Dogville (2003)

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.

__________________
www.loopdiloop.com

Ebert & Roeper decided to thrash Dogville. Check it out.

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

Wow, those guys really didn't like this film!

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.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

To be fair, they cited numerous other reasons as well.

Sure, but this is the reason that I chose to talk about.

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.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

...or Polanski, who they seem to adore.

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!

Is Roeper the second guy talking on that sound file?

Yes. The pithy little girl-man.

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

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

__________________
"Don't Believe the HYPE!"

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...

__________________
Pumpkins scream in the DEAD of night!

I think you mean "canvas".

I was going to say canvas, but i thought it might have sounded too cliche. But then again, Treir uses america to show what he thinks of humanity, so thats why i suggested america was the paintbrush...but if america is the paint brush, whats the 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.

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

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?

__________________
I don't have Parkinson's. I inherited my shaking head from my grandfather Hepburn. I discovered that whisky helps stop the shaking. Problem is, if you're not careful, it stops the rest of you too. My head just shakes, but I promise you, it ain't gonna fall off!

Hey u, where have you been?, glad to see you.

hey, ive been around. just dont often get time to post these days lol.

Oh

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!