From the perspective of composition and soundtrack, this is a very Wes Anderson movie, but from the perspective of plot, it is an atypical Anderson movie. The director is different from his previous focus on family love. For the first time, he has added a large number of political metaphors to the movie. The number of them and their obvious intentions are so obvious that they can even be called similes. It is not a problem to have political metaphors, but when all this is combined with Wes Anderson's warm fairy tales, it brings a weird sense of dislocation.
1. Through the prologue story, we know that the dog was not a subsidiary of humans but an independent animal. Later, it was defeated in the battle with humans and was domesticated by humans because of compromise. This point can be said to be the most uncomfortable point in the entire film setting, because if you don’t have this setting, it’s fine, but once you accept this setting, when you see the finale of the family carnival, you will still There was a slight discomfort in my heart. In the ending, not only the dogs never recovered their previous independence and freedom. Even the only maverick and archaic dog in the play, Chief, gave up his principles and turned to the embrace of humans. . The so-called good ending is simply to restore the status of the dog to the level when it was forced to be domesticated after defeating the human. At the time of the film's story, almost all dogs have an obedient attitude towards humans. The attitude of dogs such as Rex can be regarded as a microcosm of most dogs' attitudes towards humans. The reaction is to obey the order, and even persuade others who are unwilling to obey the order to obey the order. After taming the four dogs, when the four dogs sat together and listened to the military music, they did not make people feel the warmth in the tent. On the contrary, the boy's expressionless face made people feel the slightest coolness. And Chief, the only dog who insisted on his principles, also picked up the stick under the influence of soap and dog food, even though at this time he still insisted that his behavior came from pity instead of obedience. In the later part of the story, Chief agreed to be a guard dog almost without thinking, and even burst into tears for him. As for the so-called guard dog oath, it resembles a copy of the Bushido spirit. So far, it is the only one in the play. Dogs that persisted in the independence of their ancestors have also become vassals of humans. Even dogs like Spot, who have given up their status as guard dogs, are still loyal to humans. They stepped forward at critical moments. Although they were seriously injured, they also won fame and the rest of their lives without worrying about food and clothing. Is it a samurai who won a commendation for a samurai who loyally protects the Lord?
2. In the whole play, the dog, as the object of oppression, has never been able to save himself but has always been waiting for kind people to save. Even in ancient times, as the ancestor of a dog equal to mankind, it was obtained by the pity of mankind. So as to avoid the danger of extermination. This is very similar to the common people in the feudal era. They never placed their hopes on themselves, but placed their hopes on the salvation of Mingjun, Master Qingtian, and placed their hopes on the mercy of the ruling class. At the end of the story, when most people in the city have eliminated the dogs uniformly under the instigation of the mayor, these dogs still unconditionally return to the arms of their owners who have tried to destroy themselves and never tried to save themselves, as if they were before. Nothing happened. The so-called "the ruler is not the ruler, the minister must not be the minister" is probably the case. As for the inner thoughts of these dogs about what their owners had done before, whether they didn't care or didn't dare to say it was because they only knew it.
3. The whole play is always full of feudalism, and the democratic bridges appearing in the play are more like an irony. The election of the mayor seems to be decided by a democratic vote, but when the mayor has an accident, instead of re-election but a hereditary system, this can not help shocking people, and it also makes the previous democratic voting a joke. . Of course, if we consider that the story took place in Japan, we can still understand this point. This also makes the replacement of the mayor more like the replacement of a feudal dynasty. As the representative of democratic thought in the play, the exchange student apparently accepted this replacement in the play. Not only that, he is also paired with the male protagonist who is already at the peak of power. It makes people feel democratic in the play. The weakness of existence is to be attributed to or even assimilated by the power of feudalism. And this alternation of power obviously exists only among the upper class. This alternation has nothing to do with class. People are always people and dogs are always dogs. It's just that those in power have changed from a fond of cats to a fond of dogs. When the newly formed cabinet of the juvenile proposed to divide the death penalty for human beings who have harmed dogs, people couldn't help but sneer. . The so-called change is nothing more than this. From extremely hating dogs to extremely loving dogs, it seems that it cannot be called a change, just like a baseball team that eats ramen at ramen shops from beginning to end, everything has changed, and everything has never changed.
View more about Isle of Dogs reviews
