Giuliani Livid Over Bringing 9/11 Trials to NYC
FIT Students Busted For Drug Dealing Get Probation
Oreo The Dog Is Dead, Blame Game Is Not
House Cat Terrorizes Family In Dramatic Hostage Situation
Pregnant Woman And Two Men Shot In Clinton Hill Drive-By
Gothamist has been debating whether or not to see Lars von Trier's Dogville (Three hours of von Trier? Blech. Three hours of Lars von Trier torturing Nicole Kidman? Say!) but seeing Dogville won't be as fun as looking at low culture's hilarious look at the blueprint of the town (excerpted above). The film eschews actual sets for chalk outlines (to better focus the audience to the actors), and greg.org has a good post about the film.
Someone writes to the NY Times to bitch Lars von Trier: "Lars von Trier could at least acknowledge that we mere humans, whatever politics we embrace, have bladders. Like Oliver Stone's "Nixon," Mr. von Trier's new film, rather than representing historical or social commentary, is about his inner Dogville. It seems to me that Mr. von Trier would do better to make shorter films, closer to home." Meow! Von Trier is accused of being anti-American, which isn't so strange these days, but he's infamously has never been to the United States (Dancer in the Dark and Dogville, both set in the U.S., were filmed in Euore), and his IMDB entry has the fascinating piece of trivia about his trip to Cannes: "He has so many phobias, he could only make the trip in a specially outfitted trailer." Oh, that's just like John Madden and the Madden-mobile!
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Everyone that calls Von Trier and his movies torturous, misogynistic, and anti-American should know that the characters--most especially the main female character--are in his own words, self-portraits of Von Trier. All his fears, all his hypocrises. This is the way he has chosen to explore himself and his phobias. Everyone knows what they're in for when they see one of his films, so if there are complaints from those people, I am deaf to them. It's like that old thing about not voting for president and then complaining about the one who's been chosen.
Clearly, Von Trier has been chosen. Clearly, he's not dumb. If moviegoers can't handle being shocked, being made to cry till it hurts, or made angry, then perhaps they should vote otherwise.
I say Gothamist go see the film. You'd be missing out otherwise.
I loved Breaking the Waves, but Dancer in the Dark killed me. And while I'm interested in Dogville, I know the limits of my endurance. And over 2 hours of von Trier might make me crazy. I just walked out of The Ladykillers for 10 minutes because I couldn't take it.
I saw Dogville. It was incredible. I would, however, like to respond to the above comment about "limits of endurance." We endure "The Lord of the Rings," the latest installment of which is longer than Dogville. Does it deliver more than Dogville? Subpar acting (except the impeccable Cate Blanchett), and an unoriginal story (in that Peter Jackson took it directly from Tolkien). So don't speak of "enduring" when you talk about Dogville, which was a showcase of incredible performances, mainly Nicole Kidman, Paul Bettany, and Patricia Clarkson. On top of that, Von Trier wrote this original story, had the guts to place it in a soundstage, and utterly and completely succeeded in his efforts. We give "The Lord of the Rings" 11 Academy Awards and hundreds of millions of dollars, we endure it, we endure terrible acting (cough-Tom Cruise-) we endure unoriginal stories, yet we can't "endure" the masterpiece that is Dogville? Do we just not know what is good anymore? Are we scared by actually being made to feel by a movie? Dancer in the Dark killed the person above. Amen to that.
Listen. Dancer in the Dark affected you, Dogville will affect you, which is not something you can say for the vast majority of movies out there. Okay, so its tough. Breaking the Waves was tough too, but it had a point, it had a message and a heart and that is something entirely missing from movies today. Dogville may hurt, but isn't that better than some feel-good mishmash that we see so often today?
Lars Von Trier takes risks. By criticizing what he does, by belittling it, you only show your fear/unwillingness to do the same.
I'm eager to see this movie! I'm not quite sure what motivates the von Trier detractors--it's some amalgamation of people who don't like critiques of the United States, those who find a misogynistic message in his films, those who don't like didactic messages in film (but who usually tolerate it in other artistic mediums), and persons who don't like being preached to.
I'm not sure that any of these critiques are fair given his previous films. Breaking the Waves did affect me and was far too complex to call misogynistic. It was a beautiful movie in so many ways which transcend the 100 word plot line / precis. Dancer in the Dark was more a critique on capital punishment than America per se (which has capital punishment only in some states, and it divides the public, generally). As for being didactic, strangely, the critics who level that charge have also bowed to Brecht (a clear influence on Dogville) who was unapologetically didactic and preachy in his theatre.
von Trier's contribution (like Brecht's) is stylistic. While he may retell stories we've heard before, he makes cinema we haven't seen, and that alone puts him above so many films that are churned out of Hollywood with Wall Street's bottom line in focus.
Dogville is not un-American in any way, nor does it critique America specifically. My question is, if it did critique America, would there be a problem with it? If a movie critiques our culture does that mean we shouldn't see it?
When speaking of cinema, which is an art just as much as music or the visual arts, isn't its purpose to incite some response in the viewer? And, isn't the best way to incite a response something that concerns the viewer himself? Can we not handle a movie that might make us realize we have to change? Are we trapped in the infantile notion that movies=entertainment? Do we hate having to think?
This is why Dogville will not be widely popular. People don't focus on the art of the film, but rather the entertainment. People don't focus on themselves and how they can better themselves, but rather what is pleasing to them. That is why von Trier will never be a household name, and will never be popular. People just don't know what's best for them, only what feels best.
it's a DOG EAT DOGMA world. we know. we are DOG EAT DOGMA. starving for truth. hungry for knowledge. choking on DOGMA.
eat your DOGMA or you DON'T get any DESSERT.
www.dogeatdogma.com