Dog actors are the ultimate method actors

A dog actor does not know they’re acting

& as such fully inhabits The Dog
Become so Dog-like it is impossible

To distinguish the dog’s everyday existence

From The Dog’s narrative 
The plot for The Dog

Is always a subplot for the dog

Here is the dog alive in themself
the dog behaves like a dog

the dog acts as though The Dog would act

The acting of The Dog is the dog
The Director suggests

That the dog refuses to hold a mirror

Up to The Dog
the dog barks & so too does The Dog

Though the dog is solely in possession of the bark

The bark is singular 
The Director feels the dog

Is not prioritising The Dog

That the dog does not yet know The Dog
The subject is the dog

The object is The Dog

the dog should study The Dog
The Director insists the dog

Must separate from The Dog

In order to become The Dog
How can one become

The Dog when one is already

the dog
the dog’s motivations are different from

The Dog’s motivations

The Dog is more than the dog
The Director is trying to get

The best out of the dog

Who responds by acting like a dog
the dog is labelled a dog

the dog does not know when

To give up the dog act 
the dog won’t put in the work clearly

the dog is making things rough

the dog is not a part of the pack
It becomes apparent that

the dog lacks training

But not in the traditional dog sense
Training for dog actors

Is very different

To training for human actors
Method acting is not suitable for dogs

The producers try to train the dog

In the Stella Adler technique
But the dog lacks imagination

the dog acts exactly as the dog would act

When instructed to perform the dog the dog does the dog
The Director sees a silver lining

the dog physically embodies The Dog

Why not try Stanislavski 
When the dog is asked to recall a memory

the dog reverts to behaving like the dog

Which is a perfect shadow of The Dog’s childhood
The producers agree that this is quite dog-like

Never have they seen

A dog so fully inside The Dog
During the filming of The Dog Two

Aptly titled The Dog Too: The Dogging

A union rep notices the dog’s behaviour 
The rep identifies that the dog

Is dogged by The Dog

That the dog is in fact a dog at all times
This is double standards according to the rep

the dog should not be expected

To inhabit The Dog all day every day
The hours that the dog

Has to be The Dog

This is dog exploitation
At home the dog is sleeping

In a dog bed

& eating dog biscuits
the dog appears to behave

Like The Dog

Even when no one is watching
An intimacy coach

Becomes concerned about

the dog’s mental health
No one can tell whether the dog is happy

The Dog Too is a miserable film

The Dog is unhappy in the film
the dog must act unhappy in order to be The Dog

This is tantamount to psychological torture

The union rep is disgusted
The second AD is outraged

Dogs should be happy

Dog actors should be happy
Litigation against the studio

Leads to The Dog Act

Which requires all dogs on set to be happy dogs 
The Dog Act revolutionises the industry

Barring many sad dogs from set

Sad dogs are no longer a part of the story
When award season rolls around

the dog is overlooked for an Oscar

Despite playing a dog called Oscar 
The industry debates why the dog was shunned at the awards

One commentator suggests that the dog has limited range

the dog can only play The Dog
Other commentators say that the dog has been typecast

That the dog is not always an extremely happy dog

That the dog actually longs to play more complex dog characters
the dog becomes a representative

For a movement called

The Sad Dog Movement
Scriptwriters get involved

They long to write more complex dog characters

They long to write dogs who have experienced dog trauma
In order to avoid further litigation

The studio comes to a decision

Regarding the representation of dogs on screen
In an open letter they state that dogs are no longer dog actors

That stories about dogs are no longer fictional stories about dogs

That all films featuring dogs are actually documentaries about dogs
The industry seems satisfied with this outcome

Dog trainers & dog workers are ignored

Litigation against the studio is dropped
There is another problem however

People grow weary of their dogs

Can they trust their dogs
If all films featuring dogs are documentaries

Does this mean that the mere presence of a dog in everyday life

Indicates that a person is living inside a documentary
Many dog owners do not want to be surveilled

Other dog owners look at their dogs

As potential sources of revenue 
For some dog owners

This realisation rubs up against

Their anthropocentric worldview
They no longer see themselves

As the main character in their own story

They grow jealous of their dogs
the dog is owned by the studio

As such the dog is oblivious to this issue

the dog does not release a statement
the dog is called out by The Dog’s fans

Accused of not caring about the interests of fellow dogs

People say the dog was only ever nice when playing The Dog
A senator raises The Dog Problem

Suggests that the only option

Is to fictionalise all dogs
If all dogs are fictional

Then there will be no dogs

In documentaries
The studio produces

A film called

THE MAKING OF DOGS
The film is an exposé that reveals

That all dogs are made-up

That not a single dog has ever existed
That the only dogs that have ever existed

Are dog characters in films

The film is boycotted by the industry
No one needs to see THE MAKING OF DOGS

The industry is already known for its perversions

Everyone knows that dogs are made-up
According to federal legislation

Made law in the senate

All dogs are The Dog
It is at this point that The Dog turns 77

It is not possible to mark The Dog’s birthday

Because the dog does not exist 
The Dog formerly known as the dog

Stares at a billboard with his own Dog face

On it & thinks it’s a Dog eat dog world
Or is it