Greatest RI Movie Ever: The Rules.

[Burnt Hill]

I hate rules so much that the first thing I did was check out the trailers. (well, the first thing I really did was to try and find a movie called 'The Rules'..nevermind...). Anyways, I know this is all a bit of fun, but I gotta say-it really is rubbing me wrong. Dont know, I've always felt outside the circle even when it was around me...

[brekin]

.

I say we lift the embargo....I'm sure whenever Jeff contributes it will be a welcome addition to
the discussion and I'm sure this film thread will be topical for sometime.

I'm standing by with my thoughts.

[undead]

Do you know what my father would say if he knew you asked me to lick your keyboard!?!

[beeline]

.

Added to my Netflix queue, may be a week or so before I watch though, so, carry on.

[Bruce Dazzling]

Soon your mother will give birth to two children and a dog.

[undead]

Soon your mother will give birth to two children and a dog.

And you will have to share your room with them. But maybe if you are good, she will only give birth to a dog.

[Bruce Dazzling]

You know, I was just talking to Miss Dazzling about my plans to make a hip, quirky, celluloid version of Plato's cave when Riddler started this thread.

Curses ... foiled again.

[brekin]

I'm going to be away from the computer for a little bit so I'm
going to put my thoughts down here in stealth mode for those
who feel they are ready, so to speak, to get in the Spoiler:trunk of the car now:

Spoiler:I put Dogtooth in the category of the “Great Disturbing film.”
And I think it is a great allegory how every political system has roots
in different types of family structures. I think it was really daring that the
father wasn’t portrayed as some type of Hanibal Lector but just your
mid-level management extreme perfectionist/protectionist father who no doubt thinks he is doing what is
right for his wife and family. I think that is what is really powerful about the film. The
mother and father think they are doing what is right for their children as pretty much
most dictator and totalitarian regimes probably believe as well.

Also unspoken but alluded to is how ready are the "children" to go out in the world after being sheltered/
imprisoned for so long.

So I noticed around 33 strategies that happened in the family that reminded me of totalitarian state
strategies to maintain control. Please feel free to add or critique any.

1. Constant competitions, tests and evaluations on trivialities for basic needs and wants.
2. Isolation from all outside influences, media, people, books, radio, t.v.
3. Fostering constant rivalry for attention and status.
4. Fostering constant spying and tattling.
5. Control of language including the power to (re)define words.
6. Control of sexual relations and partners through ignorance.
7. Creating impassible borders based on fear and exaggerating minor threats.
8. Demonizing harmless people, places and things.
9. Creating a routine of boredom and reward.
10. Idolizing those who are complicit in your confinement and ignorance. The captor as helper.
11. Limiting options and exaggerating the importance of the few allowed.
12. Fostering great concern and anticipation over trivial matters: dinner, entertainment
13. Orchestrating sporadic events of excitement and novelty, (falling airplanes, fish in the swimming pool, etc)
14. Authority figures appear to have complete mastery of the immediate realm and outside realm.
15. A over preoccupation with games and fitness that are joyless.
16. A over preoccupation and constant reporting of trivial matters; hours slept, hygeine, etc
17. Subject to continuous casual interrogation on all matters
18. Orchestrating sporadic events of horror and fear in which authority figures rescue and protect from etc)
19. Continuous training and preparation for events of horror
19. Continuous drill and inspection on mundane tasks
20. Authority figures only source and authors of history
21. Known history stresses dependence on, generosity of, and the need of authority figures
22. All media & entertainment reinforces known history
23. Examples of nonconformists are negative
24. No roles other than those provided by authority figures
25. Limited means and modes of expression
26. Authority figures determine what forms of expression and content are appropriate.
27. Total dependence on authority figures for all basic needs: food, shelter, clothing, medical, transportation, etc
28. All outside visitors are vetted by and in collusion with authority figures
29. Authority figures punish severely, often and with no recourse available.
30. Fictional hardships and disasters are continuously alluded to and continuously barely avoided.
31. No spiritual or religious expression not associated with authority figures
32. Authority figures sole providers and authors of education
33. Everything must be earned, and then dispensed by authority figures

[bks]

super-interesting stuff, brekin. Will post some of my own thoughts later in the thread.

