Dogville (2003)
http://www.movieforums.com/gummly/dogville.jpg
And the Audience Says Woof It seems to me that Lars von Trier has outdone himself with Dogville (2003). If you loved him before, you'll probably fawn over this picture. If you hated him...well, maybe you shouldn't see it. Personally, I find von Trier to be an endlessly fascinating and often frustrating filmmaker. That doesn't mean I particularly like him or his movies, but that I'm merely intrigued by him and his work. Dogville is no exception. As with Breaking the Waves (1996), The Idiots (1998) and Dancer in the Dark (2000), von Trier has gone to great lengths in Dogville to alienate his audience and has succeeded absolutely at doing so. I don't think it's his best post-Dogme film [or his worst], but it's easily his coldest. Where von Trier's personal [and distinct] style was used in his earlier pictures to suggest docudramatic reality, it actually does the opposite in Dogville. Handheld cameras are still employed [and still create of a sort of intimacy between audience and image], but it's fairly obvious that this is no longer an aesthetic choice, but a personal preference [and I believe von Trier has actually verified this himself]. And even if there was some aesthetic purpose to the nature of Dogville's photography, von Trier's other stylistic choices would render it irrelevant anyway. The minimalist and highly presentative set is reminiscent of George Mosher's filmed production of Thornton Wilder's Our Town (1989), and indeed the film seems to be taking many of its cues not only from the theatre and its innovators, but from Wilder's play also. It is this bizarre style – the set, the title cards, the omnipresent voice of the Narrator – that ultimately prevents the audience from ever getting too close to the characters and the story. However [and here's the real conundrum], nobody ever actually said that von Trier was trying to engage us emotionally. Dogville is not a film of emotions, but of ideas – both specifically political and universally philosophical [not to mention aesthetic]. To that end, von Trier was almost wholly successful. It's all very Brechtian, of course – and all very calculated on the part of von Trier. In one of the film's more uncomforting sequences, Chuck (Stellan Skarsgård) rapes Grace (Nicole Kidman) on the floor of his home, where she has been minding his children. This scene, more than any other, really illustrates how in control of his art von Trier is. He chooses to frame the rape from afar – not intimately as we may expect – and thus, as the set is without walls, the camera seems less uninterested in Grace's plight than it is in the other citizens of Dogville. It's unsettling, because we realise that the camera's apathy is our own. We fail to [really] connect with Grace on an emotional level [as we usually do with the characters in other films] and then we are unsettled by this when we realise it. But our inability to connect to Grace isn't von Trier's shortcoming as a filmmaker – it's ours as people. The film has been deliberately constructed to show us this, and von Trier is again almost wholly successful in doing so. Yes, he seems very excited by the idea of tricking his audience in order to make them feel bad about themselves. His less-than-subtle manipulation of the audience has prompted many to think of him a sort of cinematic sadist – someone who is "abusing" cinema, and who holds the audience in an eternal state of contempt. I'm not saying that this isn't partly the case [actually, I think it is], but it's certainly not the full one. Brechtian alienation techniques have a far greater purpose than that, and Lars von Trier [slightly skewed though he may be] is not oblivious to this fact. The theatrical nature of Dogville and its heavy reliance on Brechtian technique clearly suggest that von Trier is sick of audiences going to the cinema to escape the world and its issues – he is sick of audiences "leaving their brains at the door". Is there really anything wrong with wanting to teach? von Trier wants to make the audience think, and maybe even learn a little something about themselves – even if it's something that they may not like. The most contrived moment of the film [and the one in which von Trier's influence feels most ubiquitous] is Grace's extreme change of heart at the film's climax. The scene, like the general artifice of the film's visual style, makes it impossible to really believe what is happening – but that's the whole point. We're not supposed to believe fables and parables; we're just supposed to learn from them. Dogville is not a film you can escape into the false "reality" of – it forces you to think about what is being said as opposed to what is happening. Its mission is not like that of other films and von Trier's is not like that of other filmmakers. As far as Grace's character goes, it's a pretty unbelievable moment [and I would imagine for many, too extreme a turnaround] though in regards to von Trier's manipulation of the audience, it's actually sorta perfect – we've left ourselves open [just like Dogville]. As an audience [and as people], we automatically feel that we deserve the mercy Grace is willing to offer us – but the thing is we don't, and that's the final lesson. We're not worthy of Grace [both the character and the state of being], because we're ultimately no better than dogs. It's not a "nice" lesson to learn, of course, and Dogville is not a "nice" film to sit through – but who on Earth said it was, and who on Earth said it had to be? At the very least, Lars von Trier knows what he's doing. You just have to ask yourself if that's good enough for you, and it very well might not be. Some would say that von Trier is a genius because he has such an acute ability to manipulate. Others would call him evil. But the only difference between the sort of manipulating done by Lars von Trier and that done by someone like Steven Spielberg is that the former is manipulating you in a way that makes you feel and think things that you might not like, while the latter is trading in more visceral sensations. There's nothing better or worse about either one, of course – they both have their purpose. Whether or not they serve it is the question, and the answer is much too subjective for me to answer. You have to do that for yourself. So see the film. You'll love it or hate it. To each his personal own. |
Wow. That's the best review I have ever seen in this forum.
