XIXAX Film Forum

Film Discussion => The Vault => Topic started by: Weak2ndAct on July 12, 2003, 04:39:50 AM

Title: Dogville
Post by: Weak2ndAct on July 12, 2003, 04:39:50 AM
Oh lordy.  Von Trier fans get ready, our favorite Danish lunatic has seriously got a masterpiece on his hands.  

I heard all the reviews and blurbs, but what I saw was completely different than what I expected.  Considering the set-up (it's on a stage, no real sets) and design, I was expecting a very presentational film.  Surprisingly enough, it was quite visual and stunning.  The cast is top notch (my only gripe is that a few players were underused-- Jeremy Davies, Lauren Bacall) and we even get to see old Sydney himself in action.  Kidman rocks and Paul Bettany is quite good as well.  Contrary to everything that I've heard-- the movie is actually quite funny.  

The best part: the end seems to fall into typical Von Trier-sacrifical-lamb territory, but then turns quite suddenly into something we've all been waiting for and wanting.  A couple "oh shit!" moments to boot.  All around, a great film, definitely to be one of the year's best.  

It's a travesty that Kidman wins Oscars for fake noses and 20 min. of screen time, this is something she should win for.  Balls out acting with nothing to hide behind.
Title: Dogville
Post by: RegularKarate on July 12, 2003, 12:24:10 PM
http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=1449&highlight=dogville
Title: Dogville
Post by: rustinglass on October 24, 2003, 04:28:20 PM
I just saw it.

I don't understand the awful critics the film has had.
I wasn't disapointed but I wasn't overwhelmed either, I don't think it's as good as breaking the waves or dancer but still a very good film and one of the year's best.
The setting worked brilliantly, lighting and editing were perfect, excellent acting (even the children) and great great storytelling, to which John Hurt's haunting voice(as Max von Sydow's in Europa) ads a lot.
We are used to see the gradual degradation of characters in von Trier's work but it climaxes in something that, being different than that which we are all used too, leaves us equally disturbed.
Title: Dogville
Post by: godardian on October 24, 2003, 07:13:07 PM
Quote from: rustinglass
I just saw it.

I don't understand the awful critics the film has had.
I wasn't disapointed but I wasn't overwhelmed either, I don't think it's as good as breaking the waves or dancer but still a very good film and one of the year's best.
The setting worked brilliantly, lighting and editing were perfect, excellent acting (even the children) and great great storytelling, to which John Hurt's haunting voice(as Max von Sydow's in Europa) ads a lot.
We are used to see the gradual degradation of characters in von Trier's work but it climaxes in something that, being different than that which we are all used too, leaves us equally disturbed.


I'm looking forward to this one.
Title: Dogville
Post by: mutinyco on October 24, 2003, 09:24:26 PM
I saw it at the NYFF. I dozed off. When I finally got up at the end I've never felt so good stretching my legs.
Title: Dogville
Post by: kotte on October 24, 2003, 10:03:43 PM
SPOILER

Saw it a couple of months ago...

I loved it...it's great...

If you're into it, you'll forget about the whole stage-setting after a couple of minutes...

Best shot: The camera pulls back from Stellan Skarsgard raping Nicole revealing the whole village going about their business as usual...heartbreaking.
Title: Dogville
Post by: mutinyco on October 25, 2003, 10:01:47 PM
Eh...I think Von Trier's films are manipulative garbarge. A jaundiced view of America from somebody who knows nothing about America.
Title: Dogville
Post by: kotte on October 26, 2003, 06:01:19 AM
Quote from: mutinyco
Eh...I think Von Trier's films are manipulative garbarge. A jaundiced view of America from somebody who knows nothing about America.


Yeah, but it's his point of view...he's not asking people to replace their opinions for his.
Title: Dogville
Post by: phil marlowe on October 26, 2003, 07:18:06 AM
i saw the movie a half year ago and i sensed that i could go and be my favourite trier film but need to see it at least one more time in order to fully get what he was saying to me.
Title: Dogville
Post by: mutinyco on October 26, 2003, 07:23:01 AM
The problem is: his point of view doesn't hold water. There's nothing about Dogville from its manipulative, rapist townsfolk to its Barton Fink finale that connects to anything I understand about America. I think Von Trier thought that something needed to be said about America at this particular moment and that he was the person to do it -- but he didn't achieve his goal. He's never been here. He's essentially a communist, socialist at best.

I think the film was an interesting attempt, but it just doesn't work or hold attention. He's hitting too many beats that he's already hit (let's punish a woman and manipulate the audience beyond comprehension), and references to Our Town or Barry Lyndon aren't going to save it. And another thing: IT"S WAY TOO LONG. He could've accomplished his goal in half the amount of time.
Title: Dogville
Post by: kotte on October 26, 2003, 07:39:52 AM
Quote from: mutinyco
The problem is: his point of view doesn't hold water.


