Dogs in Space

It has been about 15 years since I saw the movie. The best part, as I can remember was when Michael Hutchence (the late lead singer of INXS) was lying with his girlfriend in their bedroom and he told her the story of the "Green Monster". They were both very high and it was totally pointless. As a teenager, watching Michael Hutchence in a film was a very moving experience for my girlfriend and I who idolized INXS. We each memorized the story about the "Green Monster" [which is on the soundtrack to the movie as well]. I also believe that the movie had a fairly good volkswagon crash. There were also some other destructive and disgusting, but entertaining events that were kind of quirky. Some Americans would enjoy viewing this film.

'Dogs in Space' pretty much seems to have disappeared over the years. My widescreen copy was taped off Channel 4 in the early 90's, and I'm pretty sure this was the last British terrestrial screening. Which is a real shame, because its a fantastic film. Written and directed by Richard Lowenstein, maker of the excellent 'Strikebound' and promos for INXS and U2, its an apparently semi-autobiographical piece about the various dwellers of, and visitors to, a rather decrepit squat in late 70's Melbourne.

For those who might be put off by Lowenstein's corporate rock pedigree, fear not. The film avoids modish stylisation in favour of a rather free-wheeling, Altmanesque approach to construction and character development. The viewer is left to decipher dialogue and make connections for themselves.

The piece is beautifully photographed and edited, and makes wonderful use of the 'steadicam' camera mount. Only at the very end does Lowenstein indulge himself in promo-style picture-making to sell the tie-in single 'Rooms for the memory'. And presumably give his otherwise pretty uncompromising vision some commercial lustre.

As with Altman's best work, the guiding hand is detached but compassionate. The characters are all fiercely idiosyncratic individuals, often infuriating and shallow. But they are never mocked. Instead we see that their silliness is often merely a result of an attempt to either forge uniqueness or merely belong, and as such it often attains a strange nobility.

At the films heart, though, lies a discernible disillusionment with, and subtle but pointed criticism of, the reality of the 'punk revolution'. Its most voluble proponents are shown to be either mouthpiece middle class drop-outs or confused, neglected teenagers. And its socio-political effect negligible.

Michael Hutchence's presence (again, presumably largely a commercial consideration) is rather subversively integrated into this schema. He is cast as a pretty but vain, self-obsessed and generally unlikeable singer Sam, whose outwardly anarchistic stance barely conceals a ruthless careerism. Sam is also witty illustration of the fact that punk inevitably existed off the graces of the bourgeois. He has his mother turn up at the squat with a freshly cooked meal and clean clothes while all the other residents are out. Again, though, the effect is wry rather than bile-drenched.

'Dogs' is well-acted by a cast of mostly never-heard-from-agains. The ubiquitous but brilliant Chris Haywood appears briefly to deliver a heartfelt eulogy to a chainsaw. It employs an excellent soundtrack, and special note should be made of the remarkable sound-mix.

It's an evocative, atmospheric snapshot of a sub-culture founded on both vainglorious naivete and admirable, rebellious individuality.

Deserves a deluxe, restored, fully stereophonic, all-bells-and-whistles DVD at the very least.

After donkeys years of buzz, I finally got a copied-copy of this film that I was told was the Aussie Sid & Nancy. Well, aside from the problems with the copy of the movie I have (several scenes skipped out - I had to go to YouTube to see them!!), I have to agree and disagree.

I can see how some people could make that comparison, as they both deal with the punk era and the fact that both movies end with a white limo scene. But in truth, I find Dogs In Space a more enjoyable trip down memory lane than S&N, and with a few nods to Breaking Glass thrown in for good measure.

The loose story is about trying to make it through the late 70's via the musical medium. The central characters are Anna and Sammy, not exactly icon or groupie, who live in a house with about 7000 other people, or so it seems some days. Some are studious, some are lost. Some desperately want to be musically inclined but can't seem to be much good at anything, and some hang around just to judge. Some want to score. Some want to fade away. Some want to change the world but can't even succeed in changing a light bulb. In short, your usual gang of punks. And just like in those party days, you're taken along room to room, conversation to conversation, sex to drug trip, ducking puke, furniture and arguments over nothing. These were the scenes that brought it all back for me - it's as if I were wandering through a party I'd gone to back in the day.

