Who is the Dog Killer in Under the Silver Lake?

‘Under the Silver Lake’ is a complex film that constantly keeps the audience on their toes, gluts them on clues, and finally leaves them pleasantly high and dry with an open ending. The half dark comedy, half mystery thriller story revolves around Sam, a full-time conspiracy theorist, whose life is falling apart at the seams. Nonetheless, his unpaid rent and friendless life aren’t nearly as important as his other infatuation: uncovering the truth behind the many lies the world and the rich within it tell the masses. However, his life is thrown into chaos after his neighbor, a beguiling woman named Sarah, disappears out of nowhere. This compels Sam to undertake an investigation that unravels in surprising and entirely unexpected ways. Although Sam is never directly interested in it, the mystery of the dog killer perpetually looms over the narrative one way or another. Therefore, with many clues to track and no concrete answer to be found, the animal serial killer’s identity becomes a major point of unanswered intrigue in the story. SPOILERS AHEAD!

The Possible Suspects Behind the Dog Killer

The dog killer is one of the first mysteries introduced in the narrative. The film opens with Sam staring at a coffee shop window where “Beware the Dog Killer” has been graffitied. In the Silver Lake neighborhood of LA, a killer is on the prowl, and their victims are all four-legged canines, who all meet their bitter ends after falling prey to the killer’s whims. The public has no information about the killer’s identity or even motive, and they’re left with only fear and concern over their own pets’ lives. As the film progresses, this particular mystery gets sidelined in favor of new and increasingly outlandish conspiracies that lead Sam to many intriguing discoveries. However, it also introduces an array of eccentric characters to the story, many of whom sport the capability of being the elusive dog killer.

One of the more obvious suspects is Owl’s Kiss, the mysterious and homicidal naked woman who is said to target men and women alike. Even though she’s introduced as an urban legend and a myth, the audience gets a glimpse at her in the flesh—that is, if Sam’s lived experiences are to be trusted. On a similar note, if we take the protagonist’s experiences into account as meaningful instances hallowed by the narrative, then Sarah also becomes a person of interest in the dog killer mystery. Once, Sam outright dreams about the woman killing a pet and feasting on its owner’s intestines, while another dream finds her by the pool, barking without rhyme or reason. Lastly, a more straightforward and unsatisfying answer lies in the shadowy figure that follows Sam in one sole instance, never to be seen again. However, more than any of these people, the story’s unreliable protagonist, Sam, proves to be the most compelling suspect of all.

Sam’s Interest in Comic Man—An Innocent Fascination or Something More Sinister?

In this conspiracy theory-ridden film, the conclusion of Sam’s identity as an unreliable narrator is something that the audience must arrive at on their own. Despite his increasingly nonsensical approaches, every clue he picks up leads to another, and every conspiracy he undertakes ends up being true. Yet, the structure of the narrative, its lack of pay-offs, and Sam’s general disposition are bound to tip fans off about the protagonist’s fallible nature. As a result, his every interaction and intention become open to interpretation and, in turn, suspicion. Initially, when Sam expresses an interest in Comic Man, it seemingly comes from a place of genuine and in-character curiosity. He’s interested in the local Under the Silver Lake zines because they speak of conspiracies, hidden truths, and codes with eerie authority and confirm his biases while also introducing new ones.

However, one of the pieces that truly seems to catch Sam’s eye stems from the author’s writing on the Dog Killer mystery, wherein he establishes that he can crack every code in the city, including that of the pet killer’s identity. On the surface level, the protagonist’s interest in the comic book’s author, who is revealed to be Comic Man, can be read as an extension of his general conspiracy theorist hobbies. However, what if the reality is much more specific? What if it’s the Dog Killer piece in particular, and the claim that Comic Man knows the truth behind that secret, which compels Sam to seek out the author? Perhaps, instead of simple curiosity, it is also a layer of fear of being found out that brings him to Comic Man? If this line of thinking is to be further followed, it wouldn’t be difficult to theorize that it’s this same paranoia that compels Sam to eventually kill Comic Man. Afterward, he could have pinned the blame on the mythological Owl’s Kiss, a being that only he ever sees and who, interestingly enough, never harms him.