What do you mean? It's his opinion. His view...

If I'm blind and insists that the sun is blue, that's a POV not holding water...

The man's got eyes and ears...That's how he perceives things.

The movie is about people...not just american people.
Title: Dogville
Post by: mutinyco on October 26, 2003, 07:50:04 AM
It's pretty well directed at America. That WAS his point. And considering he never leaves Denmark and only knows about America from the news and our movies, that's pretty close to a blind man claiming the sun is blue. Especially if he's trying to make the type of statement he's making -- ie: We're selfish and cruel toward the underclasses, overly violent, dog eat dog, our silly innocent small town American images...

I think when you get to the end credits and hear David Bowie's Young Americans playing over images of homeless and downtrodden, it's a very specific commentary. And while I primarily agree with what his intentions are, I don't think he understands America well enough to make such statements. So yes, it's his opinion, but eveybody's got one. What makes some better than others is the amount of fact and comprehension brought to it.

Also, on a much simpler level, I just didn't find the movie the least bit entertaining.
Title: Dogville
Post by: kotte on October 26, 2003, 08:00:25 AM
These days you don't actually need to live in america to understand and have opinions.

The world we're living in right now, we all know just as much about your country as you do. I'm exaggerating, I know but...

According to Von Trier, his opinions are made up from books and novel mainly. News and what other people told him...

You don't make movies from what you've found out from other movies.

I can see how you didn't enjoy it...It's a love it or hate it film.
Title: Dogville
Post by: mutinyco on October 26, 2003, 08:04:56 AM
Yes it is.
Title: Dogville
Post by: rustinglass on October 26, 2003, 03:43:19 PM
There is a portuguese critic that says:

"This is..........this is us!
Humanity at it's best."

I understand the anti-america feeling of the movie, but everyone is entitled to an opinion just as everyone is entitled to disagree with it.

But to say that his films are manipulative garbage just because you disagree with him... I mean would you have the same opinion if he had done this film on a serbian town in the 80s? No scots gave him shit when he made breaking the waves, nor did germans when he made europa, if anything, they praised him for making a good film.

If nothing else you can enjoy this film for it's technical treatment which is very good. And I must say that lars is a director that fully comprehends the technical side of filmaking as well as the emotional side and he is a genious on how to deal with actors.
Title: Dogville
Post by: kotte on October 26, 2003, 04:05:23 PM
Quote from: rustinglass
There is a portuguese critic that says:

"This is..........this is us!
Humanity at it's best."

I understand the anti-america feeling of the movie, but everyone is entitled to an opinion just as everyone is entitled to disagree with it.

But to say that his films are manipulative garbage just because you disagree with him... I mean would you have the same opinion if he had done this film on a serbian town in the 80s? No scots gave him shit when he made breaking the waves, nor did germans when he made europa, if anything, they praised him for making a good film.

If nothing else you can enjoy this film for it's technical treatment which is very good. And I must say that lars is a director that fully comprehends the technical side of filmaking as well as the emotional side and he is a genious on how to deal with actors.


This is what I wanted to say but...somehow I didn't  :)
Title: Dogville
Post by: modage on October 26, 2003, 04:11:37 PM
Quote from: rustinglass
And I must say that lars is a director that fully comprehends the technical side of filmaking as well as the emotional side and he is a genious on how to deal with actors.


would the technical side have anything to do with using realistic looking locations, instead of filming a play?
Title: Dogville
Post by: Ghostboy on October 27, 2003, 01:01:06 AM
My local import video store just got a copy of Dogville. Should be seeing it within the week. Cannot wait.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Holden Pike on October 27, 2003, 01:51:49 AM
Yeah, my Russian DVD is in the mail and should be here this week. Dancer in the Dark alone is one of the most amazing movies I've ever seen and von Trier's perspective is always interesting if nothing else, so I'm definitely looking forward to getting my hands on Dogville.
Title: Dogville
Post by: rustinglass on October 27, 2003, 06:24:20 AM
Quote from: themodernage02
Quote from: rustinglass
And I must say that lars is a director that fully comprehends the technical side of filmaking as well as the emotional side and he is a genious on how to deal with actors.


would the technical side have anything to do with using realistic looking locations, instead of filming a play?


filming a play like this is harder than you think.
I have no idea how he did the lighting, how he made beautiful sunsets, how he made daylight, worked with te shadows. At night there is only light within the buildings, the leaves and snow only fall outside the buildings. The sound editing is just perfect...
Title: Dogville
Post by: SHAFTR on October 27, 2003, 11:14:31 AM
I have only seen Dancer in the Dark, so forgive me but...

Isn't part of the big Dogme manifesto about films not being made by directors but rather by a group of individuals and about the films not having stars in them.

