Lawn Dogs (1998)

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Let me admit up front that I turned this movie off after a half-hour. I'm a big fan of quirky, low-budget movies with odd characters, but movies that attempt to satirize contemporary mores need to have characters whose actions have some relationship to the way human beings would act in the real world. I didn't believe one second of the part of this movie I saw. The parents and community cop were straw people and the worst kind of clichés. Nobody, no matter how quirky and counter-culture, would stop in the middle of a bridge, strip naked, and dive into a creek while holding up a line of traffic. If he did, the people being held up wouldn't just sit there and watch. No ten-year-old girl would know the make and model of an old pickup truck. No---these are many other scenes were just the screenwriter's lame ways of pounding into our heads that the sympathetic characters were offbeat and charming and the unsympathetic characters were stupid and lacking in imagination. I can't believe anybody would rate this movie higher than a 3 or 4. The fact that this film could even get made and released is symptomatic of how low modern movie standards have fallen. It's really bad.

When I was a little boy, my mother told me to be careful when in the company of young girls, particularly preteens. I asked her why and she said that they lied and believed the lies and that could get me into a lot of trouble I did not need. When I asked her how she knew this, she said, "Because I was a little girl once, trust me!" Well, her advice was based on the assumption that I was straight and would be interested in girls other than for occasional acquaintance. I avoided them mostly because they seemed to detect that I was a young gay boy who was 'not in the market' and just another form of competition, I suppose, so the advice was moot.This movie illustrates my mother's warnings to a tee. It ought to be required for hetero boys. On the surface, this movie seems to have a lot going for it--adequate actors all, plot, subplots, etc. You are slowly drawn in and then the tension builds which Hitchcock would have appreciated. It unfortunately loses me with the rather abrupt contrived ending. This little girl, first of all, is obviously extremely aware of her power over the people around her. She may not be obviously manipulating her parents, but nonetheless, with the lying, withholding, going along with their lies, she aids and abets. The parents mimic every Republican I've ever known, having grown up in a mixed community of both wealth and middle to low-middle class. The two young men, Sean (closeted gay attracted to Trent) and Brett (hetero gigolo servicing Kathy Quinlan while her husband barbeques himself silly) evoke every town bully I've ever run into--both gay and straight. They are just idiotic testosterone driven manimals played adequately by Mr. Mabius and Mr. Gray. The costar to the main character, Sam Rockwell (aka Trent) is extremely James Dean enough to get you to pathos and empathy for his hard luck life and lack of breaks. Actually, if one looks differently at the film, the manipulative little girl ends up being his answer to freedom. Unfortunately, in the process of plot, I assume to move things along in the time allotted, they have her implicate Trent (her supposed friend) and again, let events go where she wants them to. I think it was intended to be more about the perceived powerlessness of youngsters who are shown to be actually pulling all the strings with their deviant daydreams and behavior towards the adult world that they both long to be a part of and detest and rebel against. In life, I do NOT believe this girl would have shot the young man with the stick. I think she'd have let it happen and watched voyeuristically. Trent would have been dogmeat. Perhaps, years later as a repentant adult she'd have told a stranger what really happened or written a book and done the talk shows after having gone through some fake therapy. I just don't believe that particular character capable of that ending. I think it was obvious where she was headed from the start. She knew the power of her seductive behavior in the guise of friendship with this poor slob, Trent, and what she could do with it. She also knew how predictable her parents were and set them up constantly. This doesn't exempt them from being the most horrible parents on record for alienation of affection and misteaching of general rules of life. The parents are like the Bushes or Kennedys, externally real but internally vacant. Even when they are present, nobody is home. Like most wealthy people, they are masters of self-deception and withholding. All is surface. I think, however, the notion that those two bimbos could've raised a young woman with somewhat human attributes is silly. As most animals with genetic programming, we tend to turn out very much like those who sired us. She more likely would've toyed with this guy because of her boredom and lack of friends, but then set him up (which she does in fact) and walk away. It would've given her a sense of power, having some control. That ending would've been believable, but not very popular with audiences. Rank was famous for taking risks, however, I think they gave in to pressure to 'normalize' the message. The chance that Trent in the end would get away is not reality based either. Anyone with that much money would hire lawyers and detectives to drag Trent to justice (alive or dead) and then massage the media to conjure up and prove the false stories they would create to live with this situation. So, nice try guys, but no 10s here.

