Dogtooth - anyone see this?????
What a strange movie! I can't believe all the praise, even from the Greek PM. It's original, but...
share
Oh HELL no!
This is the same wacko who did The Lobster, which was the worst movie I saw in 2015. It was cruel, stupid and Fascistic, and I gave it a 4/10. No way I'm watching another film by this goof!
π
Thanks for the warning -- I almost saw his first movie... Someone said this was a copy of a movie from 72.
share
You're welcome. I will probably never see another one of his films.
π
"The Lobster" did suck.... 20 minutes into it, I had to turn it off. I did watch "Dogtooth" again, and it was similar to "The Castle of Purity" (Spanish movie), which I liked a little more. Might be too disturbing for some.
shareUpon a second viewing I liked The Lobster a lot more, and payed more attention as to why they were speaking so weirdly. And I don't think it was exactly promoting fascism ;) Would you say 1984 was Totalitarian and brutalistic?
To the OP: Dogtooth I haven't seen, but I plan to.
I would not want to see it again, but then that's why they make chocolate and vanilla.
I didn't say it was promoting fascism, I said it was fascistic. And yes 1984 was brutal, totalitarian, fascist and scary.
BTW, I'm leaving for a Storm Chasing trip today out in "Tornado Alley" (the American Midwest). When the trip is done,
I'll drive up to Wichita, KS to visit family. I will be back on June 1.
π
The way I understand it, if something is fascistic or totalitarian it's promoting those things. But maybe my English is failing me on that one lol
Anyway, keep safe on that storm chasing trip, and have a great time :)
I loved The Lobster! You obviously didn't get it. lol
share
Oh I got it all right. It's a cruel, stupid fascistic film, and I hated it. I give it a 3/10.
But then that's why they make chocolate and vanilla. Whatever floats your boat.
π
Why on earth would you say it's 'cruel'?
share
Did you watch the dog murder scene? Do you realize that if these people don't find mates, they're going to be turned into animals? Do you realize that the rebel group blinded that poor woman?
What part of all that do you not consider cruel?
π
The film presents us with a society that tells it's citizens that if by a certain age they aren't married with people who they have a major thing in common with, that they will be given a few weeks to pair up with someone in their clinic/hotel or be turned into an animal of their choice. Colin Farrel's brother had chosen a dog. Colin chooses a lobster.
As the time approaches for him to get turned into an animal, in desperation he pretends he has 'cold heartedness' in common with the cold hearted woman.....until she goes and kills the dog, his 'brother'. Does he go through with the farce of him being like her? Of course not, because what she did was terrible, so he manages to escape.
Outside, he joins the Rebels. But as it turns out, they too have their petty norms. No man or woman can fall in love and pair up. This would make you 'one of them', their enemy. So when the Rachel Weisz and Colin Farrell find out they are both jewish...they then fall inlove.....or do they? Are they just trying to hook up so can return to Society. The Rebel leader realises what is happening, so she goes and blinds the Rachel Weisz character. So now if the love birds escape back to Society, they know that to be accepted, Colin Farrell will have to also be blind, because only 'like' and be with 'like'. And that' is his final dilema by the end of the film. He goes to the bathroom with the knife in order to blind himself, while she is left alone waiting in the table. End of film.
The open ending asks, did he go through with it, or did he run away. Is being yourself better than being a phony? How phoney are we in relationships anyway? How many times do people pretend to be other than what they really are so that they can be in a relationship. Is being single so bad?
This film satires the right AND left wing. If you cannot understand SATIRE, I advice you not to watch these kind of films.
And to answer your questions....no that wasn't cruelty...it was SATIRE.
I respectfully disagree, Cornelia. Yes I know it was satire, but it was very cruel and sadistic satire.
And believe me, I will not watch any more films by this director.
π
All I can say is that there was a point to it. In some films, the violence is gratuitous but here it wasn't. It served the plot. In anycase, did we see the woman get blinded? No. Did we see the dog really get killed? No.
But that's cool, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Yes I can see there was a point to it, but I'm not sure what it was. And at this point I really don't care to delve further into it. As you say, we will just have to agree to disagree.
Have a good day.
π
she just told you what it was. i saw the film, and agree with her take. its not that abstruse, there aren't a lot of feasibly alternative takes. although i will say, the rap on fascism is clearer, i suppose you might say there is a knock on identity politics or a deeper satire on the tensions of relationships intrinsically, where differing opinions / worldviews make for discord, and there exist dynamics in favor of conformity at play.
it was an explicit satire. people don't really get turned into animals.
a couple of his other films : the killing of a sacred deer, and the favorite - are formidable.
Wow! A blast from the past!
Okay, here's the deal: The Lobster sucked, hard! End of discussion. Have a good day.
π€¨