Wiener-Dog (spoilers not intended)

A few weeks ago, my son and I saw a preview for a movie called "Wiener-Dog".

The preview made it clear the movie was "edgy" - but I had no experience with the director - or his previous work - so I don't give it much thought. The movie had Danny DeVito in it, and he's done a lot of weird things (on screen and off) since he became involved with "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" - so it seemed like a natural fit.

A few days ago, my son mentioned that "Wiener-Dog" was at our local Alamo Drafthouse. It wasn't playing anywhere else, and my presumption was that it would be gone by the end of the week - so when he asked if I wanted to go, I replied "yes".

I enjoyed the film, but I've never been to a movie that made the patrons in the theater so angry.

I toyed with asking for my money back, but I decided that the content of the film wasn't the fault of the theater showing it.

After a day or so to think about the movie, I've come to the conclusion that there was a "film within a film" but it's not explained as such.

The movie seems to be about the life of one dog as she is passed from one set of owners to another.

At the beginning of the film, the dog is given to a young boy - by a father. The boy's mother is upset that the father didn't discuss the gift with her but she relents and allows the dog to enter their lives. This part of the movie is extremely funny. Everyone in the theater laughed whole-heartedly.

Eventually the dog is taken away by the father, where it is rescued by a worker at the animal shelter. This is owner number two. This part of the film is not as funny - but it is very interesting. The new owner is named Dawn Wiener. Apparently the same character (name) has been used in previous films by the director of "Wiener-Dog" but I was not aware of this until I read about the film and the director on IMDB the next day.

Back to the film...

Without explanation, Danny DeVito suddenly owns the dog. His character's name is Dave Schmerz. Schmerz is apparently a struggling screenwriter. He teaches a writing class at a film school and he apparently sold *one* script back in the 70s that was turned into a real film. The poster for Schmerz's film (and the title) appear to be a not so subtle reference to an early 70's Woody Allen film. So Dave Schmerz is kind of like a sad Willy Loman character who cannot get anyone to read a script, and is universally belittled by his students, former students, and the administration at the school where he works.

Apparently Schmerz is famous for posing the question "What if ?... then what?"

I don't remember details about the script Schmerz is trying to peddle, but there are references to it. At one point, I thought it seemed like DeVito was talking about "Throw Momma From The Train" (and old movie DeVito made in 1987) but it's been a long time since I saw that (very bad!) movie and I wasn't certain. Schmerz specifically asks someone about "Act 3" of his script and adds that he is "very worried" about the content".

I think that's a big clue.

My theory is that the section of "Wiener-Dog" that features Danny DeVito is the only part of the film that represent reality - and that the other stories in the film are part of the script DeVito is trying to peddle (a "film within a film").

The section of the film where the dog is owned by the family is "Act 1" (in the film and its subordinate film) and the section of the the film where the dog is owned by Dawn from the animal shelter is "Act 2" (in both the film and the "film within a film").

My theory is that the transition to DeVito's character is abrupt because it's not a continuation of the film within a film. Similarly, there is no graceful transition from the DeVito/Schmerz part of the film to the next act (which I would label as "Act 3" of the "film within a film" - even though it's "Act 4" of the movie I saw in the theater).

I thought the final act was very funny - but only up to the point where the grand-daughter leaves and the grandmother goes outside to sit down on the back porch. At that point, the narrative takes a WILD left turn, worthy of "The Seventh Seal" from Ingmar Bergman.

If you think you've been watching a cute dog movie, my recommendation is to walk out of the theater quickly when the little girls show up to escort Nana. If you stay in the theater, you may regret it.

There is an epilogue at the end of the film (and its subordinate "film within a film") that I think invalidates what happened just prior - more or less letting us know that what happened a minute or two earlier must have been the product of a bad script written by Dave Schmerz - but I'll leave that for the audience to decide.

Was this a horrible film? Or a horrible film within a (well executed) film ?

I'm leaning more towards the latter, but it's possible that the whole thing I watched was just the director pointing a big middle finger in the direction of the audience.

