Rocky and Jaws re-enactments. Was the Son totally gay, or was that just me? He was a little bit too into ass, and not enough into pussy licking… unlike the others. Ew, by the way. Brilliant ending, kind of wish it had ended with the closing of the car trunk. Or even the bloody-mouthed look into the mirror. I’m a fan of those cliffy-endings. PS. Was this the first Greek film I’ve seen? Think so. PPS. Totally going to learn the choreography of that anniversary jig.

… but with more laughs. A real Love it AND Hate it movie. For me the ‘hate’ element was compounded by a) the fact that I’m a cat lover (the most uncomfortable scene as far as I’m concerned involved the killing of a cat, and this almost put me off from continuing watching the movie) and b) the way that Lanthimos wears his influences (Haneke, Lynch, Von Trier, and I suspect a certain strain of transgressive Industrial subculture) way too readily and self-consciously on his sleeve. The acting (particularly the deadpan performance of Anna Kalaitzidou) and the Balthus-meets-Hockney visuals were brilliant however. The ending was regarded as problematic or a cop-out by some but for me it highlighted the way that in order to deprogram yourself from any mechanism of (familial, political, religious) Control, it isn’t enough to just rebel or escape, you have to almost reprogram yourself into something else, you have to invent a new vocabulary, and the kids simply didn’t have the language, knowledge or experience to do this.

Dogtooth is truly one of the best movie experiences I’ve had in a long time. The film was surprisingly exiting and grotesque. In some way it reminded me of Pasolin’s vulgar way of treating people and the characters could have been from an Haneke film. One thing I really liked about Dogtooth is that it in some way does not reach the same extreme levels as Pasolini ore Haneke. I developed feelings for the characters and it didn’t feel like one of those films with an distant position. For me this aspect made the film booth more horrible and easy to watch at the same time. The cinematography by Thimios Bakatakis was stunningly good, and the acting was amazing. The teamwork on this film must have been brilliant, it felt so like its vision.

If Robert Bresson and Todd Solondz ever collaborated on movie, or if Michael Haneke actually had a sense of humor and decided to make a comedy, chances are it would be Greece’s Dogtooth. This is the true definition of a dark comedy. After hitting last year’s festival circuit, it finally made its way to the U.S., and I must say it does not disappoint. The film follows a strange family who’ve secluded themselves from the outside world, and live life in their own unique way. The mother and father intentionally lie to their children about the outside world, none of the children have ever left the house, the son (clearly in his early 20’s), still has nightmares and sleeps in his parents bed from time to time, the 2 sisters have a strange sexual tension towards each other, and they’re all scared to death of a squirrel in their backyard, which they think is an evil flesh eating monster. The family’s only contact to the outside world is the father, who does hold down a regular job and appears to be normal to the outside world, but in reality he’s just as crazy as the rest of his family. Ultimately this is an allegory about parenting and how it can rub off on your children. The symbolism may seem a bit heavy handed, but the film is so well made and acted, I honestly don’t care. The intentionally monotone, deadpan acting, and long camera shots may not be for everyone, however the subtle yet shocking comedy and quick sprits of violence may even things out a bit.

So wrote acclaimed poet Philip Larkin but even he may have balked at this depiction of a family gone barking mad…literally. A seemingly well to do Greek family composed of Father, Mother and three children (they are never named) in their mid-twenties live together in an isolated rural household yet from the off things are terribly wrong. The children are fed the wrong definitions of everyday words and they are refused from leaving the family grounds and spend their time playing childish games. It becomes clear that the parents have infantilised their children and are shielding them from the outside world. The father occasionally hires a security worker at his factory to service the son sexually. Yet when her influences conflict with the parents’ wishes, things begin to become even more horrific. The film is billed as a dark comedy and whatever laughs do come are very bitter, you may as well laugh otherwise you may cry. Dogtooth has been compared to the works of Michael Hanke and it does indeed features a unique blend of cold visuals with moments of casual yet shocking violence. Admittedly a hard watch yet an equally fascinating one, the film paints a chilling portrait of parental power gone unchecked and steadily draws you in for all of its subtle nastiness. Seek it out…if you dare.

I’m not quite sure what I saw here, but the feeling one gets is unsettling, atmospheric, and a kind of comedy that might make you laugh as even as you wince. With moments of shocking violence that recall Haneke, and a style of comedy that felt Godardian. A brother and two sisters are trapped physically on their parents estate, and mentally by their demands. The children (who are young adults) are even prisoners to language, as their father gives convenient definitions to words he finds objectionable. Despite it’s disturbing nature, it’s also quite playful.

In any single family, grouping of people, society or religion, there is a code of conduct, a set of rules, a system, a “local” jargon, a way of functioning, a God even, that are unique. In Lanthimos’ film, the central symbol / myth (God?) is the canine tooth (hence “Dogtooth”), the fall of which marks the passage into adulthood. Until that critical moment comes, the children of the family are supposed to undergo a thorough education, which should equip them with all the necessary means to face the tough realities of life “out there in the wilderness”. The demonization of “the world out there” is used to justify the whole way the system within the family house walls functions.

There is a natural leader, the “caring father”, whose commands constitute the body of law that every child must obey, “in its own interest” and “in the global interests of the family”. There is a (relatively) passive mother, whose central function seems to be to confirm anything the father says, but whose potential to procreate also serves as an instrument of blackmail, by menacing the children that if they are not “good”, they will get more brothers and sisters and will have to share their rooms and favorite objects with them!

And then there are the children, two daughters and a son (plus an invisible son!), who not only constitute the embodiment of the parents’ fantasies, but also their guinea pigs – the very subjects of the parents’ experiment. Their acts of obedience are duly rewarded and any deviation from the rules on their behalf is firmly and severely punished. Everything they do or say is more or less either good or bad. But one shouldn’t necessarily reduce this aspect of the scenario as meaning that this family symbolizes a manicheistic world: instead, it can be more beneficial for the spectator to see it as a tool of simplification, without which many of the elements of the family’s system could become too complex to analyze whilst watching the film. What matters most is not so much the “good vs. bad” aspect of actions and words, but rather the very existence of good and bad in the subjects’ conscience, as a filter through which any thought or whim must pass before being embodied into action or expressed. For when it comes to the climax of the story, one of the daughters (Angeliki Papoulia) will not make a choice between good and bad: rather, she will have to choose between obedience to her inner drive or to the system.

If the tooth of a dog is a symbol of threat to the eyes of human conscience, the fall of a “dogtooth” of a human can be seen as a symbol of threat to collective human conscience.