Recently watched Isle of Dogs and I thought it was good and I enjoyed all the quirks and I thought Wes Anderson delivered his message in a convincing way. Without thinking too deeply I thought it was obvious the movie clearly has something to say about America's treatment towards Japanese people during WW2. The main premise is that the dogs are exiled to a different island which is allegorical to internment camps. The mayor uses propaganda to push xenophobia and racism which is what happened in WW2.

People were complaining about Gretas character but Anderson was so obviously making fun of American's white savior perspective they have in all of Hollywood movies and in real life. This movie was critique of America and he used an animal which humans absolutely adore as a plot device to show the absurdity of America.

The only thing I walked away thinking was why did he use Japan for this ? Literally one quick search you find out oh he wanted to make a tribute to Japanese culture and cinema in his own way.

I then saw the outrage this movie had when it came out and all of the criticisms just did not feel genuine whatsoever. It felt like people went into the movie wanting to find something to hate and that's what they did just latched onto that something that holds no merit if you just "Why would the director do this?"

I've noticed this a lot especially recently with movies like Poor Things, Killer of the Flower Moon, and even movies like The Zone of Interest and Oppenheimer.

Why are people hate watching so much ? It's clear they see an opinion online and when they watch it they only watch it through that lens.

If the best metaphor Wes Anderson could come up with for the internment of Japanese Americans in the United States was a dog island off the coast of Japan, he should stick to doing other things. Actual Japanese characters aren't even capable of speech. I found it all very muddled.

People think engaging with art is homework. They just haven't exercised those muscles enough. It's also very easy to look stupid. There's definitely an element of insecurity.

yea but not a great example

I think you're kind of reducing it which makes sense in a way, I don't think Wes Anderson was literally trying make a movie about Japanese treatment in America throughout World War 2. The movie at its core is still a silly animation movie about dogs fighting against a authoritarian government. It's light hearted in nature but there are underlying messages which I think are delivered well enough.

I do think its wayyyy to safe and he failed at his goal of trying to making a movie as a tribute to Japan cinema.

Whys that ?

I think it works as an Escape from New York, but as far as parsing a clear political allegory I got nothing. Some bromides and political cartoons towards the end at best. The Henry Sugar ones were a lot more legible for better or worse.

I think the animation itself is undeniably brilliant at least. There are some really innovative stop motion shots in that which I haven't seen anywhere else.

An allegory doesn't always have to convey a convincing message it can just be a way to convey/critique complex ideas in a more accessible way like Animal Farm. I have not watched Henry Sugar yet

I think the lack of conveyance was the problem. There's no mistaking what the Henry Sugar ones are communicating.

I understand where youre coming from. I don't really think he wanted it to be the focus of the movie entirely. I think he still wanted to try to make it light-hearted and fun