I'm somewhat scared to go look for interviews with the director and/or cast, because I'd prefer to stick with my "film within a film" interpretation. My interpretation makes the movie more like "Tropic Thunder" and my reaction similar to how I felt during the more preposterous parts of that film. Yeah, I was confused by the fake ads at the beginning of "Tropic Thunder" but they served as a warning for what followed.

"Wiener-Dog" provides no such warning.

The film is being sold as a movie about a cute dog owned by some people who aren't shy to cuss. I think that's ultimately dishonest, because you can't claim the "R" rating was sufficient warning for what happens after Nana meets the little girls. I would argue that an "X" rating would have been proper.

As an example, the people next to me laughed all night and seemed to enjoy the movie - but I heard the female half of the couple grumbling quite vociferously as they left the theater that it was "the worst thing she had ever seen"

 

Never even heard of this one, but it sounds like something I would pass on....

 

The preview hooked me.

I was purposefully vague about the content of the film - but I've read that professional reviewers have been purposefully clear and including spoilers - despite the fact that violates an unwritten rule for the Siskel and Ebert types.

I read that the audience reaction was extremely volatile when the film was shown at Sundance.

What's very odd is the way the film does a complete 180. I've seen people get angry about a movie but it usually happens more quickly.

 

I saw the trailer for this movie before I saw the Secret Life of Pets, which is a film in which it's trailer does not give moviegoers the impression of what the film is really about.

 

Pairing a "Wiener-Dog" trailer with "The Secret Life of Pets" is very problematic. It would have made more sense if it was coupled with that upcoming Seth Rogan film ("Sausage Party").


I'll give you an example. My sister owns this breed of dog (technically a Daschund? but we call it a "Wiener-Dog") and my mom clipped something out of the newspaper about the film and gave it to my sister.

I told my sister about the film I saw and thankfully she did know much about it (the release is very limited)

My sister would have been the EXACT wrong audience to have seen the movie I saw.

What's horrible is the movie has a cute theme song that I can't get out of my head. I've been walking around all week singing "Wiener Dog ! Wiener Dog !" in my head... to the point where I just want the tune to leave me alone - but it won't.... LOL

 

The filmmaker is Todd Solondz, and his films have a tendency to be extremely dark, though not without an undercurrent of (twisted) humor. I've also noticed that his work tends to be deceptively marketed to appeal to wide audiences; for example, trailers for his film Happiness would lead the viewer to believe it's a feel-good, lighthearted comedy, when it is emphatically not. Whether this is a coincidence, studio incompetence, or by design, I'm not entirely sure.

He also likes to incorporate meta-commentary into his films, and it seems like this may be the most obvious case yet. I haven't seen the movie, but based on my familiarity with Solondz's work, I'd wager your theory is likely correct.

And, for what it's worth, the Dawn Wiener character is the protagonist of his 1995 coming-of-age black comedy, Welcome to the Dollhouse. It's a rather jagged view of suburban America and life as a pre-teen, and a unique take on the genre. If you enjoy off-kilter humor, I'd say give it a shot.

 

The trailer mentions who directed it, and that said person also directed Welcome to the Dollhouse. It's rated R. Of course it's not going to be a typical movie!

 

Now that you mentioned it, Sausage Party and Weiner Dog were among the trailers for Secret Life of Pets.

 

I watched a preview on the internet for "Welcome to the Dollhouse" - I may search it out.

"coincidence, studio incompetence, or by design" ?

I think it's probably "by design" because Solondz doesn't probably work with large studios who would mandate changes to his film. I suspect a major studio would probably bury a Solondz film if he refused to make changes.
I'm thinking of the hassle Terry Gilliam had with "Brazil"...

