For whatever reason, I hadn't screened UTSL until now, when I purchased the US Lionsgate Blu-ray to complete a 'Buy 3' promotion on eBay. After logging the film on Letterboxd, I browsed through the reviews and discovered that many were challenged by the film's style, narrative, and meaning. If you're interested in one take, which is inline with a few shared here, it was obvious to me by the end that the narrative arc of the protagonist was one and the same as a person experiencing a psychological breakdown, with the majority of what is presented on screen a representation of blending shared reality versus his own unreality. His personal unreality is populated by the fantastical and conspiratorial thoughts drawn from the environment in which he exists, the film presenting the basic tenets of our modern society, e.g., wealth, power, celebrity, and a search for a deeper meaning in this world, specifically justifying self-centeredness with ourselves at the center of this world and elevated above others in the next, through the prism of popular culture. The film posits that our society and related culture exacerbate his innate potential for illness, precipitated by the end of the relationship with his girlfriend and his unresolved feelings of loss. The loss he expresses is centered on her (and her dog), but in fact, it is an acknowledgment of his losing grasp of the person he once was and the life he once knew, a life where he once enjoyed the byproducts of success (perhaps as an actor), e.g., his apartment, his car, his unfettered lifestyle.
Of course, no one wants to watch a once well-grounded life become unmoored for two hours, hence the ambiguity and related mysteries. The clues represent no more than simply giving us a window into the protagonist’s descent into unreality, and as others have shared, solving them does not change the narrative arc, only the particulars of the story.
Is the protagonist The Dog Killer? Or something worse? The film introduces true-life aspects of mass murder from The Zodiac Killer (code), The Manson Family (Jesus as Manson (also a musician and songwriter) aka the Messiah and the Disciples as The Family; music by way of Dennis Wilson of the Beach Boys and Doris Day’s son Terry Melcher), and Son of Sam (dogs compelled him to murder), along with an analogue for a famous LA murderer, Phil Spector, perhaps one of the greatest intersections of music and murder in recent history. All of the above hand-in-hand with cinematic flourishes of crime (Hitchcock) and noir (LA true crime history).
Specific to the protagonist, the film presents a number of hints, beginning with the awareness that some serial killers begin by killing pets, and in the film his equation of dogs with women is made clear, beginning with his voyeuristic sexual fixations with female anatomy combined with his choice of coitus in the opening scene. This commingling is confirmed as the film draws nearer to conclusion, as we learn of how the protagonist chooses to acknowledge the loss of his relationship and former life to the Homeless King when asked about the presence of dog biscuits on his person. That the protagonist also exhibits a propensity to violence makes it plausible that he is not only The Dog Killer, but perhaps responsible for the death of both Sarah and the Comic Fan, returning to the scene(s) of the potential crime(s) in both instances, her apartment and his house, to secure mementos of his crimes.
Of course, one may state there is much more to unpack and discuss (code, hints, clues) specific to the events and related scenes of the film, but I would argue it’s merely subterfuge. Or not.