**** |
I love Dogville.
Unlike another intentionally cold experiment from this year, Gus Van Sant's elephant, I was totally wrapped up in this movie. It has a style that many won't respond to, I'm sure, but it's an amazing movie. Part of the key for its success, for me anyway, was the narration, done pitch perfectly by John Hurt. Like the narrator in Kubrick's similiarly cold Barry Lyndon, the deadpan and darkly ironic sense of humor that the narration brings out juxtaposed with the narrative, provides the humanity and, in an odd way, even a warmth that the minimalistic Becket-like dramatics do not. And the way the final scene is pulled off, with that great dialogue between Kidman and Jimmy Caan (the greatest scene in the flick), it all pays off so perfectly for me. While I don't think it's the masterpiece that the unique Dancer in the Dark is, it's an excellent movie. I would suspect even if you hate it, it's one that'll stay with you for a while. A very thoughtful and provocative thinkpiece. |
I thought of you after the movie ended, Holden.
And you're right. This isn't one you're likely to just forget. Meanwhile, it was the first film I've ever been to that people walked out of. I loved it. |
Forget that tired ol' Danish Dogme schtick. We here in Europe are pretty jaded with that hard-on in your face slow segue and the retards running around playing pretend... :rolleyes:
All I'm looking forward to, as WE all are here in the Outer Herbrides, is the devine Ms Kidman in shackles!! :D :D :D JR |
im wobbling with excitement...i cant wait to see this film. i feel like ive been waiting for it to be realised for ages. must have been a year. ive only seen dancer in the dark but i really liked it.
|
Originally Posted by The Silver Bullet
Meanwhile, it was the first film I've ever been to that people walked out of. I loved it.
|
I wonder if people walked out because it was unlike anything that they could have expected. Like Sandler in Punch Drunk Love and Clooney in Solaris. If they were Kidman fans and been drawn to this movie based solely on that, then they might have been a tad disappointed. It’s not exactly an exciting movie.
I just finished watching it for the first time and was completely blown away by its unique style and the exceptional performances by all of the actors. I didn’t go through the type of self-analysis that you apparently went through though. For me, it showed how oblivious most people are of their own shortcomings because, more often than not, they’re paying more attention to others. Tom exemplifies that perfectly. The Brechtian style that Trier used was very effective. I did feel alienated and unable to empathize with anybody, but I was still able have an emotional attachment to Grace, it was just more of a visceral attachment. I responded to the scenes of abuse inflicted upon Grace and became angry by them. I felt like inflicting harm on most of the township, even the children. This movie may be meant to be more intellectual than emotional, but it worked both ways for me. One of the best movies I’ve seen in ages. |
And don't you just love Jimmy Caan at the end? It's a Hell of a lot of set-up, so if it doesn't come together tightly and with purpose for the finale, t'would be rather a waste. But man, I LOVE that scene in the car between Kidman and Caan. So perfect.
|
What I liked best about it is the fact that it was so real. The way they communicated was exactly what you'd expect of people with the type of relationship they had.
I'm wondering, did you agree with Grace? |
I certainly understood Grace's choice. It's probably the more human, though obviously less humane, decision. Odd how often those two things are in conflict, the human and the humane. The way she delivers the line about Vera's children - chilling. But again, understandable. I think we'd all like to imagine we'd have gone the other way were we in Grace's position, but I think we also know most of us would have made that exact same choice.