1.)  Lars Von Trier's movies are always marketed as such.
2.)  Nicole Kidman?
Title: Dogville
Post by: mutinyco on October 27, 2003, 11:15:27 AM
I don't think they're manipulative garbage because I disagree with his POV. I think they're manipulative because they ARE dramatically manipulative. Dancer in the Dark was more manipulative than every mid-80s Spielberg film combined. Oh, look at this poor blind woman, look at how she's misunderstood, how she's been framed for murder, how she chooses to die rather than let her son go blind...

The reason the Scotts had nothing to complain about is because Waves wasn't an indictment of Scottland. I don't have a problem with him criticizing America. I think that's GOOD. I just don't think he understands anything about America. That and the movie's painfully manipulative and tediously boring.
Title: Dogville
Post by: rustinglass on October 27, 2003, 12:01:40 PM
dogville is not a dogme film and the only dogme film he made didn't have his name in the credits.

mutiny: dancer in the dark is based on a fairy tale, it has fairy tale-like characters.. would you consider hans christian andersen's books as manipulative garbage?

You can't say that he doesn't understand anything about america. I learned how america was during the depression in school when I was 13.
Title: Dogville
Post by: mutinyco on October 27, 2003, 12:15:21 PM
His film isn't about the Depression. It's about now. Though set in the past. And I'm sure because you read about it in a book makes you well-informed enough to make an international movie about it...

Like I said, I welcome criticisms of America. I think it's a shithole right now. Only Von Trier doesn't get it.
Title: Dogville
Post by: SHAFTR on October 27, 2003, 12:19:43 PM
Quote from: rustinglass
dogville is not a dogme film and the only dogme film he made didn't have his name in the credits.



Ohh,

well it does seem weird that he is championing this film movement and he has only made one dogme film?
Title: Dogville
Post by: rustinglass on October 27, 2003, 12:25:59 PM
Well he created the dogme movement along with thomas vinterberg, you should see festen (my fav dogme film).

mutiny, what is it about his criticism that you don't welcome? what doesn't he get?

edit: you must be really pissed off about this:
http://imdb.com/title/tt0342272/
Title: Dogville
Post by: Ghostboy on November 10, 2003, 02:56:34 AM
The idea of Dogme as that it would be a cleansing experience...and you'd take what you'd learn from the experience and move on. No director has made more than one official Dogme film so far.

Anyway, I saw this this evening and thought it was amazing. I can understand Mutincyo dozing off in the first half hour or so, because it is a bit slow at the beginning, but other than that I found if pretty electrifying. Just on a technical level, the film is stunning -- Von Trier is able to pull of this conceptual type of filmmaking like no one else. It's fairly groundbreaking. And Kidman's performance, like Weak2ndAct said, is probably her finest acting to date. It's so exciting to see her maintain her integrity as an actress after becoming such a big star (even though she isn't doing Von Trier's followups, she's still committed blindly to working with Wong Kar Wai, which is just as exciting).

The actual story was great -- it follows the usual theme of put-upon women that Von Trier favors, but then takes it in such a radically different direction, going past the melodrama of Dancer In The Dark and into a realm of very black comedy. I have to think about it some more (and probably watch it again) before I can say whether it is entirely successful as a critique of America, although it is entirely valid as such. Either way, the film is one of the most original I've seen in a long time, and it is brilliant and invigorating, despite any allegorical issues it may or may not have.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Slick Shoes on November 10, 2003, 07:32:07 PM
Now I am Jealous Actually. You saw this in a theatre, Ghostboy?
Title: Dogville
Post by: The Silver Bullet on November 10, 2003, 10:54:21 PM
Quote from: Ghostboy
Either way, the film is one of the most original I've seen in a long time, and it is brilliant and invigorating, despite any allegorical issues it may or may not have.

Great review, Ghostboy.
Lately, I've been wondering whether I'm excited about seeing Dogville or not.

I believe I am.
Title: Dogville
Post by: samsong on November 11, 2003, 03:22:40 AM
Quote from: Holden Pike
Yeah, my Russian DVD is in the mail and should be here this week. Dancer in the Dark alone is one of the most amazing movies I've ever seen and von Trier's perspective is always interesting if nothing else, so I'm definitely looking forward to getting my hands on Dogville.