Anna is tolerant of her house mates and of her boyfriend, and seems to be the only one with a job. She is gracious and giving to a fault, and it is because of this that things go sadly wrong for her. Sammy is the lead singer of the band, content to be a kept boy by family and everyone else. He flops around with the cocksure swagger that only comes from oblivion, whether youth or chemically inspired. Or both. They have moments in which they create their own world together in the midst of all the chaos, and it's in those moments where we can see who they really could be. Those moments are quite touching on the 2nd viewing. Saskia Post gave a very sweet performance as Anna. And I have to say that Michael Hutchence was damn good in his role. His having known the guy he was portraying, and his coming from the punk scene, certainly helped.

Someone mentioned that it can be chancy to cast a musician in an acting role, but I've always thought it was a good bet. Musicians have to put on a persona of "rock star" every time they step on stage. They're used to playing a role almost every night. Many musicians are pretty good actors, but not many are given the chance. However, Michael Hutchence showed great promise. He was aspiring to do further work before his tragic and very sad demise. He is missed by millions to this day.

I'm not sure that this is a movie for everyone (understatement). It will, however, be incredibly nostalgic for those who were part of the punk scene, either as a band or a "poseur" (hanger-on). There was something very special about that time, and punks. They were pi**ed off, but on the whole good people who felt that they couldn't be good...if that makes sense. If you were friends, you stuck together and helped each other out the best you knew how. It may seem as if they treated everyone like the enemy, but they were just embroiled and united against whatever they perceived to be authority. Because, authority had let them down. They had been told that those of power would take care of their concerns, but in the same breath many were subject to poverty, mental/physical/sexual abuse, neglect - they saw the hypocrisy, and it angered them (as it would anyone). Many tried to escape these conflicts and problems, and bonded together in music, drugs, scrounging, sex - whatever they could grasp. It didn't feel so desperate, though, when you're in a house with 20 other people in a shanty or a "felony flat", and maybe that's why the memories are not all terrible. The only thing that ends it is someone dying. Someone always dies in everyone's group of friends. Which forces the group to no longer be a group and go it alone, shocked into reality, sadder, and hopefully a little bit more wise...or at least cautious.

If you made it through those days, this will be a tremendous flashback, complete with chainsaw and sheep but without the smell. What more could you ask from a punk film?

I had fond memories of this movie for years, but on a recent re-viewing I was put off by the obnoxiousness of many of the characters here. They all seem shallow and self-obsessed, but that is probably an accurate portrayal of this period in Melbourne music history, and my reaction most likely has a lot to do with getting older, and being less sympathetic to the follies of youth.

'Dogs In Space' documents a fairly obscure but important period of Australian music history - the "little bands" scene, when punk turned weirder, artier, and generally more electronic. No other music scene in the world was EXACTLY the same, but the New York 'No Wave' era is the closest equivalent. Out of this melee came cult heroes The Birthday Party, but also many other acts that were hardly recorded, if recorded at all. This movie attempts to redress that. Director Richard Lowenstein lived in the house that inspired this story and hung out with the real band that is fictionalized here.

While not perfect, this movie has a lot of energy, some great music on the soundtrack (Iggy, Boys Next Door, Eno, Gang Of Four, Marching Girls), and there's enough of interest going on to make it highly recommended to anyone curious about late 70s/early 80s music. The late Michael Hutchence (INXS) may have rough acting chops, but he exudes enough charisma to make you wonder what might have been movie-wise for him.

By the way, keep an eye open for an early appearance of Noah Taylor now seen in more mainstream Hollywood fare like Tomb Raider!

This is one of my favorite movies, but for personal - not cinematic - reasons.

During high school I lived without parents, and frequently my house resembled the house in the pic. It was filled with teens and early twenty-somethings who were trying to either get the hang of standing alone as adults or ignoring the fact that they'd passed childhood up altogether.

Most people may not realize that the movie gives a fairly accurate description of that (sur)reality. It may seem shallow or pretentious, and it may lack in "deep" plot twists and turns. The thing is, at that age, and in that type of life you live without worrying about the next day because it's just too big a concern to deal with. Most will never live, or think/feel this way.

On the cinematic side: the movie is not for someone sitting down to "view a good book." It's more a chance to turn off higher functions and experience another side of the world (not just Australia, but the time period and lifestyle). It's also important to note that this is not a Hollywood "teen" or "young adult" comedy - it's a drama with a lot of nonsense included, because that's what life is like.

It really is a shame that the movie isn't more widely available. I still own it from the original release, and only one of the rental stores (family owned) in my area has a copy. I'm sure it would more than meet the price to release to DVD. (I'm certain that a double disk including the original soundtrack would actually sell quite well!)

If you find it, watch it.