Great movie. |
That may be the entire point of the movie. What we percieve ourselves to be and what we are in reality. We are human.
I agree. Great movie. |
The review!
Absolutely incredible review....
The talent on this site continues to amaze me... _S |
I didn't realize that Kidman backed out of the next two installments of the trilogy until just now. It looks like Ron Howards daughter Bryce will be Grace for the rest of the series.
|
Yeah, that's old news. Too bad. But, maybe having three different "Graces" will be a blessing in disguise? I like Kidman a lot, and she was perfect in Dogville, but there are lots of great actresses out there.
How about using Bettany's wife, Jennifer Connelly? She can be my Grace any day. |
Does the fact that Trier seems to be totally anti-American bother you at all? Didn't the end credits scream propaganda? I doesn't bother me all that much, because Dogville seemed so universal and I didn't really pick-up its possible anti-American message until the end. By then it was too late, I already loved it.
|
Originally Posted by LordSlaytan
Does the fact that Trier seems to be totally anti-American bother you at all?
And I'm glad you didn't. |
Originally Posted by LordSlaytan
Does the fact that Trier seems to be totally anti-American bother you at all?
But I hadn't mentioned the end credits yet, so I'm glad you brought it up. I think they work rather brilliantly, and I can honestly say a David Bowie song is about the last thing I was expecting. But from what I can tell, a lot of the negative reviews were more about the feeling of the end credits than the nearly three hours of what came before it, which is bizarre. I think the tone and points of the end credits are a nice juxtaposition with the body of the film - again, like John Hurt's perfect narrator. It's not going to be truly released theatrically in The States until late March, but I'm curious to find out what the response is going to be. If it so fiercy divided the elite porofessional critics who saw it at various worldwide Film Festivals and such, wait until the folks from local, smaller markets take a look. I'm sure the Rotten Tomato meter won't be even close to fresh. |
Originally Posted by Silver Bullet
Dogville (2003)
|
I agree with your sentiment Holden. It hadn't even truly occurred to me until I went to IMdB and read some viewer responses. To me, like I said before, this story is more universal than secular. If anything, it showed that people who are dirt poor and without hope can succumb to humanities darker side more readily, but even that isn't the real message.
The end credits did surprise me, but it didn’t make me feel that I was under attack. If he was trying to attack the US in that way, he wouldn’t be any different than Tom. As matter of fact, he would be just like Tom, and therefore admitting that he is no different from anybody else out there. I have a feeling that I’ll be pondering this movie even after my third viewing. |
with kidman put through as much suffering as the heroines of dancer in the dark and breaking the waves, the new usa trilogy clearly distances itself from the golden hearted trilogy with kidman in the end turning into an old testament avenging angel, no longer turning the other cheek a la the new testament, but raining down her wrath on those who have done her wrong. it is this biblical split - between old and new testaments - that is at the heart of the film, and which makes dogville's story a universal one and the anti-american critics seem more blind than mckay.
taking the split between the god of the old testament and the god of the new testament as the centre of the film, james caan plays the old testament god (father), while nicole kidman (grace) plays the part of jesus. the people of dogville, into which she has been cast, are given a biblical test. biblical allusions abound, not least in the chain around grace's neck which leaves her looking like christ climbing up to calvary as she pulls the wheel the chain is attached to around the town. when the townspeople fail the test set them (playing out enroute the seven deadly sins), the vengeful god of the old testament turns up and offers his daughter a simple choice: vengeance or continuing to turn the other cheek. the film's subtlety - and it is subtle - comes in the fact that grace must admit that such vengeance is an act of arrogance - so even when you're rooting for her to exact some form of revenge on the town's folk, you're rooting for arrogance. try reconciling those two ideas in your head on the bus home and see how far you get. |
Ebert & Roeper decided to thrash Dogville. Check it out.
|
Originally Posted by LordSlaytan
Ebert & Roeper decided to thrash Dogville. Check it out.
