My Theory - Kynodontas (2009) Discussion

[–] Wendy88 14 years ago

I like the idea that the father would say the same about 'Bruce'. I can easily see him saying she perished out where she wasn't ready to face the 'dangers that lurk'. Not sure about the whole kidnapping thing though, haha .

And I agree that Boy was extremely cute! I think he purposely lost his muscular physique to gain that child-like quality to his body for the role though.

...

reply

[–] columbusbuck 14 years ago

Remember when father and mother were discussing about getting twin boys or triplets or fraternal twins (a boy and a girl)? One could only be choosy like that if one was actually out procurring the children.
Think about it. Father owns a factory. He's probably a big deal in town and his influence is enough that the local police would only go so far when legal issues with him are brought up. For example: Father never got in trouble for beating Christina.

School's for people who are boring and ugly and serious. And you, button, are none of those things.

reply

[–] SpringJack0 14 years ago

The father and mother were planning the twins as a threat only- you'll have to share your room/toys/etc. Mother also hinted that she'd stop the births if the children were good.
I thought of the kidnapping scenario but don't think its necessary or practical.

My big questions are about the other brother who was 'away' (presumably he ran off- perhaps this is what inspired father to start bringing home girls for the other brother?) and the whole thing with the dog (the only 'family' member with a name I think). Why was that little dog being trained as an attack dog? Why would father send the dog away to be trained? He seems the type of person who'd want to do that himself, right? Was the lost brother the dog?

reply

[–] TheSummer2012 14 years ago

Agree with Spring-Heel-Jack. The "giving birth" scenario was only a threat - you may get away with beating a security guard-cum prostitute (although I don't think she would have gone to the police) but kidnapping children is quite another matter.

I think the dog was both a metaphor for how the father trained his children exactly how he wanted them to be and also a practical necessity - making sure the children don't even consider running off.

As for the brother who was away - this was either just another threat scenario - look he is outside in the wild, in danger (and ultimately ripped to pieces by a cat) or he ran off previously. Maybe that was the reason he decided to get the dog in the first place (and it had just taken time to train it).

reply

[–] SpringJack0 14 years ago

I agree with you.
Except for the dog. They introduced the dog very deliberately, showing Dobermans and attack dogs only to reveal Max as this dim little lap dog who didn't even respond to his name!
An odd sequence, at least.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] atretrioeciii 13 years ago

The dog wasn't dim.

He knew what was going on and didn't want to go back.

reply

[–] columbusbuck 14 years ago

Are you kidding me? The rich buy stolen children all the time.

School's for people who are boring and ugly and serious. And you, button, are none of those things.

reply

[–] Sy7 14 years ago

But why would they want to keep the children strictly at home?

As far as I'm concerned, you can drop off the Earth.

reply

[–] columbusbuck 14 years ago

Because they don't want to get caught with children that aren't theirs or maybe because they are just eccentric/ borderline psychotic. There are a host of reasons why they would be keeping them away from society.

People do this too all the time. For example, the daughter who was locked away (and forced to give birth to her father's children) her entire life in Austria- Elisabeth Fritzl.

School's for people who are boring and ugly and serious. And you, button, are none of those.

reply

[–] Sy7 14 years ago

Again good job with making a theory that makes logical sense but I think you are twisting what the film presents. One thing most people ignore is that the film is Greek (I think very Greek - this doesn't mean non-Greeks like us can't like/love it) and by making the film the director was probably trying to express his take on some of their traditions. Not that what we see in the film is a routine thing that you can see everywhere in the country, it has been extremized to make his point clear.

I might be able to make a theory arguing that the couples in In the Mood for Love are extraterrestrial lizards posing as humans but then I'd have it interpreted the wrong way, right?

As far as I'm concerned, you can drop off the Earth.

reply

[–] columbusbuck 14 years ago

Are you saying my theory is akin to your hypothetical one? That's a little insulting.

School's for people who are boring and ugly and serious. And you, button, are none of those.

reply

[–] Sy7 14 years ago

No. Not completely unlike what Lanthimos did, I was exaggerating to make my point clear.

As far as I'm concerned, you can drop off the Earth.

reply

[–] columbusbuck 14 years ago

How do you know he was exaggerating?

School's for people who are boring and ugly and serious. And you, button, are none of those.

reply

[–] Sy7 14 years ago

I didn't say that he was exaggerating. ("not completely unlike") He picked an extreme case.

As far as I'm concerned, you can drop off the Earth.

reply

[–] columbusbuck 14 years ago

So, because he highlighted an extreme case, you compared my theory to an extreme example? Why?

