Dogville

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

No separate thread for this yet? Just saw it this afternoon, and I gotta say I was pretty much blown away. I knew a fair amount about it going in, and I'm well familiar with von Trier and the Dogme crowd, but nothing really made me expect it to be great, which it was. Everybody talks about Our Town, and I see why, but it's really in the tradition of The Scarlet Letter and The Crucible, except that von Trier has a much wickeder sense of humor than Hawthorne or Miller. I'm a moderate von Trier fan -- before this, my favorite thing of his was The Kingdom, and I was underwhelmed by Dancer in the Dark except for the musical numbers and the final scene -- but this is easily his best thing. I think the ending -- which is perfect and, in its way, hilarious -- is open to a lot of interpretation and argument, which is obviously the intent. Among other things, it's sort of a big socialist/liberal fuck-you to the Bush doctrine (i.e. OK, if that's the kind of world you want to live in, here you go motherfucker), but the allegory is obviously broader than the current circumstances. Anyway, I know lots of people will hate it, or hate it already. But I loved all of it, including the stagy staging and John Hurt's narration.

― spittle (spittle), Monday, 29 March 2004 03:04 (twenty-two years ago)

And Nicole Kidman, of course. She's really pretty great. And respect to Lauren Bacall for showing up.

― spittle (spittle), Monday, 29 March 2004 03:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Not out here yet. :(

Heavily anticipating it, though.

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Monday, 29 March 2004 03:11 (twenty-two years ago)

i've never actually enjoyed a lars von trier film, except maybe the element of crime, which i half-enjoyed; but i still feel like i need to see this eventually. why?

― amateur!st (amateurist), Monday, 29 March 2004 09:59 (twenty-two years ago)

this movie is SHITE! incredibly boring and long, and only making very little use of the white lines concept. the final discussion between grace and her father is RIDICULOUS, and the smirky voice-over kills any movement towards subtlety. it's a fable, i know, but a damn tension-less one at that.

only good things:
tom as a cruel metonomy for the modern intellectual.
the apple-car ride is very beatifully filmed.
the ending.

it's worth seeing, as it will certainly spark a discussion between you and the people you go see it with. but it is not a good film.

― Jay Kid (Jay K), Monday, 29 March 2004 10:24 (twenty-two years ago)

A critique on the Bush system? I heartily disagree (together with von Trier by the way). It's a critique on any "social group vs the other/stranger." I love the film for so many reasons: from the way he uses the stage, the message, the ending (which completely throws you out of balance),...

― jesus nathalie (nathalie), Monday, 29 March 2004 10:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Jay Kid OTM. the film is appalling.

― jed_ (jed), Monday, 29 March 2004 11:02 (twenty-two years ago)

The rape scene, in which the camera pulls back across the whole town, while not flinching from the act is stunning. The town carries on its business, either unaware or complicit, and the audience sees 'through' the town to the gruesome goings on right at the far end.

― Japanese Giraffe (Japanese Giraffe), Monday, 29 March 2004 11:14 (twenty-two years ago)

watch "Hyenas" by Ousmane Sembene, it's a much better version of Durrenmatt's "The Visit" than this is

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 29 March 2004 11:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Once somebody digs up that quote my Presidential chances are finished

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 29 March 2004 11:48 (twenty-two years ago)

only making very little use of the white lines concept
ie. the rape scene, which is, i agree, very effective and disturbing. amazing that von T didn't use his scenery gimmick more consequently.

― Jay Kid (Jay K), Monday, 29 March 2004 12:12 (twenty-two years ago)

i am concerned by how much von trier puts his women into victim roles

― anthony, Monday, 29 March 2004 13:23 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm expecting to hate this, because I find myself sympathetic to the concerns in the negative reviews (Davids Edelstein and Denby both speak of von Trier's critique of America as kneejerk and ill-informed) -- but of course I will see it.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 29 March 2004 13:47 (twenty-two years ago)

this is already on dvd in every other country aside from the US. I guess they edited half an hour out for the eventual US release, hence my purchase of the Hong Kong version of the film which should show up today. I'm excited! I love all o f von Trier's films that everyone else finds manipulative and awful.

― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Monday, 29 March 2004 14:34 (twenty-two years ago)

I haven't loved anything von Trier's done before this, except possibly the first 4 hours of The Kingdom. I've tended to think he was equal parts interesting and annoying. But Dogville sold me all the way. And yeah, it is a universal human allegory. But so were The Crucible and Animal Farm, and those both also had specific political contexts; so does Dogville. That said, I don't think there's anything "knee-jerk" about the critique; the arc of the story, basically Grace's changing relationship to the town, is inevitably kind of schematic, but I thought it was well developed. I mean, that's one reason it's 3 hours long, it takes time to build the relationships and trace their evolution.

The movie is also funny, a quality lacking in Dancer in the Dark and Breaking the Waves. During the big Kidman-Caan scene at the end, people in the theater were laughing, and I think it was supposed to be funny, in a grim way. The audacity of the ending is kind of bracing, and nicely fits the audacity of the entire phony structure of the movie. (I kinda love that so many people hate it, though.)

― spittle (spittle), Monday, 29 March 2004 15:01 (twenty-two years ago)

it suxx0r. it's the emperor's new clothes.

― Jay Kid (Jay K), Monday, 29 March 2004 15:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Conflicting reviews: J. Hoberman ("For passion, originality, and sustained chutzpah, this austere allegory of failed Christian charity and Old Testament payback is von Trier's strongest movie—a masterpiece, in fact"), Film Threat ("Yet the film unrolls with a stunning lack of logic, with numerous ludicrous plot twists and abrupt reversals of character personalities...Don't waste your money on this one. Please!").

― spittle (spittle), Monday, 29 March 2004 15:56 (twenty-two years ago)

i'm tempted to see it because overall i like von triers, but i have a bad gut feeling. i usually like hoberman's taste, though.

― lauren (laurenp), Monday, 29 March 2004 16:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Has anyone seen von Trier's documentary that's related to this? His film mentor has to make five short films, each bound by a random and pointless rule laid down by von Trier. (Or maybe it's not directly tied in other than an article in Sight & Sound.)

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 03:26 (twenty-two years ago)

it's not tied to this (the one tied to this is called 'dogville confessions'). the one you're talking about is called 'the five obstructions' and yes, it's von trier goofing around making arbitrary constraints for his used-to-be mentor jørgen leth (ie. 'there has to be a cut for every half second in this film', 'this film has to be shot in cuba', 'this film has to be shot in a place with great poverty' etc.).
all together, leth has to make five different remakes of his classic 1970ies short 'the perfect man', and whereas leth's efforts come off as somewhat uninteresting and oldfashioned, at least he is trying. von trier comes off as the great loser of the game, as he just sits there in his somewhat sad mental state, commanding an old man around the world. there you have it. it's actually a pretty good film, you should see it on dvd or if it comes up anywhere near you.

― Jay Kid (Jay K), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 07:55 (twenty-two years ago)

that one's playing in paris now, the critics gave it a severe lashing

― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 10:16 (twenty-two years ago)

jay kid OTM yet again.

― jed_ (jed), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 10:45 (twenty-two years ago)

I'll defend dogville.

― cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 10:46 (twenty-two years ago)

You would.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 11:15 (twenty-two years ago)

well, go on then.

― jed_ (jed), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 11:19 (twenty-two years ago)

I, I... I can't.

― cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 12:06 (twenty-two years ago)

I think von trier's films are more interesting than heartbreaking to be honest. and it's not even the film that's interesting but the ways and whys it was made. the films themselves are almost secondary. which is maybe a bit of a sad and seemingly wasteful way to look at it. : /

― cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 12:09 (twenty-two years ago)

the young americans montage was a bit ridiculous, no?

― lauren (laurenp), Sunday, 4 April 2004 01:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, yeah. Deliberately, right? I mean, you don't juxtapose that song with Dorothea Lange and Jacob Holdt without tongue fairly well in cheek. But I thought it was interesting, because it worked two ways: first, the "simple po' folk" in the Depression photos suddenly look sinister after the storyline that precedes them; but then as the montage goes on, misery after misery, I think a larger point emerges about how a society treats its most vulnerable members -- and, in line with the story, the do-unto-others consequences of that. So even the archness of using the song becomes something more than arch by the time it hits that "do you remember the bills you have to pay" line.

It's over the top. A lot of the movie is over the top. (Nicole Kidman in an iron collar and chain?) But over-the-topness is a viable option.

― spittle (spittle), Sunday, 4 April 2004 04:59 (twenty-two years ago)

cozen mostly OTM.

I actually thought this was quite an interesting film though, hardly "appalling" or "shite".