I haven't seen it yet but I'm seriously considering doing it today after this. Even though I haven't seen it I can recognize some of the things that I can imagine being annoying in a von Trier film. I'm basing this after having loved Breaking the Waves, being confused and challenged by The Idiots and being irritated on von Trier but impressed with Björk when watching Dancer In the Dark. So hearing some of the things they are displeased with doesn't surprise me. But. They are annoyed not with the fact that von Trier is making a film about America, but something that is seemingly an anti-american film. And this without having set his foot on american ground. Well, gentlemen Ebert and Roeper, if I was to count the number of times that I've seen american films containing european stereotypes by american directors who think Scandinavia is a country, Switzerland is made of cheese and that all frenchmen wear berets and carry pain riches around, then I would still be counting. And what do they think has lead to people like von Trier's opinion on America? It's the american politics together with the export of american media and culture to Europe. America feeds on selling images of themselves to us. I can agree with them that it is strange that a director who has never been in the country devotes a whole trilogy to it. Personally if I was a director I would see to that I had ruled out that opportunity for the critics to bash me before I made the film. But isn't a film based on the images that people have of America valuable too? And they said that von Trier was afraid of going to America. It sounded like it was because he is afraid of America itself when it is really because he has an intense fear of flying. |
Originally Posted by Piddzilla
But. They are annoyed not with the fact that von Trier is making a film about America, but something that is seemingly an anti-american film.
|
Originally Posted by LordSlaytan
To be fair, they cited numerous other reasons as well.
|
Thanks, Slay!
Yet more verification of why I tune those two out. It's not just that I so often disagree with them on movies, it's that they're reviews -especially on the TV show (which I know are necessarily abbreviated), well it's too often the way that they're off-base. Judge the movie for the movie, not the director's personality. Though I don't hear them color each Woody Allen review with "the reputed pedophile is at it again....". They so missed the boat on Dogville, and for Roeper to hope that it doesn't get wider distribution is beyond catty, it's retarded. For every Whale Rider they champion each year, there are two or three they try and kill. Fu*k 'em. I hope everyone on this board anyway reads through the entire thread, takes in what SilverBullet, LordSlaytan and I think about Dogville, and get more than just the thumbs-down from E&R, which is apparently connected to their jerking knees. |
Originally Posted by Holden Pike
Though I don't hear them color each Woody Allen review with "the reputed pedophile is at it again....".
You know, though I disagree with Ebert with this review, more often than not, I like what he has to say. I'm disappointed with his blasting this gem, but I'll get over it. I agree with you though, about how he unfairly judges certain pictures. Especially remakes and adaptations. Too often he will base his entire opinion on how it measures up to a book or original film instead of judging it on its own merits. I disagree with his review of The Ladykillers because of that, and was upset on how he unfairly judged Fellowship of the Ring, but again, I got over it. Roeper, on the other hand, can suck my ****. |
Ooh! Boys, the language! The language! :eek: :D
Is Roeper the second guy talking on that sound file? |
Yes. The pithy little girl-man.
|
Lars' filmography
Silver,
I was curious to know if you have experienced Von Trier's breakthrough film "Element of Crime", or even "Zentropa"? Let me know. peace! Radio Raheem |
The Element of Crime **1/2
More of an experimentation of style than solid storytelling. Looks great but drags a bit. Could have been a lot worse for his first attempt. It did, however, show the world what Von Trier was all about right out of the gate. The man's got balls. |
Finally managed to see this last night. ONce again Trier ahs done it again, just as Dancer in the Dark dumbfounded me, so has Dogville. I need some more time to think about it, but i do know for a fact i think its a f*cking excellant film. I found myself not only questioning Graces actions at the end of the film, but also the towns poeples actions if i were in their situation. But perhaps the scariest part about this film is i was and still am, questioning myself. I agree wtih SB, i dont think this film is a direct atack of America, i think he jst uses America as an example of the disgusting side of humanity. We see America all over the world through films, and every other type of media. Its the most common example. America is Treirs paintbrush...
|
Originally Posted by blibblobblib
America is Treirs paintbrush...
|
Originally Posted by The Silver Bullet
I think you mean "canvas".
i need a cup of tea and a nap.... |
After reading this thread I think I need to go back and watch this again. :yup:
|
Originally Posted by blibblobblib
I agree wtih SB, i dont think this film is a direct atack of America, i think he jst uses America as an example of the disgusting side of humanity. We see America all over the world through films, and every other type of media. Its the most common example. America is Treirs paintbrush...
