When I was in my twelfth grade English class I was fixated on symbolism, loss of innocence metaphors and literature that you could tuck in a neat package. At that time, Hamlet was a play Shakespeare wrote to highlight a cancer metaphor with its “unweeded gardens” and “things rank and gross in nature.” If I had set out at age 17 to write a movie, it probably would have looked something like Giorgos Lanthimos and Efthymis Filippou’s screenplay for Dogtooth.
This film has no business existing. Lanthimos, who also directed the film, has two prior directing credits, neither released outside of Greece, according to IMDb. It seems the intent was to explore human nature, psychology and sexuality through a family which lives entirely isolated within a walled environment. The only one who leaves the yard is the father, who leaves daily for his job in a factory. He keeps his three children (all seemingly well into adulthood, but I believe intended to be in their late teens and early twenties) prisoner. He does not accomplish this through use of force, threats, locks or chains, but rather through psychology. These three individuals, consisting of a Son and an Older and Younger Daughter (none of the children have names – one of several pointless exercises), have never been in contact with anyone from outside their small world. Their parents have spun an elaborate story that keeps them fearful and believing that you can only leave once your canine tooth has fallen out. And even then it’s only safe to be in a car.
This odd living situation has fostered an environment in which mother and father have absolute control over their children including their education. They have some strange vocabulary sets: a salt shaker is known as a telephone; keyboard is their word for vagina. To what end they decided to instill this measure is unknown. I can tell you that it’s in the screenplay to demonstrate the kind of power one can have over a human’s development if there is not a single exterior influence on that mind. Sorry, but that’s not a good enough reason.
Why would two parents choose to raise their children under such conditions? The clue comes late in the film when the father beats and berates a woman who has brought terrible knowledge to the family: he wishes children upon her who are exposed to danger and keep her worried. Apparently this is the parents’ motivation – to keep their children safe. I can believe one parent being so insane as to pull this off, but both mother and father? It’s a bit hard to swallow. And the film provides no indication that the mother is subservient to her husband, that he beats her or threatens her. They are both willing participants in this sick experiment.
The woman who brings knowledge to the family is Christina. She is paid to come to the house (blindfolded and driven by the father) regularly to have sex with the son. Christina is not satisfied with just him and so goes to the older daughter for additional pleasure. Here we have the big Loss of Innocence Metaphor. This one’s as old as The Bible itself. We all know Adam and Eve lived in bliss before they discovered their sexuality at which point God banished them. Just to emphasize the point (in case you didn’t get it) guess what color the children are always wearing. If you said white then you can pass a high school literature class.
After the father discovers that Christina has left pornographic videos for the older daughter she is not permitted to return. However, they need a replacement and can’t risk another outsider. So the job falls to one of the two daughters. It’s never clear why the parents find it necessary that the son should achieve periodic sexual release but their daughters not. Herein lies the most absurd conceit of the film: the idea that three people would have reached adulthood or near without having discovered their own sexuality and masturbation. They are all one hundred percent innocent in that regard and don’t even have any sense of shame or embarrassment at nudity or sex. It seems to me that shame and embarrassment, when it comes to men and women naked together is from the anatomical differences. It can’t only be a social phenomenon. The entire family is fully clothed throughout the day. Nudity is reserved for private bedroom antics. Surely there would be some sense of at least curiosity in the naked bodies of members of the opposite sex. The sex depicted is cold and emotionless, even that between the parents who don headphones with music playing during the act.
Lanthimos draws a great deal of inspiration from Michael Haneke with a smattering of David Lynch, as when the son deftly plays a guitar melody while the daughters perform a bizarre and childish dance routine. Haneke’s films also delve deep into human nature, but the stories make sense and are coupled with a superb visual style. Lanthimos thinks you make an art film by having long static shots that aren’t framed well.
Another big problem I have with the human side of this story is the belief that none of the children would have ever become slightly suspicious of the lies told by the parents. That in twenty years or more they never had the curiosity to test what would happen if they went outside the walls. One of the lies involves another one of their children who lives outside the walls and can’t return. The most absurd is the threat of a punishment for their bad behavior: the mother is pregnant with twins and a dog. The twins will have to share a room with one of the existing children unless they are good in which case the twins won’t be born. The dog is coming regardless. Perhaps there was also some inspiration drawn from M. Night Shyamalan’s The Village which was also about a group of people who kept their children confined to a make-believe world by inventing lies. At least Shyamalan understood the curious nature of people.
The one aspect of psychology I think Lanthimos and Filippou get right is the behavior of the children. They are not socialized adults in any way. Although they appear grown up, they behave like children. They have petty arguments and fights with one another the same way young siblings would do.
The film ends on an ambiguous note. It may be frustrating to many viewers but ask yourself these two questions: How would you end the film? And after enduring such pretention does it really matter?
**A side note: This film won the top award in the 2009 Cannes Film Festival's Un Certain Regard section which is intended for younger directors exhibiting bold, daring and creative films. It's won several other film festival prizes and has gotten almost unanimous favorable reviews. Critics (and especially film festival juries) love to laud the films that most closely resemble their idea of an “art film”. I’m thankful I have the courage to say that the emperor is standing stark naked this time.