One odd thing I was reading about this film is that "Toys R Us" is visible in the background in several shots for "Wiener-Dog". Apparently, Solondz got into a battle with "Toys R Us" over one of his older films. I think that film was about a pedophile and the idea that such a person might hang out in a "Toys R Us" was something the toy store objected to. Solondz chose to pixelate the signage rather than reshoot portions of that film... but apparently no permission is required from people or businesses that are considered "incidental" or in the background... so it would appear that Solondz purposefully included "Toys R Us" in some of the background shots in "Wiener-Dog".

Either that, or his excuse is "Toys R Us" stores are impossible to avoid when shooting outdoor scenes in the NJ/NY area.

But it would appear to the casual observer that Solondz does enjoy flipping his middle finger....

Another example is some of the legal language at the end of "Wiener-Dog"... I don't usually read that sort of thing - but I did stick around to read something and it wasn't standard boilerplate. I didn't think much of it when I read it, but others have noticed the same thing and commented on it - suggesting that Solondz altered the standard language to be more ambiguous.

 

I love that Solondz's work is still confounding and angering audiences after all these years. Love his movies or hate them, he always stays true to himself and never compromises his vision.

 

Interesting to read the impressions of someone not familiar with Solondz's work. Sounds like he's still on his own uncompromising path. Doesn't Wiener-Dog have a connection to the character in Dollhouse?

 

Yes. The Dawn Wiener character (as played by Greta Gerwig in this film) is supposed to be the same girl from "Dollhouse." Likewise, the guy she goes on the road trip with is also a character from that movie.

I saw this at SIFF last month, and overall I liked it. But I have a pretty dark sense of humor, and I was familiar with Solondz's work going in to it, so I kinda knew what to expect. However, my girlfriend (who had never seen any of his films, and is a huge dog lover) was appalled by the ending. And she wasn't alone. Someone actually yelled out "This movie SUCKS!" after the last scene. And quite a few people applauded his comment.

 

Opened & closed at the local art house without a bark or whimper. I remember seeing the one sheet

 

I have read a detailed description of the end of the film and it is disturbing to even think about.

 

The only thing that softened the blow for me was I have a family member (my ex-wife's grandmother) who lived through this exact scenario at age 92. So it does happen.

It also helped that the epilogue that follows served as a counterweight - not so much because it's funny - but because if you think about it - the two scenes are not congruent - and the epilogue can be thought of as a "just kidding!!!" message (if you're not sitting there filed with rage - which is probably the standard reaction for most patrons).

I do think this movie will act like artistic suicide for Solondz. Even if he makes another film, I'm not sure he will be able to sell it to anyone - even on the arthouse circuit. The scene is so objectionable that I can see it never being released on video in the form I saw it.

I shudder to think what some of his other movies are like.

 

I would steer FAR clear of "Happiness," from a few years back. It also features an extremely offensive/objectionable scene at the end (coincidentally also involving a dog). Plus thematically the entire movie might be rather rough viewing for many.

"Welcome to the Dollhouse," by comparison, is extremely mild. I just rewatched it a couple weeks ago (after watching "Wiener-Dog"), and it's actually pretty funny.

 

Oh yes, Happiness is a deep dark, disturbing movie. Philip Seymour Hoffman is brilliant in a very difficult role, to say the least.

Dollhouse is probably Solondz's most accessible, "light" film. Very funny but still dark at times too. The band practice at the beginning is classic. Your first thought is "What the heck is this music???" and then you find out what song they are actually playing. I laughed for about a half hour.

 

I've loved every film Solondz has made so far (especially 'Happiness' and 'Palindromes') and I doubt this will be an exception. Definitely blind-buying the BluRay when it comes out.

 

Did you think the last view of the dog at the end of the Danny DeVito segment looked real ?

I don't mean CGI, I think it had a corny look to it - kind of like Tracy Morgan playing Astronaut Jones

There was something about the green protective suit worn by the man that was trying to diffuse the situation that pulled the view away from reality (for me). I thought the dog looked like a direct reference back to what
the doctor had told DeVito earlier.

 

Thank You! I was trying to remember the name of that film, which I loved. I thought of it instantly when I saw the title of this post.