Once you get it, let me know how it is.  I want to know whether it's worth buying or not.  Thanks..
Title: hmmm
Post by: shash on November 18, 2003, 02:31:34 PM
lars von trier's style's all the same for sure,
but the thing that bothers me is that even all female characters in his films have the SAME characteristic!!!
they're all innocent and naive to death, and they all do stupid things for the person they love, and at the end they got really bad result~
Title: Dogville
Post by: rustinglass on November 18, 2003, 04:59:44 PM
well, have you seen dogville? grace is much smarter than selma and bess.
Had you seen all of his films, you would know that lars' style isn't all the same for sure. You would know that his first trilogy was,visually, very different than his later work and had men for lead characters .had you seen medea, you would know that he has portrayed women as sadistic evil bitches. One thing that is constant through all his films are great dramatic endings that make me numb.
I don't understand what you mean by stupid things and bad results...one might say that they sacrifice themselves for the person they love and the result is that they save them.
you shouldn't be bothered by that
Title: Dogville
Post by: classical gas on November 19, 2003, 01:38:14 AM
Quote from: mutinyco
It's pretty well directed at America. That WAS his point. And considering he never leaves Denmark and only knows about America from the news and our movies, that's pretty close to a blind man claiming the sun is blue. Especially if he's trying to make the type of statement he's making -- ie: We're selfish and cruel toward the underclasses, overly violent, dog eat dog, our silly innocent small town American images...

I think when you get to the end credits and hear David Bowie's Young Americans playing over images of homeless and downtrodden, it's a very specific commentary. And while I primarily agree with what his intentions are, I don't think he understands America well enough to make such statements. So yes, it's his opinion, but eveybody's got one. What makes some better than others is the amount of fact and comprehension brought to it.

Also, on a much simpler level, I just didn't find the movie the least bit entertaining.


Seems like he understands us more than some Americans do.

Sorry, if I'm just re-heating past arguments...
Title: Dogville
Post by: MacGuffin on December 18, 2003, 06:37:28 PM
New poster here. (http://www.impawards.com/2003/dogville_ver3.html)
Title: Dogville
Post by: godardian on December 18, 2003, 07:11:56 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin
New poster here. (http://www.impawards.com/2003/dogville_ver3.html)


That's a very pretty poster.

I could do far worse than having that and the posters for Elephant and The Barbarian Invasions on my wall.
Title: Dogville
Post by: bonanzataz on December 18, 2003, 07:30:01 PM
what the fuck, man? where the fuck is this movie already. why is the american release date so far behind everybody else's? i'm just going to have to import the dvd from some country that already has it because that's how long it's been out.
Title: Dogville
Post by: godardian on December 18, 2003, 07:34:56 PM
It does seem really odd to have such a long delay... but it'll get here eventually.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Pedro on December 18, 2003, 07:47:49 PM
yeah...im in need of this movie.  my recent rewatching of dancer in the dark adds to that.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Ghostboy on December 18, 2003, 08:05:44 PM
I love that poster. And it's such a great scene, too!

Sorry, just wanted to rub that in.
Title: Dogville
Post by: rustinglass on December 18, 2003, 08:15:03 PM
christ, is she beautiful.......
I like how the other citizens are on this poster.
Title: Dogville
Post by: rustinglass on December 31, 2003, 11:07:17 AM
I'm not sure but I think this trailer is new:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/dogville.html
Title: Dogville
Post by: modage on December 31, 2003, 12:41:02 PM
Quote from: rustinglass
christ, is she beautiful........


yeah, i had a hard time in cold mountain doing anything else but just stare at her everytime she was onscreen.  i think i hate von trier, so the only reason i might see this is for nicole.
Title: Dogville
Post by: samsong on December 31, 2003, 04:52:53 PM
Quote from: themodernage02
i think i hate von trier, so the only reason i might see this is for nicole.


why?
Title: Dogville
Post by: Pubrick on January 01, 2004, 01:16:19 AM
she was damn fine.

damn fine movie.

the whole thing is so cruel, and then sort of ultimately humane. bettany's character is funny and provides amusing commentary on the mind of the viewer. some obvious barry lyndon influence, this demands repeat viewing. i'm excited that von trier has focused so intensely on the human condition. and that he's found a way to be "nicer" to chicks. i hope the next one isn't hindered by the lack of a hot chick.

really piercing movie, it resonates more than anything else i saw all year.
Title: Dogville
Post by: cron on January 02, 2004, 06:28:01 PM
just saw it, got it for xmas.  great.  
i'll have to digest it to throw some worthy opinions.
Title: Dogville
Post by: The Silver Bullet on January 03, 2004, 09:16:49 PM
Quote from: P
it resonates more than anything else i saw all year.

Bingo. I can't get it out of my head.
I also haven't been so conflicted over a film since Kill Bill.

(http://www.movieforums.com/gummly/dogville.jpg)

And the Audience Says Woof

It seems to me that Lars von Trier has outdone himself with Dogville (2003). If you loved him before, you'll probably fawn over this picture. If you hated him...well, maybe you shouldn't see it.

Personally, I find von Trier to be an endlessly fascinating and often frustrating filmmaker. That doesn't mean I particularly like him or his movies, but that I'm merely intrigued by him and his work. Dogville is no exception. As with Breaking the Waves (1996), The Idiots (1998) and Dancer in the Dark (2000), von Trier has gone to great lengths in Dogville to alienate his audience and has succeeded absolutely at doing so. I don't think it's his best post-Dogme film [or his worst], but it's easily his coldest.

