BSA 204 W5 : Isle of Dogs (2018) Review

We got free access to a screening of Isle of Dogs this week so we went to see it:



1. Provide a 2-3 sentence overview of the plot. (No spoilers!)

A cat-loving mayor sends all the dogs in the city to trash island under the guise of a dog flue, a young boy sets out on a suicide mission to retrieve his best friend, it just so happens he's the mayor's son. The story follows a group of dogs who find the boy when he crashes on the island and their journey to find his lost dog - "Spot".

2. What was your overall emotional response to the film? Why? 

I really enjoyed this movie, although I have to say that it was quite straining to watch. I find this quite often with Wes Anderson's films, just because there is so much intricacy in each shot and so much to take in during every second of the run time. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does make his films a bit harder to watch the first time around. In the past I have found that re-watching his films is often more rewarding than what they seem to be upon first viewing. This happened with his last film, The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014), and I imagine it applies to Isle of Dogs too. 

I've been hyped for this movie for a very long time and found myself disappointing when it didn't play at Reading earlier in the year. When first announced I already wanted to see it because of how much I enjoyed Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009), his previous Stop-Motion outing. The amazing thing about Fox to me was how surprising it was upon first seeing it way back when. It stands apart from other animated movies and especially other Dahl adaptations in its more mature approach. It was an Anderson film first and foremost and I think one of his best. Hearing he'd be making an original story this time around was very exciting.

I actually knew very little about the story going in, but I thought it very creative and fantastical as an animation should be. However because of this hype and love for Fox, I knew I'd find myself somewhat disappointed and while that wasn't exactly the case I wasn't singing the movie's praises as the credits rolled either.

 I thought it was good, but maybe not fantastic. Although I will be watching it again sometime, the artistry here was truly amazing and if there's one thing the movie surpassed Fox in, it was the technical creativity.

The story I think is an area where this film doesn't reach the same heights as some of Anderson's other movies, and this is a screenwriting paper. Don't get me wrong it's an original and creative story, but there were some faults that I felt showed regarding the characters:

3. What did you think of the lead character and why? Was there a particular incident in the film or thing that they did that made you feel this way? + 4. Who was your favourite character (if not the lead) and why? Was there a particular incident in the film or thing that they did that made you feel this way? 

I was discussing the movie with my brother and mentioned that one dog disappeared for a chunk of the film and when he was suddenly leading a scene again it felt kind of weird. That's when I realized he was the protagonist.

The problem with this protagonist is not that he's not interesting or compelling, I think he's the most developed and engaging character in the film, and the only one with an arc, but he sometimes got lost among everything going on. There are a lot of characters here and that is one of my problems with the film, because when I thought back to it I realized I didn't have a 'favourite' character, and if I did he would have to be the protagonist. The film has a lot of personality but it's characters don't really share that. Usually with a film like this there would be some memorable side characters, and design-wise they certainly were, but if I was just reading the script I think I'd soon get confused.

There was one telling moment in the film where it looks like four of the main group of dogs might die, the first thing I thought here was "no he wouldn't do that", and then I thought about whether I would care and the answer surprised me. When I gauged my own feelings on these characters I realized that them all dying wouldn't have affected me, or I think the film, at all. He could have easily killed them and I would have not protested, for characters who at this point we'd spent a third of the film with I think it's a bad sign. 

I did care for the main character though, but I think this was negatively impacted when he disappeared into the background for a bit. From this point until the end of the film I found myself not caring much about him or the other characters in general. A big problem going into the climax of the film.

5. Were there any moments that engaged you the most, and why? 

The most engaging moment for me was at the peak of the protagonists' arc, this is also where all the characters are cornered. I found myself getting excited to see the fallout and see how they would escape. Anderson inserts a flashback here, which could serve to stretch the tension a bit, but I felt it served as a bit of an interruption and when the scene did conclude it felt somewhat anti-climactic.

Cornering the characters = good, especially when its at the moment they've made the most personal growth. Interrupting that with a flashback and then switching that focus onto a relatively new character - maybe not so good.

Other than this I found the most engaging moments to be those where Anderson has fun with his style, the fight scene at the beginning of the film for example. This isn't really relevant to story though, but it does show that scenes can be entertaining purely from a stylistic standpoint. Well the style and comedic quirk.

6. Were there any moments in which you started to lose interest or disengaged from the film? Why do you think this was the case? 

Once the focus leaves the protagonist and once he no longer has room to grow but there is still a big chunk of story left, that's when I started losing interest. 

The time skips or flashbacks also bothered me a bit, I think it's a constant in film and TV that jumping forward or backward in time often kills the momentum. This happens quite a bit in this movie and every time it felt like a bit like the film was getting sidetracked.

7. What were the overall strengths and weaknesses of the film?

Stylistically and technically amazing (every shot here is beautiful and it's awesome to see Anderson work in a medium where he can literally craft any image that pops into his head)

Feels a bit long (even though it's not) and as I've said the story + character is a bit shaky.

_________________________________________________________________________________

One thing I thought way too early in the film was that I would have had the boy go looking for the dog pretty much immediately and have the dog go looking for the boy simultaneously, as we follow both their stories. I think that tension of having them meet up and retreading ground that the other already has, and each entering further into the belly of the beast, are all story hooks that are quite universal and immediately arresting. The goals are also very clear, there was a bit of faffing at the start of the film where the goal wasn't immediately established and where they fake the death of the dog, all feeling a bit directionless. Once the journey starts its better, but why not kick off with that? I don't know, it's unfair to judge the film by comparing it to the stories in my own head though.

Overall I really enjoyed Isle of Dogs and its always great to see a true auteur at work, its rare to see so much of one person on the screen. 

<<END>>

_________________________________________________________________________________