Does anyone understand why this film is called 'Isle of Dogs'? It's not set in London let alone the isle of dogs itself and there is only one actual dog in the whole film (and that scene was completely unnecessary, see 'What just happened' for why).
The only reasons I can think of is that it's supposed to show a dog eat dog world (tenuous) or that it's a cheap way of lulling people into seeing it thinking it's a London Gangster film (more likely).
Seriously?
It's all laid out plainly in Howard’s opening monologue (that "unnecessary" scene you mention). Or weren't you listening?
Dog’s are VERY clearly presented as a metaphor for loyalty. And, ultimately, this is a tale of loyalty and the consequences of betrayal.
Furthermore, an island represents isolation, trapped with no escape, which is certainly relevant to the protagonists in this film.
Think it might be time for that English Lit course you skipped.
And does it HAVE to be set ON the Isle of Dogs? Wasn't being shot outside London close enough? Or should the script have been rewritten from rural countryside to a clogged industrial block so you'd feel better about the title?
Lastly, it's more than a little unfair to fault the film for not being pigeonholed into your limited genre. Maybe you can't think beyond the parameters of 'just another "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels,"' but the rest of us can.
What an interesting reply. Firstly you make a very good point about the title, and I can see where you're coming from. That being said I still think it was designed to make it look like another "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" type film, of course this isn't a crime in itself smaller films often trade on similar names, posters etc to piggy back of bigger more successful films.
Just to be clear I don't think the film's main faults lie around the name there are many other faults with the film that made this a laugh at rather than laugh with type of film (rather embarrassingly I saw this at an advanced screening with the writer, director and several of the stars and the audience could not hold in their laughter at the wrong moments. This lead to a rather bitter reply afterwards in the Q&A session). I think if the film knew what it actually wanted to achieve it'd been a lot better. It seemed to move from the pigeonhole you mentioned in your reply, to knockabout horror almost every scene with no real identifying vision until the admittedly fun final flourish.
Also as a footnote I have an A level in English Lit for what it's worth. Although I clearly need a refresh.
yep - got me there; Isle of Dogs, rented it out as it must be another gritty London underworld film set in the East End, featuring as per the DVD cover 'a ruthless and erratic British crime lord'.
So, it's a bit confusing when the opening shot is a landrover driving down a country lane with the majority of the film being set in a country house, err ..... somewhere in the country.
Interesting movie, though, which could be better marketed as a horror / splatter flick featuring axes, shotguns, knives, crushed heads, poisonings, amputations ....
but no automatic rifle as featured on the DVD cover.
ps - I also have A level English literature (but rusty on metaphors).