Where von Trier's personal [and distinct] style was used in his earlier pictures to suggest docudramatic reality, it actually does the opposite in Dogville. Handheld cameras are still employed [and still create of a sort of intimacy between audience and image], but it's fairly obvious that this is no longer an aesthetic choice, but a personal preference [and I believe von Trier has actually verified this himself]. And even if there was some aesthetic purpose to the nature of Dogville's photography, von Trier's other stylistic choices would render it irrelevant anyway. The minimalist and highly presentative set is reminiscent of George Mosher's filmed production of Thornton Wilder's Our Town (1989), and indeed the film seems to be taking many of its cues not only from the theatre and its innovators, but from Wilder's play also. It is this bizarre style – the set, the title cards, the omnipresent voice of the Narrator – that ultimately prevents the audience from ever getting too close to the characters and the story. However [and here's the real conundrum], nobody ever actually said that von Trier was trying to engage us emotionally. Dogville is not a film of emotions, but of ideas – both specifically political and universally philosophical [not to mention aesthetic]. To that end, von Trier was almost wholly successful.

It's all very Brechtian, of course – and all very calculated on the part of von Trier. In one of the film's more uncomforting sequences, Chuck (Stellan Skarsgård) rapes Grace (Nicole Kidman) on the floor of his home, where she has been minding his children. This scene, more than any other, really illustrates how in control of his art von Trier is. He chooses to frame the rape from afar – not intimately as we may expect – and thus, as the set is without walls, the camera seems less uninterested in Grace's plight than it is in the other citizens of Dogville. It's unsettling, because we realise that the camera's apathy is our own. We fail to [really] connect with Grace on an emotional level [as we usually do with the characters in other films] and then we are unsettled by this when we realise it.

But our inability to connect to Grace isn't von Trier's shortcoming as a filmmaker – it's ours as people. The film has been deliberately constructed to show us this, and von Trier is again almost wholly successful in doing so. Yes, he seems very excited by the idea of tricking his audience in order to make them feel bad about themselves. His less-than-subtle manipulation of the audience has prompted many to think of him a sort of cinematic sadist – someone who is "abusing" cinema, and who holds the audience in an eternal state of contempt. I'm not saying that this isn't partly the case [actually, I think it is], but it's certainly not the full one. Brechtian alienation techniques have a far greater purpose than that, and Lars von Trier [slightly skewed though he may be] is not oblivious to this fact.

The theatrical nature of Dogville and its heavy reliance on Brechtian technique clearly suggest that von Trier is sick of audiences going to the cinema to escape the world and its issues – he is sick of audiences "leaving their brains at the door". Is there really anything wrong with wanting to teach? von Trier wants to make the audience think, and maybe even learn a little something about themselves – even if it's something that they may not like. The most contrived moment of the film [and the one in which von Trier's influence feels most ubiquitous] is Grace's extreme change of heart at the film's climax. The scene, like the general artifice of the film's visual style, makes it impossible to really believe what is happening – but that's the whole point. We're not supposed to believe fables and parables; we're just supposed to learn from them. Dogville is not a film you can escape into the false "reality" of – it forces you to think about what is being said as opposed to what is happening. Its mission is not like that of other films and von Trier's is not like that of other filmmakers. As far as Grace's character goes, it's a pretty unbelievable moment [and I would imagine for many, too extreme a turnaround] though in regards to von Trier's manipulation of the audience, it's actually sorta perfect – we've left ourselves open [just like Dogville]. As an audience [and as people], we automatically feel that we deserve the mercy Grace is willing to offer us – but the thing is we don't, and that's the final lesson. We're not worthy of Grace [both the character and the state of being], because we're ultimately no better than dogs. It's not a "nice" lesson to learn, of course, and Dogville is not a "nice" film to sit through – but who on Earth said it was, and who on Earth said it had to be?

At the very least, Lars von Trier knows what he's doing. You just have to ask yourself if that's good enough for you, and it very well might not be. Some would say that von Trier is a genius because he has such an acute ability to manipulate. Others would call him evil. But the only difference between the sort of manipulating done by Lars von Trier and that done by someone like Steven Spielberg is that the former is manipulating you in a way that makes you feel and think things that you might not like, while the latter is trading in more visceral sensations. There's nothing better or worse about either one, of course – they both have their purpose. Whether or not they serve it is the question, and the answer is much too subjective for me to answer. You have to do that for yourself. So see the film. You'll love it or hate it. To each his personal own.
Title: Dogville
Post by: rustinglass on January 04, 2004, 05:02:28 AM
Nice review, but beware of spoilers.
Title: Dogville
Post by: The Silver Bullet on January 04, 2004, 06:22:40 AM
Why would you read a thread about a movie if you hadn't seen it already? The whole practice would be a spoiler.
Title: Dogville
Post by: rustinglass on January 04, 2004, 08:56:48 AM
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you posted that. I just mentioned the spoilers because the film isn't out in america yet and since many people here are interested in this film, they would read this thread even if they haven't seen it.
Title: Dogville
Post by: The Silver Bullet on January 04, 2004, 06:07:07 PM
It's just...oh, I don't know. I just don't know why you'd read about it in the "Now Showing" forum if you hadn't already seen it. Maybe in "The Grapevine", sure, but here, where people who have seen it are discussing it already?

