One of the many interesting aspects of Dog Of God remains its writing that borrows its roots from the 17th century case of a witch being accused of witchcraft, something that unleashes the concept of a werewolf in the midst. But the beauty of the writing involves adding dollops of folklore to the retelling and presenting the drama in the form of a rotoscope animation film (remember Richard Linklater’s film Waking Life (2001)?). And again, the timeline remains the same and a matter of interest for the drama wherein Latvia was ruled by the Swedish (that implied for the excessive corruption in the drama). The writing also offers a provocative antithesis on the concept of religion, wherein the sinful prophecy of drinking is also extended in the holy church. In fact, it is showcased that the one symbol of religion and the higher one, also remains corrupted in the heavily tilted game of power dynamics doing the rounds. And this also extends to its characters.

There are two power centers that are represented in the film based on their occupation. When you are introduced to the character of Baron Klodt (Kristian Karelins), you notice the power dynamics of possession in the form of maintaining zero law and order for the land that he ‘rules’. The underlying subtext is that of greed that further extends to his want for his rightful heir, a thought plagued by his own weakness of impotency. On the other hand, when you are introduced to the priest Bukholcs (Regnars Vaivars), you immediately notice his hypocritical nature. He is a character known to preach abstinence from sin, while having issues in controlling his own s*xual urges. You often see him flagellating himself for the very reason, only to then turn to his alter boy Klibis (Jurgis Spulenieks) in a discreet inquiry about the attire of Neze (Agate Krista), the local tavern gypsy whom he lusts for. In a way, both Neze and Klibis remain is props, with one being objectified for being a ‘characterless’ woman, and the other treated like a pet dog. Speaking on which, you see frequent visuals of a dead dog rotting on the road, or even a parrot with gonads, which in a way are direct antithesis to the much thought-provoking animals that were featured in Flow (2024). And there is a character resembling Adolf Hitler, that is enough to tell you what hell looks like here!

The ominous signs in the drama are reserved for a hearsay (a form of sin), when Klibis overhears Neze tell another character that “something dark is approaching”, almost signalling a change of tide in this already chilling atmospheric setting. And this incident coincides with another vital event in the film – Bukholcs’ most valued relic, his Holy Stray goes missing thereby directing him to frame Neze for the deed and taking her to a trial. The dynamics of power are in full swing wherein you witness Bukholcs joining forces with Baron Klodt in a court of law, symbolizing how the rich hold the cards of the poor and are instrumental in forming a narrative to lure the corrupted minds of the people, much like the role of media in today’s times (with the twin characters having infinite substitutes in today’s world). 

It is interesting that these charges on Neze directly correlates with the entry of Tiss (Einars Repse), who claims to be a werewolf, and someone who has been to hell. His character essentially represents an omen, which would unleash in a night of abandon, knowing fully well that Neze is innocent and that the village folks remain corrupted. The writers utilized the age old concept of a werewolf from the mythological folklore, and add a human touch to it. The definition in the context of the film remains unclear – is Tiss a character having to transform to a beast as a punishment of being unable to control his s*xual urges? Or was it a form of spiritual awakening as a direct counter to the corrupt society simmering in the fields of hell? Either way, Tiss remains a saviour for Neze, and later also to Klibis, both of whom are shown to be wronged by the powerful folks of the village.

The shifting power dynamics is also indicated through the character of the Baron who strikes a deal with Neze to allow her freedom in exchange for a distilled liquid that he witnesses dripping from a huge pair of gonads (that circle back to the beginning of the drama). The events are chilling but also a trigger for rampant s*x that follows, almost signalling the sinful push to another dimension towards hell. And hence, the fate of the characters directly coincides with the chaos that ensues around them, while maintaining a cyclical succession of rebellion through a character, that automatically has a meta-reference to the makers passing on the anecdote to its viewers. It is almost referencing a parody of religion and how even the darkest forces can be overcome by a strategic cause of rebellion in times of hell. The message is provocative but not entirely binary, while coaxing the users to exercize discretion for opting for the ‘right’ path of glory. The screenplay is probably the most provocative piece of writing that I have seen in a while, making it a brilliant watch!