The primary reason Lawn Dogs is so maddening is that it's horribly obvious in its efforts to be irreverent. Oh look, a free-spirited girl scout befriends grown trailer trash of the opposite gender, isn't that strange & befuddling? Oh look, the lawn boy blocks cars on a bridge to casually strip naked & perform an Olympic-caliber dive into the lake while everyone watches, isn't that arty & unexpected? There are some interesting images that might intrigue you, but that's just high style with little content outside of a handful of good performances. saving graces? An adorable Mischa Barton is excellent as curious young Devon-- she was certainly talented at this age, though that might be hard for some to believe since she's inexplicably worsened with age (or laziness?). You might find flaws with her in Lawn Dogs if you're searching for them, but it's probably because you can see the Marissa Cooper in her and because Devon is a cliché construction: precocious youth represents innocence, revolts against the hypocrisy surrounding her. I've seen it, read it, heard it before, and never before did I have to roll my eyes with pseudo-evocative comments like "I don't like children. They smell like TV". A 10-year-old abstracting via synesthesia to get her disillusioned point across? That's abusing any willingness I had left with this movie to suspend my disbelief. But that's not her fault. Overall she's endearing, engaging, even funny, which makes her weekly exhibitions of "acting" on The OC all the more unforgivable. Of course, the #1 reason to watch this movie is Sam Rockwell, who I have yet to see give an uninspired performance in anything. Always bold, unusually brilliant, he'll strangely affect you whether you want him to or not. It's actors like him who make you realize why you love the movies. The relationship between Barton & Rockwell's characters is the third saving grace. Read: the problems with this film do not lie in the performances.I'm not going to argue with anyone if they love the movie, there may be moments that resonate with you. But like it for it's strengths and not because you're mistaking well-shot moments of quiet insipidness for moments of meaningful poignancy. If I had seen it 10 years ago when I was 13 and just starting to consistently watch indies then I might have enjoyed it more. But I've seen enough to know that Lawn Dogs chews up & spits out ideas & techniques pilfered from preexisting offbeat movies without actually having any real insights of its own. The overt symbolism between class differences is so obvious it's insulting, and comments meant to be profound are executed with as much depth & insight as angsty teen poetry. Now let's count the painfully obvious cliché's, shall we?1) guy from wrong side of the tracks as society's scapegoat 2) unlikely relationship between kindred spirits: this usually comes in the form of crossing age, gender, & class differences 3) Projecting a myth/fable/fairy tale/work of literature/history lesson as a conscious allusion to the themes & realities of the film. Yeah, I read several versions of Baba Yaga (also known as Bony Legs) when I was younger and it doesn't work so well here as, say, the use of "Peter Pan" in "ET" or countless other movies where this technique is used. 4) precocious youngster represents natural goodness & guides the action of the story 5) manicured lawns and pristine suburban sprawl represent falseness, superficiality, a loss of individuality None of these would be remotely problematic if they were better executed with some originality. Think how well the show "Weeds" pulls off #5. But I digress…Lawn Dogs says little and means even less. This movie is like a sentimental blubbering loner who sits, cries, whines, but is never for a moment aware enough to know why. You take an interest, you feel kind of bad...but in the long-run you're not really sure why on earth you're supposed to care.

The set up for this film is just weird and off-beat enough to engage fascination without going overboard. The characters are well-observed and presented and the essence of 'don't judge a book by its cover' finely pursued. Sam Rockwell is brilliant. Unfortunately there are deep flaws. The juvenile lead, Mischa Barton, is just OK and is required to deliver some sugary nonsense at the end which her gift for acting is unable to transcend. All in an inexplicable and hurried,'tragical/magical' denouement which utterly ruins the film and the interesting balance it had achieved until that point. Sam Rockwell's character's position is hopeless but wait, 'in a single bound, Jack was free'. Tragic.