The nytimes.com critic said this film will make viewers either enthusiasitc supporters or vile condemners. I tend to stand with the supporters. I have long been a fan of von Trier's work and, eventually, I came around to Dogville. It took awhile for the film to develop, but what should I have expected from an art film which was written, directed, and shot by von Trier himself? There several things about the film that stand out. First is that it is like a stage play with a camera. It has a very austere setting; shot on a sound stage without any props save for a desk, some chairs, and some other miscellaneous things.
The cinematography is also vintage von Trier. The camera hovers around the action with extreme close-ups, jumping from one character to the next, the camera is infused with an anxious energy typical of other post-dogme von Trier films like Dance in the Dark, and most recently Melancholia. The story is also typical of von Trier. When the film started I thought to myself, what is going to happen in the end? I had no idea, which is great for a film. All too often I know whats going to happen in the end.
Furthermore, von Trier doesn't "mashup" different films into a new film, like Tarrantino so often does. Von Trier is better than that. Dogville, which is austere the likes of Ingmar Bergman and Carl Theodor Dreyer, is something unique. Unlike the Moulin Rouge, which I reviewed last night, Dogville revels in the cinematic art form. By the end of the film it stakes out difficult questions about human nature and the myth of small town America. It certainly is a departure from manistream cinema found at the multiplex
Von Trier takes risks. The set is an austere, minimalist expression of the Depression years in America. To not have any sets, perhaps, represents the poverty of America which is depicted at the end of the film. In comparison to other von Trier films this one has similar themes. Like Dancer in the Dark, which I reviewed on this blog site, we see a woman in duress; unjustly condemned for crimes she didn't commit. Unlike Dancer, Nicole Kidman's character gets revenge. She has the gangsters execute the townspeople, with the exception of the dog. Thus the characters in Dancer and Dogville meet different endings. Von Trier's Melancholia also has a damsel in distress, except, unlike in Dancer in the Dark or Dogville, freedom is brought about by the apocalypse.
So what does the film mean? What is von Trier's purpose in making Dogville? Why does he continue to make films about mistreated women? It is rumored that von Trier has an anti-American opinion and, if this is true, than Dogville could be, as I mentioned earlier, an iconoclastic film exposing the myth of smalltown America as a very pious, ethical place. Perhaps, the character of the Doctor's son reveals this theme the most accurately. He is very high minded, has ideas about morality and ethics, and aspires to be a writer. By the end of the film his philosophical views of humanity are shattered. Instead of viewing the townspeople as "good" people, he has become just like them; morally corrupt, ethically bankrupt. In the end Kidman's character shoots him gangster style in the head.
The final scene is perhaps von Trier's most obvious indictment of America. The scene is infused with violence and revenge which seems to present the version of American justice. Like one reviewer said, it may be von Trier's depiction of American fascism. The gangster are unopposed. The police are on the take. Small town America is not polite, pious, and filled with cookies. It is dominated by underworld thugs who committ mass murder. The violence, the revenge, the myth, the high minded talk of "good" people; only in America.
Whatever it's meaning, Dogville is a film that stands out from the garbage that is produced for mass consumption.
No comments:
Post a Comment