When we got home I drew a "cat" on a piece of paper for my wife. We put it on the floor and fed it tuna.

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Sunday, 18 April 2004 03:09 (twenty-one years ago)

(ANSWERS)

(SERIOUS DEBATE)

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Sunday, 18 April 2004 16:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Can you know that a film is somewhat ridiculous and agree that its director is an almost juvenile provocateur who occasionally has half a decent idea but is never prepared to take it all the way or to justify any of his decisions (because of course, that's not the point - great get-out clause!) and STILL enjoy, well maybe "enjoy" is the wrong word, the film nonetheless despite/because of all of those things?

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Sunday, 18 April 2004 16:29 (twenty-one years ago)

What I'm saying is that this film might not have a salient point in it, might just be a a completely excessive piece of anti-moralistic masturbation, but it still took some incredible risks and I was strangely fascinated by it. I do find it a bit uncomfortable that Von Trier has to keep raping and killing and hanging women and chaining them to wheels and so on, especially as his goal seems to be to be as outre' with all this as possible (not that I'm taking score, but I found Breaking The Waves hardest to take in this regard). I also thought that Nicole Kidman and Patricia Clarkson (who I love) were both excellent.

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Sunday, 18 April 2004 16:36 (twenty-one years ago)

I dunno, I thought it was plenty salient. If you accept the premise that von Trier is making a more-or-less socialist critique of a more-or-less capitalist society, then I think it reads as a pretty straightforward "Caution" sign: A society not founded on some basic concept of mutual obligation -- a society in which all decisions have to be justified according to individual costs and benefits, rather than collective responsibility -- can, and left to its own devices will, justify all kinds of horrible actions. But while the rationales may all be individual, the responsibility is still collective, and the judgment is likely to be as well.

I guess I think von Trier is arguing for humanism not on some kind of touchy-feely "it's just the right thing to do" grounds, but on the grounds that it actually is safer and smarter in the long run. The conclusion is basically the Golden Rule taken to its logical negative extreme. Which doesn't strike me as a juvenile position at all, however much of a smirky, snarky guy he is. (Certainly it's a more mature position than that of a lot of current foreign policy leaders...)

I agree about his penchant for abusing his leading ladies, but the Kidman character was lot different than the Emily Watson or Bjork characters. From the beginning, she seems stronger and more self-sufficient, and of course by the end you know why. It'll be interesting to see what happens to that character in the next movie (although it's too bad Kidman won't be back to play her).

― spittle (spittle), Sunday, 18 April 2004 16:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I do find it a bit uncomfortable that Von Trier has to keep raping and killing and hanging women and chaining them to wheels and so on

I read an interview with him somewhere, where they asked him about this, and I can't really remember his answer, but the interviewer also noted that the desk he was sitting behind was covered in hardcore female-bondage mags, which I thought was kinda brilliant and anticipatory and childish and lame at the same time. (ie he is a smart idiot?) Didn't Mark S call him the greatest media manipulator of all time?

― Gregory Henry (Gregory Henry), Sunday, 18 April 2004 16:57 (twenty-one years ago)

He's provocative, but I think it's a mistake to see his movies strictly through the prism of his persona. There's more going on in the movies than whatever spin he gives in press conferences. Just like there's a lot more going on in David Lynch's movies than his faux-naive persona ever lets on.

― spittle (spittle), Sunday, 18 April 2004 17:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, but if Lars Von Trier is arguing for humanism he is doing it in a blatantly contrived and gleefully manipulative way, which is kind of anti-humanistic, is it not? Oh no, I've fallen into his trap!

I give up.

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Sunday, 18 April 2004 17:11 (twenty-one years ago)

I actually hate the way Von Trier (and his supporters) use his status as a "Catholic" and "socialist" filmmaker to give him a supposed firm moral ground to launch these attacks on a so-called "bourgeois", "western", and "hypocritical" society.

But then someone else has already said it - what's more bourgeois and excesssive than being a furiously self-promoting European art filmmaker?

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Sunday, 18 April 2004 17:15 (twenty-one years ago)

this is basically how i felt after seeing dogville. spittle, i think your explanation of the societal critique is accurate but i can't really take it as such. i really felt that it was almost beside the point.

xpost

― lauren (laurenp), Sunday, 18 April 2004 17:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Go this way>

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Sunday, 18 April 2004 17:15 (twenty-one years ago)