Giorgos Lanthimos’ Alps is a follow-up (some say companion piece) to his amazing 2009 film Dogtooth. The gist of the film is about how the main character loses her own identity while trying to impersonate others. The premise may not even sound all that weird because I stripped out the absurd elements that surround it. Alps may be too bizarre for some, however, you sign up for it with Lanthimos behind the camera. I found the unsettling observations in the film fascinating but not as much right at first. It is a film that sits with you awhile until you realize how purposeful the oddities were.

A woman rhythmically ribbon dances to classic orchestra music in an empty gymnasium except for one man. After her flawless routine she sits down in discouragement. She wants to do something with more pop she explains. But the man insists that she is not ready for it yet and scolds her for not trusting his judgment. He goes on to say that if she raises her voice to him again (which she did not to begin with) then he will break her arms and legs. This is the kind of “coach” that you come to expect from a Lanthimos film.

A group of people gather and explain on how they came up with the name Alps to call themselves. There were two reasons why the decided on Alps. The first is that it does not reveal anything about what they are doing. The second reason is because the Alps is a mountain range that no other mountains can substitute. The word substitute is important there because it explains what they actually do.

About a third of the way into Alps it becomes clear that they are substitutes for people that have recently passed away. When people lose their loved ones at the hospital this group of people offer to become the person that died as a way to ease the pain for the family. They completely emulate the deceased person; wear their clothes, say things in the way the person would have said things, and even live in their homes.

The scenes where the substitute is trying to act like the person that passed away were the best. It was awkward to watch them trying to fill the void of the person the family missed. Even though it is amusing to watch them impersonate someone else, the film does bring up a good question. Would people who loosely resembled someone that passed away close to you actually help ease the grieving process?

In the end Alps is less about those grieving loved ones, and more about the impersonator needing the grievers. Switching the roles between who needed who in order to function in life was by far the most interesting aspect of the film. In order to accurately portray someone, you must become that person, like an actor typically tries to do. The film shows just how dangerous it is to cling on to someone else’s identity.

Alps is not quite as disturbing but it is as equally bizarre as Dogtooth. You can definitely tell they were both directed by Giorgos Lanthimos, who already has created a unique style of his own. And a fantastic one at that. There were many similarities between both films; the color saturation, deadpan dialog and outlandish characters. Another note on characters, in both films none of the main characters have real names.

Depending on how you literal you took Dogtooth, you could consider it a pretty obvious satire on over-protective parenting. On the surface, Alps could be considered it a satire on over-acting. Dialog is delivered in an obvious mesmerized manner in scenes where the substitute presumably sounds nothing like the person they are portraying. Also characters heavily rely on objects to carryout the impersonation of the dead person they are trying to become, such as wearing a pair of shoes or perfume.

In true Lanthimos fashion, Alps allows you to interpret just how literal you want to take the themes found in it. However, Alps is more compelling the deeper you look into it. Even though it did not quite reach the level that Dogtooth got to for me, it still was a fascinating film that you simply cannot take your eyes off of. Lanthimos has certainly made his mark as director to watch out for.

Dogtooth is disturbing anti-social satire that is shot in an art-house sort of way. After the conclusion of most films, you can form an opinion fairly soon after the final credits roll. But there are some films that are so unique and different that you must let them sit with you for a bit before you can approach a final opinion. Dogtooth fits in the category of the latter. It is possibly the most original movie of the year, perhaps second only to Enter The Void.

The focus of the film is around an isolated family of five; father, mother and their son and two daughters whose ages are probably somewhere in the early twenties. They are given no names to call each other. Their house is surrounded by a very high wall which the children have never been beyond. Furthermore, the children have no clue of what the outside world contains as only the father is allowed to leave the house. The television is only used to watch the family’s home videos. The children learn language lessons from a tape-recorder. To say this family is sheltered would be a great understatement.

The vocabulary that they are learning off the tape is giving wrong definitions to the words. The mother goes along with it as the daughter asks for the phone and the mother proceeds to hand her the salt shaker. This is one of the first indications that the children are obviously being lied to but also how the parents are isolating them from outside contact.

The only outside contact they do get is a visit from the only character with a name, Christina. She works as a security guard at the factory the father works at and is brought in as a prostitute to fulfill his son’s needs. She also trades jewelry in exchange for erotic licking from the daughter, it is just as bizarre as it sounds.

One day the brother spots a cat in their yard and decides to kill it using garden shears. The father lies to the children when he hears this had happened. He tells them that creatures like the one in the garden are the most dangerous creatures out there and that only staying inside will protect them. It is ironic when the father creates so much fear of the outside world to the children, because what is happening inside is far scarier.

The children are fascinated with airplanes that fly over their house and wish they would fall so they can “have it”. They do not know otherwise because their parents from time to time toss a toy one in the yard that they think fell from the sky. Between the toy airplanes and giving them stickers when they complete a task, shows how small-child-like the parents are treating their “children”.

It is not until the father talks to his dog trainer that we understand the blatant metaphor of the film. The trainer explains how dogs are waiting for him to show them how to behave. That is exactly what he is doing with his children back at home. Later we see him teach his kids how to bark like a dog and he teaches them that they are not ready to leave the house until their dogtooth comes out. The name of the film suddenly becomes more clear.

Many people were considering Dogtooth as the dark horse for this year’s Oscars for Best Foreign Film. However, it failed to best In A Better World. Just being nominated for an Oscar is an achievement in it’s own right as it became only the 5th ever Greek film to be nominated for one. However, it did win the prestigious Un Certain Regard Prize at Cannes 2009.

Director Giorgos Lanthimos brilliantly shoots nearly the entire film from a camera at a fixed point. Therefore the viewers are like the children and the camera is like the fence, we are only allowed to see what is inside the frame (or fence). Furthermore, most of the objects and characters are in the center of the frame, giving off the feeling of order and straightforwardness. Similar to what the parents are teaching the children. The colors in the film are dull for the same reason.

Dogtooth leaves most of the interpretations up to the viewer. On one hand it could easily be a direct shot towards parents that over-protect their children to the point of inhuman standards and extreme anti-social practices. Or it could be a political allegory. In a dark way, the film proves that censorship can be just as, if not more, harmful than not. It takes homeschooling to an extraordinary bizarre level. The film shines because of the uniqueness and is memorable from the shock value it provides. It almost goes without saying but I will do it anyways, this film is not for everyone.