i think it is a universal message but trier said that he made it from what he knows about america through television, books and magazines and any other medium you can find out about america (he has never been to america himself, which i find amazing...i guess i just think all filmmakers go to america at one point...maybe he was lying or maybe he meant he has never been for pleasure...or maybe he actually never has been there). so i think it is he's view on how america treats imagrants, aliens whatever you want to call a person who wasnt born there or didnt grow up there or doesnt belong there (in their eyes). its like he is saying that you cant get anything for free in america (and most places in the world), you have to give 100% to recieve 30%. does that make sense? |
Originally Posted by sisboombah
i think it is a universal message
|
Originally Posted by nebbit
Hey u, where have you been?, glad to see you. :D
|
Originally Posted by sisboombah
hey, ive been around. just dont often get time to post these days lol. :D
|
Dogville
i watched dogville last night, how weird was that film, chalk line town??
Superb film excellent ending. if i ever see nicole kidman i will give her a hug! anyone seen it yet, if not buy it! |
Originally Posted by Tommo La
Anyone seen it yet?
|
Originally Posted by Holden Pike
You mean, other than all the members who have commented on it and discussed Dogville in some detail in this thread?
|
I'm looking forward to seeing this film when I get the DVD tomorrow.From what I could gather Nicole Kidman was really great in this.It will be interesting to see Bryce Howard playing the same character in Manderlay due out some time next year.
|
Since when has Nicole Kidman's name been a title?
|
Originally Posted by The Silver Bullet
Since when has Nicole Kidman's name been a title?
EDIT: Firstly, learn to use apostrophes [and the spacebar] in your writing. Secondly, I'd a moderator here and thus have the ability to edit your posts. And believe you me, I WILL abuse that power. So get back in your box and shut the Hell up. |
Originally Posted by Insanity Rulez
.Anyway,how about releasing that bug up your arse somewhere else if sarcasm gets you off.
|
I actually don't have a huge ego at all. In fact, I've probably got more self-loathing in me than anyone else I know.
|
Originally Posted by The Silver Bullet
I actually don't have a huge ego at all. In fact, I've probably got more self-loathing in me than anyone else I know.
|
I actually saw this film the other night but didn't get a chance to get on to talk about it. So today I actually went out and bought the film. To me this fim was just brilliant. I loved every aspect possible of it. From the set or lack there of. But once you watch it and get really into it you dont really notice that there isn't much there really. I've read this thread and heard all the opinions and I just glad that such a film has gotten out to people. Where I live no one has heard of this film at all yet. Most people dont even rent it. Just pass it by on the shelves. Thats like me though. I pass by all those flash films that you see on the shelves and look for ones no one has heard about and those usually tend to be the ones that are real gems. Watching the whole story just unravel was just amazing. When I first poped in the dvd and saw the area I thought "They must be joking right, There's no set." But once into the story who cares really. I actually found myself cheering for Grace's character at the end and the decision she made. Especially what she did to Patrica Clarkson in the end. That was pretty shocking especially with Achilies. I would recomened this film to anyone with a broad mind and a good imagination.
|
Originally Posted by nebbit
Having an ego isn't necessarily a bad thing.
|
Originally Posted by The Silver Bullet
Yes, but being witty doesn't denote having an ego either...
|
The silver bullet - a really lovely review.
You guys are all on the ball with the comments about this movie. This is one of my all time favourite films. I was overwhelmed with the tremendous presence this film had the first time i saw it. It's a movie that is very hard to forget and hate it or love it- it's nearly impossible to not be touched by it in some way. The minimalistic style present in the film truly allows the story, the message and the characters to stand out and this is one of the reasons why Dogville is such a powerful film. Von Trier is not very well known for his great treatment of his actors however, I really respect the honesty of his work. I can't wait for Manderlay. |
what happened to Nicole that she became such an actress in the past 2-3 years? what didya think of the black and white pics at the end of the movie?
|
Originally Posted by chicagofrog
what happened to Nicole that she became such an actress in the past 2-3 years? what didya think of the black and white pics at the end of the movie?
As for the end credit sequence, I think it works brilliantly. We discussed it in the thread. |
ok, i'll look into it, since it's one of the few movies with her i haven't seen.
i liked her in Dead Calm too. or was it more about the whole movie? and about the end sequence, i agree with u, i just wondered cuz some friends of mine found it too "obvious"? |
Originally Posted by chicagofrog
what happened to Nicole that she became such an actress in the past 2-3 years? what didya think of the black and white pics at the end of the movie?
