Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

Recommended Posts

Take Nicole Kidman, Lauren Bacall, Patricia Clarkson, Blair Brown, James Caan, Ben Gazzara, Chloe Sevigney, John Hurt, Stellan Skarsgard and several other talented actors. Mix with pieces of The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui, Winesburg, Ohio, Our Town and who knows what else. Place in the oven and half-bake. The result is Dogville.

Lars von Trier is a skilled and audacious director and writer—witness Europa and Breaking the Waves (I haven't seen Dancer in the Dark). In this movie he may be commenting on deceit, greed, sexual violence and depravity—and seeing it as part of everyday life in the United States. A lot of critics seem to think so.

What he is trying to do and what he did do may be two different things, of course. One theme that runs through the movie is that ordinary people don’t need a reason to become like beasts and turn on the weakest among them—they only need the opportunity to do so. He could be pointing to Bosnia, Rawanda and other charnel houses of the late 20th century.

The movie was shot on a sound stage. Chalk outlines and a few walls to indicate the houses. The entire cast is “on stage” at all times, even when not involved in the action. The characters are as one-dimensional as the set, caricatures that don’t really change throughout the three hours it takes to run. Despite this there are some terrific performances. The script moves the action forward with workmanlike precision, and if von Trier had stopped before the last vignette Dogville would have been a more affecting piece.

It is structured like a children’s book, with a prolog and nine chapters, each prefaced by an explanatory title card that could be a chapter heading in a book. John Hurt narrates in a deadpan, very ironic and unmistakably “fairy tale” voice. There is one very shocking bit in the last scene.

The closing credits (there are no opening credits) are shown over still images of destitution, racial violence and personal degradation from the United States mainly from the 1930s. It is the most specifically polemical and least effective part of the movie—one has a “been there, done that” (and have seen it done much better) sense while it roles.

Link to comment

“Least effective?” I’ll say. The phrase that occurred to me was “stunningly hamfisted.” :innocent: (Von Trier shows us photographs by Dorothea Lange, Walker Evans, and others, to the tune of David Bowie’s “Young Americans.”)

To Ed’s list of literary and theatrical influences, I’d also add Durrenmatt’s “The Visit.” I’d also add that there are several “shocking bits,” so it’s best to be prepared.

I finally got around to seeing this – rented at my local video store. I put the tape in the machine and curled up on the sofa, ready to watch Lars von Trier put another poor woman through the wringer. (Those who have seen Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark will know what I mean.) The characters, played by a powerhouse cast, are one dimensional, as Ed notes – pawns on the gameboard, with the arguable exception of the equivocal figure of Thomas, played by Paul Bettany. Everything is laid out for you, nothing is left to chance or for you to figure out for yourself, but once you’re accustomed to the rigidity of the conception it works fine – von Trier does virtuoso stuff with clever editing and now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t jump cuts. And there is some good writing. I especially liked a scene with Skarsgard and Kidman at about midpoint, where he begins to hint to her, broadly, that her unwillingness to let him touch her shows a lack of “respect.” However, the whole thing leaves you with a queasy voyeuristic feeling, seeing frail pale Kidman sexually degraded and put in manacles, and the fact that the writer/director is on “her” side doesn’t really alter the creepy effect. (I wonder if it would have played differently with a less famous actor in the role – such as Bryce Dallas Howard, who took over Kidman’s part for the sequel when Kidman chickened out, not that I blame her.)

Most unconvincing casting: Lauren Bacall as an old lady known as “Ma” who runs the town store.

Link to comment

In the DVD commentary, VT states that the images that roll during the credits are mainly research material that was dug up during pre-production. I'm agreed that it is certainly a forced "just in case you missed it" moment and certainly is the largest reason to dislike the film which, prior to the oh-so-obvious lesson at the end left at least a little room to draw conclusions.

Link to comment

aspirant, I actually didn’t mind the didacticism as much as I thought I would. I did think the ending caters to a vengeance-wish that is troublesome – it’s really not that far off from Gladiator, The Patriot, The Punisher, Man on Fire – any number of contemporary commercial film products that build up the nastiness of the bad guys so excessively that the audience can cheer when they meet bloody ends, and feel good about it. I do plan to check out the sequel. Like Grace, I’m a glutton for punishment. :(

Link to comment
(I wonder if it would have played differently with a less famous actor in the role – such as Bryce Dallas Howard, who took over Kidman’s part for the sequel when Kidman chickened out, not that I blame her.)

Sequel?

The mind boggles. The senses reel. Cliches fall like autumn leaves.

"Dogville" is a movie whose characters and ending don't cry out for further resolution. It is over with finality. The corpse count is higher than the last act of "Hamlet".

Some movies end in such a way that make the viewer wonder what happened next in the lives of the characters--"Casablanca", for example, although a sequel would be attempting to improve on perfection. Actually we know what happened to at least one character--Rick wound up in East Africa and helped Katherine Hepburn blow up the German lake cruiser.

Others are designed to be part of an ongoing series--Star Wars, the Indiana Jones movies, the Mel Gibson/Danny Glover vehicle Lethal Weapon, etc.

Regarding the other shocking bits that dirac mentions--most if not all of them happen to Grace Margaret Mulligan--the Kidman character. The townspeople inflict must about everything short of murder on her. If the movie had ended with her death it would have been shocking but not surprising. The ending the LVT used was (at least to me) both shocking and surprising.

dirac's point regarding the casting of Kidman is most intriguing. There was no point in the movie that one could forget that the abused and degraded character of Grace was being portrayed by a member of the international screen royalty, once whose star will probably continue to ascend for years to come. Kidman has star power to burn and LVT seemed to make full use of it.

But what a sequel to "Dogville" would look like and why it would be made still escapes me.

Link to comment

Why it would be made? Perhaps to propagate misogyny world-wide.

I haven't seen Dogville, but I had my fill of LVT in Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark.

LVT has chosen increasingly famous women to play the main roles in these movies and this choice proportionately increases the humiliation and degradation these ladies are subjected to.

Sorry for the rant - I really feel that LVT has achieved prominence by stamping on his leading ladies.

Link to comment

I shouldn’t have said “sequel.” Dogville is actually the first installment of a projected “USA” trilogy, apparently.

GWTW, I agree with you about von Trier’s treatment of women, but it didn’t bother me as much in Waves and Dancer because I thought the protagonists were able – with the help of Emily Watson and Bjork – to transcend their (horrible) situations. I didn’t get that feeling with Dogville, in part because Kidman didn’t work that kind of magic on her role – not necessarily her fault.

Ed, it occurs to me that the townspeople didn’t inflict quite everything. I thought it was interesting that although Grace is chained up, raped, etc., she’s never slapped around or beaten up, not that much, anyway. You would think that the awareness that she’s completely helpless would invite that kind of abuse, but apparently that particular form of degradation doesn’t much interest LVT.

I thought the ending was a response to the questions Caan poses to Kidman in the car. Essentially, he’s asking, Which side are you on? Are you going to keep resisting the way the world is? And that’s her answer.

Link to comment

Manderlay, the second part of the trilogy, is now out and about. I hear it's not quite as long or extreme as Dogville. Bryce Dallas Howard steps in for Kidman and Willem Dafoe subs for James Caan. Lauren Bacall and Chloe Sevigny will be back, too.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...