Skip to main content

"Isle of Dogs," reviewed



Our hero dogs come across probably more just as American. Near the beginning of the film, they take on another pack of dogs over a found cache of foodstuffs. This pack are all homogenous, i.e., "Asian," encouraging the sense of our pack, composed of differentiated, visually distinct dogs, as Yankee. And our pack, wins. I didn't find this particularly generous. And in that it's not hard to imagine Trump satisfied with the outcome of this fight, helpful. Keep both packs full of individuals. Allow the fight to be a toss-up. We don't need to learn more being pleased by associating with scruffy alphas who as off best form as they are, can still kick your ass.

The boy in a sense is kept as "othered" in that there is nothing in the personality of the actors voicing the dogs that could in any way be seen as eager to differ and obey, as believably "dogish" -- they're Americans; they're men -- and so when the boy commands our hero, the dog "Chief," to "fetch," it felt, when he acquiesced to it, like someone obliging another's primitivism for him nevertheless still representing the best of the lot of a culture still unable to recognize true signs of actualized personhood -- what they're innocently still struggling towards -- when they see it. I personally edited out the part of him actually enjoying doing so, and him enjoying the dog-biscuit he was granted afterwards -- his granting it as his new favourite meal -- for it seeming to be the film-maker having us oblige something as natural, as, "well, of course," so that we can be with him when we stipulate the film is about dogs rather than simply victims... about cultural betters, more-or-less adults, composited as dogs. I felt like I was being lured into a world of false consciousness.

The boy and the dogs are a wedge, though, into a Japan that in all of its union, may or may not be capable of withstanding the young Jane Fonda, planted amongst them. She begins to implode onto them; they take the impact, the reprimand, the humiliation, of seeing what the power of fury and undeterred personality can do to an acquiesced group of people; but when the dogs and the boy reach back into town, she's already admitted to herself a crush on the hero boy -- showed a sense of backing-off, a need to cover up, a sense of being compromised -- that gives the boy in this instance the edge, which he uses simply to institute his own rule over the island... the rest of the film. She too knows the second-player status the female dogs in the film have known, but only once the Americans and their adopted son are ready to make their appearance. Now she nips back, a bit shriven, maybe, in recognizing his divinity, granting our new sovereign, our lead, assured "respecto."


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...