Overall, I found the film annoying in general. Not as annoying as Dancer In the Dark perhaps but still. I liked the last act a lot though. I liked that von Trier unlike in "Dancer" allowed his victim to get back on her tormentors in the end. |
Before I saw this movie I really didn't think I was going to like it. The whole thing about minimalist filmmaking and whatnot just didn't really attract me, especially since the movie is 3 hours long. But I did eventually see it and was extremely surprised. The way it was made is pretty damn creative and really makes it interesting to see. Also I agree with Piddz that I don't think it was anti-American in any way. Sure it had American characters doing some pretty horrible things, but its not like European people have never done anything bad. And besides I think I read somewhere that Von Trier has never set foot in America, as he is afraid to fly, so he's just experimenting with things which is great.
Now I wish I had seen this in the theater when it played in the Central Florida Film Festival, instead of having to view it on my crappy TV. Stupid me. |
i do think Trier made it clear thru those pics that he had some anti-American feeling. but i see the movie as stronger if it applies to the whole of humanity as well. that's why i prefer the movie itself than the pics at the end, which kinda reduce the signification of the events told.
|
I just rented this film on teh wknd and I totally liked it. All the comments posted on this thread I can relate to. I really really liked the main review - what a wonderful job!
Did any of you feel any sympathy for Paul Bettany's character? Or did you feel as I did - pent up rage as the film progressed? I grew angrier and angrier with him because he was pretending to be the key to Grace's freedom, and she believed in him and fell for him, but all the while he was just stringing her along. All he wanted was to satisfy his carnal desires, at her expense. He was as evil as the rest of the townsfolk and rapists, because although it's not what he did that was evil, but what he didn't do. Just sitting, watching, observing all the horrible things happening to Gace, and not doing anything about it. By the end I too felt that his death was completely justified. The more I think about it the more I liked this movie. |
Bullet -
I'm sold. That review should've been in the paper. |
Originally Posted by Cabbage Head
Did any of you feel any sympathy for Paul Bettany's character?
Are there any new viewers of this film that wish to comment? I can chat about Von Trier films all the live long day. |
Originally Posted by Cabbage Head
I just rented this film on teh wknd and I totally liked it. All the comments posted on this thread I can relate to. I really really liked the main review - what a wonderful job!
Did any of you feel any sympathy for Paul Bettany's character? Or did you feel as I did - pent up rage as the film progressed? I grew angrier and angrier with him because he was pretending to be the key to Grace's freedom, and she believed in him and fell for him, but all the while he was just stringing her along. All he wanted was to satisfy his carnal desires, at her expense. He was as evil as the rest of the townsfolk and rapists, because although it's not what he did that was evil, but what he didn't do. Just sitting, watching, observing all the horrible things happening to Gace, and not doing anything about it. By the end I too felt that his death was completely justified. The more I think about it the more I liked this movie. |
All of the characters in the movie display some of societies worst, and best, attributes. I don’t think it’s exclusive to Bettany.
Howdy, Piddy. :) |
Originally Posted by LordSlaytan
All of the characters in the movie display some of societies worst, and best, attributes. I don’t think it’s exclusive to Bettany.
Howdy, Piddy. :) I am sure you're right. But maybe the other characters, including Kidman's, where being rather caricatures while Bettany's felt more realistic. But I am not as fond of this movie as some of you guys so maybe I am seeing things a bit different. |
I don't know if you're seeing things differently, because I see exactly what you mean. And I'm always right, don't you know. I haven't seen it for awhile...I lost my copy. :(
|
And I have only seen it once, and that was quite some time ago. That's why I'm pretty sure I don't even know what I'm talking about. :D
|
Originally Posted by LordSlaytan
Not particularly. He displayed near sociopathic behaviors throughout the entire film.
|
HAHAHAHAHA Wow, you're funny!
How does this pertain to the movie Dogville? |
Chill out Slay, take a chill pill Bill.
I know many people think Dogville is anti-American (and many dont) but i fail to see how it isnt. Trier has spoken openly about his dislike for America, and from what i can tell from the trailer, his new upcoming film Dear Wendy highlights his thoughts on America's 'obsession' with guns. It looks fantastic but i dont know how its going to be recieved, anyone know anything about it? |
hei! don't blib the Americans or they'll blob you with bad rep!!
