‘Isle of Dogs’ sends a compelling message but doesn’t live up to expectations

Despite Wes Anderson’s past success in directing movies such as “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” his most recent film, “Isle of Dogs,” released on March 29, failed to impress due to its mediocre storyline and prioritization of detail over plot.

When Anderson’s “Fantastic Mr. Fox” came out in 2009, I remember being amazed that the entire 90-minute film was composed of 56,000 individually created frames. Of course, when I learned that Anderson had released “Isle of Dogs,” I was ecstatic. It was a perfect combination of two of my favorite things: dogs and animation.

Going into the movie, I had high expectations for Anderson’s return to the stop-motion world after his 9-year hiatus following “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” since Isle of Dogs had a 91 percent positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

But when I came out of the movie, I felt disappointed. “Isle of Dogs” is overly detail-oriented and lacks a developed storyline compared to “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” which is more focused on telling a story rather than fixating on minute details.

“Isle of Dogs” takes place in dystopian Japan where all dogs have been banished to “Trash Island,” an island landfill, after an outbreak of dog flu. Searching for his long lost dog, Spots, 12-year-old Atari flies to the island and encounters a pack of dogs who aid him in his search. A parallel story follows Tracy Walker, a foreign exchange student who forms a resistance movement against the mayor who ordered the exile.

Instead of focusing on details like cherry blossoms falling on the tip of a dog’s nose for two minutes, Anderson should have focused on developing his movie’s plot through methods other than sloppily clarifying the storyline through added voice-overs.

Every single Japanese stereotype I could think of was present at some point during the movie: bad teeth, cherry blossoms, sumo wrestlers, robot pets, tattoos and sake.

Additionally, given Anderson’s diligence in portraying Japanese culture in the film, I expected Atari, a Japanese boy, to be the main protagonist. I was wrong. Instead, in the middle of Japan, a blond white girl from Ohio becomes the leader of a resistance against the malicious mayor who had ordered the exile of the dogs.

Further research proved that Yoko Ono, who played Atari, was one of the few Asian actors in the cast.

Another issue I had with the movie was the lack of subtitles. There are points when Atari speaks in Japanese, leaving an English-speaking audience unable to comprehend a word he was saying. I understand that this may have been a humorous device; however, I would rather have Atari explain the story in understandable dialogue than receive most of the storyline through voice-overs.

In an interview with US News, Anderson’s primary motivation behind including untranslated Japanese in his film is to preserve culture and maintain the Japanese in different translations of the movie.

“The movie isn’t just in English or Japanese, it’s translation crazy… I like keeping both languages alive. Obviously, in different countries English will be erased. The Japanese stays everywhere that people will see the movie but the English will be replaced with French, Italian, etc.,” Anderson told the magazine.

While Anderson’s idea for adding untranslated Japanese may have been well intentioned, there are better ways to maintain cultural aspects of a film than interspersing incomprehensible blurbs of language throughout the film.

That said, the movie has its merits. Anderson maintains the same character aesthetics as those of “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” such as the dogs’ realistic hair and human eyes. The eyes were the highlight of the movie for me; the animators’ attention to the eye movement added depth to the film, especially during scenes where the dogs would look directly at the audience.

The ending of the movie is also disappointing and cheesy. The typical villain-turned-hero and hasty wrap-up of the movie is poorly done and underdeveloped and left me expecting more.

Despite my negative view of the film’s mechanics, I do think that Anderson’s message behind the film comes through clearly.

By portraying the dogs as a marginalized group that is being oppressed by an evil politician who manipulates the populace by spreading hysteria about “snout flu,” Anderson effectively shows the dangers of mass hysteria and focuses in on its emotional impact. Furthermore, Anderson’s portrayal of resistance to corrupt politicians seems to endorse civic engagement and resistance in the face of oppressive policies, providing a timely message in today’s political climate.

Thus, while the message of the film was meaningful and relevant, I felt that the storyline was lacking and sloppily delivered through voice-overs. The bottom line: Anderson neglected to develop characters and events, instead zeroing in on unnecessary details.