Watch Dog Days For Free

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Dog Days 7 Alpha Dogs "Dog Days" may employ hot humid summer days to express a grim and atomized social reality, but it more effectively, intentionally or not, turns to the microwave heat of male sexuality to express an even grimmer reality of violations and violence. In "Dog Days," DE Sade is not dead.The question is: what is its director's stance? Is "Dog Days" a rebuke of men's abuse and use of women? Is it an expression of content which may raise a few questions? Or, does it accept, given the hot weather and the heat generated by male sexuality, the normalcy of such raw force? My take is that Seidl settles for ambiguity. For one, the resistance position is not an option for him, because he can and does use his camera as an accomplice in male sexual abuse. This is most evident in the prolonged sadistic scene involving the teacher and her porn-head boyfriend. Here Seidl chooses pornography over implication, thus aligning himself with the victimizer over the victim. In a sense Seidl is like his character, the salesman, Hrubl, who is disturbed by his role in the rape of the hitch-hiker, but perhaps because his escape hatch is a room filled with porn, cannot muster the will not stop it. But, ironically, this is a scene in which Seidl himself chooses only to indicate rape, proving that he understands how his camera can compound crime.Seidl also extends too much sympathy to his men, all of whom are guilty of various levels of misogyny. While his female characters are mainly pacified, silent, and one dimensional, the men who sell them out are given more latitude, action, and centrality, which in turn makes them more worthy of consideration. In other words, the victims are bound by duty and love, and locked up in involuntary lives; whereas the men who ooze contempt for them get to display freedom and "human" markings.This makes for a convenient circularity because it refuses to point to the agent of an exploitative, power-linked sexuality. Seidl cannot judge them, monsters as some of them are, because he himself is drenched in masculine assumptions. One might say that his unflinching view reveals men, but his hard look softens before their acts.When Lucky, the porn-head's buddy, returns to apologize to the teacher he says "I'm sorry that you had to take sh-t yesterday because of the sins of all women," adding that his participation in her unrelenting degradation was both a pleasure and a valuable experience--and no doubt a pumping up of his male identity. Whether Seidl hears all this as a galling reversal or a wrong-headed apology isn't that clear, but lines such as these make it obvious that Seidl is immersed in the arena of sexual politics.There are other indications of Seidl's stand throughout the film. As the opening credits roll, the camera espies several sun bathers--all have unnoticeable or shapeless bodies except for two model-like topless young women. He extends this same type of bodily exception to the bar dancer, whose waif-like, sexually-charged figure serves as a kind of exclamation point in a slowly evolving film. Then there is the swing scene that subtly eroticizes the plain hitch-hiker as a kind of foreshadowing of her rape.In sum, when it comes to sex objectification Seidl seems to follow the lead of his male-ordered culture.. He cannot critique women as male property because of an equivocation which seems to start with his invasive camera (remember the porn-head walks right into the teacher's apt) and ends up affecting his judgment. Give him credit for revealing male sexual aggression, fail him for refusing to connect criminal acts to their male agents. A blurb on the DVD describes "Dog Days" as "strangely entertaining." Which begs the question: FOR WHOM?

Hundstage is an intentionally ugly and unnerving study of life in a particularly dreary suburb of Vienna. It comes from former documentary director Ulrich Seidl who adopts a very documentary-like approach to the material. However, the film veers away from normal types and presents us with characters that are best described as "extremes" – some are extremely lonely; some extremely violent; some extremely weird; some extremely devious; some extremely frustrated and misunderstood; and so on. The film combines several near plot less episodes which intertwine from time to time, each following the characters over a couple of days during a sweltering Viennese summer. Very few viewers will come away from the film feeling entertained – the intention is to point up the many things that are wrong with people, the many ills that plague our society in general. It is a thought-provoking film and its conclusions are pretty damning on the whole.A fussy old widower fantasises about his elderly cleaning lady and wants her to perform a striptease for him while wearing his deceased wife's clothes. A nightclub dancer contends with the perpetually jealous and violent behaviour of her boy-racer boyfriend. A couple grieving over their dead daughter can no longer communicate with each other and seek solace by having sex with other people. An abusive man mistreats his woman but she forgives him time and again. A security salesman desperately tries to find the culprit behind some vandalism on a work site but ends up picking on an innocent scapegoat. And a mentally ill woman keeps hitching rides with strangers and insulting them until they throw her out of the car! The lives of these disparate characters converge over several days during an intense summer heat wave.The despair in the film is palpable. Many scenes are characterised by long, awkward silences that are twice as effective as a whole passage of dialogue might be. Then there are other scenes during which the dialogue and on-screen events leave you reeling. In particular, a scene during which the security salesman leaves the female hitch-hiker to the mercy of a vengeful guy - to be beaten, raped and humiliated (thankfully all off-screen) for some vandalism she didn't even do - arouses a sour, almost angry taste. In another scene a man has a lit candle wedged in his rear-end and is forced to sing the national anthem at gunpoint, all as part of his punishment for being nasty to his wife. While we might want to cheer that this thug is receiving his come-uppance, we are simultaneously left appalled and unnerved by the nature of his punishment. Indeed, such stark contrasts could act as a summary of the whole film - every moment of light-heartedness is counter-balanced with a moment of coldness. Every shred of hope is countered with a sense of despair. For every character you could like or feel sympathy for, there is another that encourages nothing but anger and hate. We might want to turn away from Hundstage, to dismiss it as an exercise in misery, but it also points up some uncomfortable truths and for that it should be applauded.

The problem I find with this title is that I am not sure if the director is trying to produce a documentary or movie. A blend of the two genres just doesn't work and that leaves the whole thing hung in the middle of nowhere. This is more so as the director has picked the most extremes of what is supposed to be happening around our everyday life making it an unconvincing documentary. If it is meant to be a thriller/drama this is too dull and monotonous. In either case, what is the moral or the message which the director is trying to convey to the audience? That around us there are people who ill-treat others who are willing to be ill-treated? That there are many crazy lunatics around us? So..........so what?

It's nothing brilliant, groundbreaking or innovative, but 'Dog Days' is for some reason an extremely fascinating character study. It's like CRASH tripping on a bad dose of heroin, but not really. It's an Austrian film following the lives of several depressed, deranged and annoying people and their abusive relationships with each other. It's disturbing, yet very well-acted and it's interesting to watch the crazy little things these characters do. Certainly not for the weak-hearted, this highly pessimistic film offers no conclusion or revelation at the end, we just see the lives of these sordid individuals over the course of two days. Grade: B