;) |
I didn't find it anti-American (but probably critical of America as of other things). Just because von Trier has expressed dislike for America doesn't mean the film has to be anti-American.
So, eat a poo-pie garnished with chill pills, Blibb!!! ;D |
Originally Posted by Piddzilla
Just because von Trier has expressed dislike for America doesn't mean the film has to be anti-American.
|
Originally Posted by blibblobblib
Yes it does. So take that fish lips :drevil:
|
Originally Posted by Piddzilla
Uh-uh, no it doesn't, dumbo ears! :bashful:
SO there. |
Originally Posted by blibblobblib
anti-human vagina eyes
|
Originally Posted by chicagofrog
sounds more like David Lynch than Trier to me...
|
Originally Posted by blibblobblib
Chill out Slay, take a chill pill Bill.
Originally Posted by chicagofrog
hei! don't blib the Americans or they'll blob you with bad rep!!
I've sure been negative lately...maybe I do need a chill pill. But taking too many chill pills is what got me in the mess in the first place. I must be careful. Great...now I'm waaayyyy off topic. :mad: |
Originally Posted by LordSlaytan
Very coy. You know why I gave you bad rep, and it had nothing to do with you being blibby...no one is blibby except blibblobblib.
Great...now I'm waaayyyy off topic. :mad
and colors! ;) |
Hey! I got something in my eyes and I can't see anything in here!! But it feels FANTASTIC!!!
Arrgh... Let's not ruin a perfectly fine thread! So, what about the film is anti-american? |
Nothing. It's just plain anti.
|
Originally Posted by Piddzilla
So, what about the film is anti-american?
|
Originally Posted by nebbit
I HAVE TO watch this again, it was un American? :goof:
|
funny you!
(une AméricAIne...) :) :) ;) |
It's anti-humanity. At least, anti-human nature. Doesn't put any restrictions as far as time or place on that, we as people on this planet are capable of some wicked ***** that we justify for all sorts of reasons...and none of them adequate justifications either.
|
Looking at Dogville as a whole, I think we can all agree it's pretty damn anti. But as I watched the film for the third time, I looked at all the little things.
When the town is asked to give Grace a two week "trial", it's Olivia who stands up and says, "Well, if Master Tom thinks this is right for us, and for the community, then that'll do for me. He might be young but his heart is right, and I've known his heart for as long as it's been beating." No other words are spoken at the meeting. That's how the township agreed to Grace's two week stay, through Olivia. Did anyone else find this interesting? |
Re: Dogville (2003)
I liked Dogville just fine. It's the least of the von Trier films I've seen, but still a powerful experience. And I don't really get how so many of you can watch this film to the end and still insist it doesn't harbor a strong anti-American sentiment. I don't necessarily think that the anti-US message works to the film's detriment and it's certainly not the point, but it's there alright.
Just curious, has anyone seen the 2:15 cut? It's hard to imagine this film working with upwards of forty minutes sliced from it, but someone recently told me they've seen both versions and much prefer the shorter one. So... anyone here seen it? |
Re: Dogville (2003)
Just saw this last night. I agree with Swedish: I'm not sure how someone can play down the anti-Americanism. It's not just the choice of music and the images over the credits, but von Trier has called this the first film in his "USA - Land of Opportunities" trilogy. It's really blatant, and I think it's disingenuous to say it's really about humanity as a whole.
As a film I guess it's fairly impressive. I like the soundstage conceit plenty (though wish it had been utilized a bit more creatively; I expected a lot more clever irony based around it than there ended up being) and it's well-acted, and as Holden says the dialogue with Caan at the end is quite good (partially because it doesn't sound like movie dialogue much). But the anti-Americanism is incredibly clumsy. It's not a matter of it being extreme or a caricature--I've come to expect that from supposed skewerings of my country by self-important filmmakers--it's that it's just downright confused, at least insofar as it's supposed to be about America at all. Even taken purely as a statement about the evils humanity is capable of, I don't find it terribly convincing. Grace doesn't plead her case and while some of the evils that befall her feel plausible and natural, some just feel completely out of left field. The whole idea of making a statement about what ordinary people are capable of is to make us believe it, to show it happening gradually before our very eyes, but there are too many "jumps" in the characters' moral degradation here. |
All times are GMT -3. The time now is 08:55 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums