So, let's start off by stating what a lot of reviewers have failed to credit this screenplay author/director/actress with... This was an EXTREMELY ambitious movie to make. It's a comedy dealing with an extreme, almost farcical case of mental illness, but it has a serious message relying heavily on raw emotion and brutal drama, not an easy balancing act to pull off by any means, so naturally many elements are hit or miss with a lot of people. I tend to agree with a lot of other reviews saying that the weakest aspect probably comes down to the fact that the father, basically the real protagonist of the movie, comes across as so much of a cartoonish cardboard cutout caricature of what a lowlife good-for-nothing husband/father would be. This plays into the comedy side of the movie, but it definitely hurts the drama side, and to my opinion, at the greater expense of the movie as a whole. Does this single aspect destroy the film's credibility? My answer is no it does not, as it just wasn't all that hard for me to relate to the notion of growing up with an almost completely disinterested parent.
Another question, how credible is the mental disorder angle? My answer to this is, as far fetched as this angle may come across to some people, you'd be surprised at what's lurking out there in the realm of real world psychosis. To me it's believable. The issue here, once again, comes back to how is the main protagonist, the father, handling it. Is his reaction believable? Again, he's a caricature, completely disconnected from reality and the world he lives in, so he builds up a wall around him, obsessed with maintaining his preconceived traditionalist worldview. That's the whole essence of the movie really, so, is his pseudo "straight-man" reaction to the absurd dog woman, a strong enough counterbalance? Hotly debatable, and I would argue that if you're looking at it from that angle, maybe that's he wrong way to look at it, because there's a much more poignant dichotomy being explored here.
There's a reference made to the Scottish Psychiatrist R. D. Laing. The director being of Scottish origin, I would Imagine Laing was fairly talked about in Scotland in his day. Basically, his approach to psychiatry was to indulge the delusions of the patient, a REVOLUTIONARY approach at the time. In 1970 he came out with a film named "Asylum" to show EXACTLY what he was doing. The idea is that is that the patient never really "gets better," so the intent is to make them feel happy, and normal. From what I've seen, in practice this works better on people who aren't all that messed up to begin with. There was one man in particular in his film who was so incapable of any type of even-keeled socialization, that all he was doing was causing distress to the other patients. The director here I think was actually trying to juxtapose both approaches to mental illness: traditional heavy confinement + prolonged isolation, vs. Indulging the fantasy. The whole plot progression is basically the father shifting from one approach to the other, eventually behaving like a dog himself, and saying "you be whatever you want to be," to his wife, after initially having locked her in the basement.
R. D. Laing's approach, as we all know has been HEAVILY adopted in regards to gender related body dysphoria, and you literally hear the same turn of phrase being used everywhere you go. "Call them whatever they prefer to be called." The interesting thing about the WAY this free-reigns form of psychiatry has been adopted, is that it's been made virtually compulsory across all of society. People have already done jail time for "misgendering," or even TALKING about the issue itself. As a result, you're seeing more and more people being victim to a hypocritically authoritarian approach to free-reigns psychiatry, people who received the WRONG form of treatment which did them harm, misdiagnosed as having gender dysphoria, and in the end, the numbers are going to be so straggering that they won't be able to be repressed anymore, and will represent another colossal ABOMINATION in psychiatric history, similar to lobotomies. In my view, the one lesson we can derive from psychiatric history, is that attempting to provide a one size fits all cookie cutter answer to mental health, in and of itself is the core problem, and I think R. D. Laing would have probably agreed with this, whether we're talking about a free reigns approach, or the traditionalist approach, which seeks to "cure" the condition rather than normalize it. A lot of reviewers seem to have found it difficult to accept this 180 degree change from the father, so I think maybe a little more emphasis should have been placed on this juxtaposition of psychiatric method. If that's what the director was going for, and I don't really think she was intending so in any more than a very peripheral way, there's a 2005 Czech film by Jan Swankmajer named "Sileni," which does a better job showcasing that angle of the psychiatric question in particular.
