The Wild Dogs

While I give credit to the filmmaker for completing such a film in what must have been difficult circumstances (political, not emotional), I would expect a film like this from adventurous student filmmakers. This is by no means a great film, both technically and dramatically.

While it is always good shock value to show desperate conditions, there must also be good story, good acting and good craft to make a good film (for example, Schindler's List). This film has none of those. The NTSC DVD that I watched was of the poorest production values, with behind the scenes footage that is embarrassing.

What I find more interesting than the film is the dynamics of the comments found here on IMDb. From overwhelming praise to outright denial of the circumstances portrayed in the film. If the film got one thing right, it is portraying the atmosphere of the streets of Bucharest. The thousands (Yes, there are thousands of them) of stray dogs and the Gypsies do exist. However, it is a fact of life in Romania and not considered to be a major problem by locals who grew up and lived in these conditions all their lives. Nor is it anymore difficult to deal with as a tourist than the pick pockets I found in Rome, or the homeless I find in Los Angeles. Whenever I read a comment that is overwhelmingly good or bad, I discredit the whole comment as biased. I hope others do the same as well.

This film's title refers to the dogs that were left homeless in Bucharest, Romania when dictator Ceausescu decided to level the city and rebuild it in his vision. After years of unchecked breeding, these stray dogs number in the thousands. Director Thom Fitzgerald (The Hanging Garden) uses scenes of the dogs snarling and fighting as a metaphor for human behaviour. It's a bit heavy handed perhaps, but given the setting and nature of the story it seems appropriate enough. Fitzgerald weaves several plot lines together - an ineffectual dog-catcher (Mihai Calota) fears he will lose his job; a decadent ambassador (David Hayman) takes advantage of his position of power, while his pampered wife (Alberta Watson) begins to understand the crushing poverty that exists all around her and a pornographer (Fitzgerald) comes to town to search for inexpensive models to photograph. It's a complex narrative, and Fitzgerald almost manages to bring it all together. There is a feeling that shards of the story are left dangling and the themes of redemption that are sprinkled throughout seem a bit too tidy, but by an large it works. My main complaint is the casting of Fitzgerald in the lead role of the pornographer. He simply isn't a strong enough actor to convey the emotional arc that his character goes through. For the movie to work we must believe that this is a man who could make his living taking naked pictures of underage girls, and could then realize the evil of his ways and change into a decent guy. Fitzgerald simply never convinced me that there was a transformation happening internally - his performance is all surface. I found myself wondering what a more accomplished actor might do with this role. Don McKellar or Tom McCamus could have pulled this off, but I would have liked to seen Callum Keith Rennie take on the part. He has the toughness to make us believe he could be involved in something unsavoury and the acting chops show us the character's salvation. The Wild Dogs is still a powerful piece of work, just not as affecting as it could be.

Don't be fooled, Bucharest is far from what is being portrayed in this movie. There are less beggars than here, in Montreal, there are some stray dogs, but not 1000's of them. Picking the most dramatic beggars and with continuous exaggeration, the movie convinces the audience that Bucharest is a city full of poor mutilated beggars and 1000's of stray dogs. How far from truth, but director and actor Thom Fitzgerald can only rely on this sensation to create any positive interest in his movie. Putting down Bucharest also looks like a hidden denial, here at home in Canada, where one wonders how this country is now so behind even when compared to an ex-communist Eastern block country such as Romania. Bucharest is far more civilized than any Canadian city. (look up civilized in the dictionary) One should wonder what is a Canadian child-pornographer doing in Romania? Hmmmm....

In making "The Wild Dogs", Thom Fitzgerald made no pretense in his sentiment towards a number of his associates. This is very evident in the portrayal of Victor (the diplomat) and Colin (Geordi's boss). As much as people would like to say or think otherwise, Fitzgerald's intentions of making "Dogs" were purely reactionary. He wanted the whole world (okay, the viewers) to see how frustrated he was, that people at the right places -- the Victors and Colins in real life -- weren't stroking his ego the right way. So, here is something a hair short of slander.

Fitzgerald wants to send a powerful message, but he confused power with shock. Shocking, this film is, but powerful it is not. He wants to show how we, the supposedly civilized people, behave no better than a pack of wild dogs. After he switched back and forth from people to dogs, I couldn't help myself but wonder, "Thommy boy, I get your point, but, you know, so what? Do you think you're going to make your point stronger by rubbing it into my face harder?"

Besides, on the parallel between the dogs and the humans is the weakest link of the whole film (hence the need to rub it in the audience even harder). It almost seemed that the subplot of Bogdan and the strait dogs was some kind of afterthought, hastily put together to make the film "feature length" (for one I am not convinced by Bogdan). Most of the characters are so one-dimensional, that they are better made out of cardboard.

The only redeeming factors are (1) the relationship between Brenda (Victor's wife) and Dorutu (the human torso), (2) Radu (the midget) -- man Radu rules, and (3) the final meeting between Victor and Geordi in an undisclosed location. If Geordi were truly a representation of the real Thom Fitzgerald, I somehow lost any sympathy towards him. "Dogs" was reduced to an excuse for Fitzgerald to vent his anger. Too bad, he didn't keep his ego on a short leash. We, the viewers, had to take his bite.

last summer, i saw this film with the abovementioned wife in montreal. since we live in southern california, and we had never heard of such a film, we went. i highly recommend this feature. it is not the best looking film, the characters are not as drawn out as they could be, and some of the images are very hard to watch, but it seems like it's an honest film. the ending is a little cliche, but up until that point, i was very interested in the happenings. very few movies have stayed with me, but this one still has pieces of it floating around. plus, the wife cried for hours afterwards. it makes you think about humanity, the way we treat other people, and the ability of charity to change people's lives. if you watch this movie and aren't affected in some way, you should probably wonder why.