That said, I see your point.
Title: Dogville
Post by: mogwai on February 24, 2004, 01:52:59 PM
the extra material on the dvd rocks. there's something called dogville confessions which is just footage with various actors sitting in a confession booth. and there's the documentary called dogville confessions which runs about 50 minutes or so. and there's plenty of memorable moments, both sweet and sad.




SPOILERISH:


there's a scene where lars share a long hug with nicole kidman after shooting the rape scene. there's also a scene where paul bettany and nicole comforts lars von trier when he's having a hard moment. i love that kind of shit.
Title: Dogville
Post by: cron on February 27, 2004, 07:55:38 AM
mogwai, did you erased a post of mine where i said more or less the same thing about the extras?   if so...  well... :cry:
Title: Dogville
Post by: mogwai on February 27, 2004, 07:58:27 AM
Quote from: cronopio
mogwai, did you erased a post of mine where i said more or less the same thing about the extras?   if so...  well... :cry:

no way. care to re-post it?
Title: Dogville
Post by: cron on February 27, 2004, 08:09:23 AM
well, it was just about praising the Dogville Confessions, really.  
Specially the part where Ben Gazara mimics a catholic confession and says that he will never work with an insane director again.
Title: Dogville
Post by: phil marlowe on February 27, 2004, 10:04:19 AM
Quote from: cronopio
well, it was just about praising the Dogville Confessions, really.  
Specially the part where Ben Gazara mimics a catholic confession and says that he will never work with an insane director again.

i love the dvd extras but don't you think that sometimes the whole insane director concept gets a liiiitlle tired. especially that trailer...yuck
Title: Dogville
Post by: Chest Rockwell on February 27, 2004, 05:08:05 PM
Quote from: phil marlowe
Quote from: cronopio
well, it was just about praising the Dogville Confessions, really.  
Specially the part where Ben Gazara mimics a catholic confession and says that he will never work with an insane director again.

i love the dvd extras but don't you think that sometimes the whole insane director concept gets a liiiitlle tired. especially that trailer...yuck

I saw trailor before Monster and man did it suck. I still have yet to see the film. How did yooz guys get the dvd?
Title: Dogville
Post by: modage on February 27, 2004, 05:15:49 PM
it came out last year everywhere but america pretty much.  so the dvd is out on just about every region but 1.  they either live in other countries or have all region dvd players.  its not out in america yet.  next month.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Chest Rockwell on February 27, 2004, 05:19:38 PM
Quote from: themodernage02
it came out last year everywhere but america pretty much.  so the dvd is out on just about every region but 1.  they either live in other countries or have all region dvd players.  its not out in america yet.  next month.

That soon? Awesome. That'll be two films I'm excited about in March, then.
Title: Dogville
Post by: modage on February 27, 2004, 05:23:00 PM
NY/LA March 26  
more cities April
Title: Dogville
Post by: Chest Rockwell on February 27, 2004, 05:27:19 PM
Quote from: themodernage02
NY/LA March 26  
more cities April

Well it won't be here till April then. Shit.
Title: Lars + Nicole
Post by: The Obstruction on March 06, 2004, 06:22:49 PM
It's now an hour since i last saw this film and i think it get's better everytime i see it.
I have seen the extra material and i must say that i find it kind of hard to see that Lars von trier should be mad you can call him excentrick but not mad.
Lars von trier's problem is that he always work together with this small actreses who wery easy gets sad, it works perfectly in the movies because if gives you this feeling of being a awfull person in an awfull world, but it still irretets me.
Title: Dogville
Post by: rustinglass on March 06, 2004, 08:01:27 PM
I saw dogville confessions.I found it unsatisfying, I wanted to learn more about his way of filmaking, his struggles, his conception of ideas and, of course, torturing actors. The best documentary film about lars von trier is the humiliated, the only one that includes all of what I mentioned.
I disagree with paul bettany when he says that lars tried to do dogville before, but it turned into the idiots. I can understand why he would think that, karen is trier's previous female character that most resembles grace, but still, it's a fairly different theme.