The issue that ends up being evermore prevailing in this film, VERY unfortunately in my opinion, is the man v.s. Woman angle, which by far is an angle of lesser value, as usual has being catapulted into the forefront of the discussion by gender based ideological zealotry in the form of feminist theory, which I'm seeing echoed in many other reviews, references to the PATRIARCHY etc., which frankly, the film doesn't attempt to deal with at all. Despite being absolutely hands off around this issue, the film definitely gives off feministy vibes, again, simply by virtue of what a caricature the father is. The bottom line, however, is if you're JUST looking at it from that point of view, it definitely comes across as stale. I mean for Christ sake... Challenging the concept of traditional marriage roles. What is this, 1970? THAT'S when that subject matter might have resonated on some level. That being said, does the film NEED to be a socially relevant film to still work? Nope. Absolutely not, regardless of whether it showcases the psychiatric issue, or the gender issue. I think it's a mistake for the viewer to dwell on either issue, and I tend to look at it as follows. Why can't you just have a male character who just happens to be a stereotypical ass, and why can't he be the embodiment of an outdated social structure just for its own sake?
It's very easy to try and take from a film, a bigger issue than the film itself realistically encompasses. For example, you could allow yourself to get annoyed over the angle that the father represents an unrealistic uncharitable representation of men and fathers as a whole. In reality, the film never comes across as preachy. I don't like being talked down to by know-it-all ideologues. I didn't get that from this film, and to that extent, the absurdist angle was a huge benefit. This is the type of film that works best if you just take it for what it is, an absurdist take on the very serious and common issue of familial discord, revolving around unfulfilled expectations, and in that respect, the actors did their best to deliver. Jaime King, who I never really thought much of before, was actually really good in this, in my opinion. You probably shouldn't take this film as anything more than a portrait of mental chaos, one which delivers the understandably unsatisfying diagnosis, that there is no real "cure," not just to a particular form of psychosis, but to the human condition itself.
To me this film does succeed in a major way that a lot of comedic films fail, and that is staying grounded in realism. The comedic elements are often absurd and goofy, but the element of drama is portrayed in a very raw and brutal way. Marrying the two is something you don't often see in a film, and I think a lot of people tend to feel uncomfortable combining the two. Someone who wants to go let loose to a comedy doesn't necessarily want to feel distraught and uncomfortable in the same breadth of time. Ultimately, I don't think you could sell this film as a comedy. You could definitely sell it as a drama though, and to me that's why it was successful; it maintained enough focus to pull together a resonant portrayal of hardship in a way that's not as foreign as the subject itself.
Another question, how credible is the mental disorder angle? My answer to this is, as far fetched as this angle may come across to some people, you'd be surprised at what's lurking out there in the realm of real world psychosis. To me it's believable. The issue here, once again, comes back to how is the main protagonist, the father, handling it. Is his reaction believable? Again, he's a caricature, completely disconnected from reality and the world he lives in, so he builds up a wall around him, obsessed with maintaining his preconceived traditionalist worldview. That's the whole essence of the movie really, so, is his pseudo "straight-man" reaction to the absurd dog woman, a strong enough counterbalance? Hotly debatable, and I would argue that if you're looking at it from that angle, maybe that's he wrong way to look at it, because there's a much more poignant dichotomy being explored here.
There's a reference made to the Scottish Psychiatrist R. D. Laing. The director being of Scottish origin, I would Imagine Laing was fairly talked about in Scotland in his day. Basically, his approach to psychiatry was to indulge the delusions of the patient, a REVOLUTIONARY approach at the time. In 1970 he came out with a film named "Asylum" to show EXACTLY what he was doing. The idea is that is that the patient never really "gets better," so the intent is to make them feel happy, and normal. From what I've seen, in practice this works better on people who aren't all that messed up to begin with. There was one man in particular in his film who was so incapable of any type of even-keeled socialization, that all he was doing was causing distress to the other patients. The director here I think was actually trying to juxtapose both approaches to mental illness: traditional heavy confinement + prolonged isolation, vs. Indulging the fantasy. The whole plot progression is basically the father shifting from one approach to the other, eventually behaving like a dog himself, and saying "you be whatever you want to be," to his wife, after initially having locked her in the basement.
