MovieChat Forums > Kynodontas (2009) Discussion > Big part of the plot people seem to be f...

Big part of the plot people seem to be forgetting SPOILERS

posted 12 years ago by hexedd
19 replies | jump to latest

There is a huge thread debating the ending of the movie and what happened to the elder daughter, but I think the bigger question is what happened to the "missing" son?

Clearly from the unspoken words between husband and wife, you can tell that at some point the "other" brother escaped, thus making the elder daughter's escape the second time that one of the kids has run off. I think the meaning behind this (among other things) is that you can't destroy the human spirit, and that no matter how hard the father tries to keep the kids isolated, the outside world always comes creeping in. Essentially I view this as saying that it really isn't the outside world you should be worried about, but more the people and things closest to you. If you look at statistics on violent crimes, it tends to be the case in most countries in the world that they are committed on a person by a person close to them. This move demonstrates a type of "social violence" whereby the father keeps the kids through harsh punishments and "rewards" that aren't really rewards at all. In the end, the father is so obsessed with "protecting" his family that he becomes the biggest threat to them. The crazy little world he has created for his kids is actually much more dangerous than the outside world he is trying to protect them from.

Regardless, as the beginning of my post stated, I wondered what happened to the mystery brother. Did he exist at all? The mother's sorrow seems to express that another son escaped at some point. What must have happened to him if he did exist?

As for the elder daughter, if the movie were interpreted literally then she suffocated from lack of oxygen. On the other hand, if it's interpreted symbolically, then I'd like to believe she "got out" which was all she wanted in the end, and if she died she was still happier than being stuck at the house.

[–] FuriousGeorge47 12 years ago

The elder brother never existed.

[–] hexedd 12 years ago

But how can we be so sure? Maybe I need to watch it again but I don't think it's ever fully know. And even if he didn't it doesn't change the rest of the themes.

[–] floquick2 12 years ago

I think he did exist and that he likely escaped. There wasn't much reason for the parents to invent a fictional brother. (cats are scary enough!) After the older son escaped, the parents told the younger kids their brother was being punished and living a terrible existence on the other side of the fence. Having no concept of the outside world, they would naturally assume he was living right on the other side of it. The other possibility is that he was killed by the father (Pops was certainly violent enough). But I think they did have an older brother at some point.

There may also be some link to the father deciding to bring in the security guard to service the younger son. If the older son was driven out by his libido (or killed because of it), he may have been trying to prevent the same thing from happening with the younger son.

[–] ARH 10 years ago

I think he did exist and that he likely escaped. There wasn't much reason for the parents to invent a fictional brother. (cats are scary enough!) After the older son escaped, the parents told the younger kids their brother was being punished and living a terrible existence on the other side of the fence. Having no concept of the outside world, they would naturally assume he was living right on the other side of it. The other possibility is that he was killed by the father (Pops was certainly violent enough). But I think they did have an older brother at some point.

There may also be some link to the father deciding to bring in the security guard to service the younger son. If the older son was driven out by his libido (or killed because of it), he may have been trying to prevent the same thing from happening with the younger son.

This is the impression that I got too. Something happened with the unseen son that made the parents think that it was "necessary" for the other son to have sex.

[–] tv2-194-495681 9 years ago

I agree completely. My interpretation is that there WAS a younger brother who escaped the house, which was the catalyst for the father calling on the security guard to routinely screw the son. The point of it all being that regardless of how well you try to guard and protect your children, outside elements will ultimately always exist to threaten to corrupt them.

If you want to read into it even further, the kids are advised at the mid-point or so that the mother is pregnant with a daughter, a son and a dog. Taken literally, this could be an allegory for the fact that by the end of the story they will have lost one of each of these things.

[–] Erin-Leigh-14 12 years ago

part of what made me think he never existed is that the family refer to the daughters in terms of their age (both the son and the parents talk about "the eldest" so we can assume the other would be "the youngest") but they don't refer to the son that way. i would think if he were the youngest son, he'd be called "the youngest" - they'd also have to differentiate between the eldest daughter and the eldest son, etc.. and i don't think, just because the brother escaped, that it would change the way they referenced each other.. for all intents and purposes, "the eldest" is the girl's name - if she were always known as "the eldest daughter", they wouldn't drop "daughter" out of her name just because "the eldest son" left. i was left with the impression that the escaped brother was a lie, much like the twins the mother threatened to give birth to. i'd imagine the children were told he'd left before they were born. it is very ambiguous, of course, and could really go either way.