He is excessivly excentric, and yes I do think he's crazy, nonetheless, a genious of film. You should take a look at the audio diary that he had during the making of the idiots, it's hard to see a filmaker more crazy than that, he says ridiculous, mad things.
Title: Dogville
Post by: FooBoy on March 06, 2004, 08:16:03 PM
Quote from: The Silver Bullet
It's just...oh, I don't know. I just don't know why you'd read about it in the "Now Showing" forum if you hadn't already seen it. Maybe in "The Grapevine", sure, but here, where people who have seen it are discussing it already?

That said, I see your point.


Well I'm reading this thread and haven't yet seen the film, simply because I'm interested in hearing what people thought of it. I didn't read your review yet though (although I'm sure it's great), since I guessed it may have a few spoilers in it.
Title: Dogville
Post by: kotte on March 09, 2004, 01:37:07 AM
Quote from: rustinglass
I disagree with paul bettany when he says that lars tried to do dogville before, but it turned into the idiots. I can understand why he would think that, karen is trier's previous female character that most resembles grace, but still, it's a fairly different theme.


Paul didn't actually mean it...he was frustrated and upset.
If you watch Dogville Confessions you'll see why he said it.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Fernando on March 11, 2004, 12:53:26 PM
*** MINOR SPOILERS ***

Saw it yesterday, and I have to admit that the first 15-20 minutes were almost unbearable to me, then the film just lifted off like a rockett, scene I found most beautiful was when Grace opens the curtains in the blind man's house.

Great film ideed.

Quote from: P

some obvious barry lyndon influence


From the very first shot I thought of BL, so I'm not crazy after all, or am I?

Aside from the music which other things did you find the influence of BL?
Title: Dogville
Post by: mogwai on March 11, 2004, 01:00:24 PM
Quote from: Fernando
Aside from the music which other things did you find the influence of BL?

the narration (by john hurt).
Title: Dogville
Post by: Alexandro on March 11, 2004, 01:03:39 PM
this is a great film...nicole should get another oscar,,,...

von trier IS MANIPULATIVE, but he¿s great at it, and makes a point...and he can say whatver the fuck he wants about the united states of america, as much as anyone else...

americans invade every country they want, not only with soldiers and guns but with ideology, movies and ways of life...so, in a sense, the whole world is american, and we all can say what we want about it. it doesn't matter if we haven't been there...sometimes i feel i know more about american history that about mexican history...that's the way it is...

in fact,s ometimes i think we all should be able to vote in america so when bush bombs our cities we can say: "well, I vote for him, I deserve it".
Title: Dogville
Post by: kotte on March 11, 2004, 01:06:05 PM
Lets try not to make this thread about politic...
Title: Lars von Trier Vs. The Idiots
Post by: The Obstruction on March 11, 2004, 01:54:52 PM
Quote from: rustinglass
He is excessivly excentric, and yes I do think he's crazy, nonetheless, a genious of film. You should take a look at the audio diary that he had during the making of the idiots, it's hard to see a filmaker more crazy than that, he says ridiculous, mad things.


I actully just saw the idiots the day after my last post, and i agree with you he must have been crazy on this stage of his life, but I think i was a good movie after all.
I saw a program on danish television a week ago called "de forhutlede" who was about theese "dogme brothers" and in that lars said to one of the women in the commity at cannes "I Don't take prices from italiens, thats a princip"
I don't know why i whrite this eccept that lars also said (as far as i remmeber) that mayby it was an act of excitment.
Title: Dogville
Post by: rustinglass on March 11, 2004, 02:39:25 PM
Quote from: Alexandro

in fact,s ometimes i think we all should be able to vote in america so when bush bombs our cities we can say: "well, I vote for him, I deserve it".


There is a portuguese reporter that writes a weekly chronicle for the paper, and he says the same thing. He gives a lot of reasons why every citizen in the world should vote for the US president.

(for course he ommits the reasons why we shouldn't)
Title: Dogville
Post by: kotte on March 11, 2004, 02:51:28 PM
Quote from: kotte
Lets try not to make this thread about politic...


please...
Title: Dogville
Post by: mutinyco on March 11, 2004, 02:54:54 PM
I saw it last year. I think I mentioned it earlier in the thread. But I fell asleep. For all his creativity, VonTrier has made an excruciating film. The points are unsubstantiated and his story formula is tedious and SO manipulative at this point.

I wrote about the Barry Lyndon and Barton Fink references on MovieNavigator.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Fernando on March 11, 2004, 03:35:54 PM
Quote from: mogwai
Quote from: Fernando
Aside from the music which other things did you find the influence of BL?

the narration (by john hurt).


Damn! Of course, I realized it just when I read it. I got mogged.