R. D. Laing's approach, as we all know has been HEAVILY adopted in regards to gender related body dysphoria, and you literally hear the same turn of phrase being used everywhere you go. "Call them whatever they prefer to be called." The interesting thing about the WAY this free-reigns form of psychiatry has been adopted, is that it's been made virtually compulsory across all of society. People have already done jail time for "misgendering," or even TALKING about the issue itself. As a result, you're seeing more and more people being victim to a hypocritically authoritarian approach to free-reigns psychiatry, people who received the WRONG form of treatment which did them harm, misdiagnosed as having gender dysphoria, and in the end, the numbers are going to be so straggering that they won't be able to be repressed anymore, and will represent another colossal ABOMINATION in psychiatric history, similar to lobotomies. In my view, the one lesson we can derive from psychiatric history, is that attempting to provide a one size fits all cookie cutter answer to mental health, in and of itself is the core problem, and I think R. D. Laing would have probably agreed with this, whether we're talking about a free reigns approach, or the traditionalist approach, which seeks to "cure" the condition rather than normalize it. A lot of reviewers seem to have found it difficult to accept this 180 degree change from the father, so I think maybe a little more emphasis should have been placed on this juxtaposition of psychiatric method. If that's what the director was going for, and I don't really think she was intending so in any more than a very peripheral way, there's a 2005 Czech film by Jan Swankmajer named "Sileni," which does a better job showcasing that angle of the psychiatric question in particular.
The issue that ends up being evermore prevailing in this film, VERY unfortunately in my opinion, is the man v.s. Woman angle, which by far is an angle of lesser value, as usual has being catapulted into the forefront of the discussion by gender based ideological zealotry in the form of feminist theory, which I'm seeing echoed in many other reviews, references to the PATRIARCHY etc., which frankly, the film doesn't attempt to deal with at all. Despite being absolutely hands off around this issue, the film definitely gives off feministy vibes, again, simply by virtue of what a caricature the father is. The bottom line, however, is if you're JUST looking at it from that point of view, it definitely comes across as stale. I mean for Christ sake... Challenging the concept of traditional marriage roles. What is this, 1970? THAT'S when that subject matter might have resonated on some level. That being said, does the film NEED to be a socially relevant film to still work? Nope. Absolutely not, regardless of whether it showcases the psychiatric issue, or the gender issue. I think it's a mistake for the viewer to dwell on either issue, and I tend to look at it as follows. Why can't you just have a male character who just happens to be a stereotypical ass, and why can't he be the embodiment of an outdated social structure just for its own sake?
It's very easy to try and take from a film, a bigger issue than the film itself realistically encompasses. For example, you could allow yourself to get annoyed over the angle that the father represents an unrealistic uncharitable representation of men and fathers as a whole. In reality, the film never comes across as preachy. I don't like being talked down to by know-it-all ideologues. I didn't get that from this film, and to that extent, the absurdist angle was a huge benefit. This is the type of film that works best if you just take it for what it is, an absurdist take on the very serious and common issue of familial discord, revolving around unfulfilled expectations, and in that respect, the actors did their best to deliver. Jaime King, who I never really thought much of before, was actually really good in this, in my opinion. You probably shouldn't take this film as anything more than a portrait of mental chaos, one which delivers the understandably unsatisfying diagnosis, that there is no real "cure," not just to a particular form of psychosis, but to the human condition itself.
To me this film does succeed in a major way that a lot of comedic films fail, and that is staying grounded in realism. The comedic elements are often absurd and goofy, but the element of drama is portrayed in a very raw and brutal way. Marrying the two is something you don't often see in a film, and I think a lot of people tend to feel uncomfortable combining the two. Someone who wants to go let loose to a comedy doesn't necessarily want to feel distraught and uncomfortable in the same breadth of time. Ultimately, I don't think you could sell this film as a comedy. You could definitely sell it as a drama though, and to me that's why it was successful; it maintained enough focus to pull together a resonant portrayal of hardship in a way that's not as foreign as the subject itself.