Sam and the Suspicious Dog Treats in His Pockets

One of the most incriminating instances that allows one to confidently throw Sam’s hat in the ring as a suspect for the dog killer stems from his inexplicable possession of dog treats. Early on, in the film, he tries to get in the good books of Sarah’s dog, Coca Cola, by feeding him some dog treats. When asked, he tells her that the reason he still carries the treats around is that he used to own a dog who tragically passed away a while ago. However, there are indications or proof that support his claim of being a previous pet owner. In the moment, it’s easy to interpret this white lie as Sam attempting to make a connection with Sarah through her dog as a result of his obvious attraction toward her. Nonetheless, it becomes a little harder to justify when he’s caught again by the Homeless King with dog treats in his pockets.

In that instance, Sam tells another sad story about how a girl he loved had a pet dog. Eventually, he lost her after she stopped loving him. Even so, he continued carrying dog treats with him in hopes that she would one day return and allow him to fall back into the bliss of loving her and her pet dog. At first glance, there’s nothing stopping this story or the one about a dead pet from being actual truths tied to Sam’s history. Nonetheless, they raise just enough suspicion for a viewer to also formulate their own theory about why the treats are in his pockets to begin with. Early in the story, Sam dreams about finding a killer, likely the dog killer, by following a trail of dog treats. This instills an idea in the audience’s mind that dog treats must play a part in the killer’s scheme of cornering dogs. From there, it doesn’t take much convincing to pitch the theory that Sam’s uncharacteristic possession of dog treats is a sign that he is actually the real dog killer.

The Clues Connecting Sam to the Dog Killer Are Likely Intentional

While there are specific instances that heighten the possibility of Sam being the Dog Killer, the film is littered with small clues or hints that easily feed into this same narrative. On multiple occasions, the protagonist imagines women barking at him in ways that make it abundantly clear that these moments are a figment of his imagination. This plays into a bigger indication, showcasing how Sam enjoys the company of women up until they become hostile toward him or in any way unpleasant, which leads him to view them as dogs. When paired with the assumption that he is the dog killer, these instances can be seen as his subconscious fixing women with dog-like attributes to signify his desire for violence toward them. Another pivotal moment that hints toward his canine-murdering habit stems from a conversation he has with Millicent, wherein he doesn’t agree with her idea that someone violent enough to murder dogs wouldn’t think twice about murdering people.

Only a few people would think to contest this worldview, and one of them would undoubtedly be the dog killer. As such, when you go looking, there are a number of clues that hint toward Sam being the dreadful pet murderer. However, this answer can only be asserted once viewers begin to look at the film through a conspiracy theorist’s lens. Typically, an argument is made by pitching premises and following them to a logical conclusion. However, in order to identify Sam as the dog killer, one must start with the conclusion, then begin noticing different hints and equip them as premises to justify their argument. In other words, you would need Sam’s foil hat in order to find any concrete or believable answer to the mystery.

The film is intentionally set up this way, creating a meta commentary about the nature of conspiracies by turning the viewers into theorists themselves in a desperate attempt to make sense of the world within the story. Ultimately, even though it’s likely that Sam is the dog killer, hiding in plain sight throughout the tale, the film leaves the mystery ambiguous on purpose. Even so, fans can perhaps rest a little easier knowing that there is some intentionality to the characterization and details that allow one to suspect Sam of being the killer. In a 2019 interview with Dazed, lead actor Andrew Garfield seemingly confirmed the same by discussing the thought that went behind his portrayal of Sam. He said, “(During filming) I’d do one take where I know I’m (as Sam) the dog killer, one take where I think I’m the dog killer, and one take where I have no idea about the dog killer at all. I’d let (director) David (David Robert Mitchell) pick what take he’s drawn to. It could all be a dream, it could all be reality. It’s up for grabs.”

Read More: Best Dog Movies on Netflix