School's for people who are boring and ugly and serious. And you, button, are none of those.

reply

[–] Sy7 14 years ago

The purpose of what he did was making his point clear. The purpose of what I did was making my point clear. I see a common point here.

As far as I'm concerned, you can drop off the Earth.

reply

[–] columbusbuck 14 years ago

<sigh>

School's for people who are boring and ugly and serious. And you, button, are none of those.

reply

[–] Sy7 14 years ago

Are we at the end of cul-de-sac?

As far as I'm concerned, you can drop off the Earth.

reply

[–] columbusbuck 14 years ago

Lol. I think so. :)

School's for people who are boring and ugly and serious. And you, button, are none of those.

reply

[–] TheSummer2012 14 years ago

@columbusbuck: The rich buy stolen children all the time?

Where do you live? Somalia? Sudan?
Or are you generalising what Madonna gets up to?

I am not saying it never happens but unsolved cases of missing infants (and they would need to be infants as otherwise they would already know too much about the real world) are extremely rare in the Western world (although when they do occur, they are widely reported).

Look, the couple depicted in the film may well have kidnapped the children or bought them for all we know. I personally think they are raising their own kids.

If this was meant to be a social commentary about the phenomenon of babies being kidnapped or bought by rich people (which, according to you, happens "all the time"), I think the film would have made it a lot clearer.

Mind you, we are seeing how perversely devoted they are to educate the children. As it has pointed out before on this board, the whole point of authority, rules, parenting taken to the extreme in this film would be somewhat blurred if these were not their own children.

reply

[–] columbusbuck 14 years ago

44,000 children are sold every year in India. In Australia, a study saw 300 sold in a six week period. In Austria, 108 were sold in 2005.
These are just some of the numbers we know of. I think it is overwhelmingly likely that children are sold in SE Europe too.

It's just as likely that Mother and Father bought 'their' children off the black market. See the scene where Mother cancels her "pregnancy" of twins- besides her being remarkably able to wish in and out of existence her own babies, one of the better theories is that the couple are buying their children.

School's for people who are boring and ugly and serious. And you, button, are none of those.

reply

[–] TheSummer2012 14 years ago

Happy to look into your argument if you can point to the sources for your figures for Australia and Austria.

Mind you, human trafficking is a huge problem (and does happen "all the time") but we are talking newborns being sold for cash "to the rich", as you say. I do not believe this is a common occurrence in Western Europe and I am not sure there is much evidence to support your claim.

Irrespective of the above, I maintain my view that if the children in Dogtooth had been kidnapped, it would sit uneasily with the notion of parenting and education portrayed in the film.

reply

[–] columbusbuck 14 years ago

Greece is not in Western Europe.
If you have a different theory that is fine. But that doesn't make it any more valid than mine.

As for a link, I can't find the one I referenced yesterday, but the following is also a source on the numbers:
http://www.childtrafficking.com/Docs/child_laundering_270407.pdf

School's for people who are boring and ugly and serious. And you, button, are none of those.

reply

[–] TheSummer2012 14 years ago

All right - I don't think we'll get anything further here - "the rich buy children all the time" is just not a very credible thing to say on the basis of the evidence out there (which isn't much). If this is your personal view, fair enough, but your statement implied this was a well-known and widely-documented fact. Which, in the Western world, it just isn't.

The link you provide is certainly very interesting. However, it describes intercountry adoption, i.e. the phenomenon that couples from the developed world adopt children from vulnerable families in poorer countries (such as Cambodia, India etc.), where the children have been bought or abducted.

The children depicted in the film are White Caucasians which limits the number of such poorer countries from which they could have been bought considerably. Secondly, an adoption agency in the Western world (and I think it is fair to include Greece in that definition) would go and check up on the couple before allowing them to adopt children, which would mean they would need to hid the three kids whenever someone from the agency came over.

I just don't think it makes any sense at all but I understand you disagree and let's just leave it at that.

reply

[–] columbusbuck 14 years ago

Just because it is not widely known, does not make it a false fact. There are entire organizations built around rescuing children who are being laundered. And it's not just limited to people of color -

School's for people who are boring and ugly and serious. And you, button, are none of those.

reply

[–] Levane 14 years ago

one thing that might support this theory is conversation with his co worker. this guy seems to know his wife and asks about her health, but he never asks anything about his children. how come she gave birth to 3 children and noone ever heard of it? did they plan to isolate them even before his wife got pregnant? if so, then it looks like they were not protecting kids from dangers of this world, parents kept them isolated for their amusement, because you can't be protective, love or care for someone that doesn't even exist.
also when wife says "i'm pregnant" husband knows right away it is a lie. he has no reaction at all. maybe because he knows that she can't get pregnant?

float with spirits in mountain caves,swim the meadows in twilight waves

reply

[–] geordiebianconeri 14 years ago

Interesting theory. Could certainly explain the parents' promotion of the incest between them, in that it might not actually have been incest.
The two girls looked similar enough to each other to have been sisters/twins though - and quite similar to the mother as well.

