babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » Dogville

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Dogville
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126

posted 20 October 2004 04:28 AM      Profile for Le Téléspectateur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I threw a thread about this movie in the Labour and Consumption topics. After thinking about it, and reading some other posts on the film on other boards, I realized that the interpretations of the film are quite large in number.

Anyways... What are some thoughts on the film Dogville?


From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jesse Hoffman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4903

posted 20 October 2004 04:59 PM      Profile for Jesse Hoffman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'll just repost what I said in the other thread...

I loved Dogville, the best film of this year so far. Superbly acted, brillantly conceived, and one of the most provocative and thought provoking films of recent years. You could literally spend days thinking about the different aspects of the film.

It's not for everyone, and it's far from a light-hearted romp; but it's a masterpiece that I would highly reccomend.


From: Peterborough, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 20 October 2004 06:51 PM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I generally don't like Lars Von Trier's movies, with the possible exception of Dancer in the Dark, though that one still pissed me off a bit, and I thought Dogville was the worst of the bunch. His vision was interesting, but in the end, it didn't add much to a very poor movie. Why can't he find another way to invoke audience sympathy besides a weak-willed, vulnerable woman? He continually punishes the audience for no good reason, and leads us to a baffling, ultimately uninteresting conclusion. The questions the movie asks aren't particularily complex, they are just foggy. And the bloody narrator reminded me of inarticulate english literature freshman using words like 'utilize' when they mean 'use' and 'agency' when they have no idea what they're saying. If this was intentional, it was not constructive.

The movie ends up as poorly written dialogue between uninteresting, uncomplex characters with a needlessly convoluted repetitive plot and a pacing that badly wanted an editor. Not to mention one that he already did twice, with similarily shabby results in Breaking the Waves and the previously mentioned Dancer.


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 23 October 2004 02:37 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think the film was meant to be a rather simple parable about American society, something thematically along the lines of ANIMAL FARM(though with an obviously different target).

What I found amusing was that the film is quite anti-American, but Von Triers would seem to owe his greatest artistic debt to Thornton Wilder's OUR TOWN. Plus, the cast was a who's who of old and new Hollywood.

Can't say I cared for it much, but then I have a long-standing suspicion of European anti-Americanism, which more often than not seems motivated not by ethical concerns but simply by the need for Europeans to deny their own complicty in western imperialism. Sort of like a low-level gangster whining about what savages the godfathers are, to pick up on the film's gangster motif. And the YOUNG AMERICANS credit reel, showing scenes of internal depravity in the USA, was a little over-the-top. Are we to assume that there are no photographs of poverty, racism, and injustice that could be taken on the streets of any other industrialized country?

[ 23 October 2004: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 23 October 2004 03:27 PM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
After watching the film, and the rest of Von Trier's work, I agree with this reviewer: Click
quote:
...Von Trier is antagonistic toward the cinema’s traditions. He makes debased references to art styles that have lost popular currency. His sour take on Dreyer in Breaking the Waves kept spirituality at a distance. The brutal imitation of Fellini in Dancer in the Dark deliberately mangled the pleasures of musicals and melodramas. This perverse method probably seems inventive to the uninitiated, yet Von Trier very cannily courts an audience of smart-ass cynics.

From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
kingblake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3453

posted 23 October 2004 03:58 PM      Profile for kingblake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What's with Von Trier and disabilities? I haven't seen this one, but i find he always hsa main caracters, but doesnèt really deal with any major issue. Whether its physical disabilities like blindness, or mental, such as his film 'The Idiots' i find he deals with disability in a deeply unprofound way, almost making a spectacle out of it.
From: In Regina, the land of Exotica | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
angrymonkey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5769

posted 23 October 2004 04:10 PM      Profile for angrymonkey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And here's a critique of the critic
before sunset

From: the cold | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 23 October 2004 05:00 PM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's a fair criticism of the critic. White needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Maybe it's also a fair criticism of his take on Before Sunset. But it has nothing to do with the substance of his criticism of Dogville, or of Von Trier, which I happen to agree with.
From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca