I know this is going to sound crazy, but as a film reader I never saw Charles Laughton's, Night of the Hunter until guest Spike Lee programmed an evening's lineup at TCM. Luckily I missed Lee's intro (thank God, as I later saw on Utube), but I luckily caught just in time Hunter - the first on his "essentials" list. Also, made it my business to see it because a close friend said it was one of his faves as well as he sat on my bed nonchalantly. 

One film I have watched over & over & over again - ever since I saw it at the Angelika - is Lars Von Trier's, Dancer in the Dark.  Despite it giving me motion sickness the first time I saw it (bathroom vomiting break) on the semi-big screen, I have grown to identify myself as a true fan & self bona-fide "expert" of  Dancer. (Proud owner of VHS & DVD, and at one point, would lend it out to naive co-workers.) 

So, throughout most of my watching Hunter, I couldn't help myself, but to constantly exclaim things like, "Oh shit! Dancer in the Dark is the same exact movie as this, but in opposite!" & other similar surprised expletives, & when I reached the ending I was truly convinced Lars Von Trier holds Hunter very close to his heart, and realized Dancer was a sort of Yin & Yang ode. 

There is nothing more applaudable than a filmmaker taking a favorite film and making their influencing material all their own, especially very creatively  (think Mel Brook's, "Young Frankenstein"),

and in this case, Trier makes Night of the Hunter themes of abandonment, innocence vs evil, gynoangst/stupidity vs strong woman, lies vs hidden truths, compassion vs selfishness, prey vs parent, and lastly, preservation vs sacrifice his very own. 

Overall, there are some slight problems with "Dancer in the Dark", but the weird thing is - I had the same issues in Hunter around the same moments as in Dancer (and this is not about that).

Lars Von Trier in some instances pays homage in reverse.  For example, in both films there are hangings. In Hunter it's the bank-robbing DAD (an oh, so handsome Peter Graves), who is sentenced by hanging. This happens fairly EARLY in the film, and we don't see the execution itself.  In Dancer, it's Selma, a MOM, who gets hanged at the ENDING. The hanging itself is very graphic and real. 

Here goes:

•  hidden $money$ (doll & tin can)
• they both have court room drama
• both films have 'da police in them & cell scenes
• the presence of a doo doo head wife
• a place of convening (church in Hunter and the rehearsal spot in Dancer)
• single parent
• children which propel the film forward (Gene is not as present  - a Yin & Yang complement)
• a protective older woman (Lillian Gish & Catherine Deneuve, both film legends)
• mob mentality
• music (in Hunter music is all through out and Dancer is a musical - a Yin & Yang complement)
• presents 
• evil in the guise of a protector
• shacks/homes engulfed in nature
• nature/water shots
• Hunter is 93 mins & Dancer is 139 mins
• just look at their titles

Yorgos Lanthimos'

DOGTOOTH  was generally reviewed & described as having themes about "over protection" & secularism and some even said it was a statement about Greek society. 

What I clearly continue to see (because I keep going back to Yorgos Lanthimos' films), is a theme of abuse & power and what happens before, during and after. Other prominent themes of his are: Control, blindness, incest, neediness, subservience,  hiding, disrobing, detachment, confusing, substituting, gross indifference, repetition, repeating longing scenarios & cathartic/ritual performances. Your typical ingredients for a Greek tragedy.

Mainly, Lanthimos' films are magnificently composed & well lighted tales of functioning dysfunctional dynamics. The characters are mistreated individuals, whether by life circumstances or some weird dichotomy in some group or family.  The fact he accomplishes all of these complicated even surreal worlds in a very subtle blase way, only demonstrates the evolution of a powerful auteur. In Lanthimos' films every shot is literally an extension of his complicated characters.

DOGTOOTH tells the tale of two sisters and a brother who are apparently physically older than their mental intellect. Facial desperation and body language hint the voyeur to their confusion and ever present neediness. Perhaps deep inside they know something is off kilter or maybe it's a direct aftermath of years of conditioning.  So who is to know what truly happened in the past in this seemingly docile household, (nothing happens overnight or does it?). 

Flesh. Flesh is always exposed. Whether in short summer shorts, undergarments or just old fashioned undressing. Bedrooms are also recurring locations in Lanthimos' films. 

A bread winning father with a stoic face and a once attractive mother hint the beginnings of what should be their golden years. The latter are the problem. As luck would have it, one of the sisters played by intense and devoted actor Aggeliki Papoulia, (she is AMAZING - can't help to notice her initials hiding in the title ALPS as well), becomes exposed to the world. Via VHS tapes mind you. Defiance and internal dilemma ensues.

In ALPS, Lanthimos' hones in more, in case you missed it in DOGTOOTH, on the theme of controlled vision. What you see. What you don't see. Artificial light sources, mainly through lamps or pretty overheads, are ever present making their cameos. A cool lamp store is even worked into a scene, (like the ones you see in predominately Orthodox Jewish communities). The lamp store ironically serves as a hiding den and evolves from a mere backdrop location to being fully developed into the scene.

Papoulia's character is a nurse, and despite her own neediness, one of her other subservient rituals is tending to her father. Even before taking off her own jacket, the minute she enters the house, she applies eye drops to her dad. Back to the lamp props. In DOGTOOTH, a night table lamp almost falls over while a mental midget son bangs away a security guard, who, oddly enough,  was driven to their home, blindfolded, by the controlling father. 

This makes for a great segue for pointing out the overbearing, authoritative male characters in Lanthimos' films. For instance, in ALPS, "the greatest coach of the cosmos" is but a mere hairy A hole. 

Quid Pro Quo, is a significant theme in Yargos' films too, but in ALPS it evolves. In DOGTOOTH, it's a paid for sex security guard & in ALPS it's a simple haircut, which releases free, if only for a moment, a damaged damsel.

Gross Indifference. It's what some parents suffer from in Lanthimos' films as well. In Dogtooth it's clearly the maternal unit who is afflicted & in ALPS the dancing dad. Severe detachment. So close yet so far. Poor babies.

Yargos is so subtle in making his powerful points that I fear they get lost in translation. For instance: DOGTOOTH's last shot. Again. The theme of something horrific, hiding in something as simple as a car. You see cars all the time. Crossing the street, riding in them, driving them. What really lurks in them? A controlling father who raised his children to believe up is down and left is right? Throwing you off and hiding what's actually going on? The real horror is in what you do not see.