"Wait till they get a load of me!"

reply

[–] columbusbuck 14 years ago

I think the sisters are sisters- just not Father or Mother's children.

School's for people who are boring and ugly and serious. And you, button, are none of those things.

reply

[–] Sy7 14 years ago

It makes logical sense but I don't like it. What resonated/fascinated me the most - and I guess many other viewers - was the commentary on the control forced upon the children and (judging from what I hear) the strict family values in Greece. A film about "controlling the kidnapped" is somehow useless, isn't it?

As far as I'm concerned, you can drop off the Earth.

reply

[–] columbusbuck 14 years ago

I think, like Salo, it's a film about the power the wealthy and influential can yield in society.

School's for people who are boring and ugly and serious. And you, button, are none of those.

reply

[–] uruseiranma 14 years ago

The OP does have a very interesting theory.

I hadn't really considered the though that the brother over the fence they referenced was a former relative who had 'left.'

As for 'Bruce' disappearing, I was waiting for Father to suggest that she had been eaten by a cat.

"Thanks, guys." "So long, partner."

- Toy Story 3 (9/10)

reply

[–] leeuwroar 11 years ago

I dont agree that strict family values are a general trait of Greek families. I have a lot of friends there, and I see many instances of doting on the children, which then plays out as giving them their way, giving in to them; also of very warm, good parent-child relationships. I didnt recognize any Greekness in this movie, actually. I regard it as a thinking experiment: what would happen if two adults/parents anywhere were to 'educate' their children in such a way that they will never know how to be a member of wider society, how to hold their own in the outside world.

reply

[–] columbusbuck 14 years ago

There is nothing mundane about what these people were doing to those children- kidnapping and bizarre parenting is anything but.
I think it's a commanding indictment of the power the wealthy and influential wield on not only others, but their 'family' as well.

School's for people who are boring and ugly and serious. And you, button, are none of those.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] columbusbuck 14 years ago

Excuse Me. I meant to say there is nothing MUNDANE about ...
Both the parenting can be bizarre and the children kidnapping victims. One is not mutually exclusive of the other.
The children accept father and mother as parents because that's probably all they've ever known.

Jesus Christ. You are like a Tea Party member - no one is entitled to an opinion unless it's also your opinion.
Get over it Jerk and move on.

School's for people who are boring and ugly and serious. And you, button, are none of those.

reply

[–] annisarsha-597-66500 14 years ago

wow, people try to read way too much into films like this I guess as a way of rationalizatio in their own mind. This isn't a structured American type film so quit trying to fit it into that mold. There's no sub plot for you to look for. It's meant to be ambigious while at the same type maintaining a fairly obvious plot. Parents trying to protect their children from the big bad wolf of the outside world. That's all it was about.

reply

[–] columbusbuck 14 years ago

Says you. My view of the world is different. That's what makes me unique.

School's for people who are boring and ugly and serious. And you, button, are none of those.

reply

[–] annisarsha-597-66500 14 years ago

Look, I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest over this. But actually, if your view of the movie is anything like your "view of the world" then I'd have to say you're NOT very unique. You do what everybody else does--tries to find multiple meanings or deeper plots when there simply isn't any. This is a film you have to take at face value, no kidnapping or secondary plot. It is what it is. People with a skewed view of reality that, albeit unconventionally, love their children and want to protect them. It's how they attempt to achieve that aim that drives the film, not some unrelated kidnapping plot that doesn't exist. And I don't see how your looking for ulterior meanings makes you unique nor do I see how that has anything whatsoever to do with discussion of this film. Says me.

reply

[–] columbusbuck 14 years ago

"We speak not strictly and philosophically when we talk of the combat of passion and of reason. Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." - David Hume

School's for people who are boring and ugly and serious. And you, button, are none of those.

reply

[–] StaunchWoman 13 years ago

This isn't a structured American type film so quit trying to fit it into that mold. There's no sub plot for you to look for.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I can see that YOU didn't see anything more in this film, but could you please explain the above-quoted sentence please?

What I get from your post is that you find American cinema much more complex and layered... But that couldn't possibly be...

We've met before, haven't we?

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]