A father that pushes the boundaries of parental responsibilities is met with as series of simple challenges, resulting in some unsettling consequences.
I first came across this film in a list recommended to film students by BFI. The concept of an unnatural upbringing immediately caught my attention, I instantly knew I had to see it. The argument of nature vs nurture is a complex debate that has shaped how we perceive the role of a parent; Dogtooth addresses the uncomfortable and unforgiving consequences of overprotective parenting. We see the unusual relationship between the family slowly unfold as the fathers greed for control is exposed, giving us a deeper understanding of how the children have been living and the uncivilised unfortunate circumstances that often occur from their sheer naivety.
One of the things that struck me aesthetically was the lack of camera movement until the very end of the film. The use of static shots seemed as if it was used to connote the nature of the family’s lifestyle and the way that the children had come to see the world. At no point in the film would you be able to accurately apply Todorov’s theory as there wasn’t any one moment that the narrative shifted into a disequilibrium. What made this film so authentic for me was the fluctuating nature of the narrative which created regular shifts into disequilibrium’s in a discreet way. By the end of the film there was a strong realisation for me that there had been no single event causing the downfall of the parents authority and plan but smaller triggers which were a result of the children’s’ fast developing personalities.
To me it felt like the parents were very much convinced that the way we behave is solely based of our knowledge of the world which they had significant control over. However, the small challenges such as the cat in the garden and Cristina’s strong influence on their sexual exploration led to the inevitable realisation from the eldest daughter, that her life was completely fabricated. The films underlying message seemed to communicate the dangers of concealing the realities of our modern-day society and why our exposure to influences other than our parents are crucial. Perhaps the psychological themes of the film were what drew me to it in the first place, however, the visual style is equally as impressive in creating a unique and often uncomfortable viewing experience for the audience. The mise en scene created the kind of isolated setting that you would expect from a psychological drama with a very dull colour palette at times and a disturbingly neat living environment. Without the knowledge of the family living inside the estate, you would think the setting to be rather pleasant and civilised. Furthermore, the performance of the eldest daughter particularly stood out for me. To play such a complex and alienated role takes a very skilled actor and Papoulia’s ability to bring such an unnatural role to life was phenomenal.
Finally, I found that the framing used in several scenes assisted the performance in communicating the imperfect and secretive lifestyle of the family and father in particularly. The first time we see Cristina visiting the son, we are unable to see his head as the character strips awkwardly. Without much context given before this scene in the film we are able to fathom the uncomfortable situation that the son has been put into and his lack of experience in this area. Therefore, the naivety and undeveloped nature of our central characters is communicated from the moment we are introduced to them.
Taking all of these points into consideration I could confidently say that this film is an uneasy yet intriguing watch, especially if you are a fan of dark psychological narratives. Another huge advantage is the length of the film being considerably shorter than most. Overall, I would give this film 3 stars as it definitely exceeded my expectations, creating a somewhat pleasurable viewing experience with a strong underlying message.
Comments