MrRiddler, who is at labor and therefore indisposed today, informed me this morning that a quorum has been reached, so please feel free if you didn't before!

[JackRiddler]

Must go to bed and back to work tomorrow, so no treatises but questions:

Spoiler:1) At the end Bruce is dead, or if alive will be found by the father, or will get out of the trunk. I don't believe there is a correct answer. What happens in each case? Which do you believe?

2) Was there ever an older brother? Is he an invented part of the mythology, or did he really get away? Here I lean strongly to invented. The parents imagined the worst-case scenario from their own perspective.

.

[hava1]

This movie kind of sits together, for me, with Valhalla Rising, namely, the response of older tribes to the invasion of new tribes/ideas. The joke seems to be on us. (the conquered).

Its a bit of a biological=darwinist satire, this movie. and I thought frank sinatra was MY grandfather. shit.

[eyeno]

Cool movie. I see it as a good interpretation of the mirror. The 'we', the 'them'.

[8bitagent]

I think Brekin summed it up a lot better than I could, in regards to the film having so much analog to methods of control we discuss here.

I just wanted to say, that bathroom scene at the end was one of the few times I've flinched/had to look away at a movie in some time.

[eyeno]

I wonder if those on 'that' side have as hard a time breaking through to see 'this' side as we did learning to see 'that' side?

[brekin]

Jack Riddler wrote:

Must go to bed and back to work tomorrow, so no treatises but questions:

Spoiler:Spoiler:1) At the end Bruce is dead, or if alive will be found by the father, or will get out of the trunk. I don't believe there is a correct answer. What happens in each case? Which do you believe?

2) Was there ever an older brother? Is he an invented part of the mythology, or did he really get away? Here I lean strongly to invented. The parents imagined the worst-case scenario from their own perspective.

Spoiler:I wondered the same. I would like to think Bruce makes it out of the trunk, but even if she did and was able to
get away from the father, I think what she would face in the real world. The "children" are so ill prepared.. I've met some people who seem like them and live in transitional housing or adult foster homes and that structure, while not as draconian and isolated, is similar to the over controlled reward structure Bruce is trying to flee. And then there is nothing to say that she wouldn't end up with someone manipulative and exploitative.

2)This to me is one of the most intriguing unanswered questions. I was thinking that the older brother ran away and that made the mother and father even more extreme. I saw the older brother as a Trotsky figure, whether he existed or not.

8bitagent wrote:

I just wanted to say, that bathroom scene at the end was one of the few times I've flinched/had to look away at a movie in some time.

I agree. That was rough going. Spoiler:Really captured the wolf gnawing off own foot to escape trap I thought.

eyeno wrote:

I wonder if those on 'that' side have as hard a time breaking through to see 'this' side as we did learning to see 'that' side?

What struck me, and I only thought of this last night going to bed, is that I think possibly there really is no two sides to this film. Spoiler:Perhaps we may be even more deluded then the "children" in the film in regards to our own isolation, delusions and confinement. The theme of the film for me is that "what is known is normal". Everyone grows up for a period assuming that their family is perfectly normal and the standard. Talking to people in their early 20's I can see how growing up post 9/11 has become normal for them. I grew up post JFK, MLK, RFK assassination, and hundreds of other things I've never questioned. I'm sure someone who grew up pre WWI, etc

Watching the film one would think that people outside the family are normal and the family is extreme. (Which they obviously are.) But the only three other characters, Christina, profits from the relationship and takes advantage of the childrens ignorance and imprisonment for selfish purposes. Is Christina more normal because her parents live three floors below her when she still profits from the exploitation? While the coworker for the brief time shown seems to be simply lost in improving his own house materially. The dog trainer frankly encapsulated the fathers philosophy and one wonders if the dog trainer applies the same philosophy to his dealing with humans. It seemed implied in how he dealt with the father. Others aren't willing to see what goes on while some profit from the situation and others may subscribe to the same agenda.

Whether one believes an authority figure that planes fall from the sky into your backyard as prizes or into buildings as terrorism is really a matter of degree. And frankly I go back and forth which is the more naive.