[–] LEMONPIE_30 11 years ago

In the Greek language adjectives come in one of three genders (masculine, feminine, neuter). So the word "eldest" that refers to a boy is different from "eldest" that refers to a girl (no need to add "daughter" to differentiate).

[–] Erin-Leigh-14 11 years ago

fair point :) i don't speak Greek, so i wasn't aware of that. thanks for the info :)

[–] kdk7 12 years ago

When the brother is talking to his "older brother" at the fence, he talks about how he does a better job at washing the car, as if he'd seen his "brother" do a bad job at it. Was he just making this up (which is certainly possible)?

[–] Erin-Leigh-14 12 years ago

there's the possibility that the father made up stories about how the "older brother" didn't go a good job in order to encourage the boy to do better. if he was told often enough that the "older brother" didn't get tar stains out, he may start acting like he knew it for himself.

[–] agnot 12 years ago

This movie is incredible if looking from subjective reality standpoint. Each of us have some of that in us. Separating nature vs nurture, belief vs knowledge dialectics leaves us with something that is in the middle. No matter how oppressive and overreaching are the rules of the regime, human is hardwired to to test them. Crime is socially constructed concept and in their microsociety crimes are just as bizarre as their concept of happiness. Cutting your brother or hitting him with a hammer is punished less than watching contraband videotape. Unapproved video is a major threat to the existing social order.

[–] LEMONPIE_30 11 years ago

Regarding the question of whether the missing brother really existed:
I recently read an old interview of the director where he was asked about that and he replied that THE BROTHER DID INDEED EXIST. He went on to say that it would make no sense for the parents to have fabricated a story like that, as that would give the children the idea that life is possible out there and maybe they could run away too.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LEMONPIE_30 11 years ago

And here's the extract of the interview in question, on A.V.Club:

AVC: It just keeps getting more complicated. They see a plane fly overhead, and then they have to pretend that this toy plane has crashed in their yard. And then there’s the whole question of the brother. Do you intend for there to be some ambiguity as to whether he ever existed?

GL: I guess there is. To us, when we wrote the script, it was a brother who really existed and has escaped or something, and we don’t know what’s really happened to him. The kids think he’s just outside the fence, because there’s nowhere else to go. That’s why they’re throwing him food. The older sister is throwing pieces of cake for him. There’s these lines when the father says he is dead, and the cat ate him, they’re saying, “I thought he would survive with the food I was providing him,” and all these things. To us, it was a real brother, but in the context of this film, it could work also as a legend that the parents have constructed for the children to be more in fear of. But that doesn’t really make sense, if you really think about it. Why would they come up with someone who has left the house and is still alive?

AVC: As you were saying, maybe a lot of it doesn’t make sense if you think about it.

GL: Yeah. [Laughs.] That was our idea, that he really existed, but some people don’t get that, and that’s okay. But if you think of the way I just explained it, it doesn’t make sense.

You can read the whole interview here:
http://www.avclub.com/article/idogtooth-idirector-giorgos-lanthimos-42 525

Who's saying rubbish now?
Next time do some research before you go about offending people.

[–] Erin-Leigh-14 11 years ago

gah! i'm disappointed.. i totally thought he was made up!

[–] Errington_92 10 years ago

My interpretation is that the unseen son did exist but had passed away. However, the Father and Mother never told their children in order to protect them. The opening scene shows the children learning the definition of shotgun to mean a type of bird. As we all know, this is complete nonsense. The unseen son may have been killed in violent circumstances, which led the Mother and Father to impose their imprisonment of the children.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not.

[–] detune 10 years ago

It really doesn't matter what the director says. Unless it is explicitly stated in the movie, the brother not existing is a valid interpretation.

[–] LEMONPIE_30 10 years ago

But he admits that it is a valid interpretation, he just thinks it's inconsistent with the parent's scheme.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

Big part of the plot people seem to be forgetting *SPOILERS*

Big part of the plot people seem to be forgetting SPOILERS