BTW, your current avatar is lovely.
Title: Dogville
Post by: mogwai on March 11, 2004, 10:53:27 PM
Quote from: Fernando
I got mogged.

yeah... it's been a pleasure.
Title: Dogville
Post by: rustinglass on March 17, 2004, 01:25:18 PM
sad news: I heard that the american release will be the butchered 117min version :(
Title: Dogville
Post by: Pwaybloe on March 17, 2004, 01:49:00 PM
Hmmm...

Edited for time or content?
Title: Dogville
Post by: mogwai on March 17, 2004, 02:16:57 PM
Quote from: Pawbloe
Hmmm...

Edited for time or content?

i guess it has do something with this:

"To fit the needs of some local distributors, in Italy among others, assistant director Anders Refn cut a version of Dogville which is about 45 minutes shorter than the original. The version was accepted and approved by director Lars von Trier."
Title: Dogville
Post by: The Perineum Falcon on March 17, 2004, 05:21:21 PM
Quote from: mogwai

i guess it has do something with this:

"To fit the needs of some local distributors, in Italy among others, assistant director Anders Refn cut a version of Dogville which is about 45 minutes shorter than the original. The version was accepted and approved by director Lars von Trier."

Fuck me, I can't imagine anyone accepting, or approving, 45 mins of their film being snipped. I'm hoping the DVD will have the missing footage....
Title: Dogville
Post by: Ghostboy on March 17, 2004, 05:48:52 PM
This is upsetting; I can maybe see cutting about 20 minutes out of the first hour, if anything, but that's it. Oh well, thank goodness for DVDs. I'm thinking about ordering the Region 0 set, since Lions Gate will be releasing this in the US and they have a tendency to ignore the bonus materials on import DVDs (a la Irreversible).
Title: Dogville
Post by: rustinglass on March 18, 2004, 08:33:14 AM
Quote from: Pawbloe
Hmmm...

Edited for time or content?


An interview for a portuguese magazine (I hope I write to english good)

question: It is surprising that you made two versions of "dogville", one is about three hours, that was shown in cannes, the other is much shorter.
LVT: I didn't make two versions. What happened is that, when I made the film financing contract, I compromised it not to have more than two hours time. I signed it thinking it would be a problem to solve later...and, in fact, it was a problem... So I made a near three hour long film- that is my film. And there is a shorter version, that is not edited by me, that is destined to satisfy the financial compromises.
Q: It's a kind of "dogville"'s "reader's digest"?
LVT: Exactly. It's a very good version, but it's not my film.
Title: Dogville
Post by: mogwai on March 18, 2004, 09:42:50 AM
am i the only one who feels that von trier is more forthcoming in his interviews than before?
Title: Dogville
Post by: rustinglass on March 18, 2004, 10:22:36 AM
Quote from: mogwai
am i the only one who feels that von trier is more forthcoming in his interviews than before?


Question: Do you like being spanked?
LVT: Well, if it's Nicole Kidman doing the spanking, of course I do.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Weak2ndAct on March 18, 2004, 02:43:03 PM
Quote from: Ghostboy
I'm thinking about ordering the Region 0 set, since Lions Gate will be releasing this in the US and they have a tendency to ignore the bonus materials on import DVDs (a la Irreversible).

To paraphrase what I wrote before in another thread:

The reason while Irreversible had jack on it was b/c that Noe didn't deliver any of the bonus materials that he promised until waaaaay too late (and he flat out refused to put 'Carne' on there).
Title: Dogville
Post by: Weak2ndAct on March 18, 2004, 03:32:21 PM
Psst...

Dogville WILL NOT be cut down for american release.  I know this for a fact.
Title: Dogville
Post by: godardian on March 18, 2004, 03:37:44 PM
Quote from: rustinglass
Quote from: mogwai
am i the only one who feels that von trier is more forthcoming in his interviews than before?


Question: Do you like being spanked?
LVT: Well, if it's Nicole Kidman doing the spanking, of course I do.


Is it wrong that that turns me on??  :)

So glad that we'll be getting the full Dogville. Any time a movie is edited for anything by anyone other than the filmmakers, I get real suspicious. This was not lessened in any way by reading Down and Dirty Pictures and getting the lowdown on Harvey Scissorhands.
Title: Dogville
Post by: rustinglass on March 18, 2004, 03:43:28 PM
Quote from: Weak2ndAct
Psst...

Dogville WILL NOT be cut down for american release.  I know this for a fact.


What I said, I saw on imdb, but I never said it would be cut down for american release, I said that the film that will be released in america is the already cut (by the producer)  117min version.

Anyway, I really want that they distribute the full version. That's what everybody wants. great news
Title: Dogville
Post by: MacGuffin on March 25, 2004, 11:12:58 AM
A stranger's take on a strange land
In 'Dogville,' director Lars von Trier opens his dark American trilogy. So what if he's never set foot here?
Source: Los Angeles Times

"My goal was to go back to basics and find the joy of believing in a story no matter what," says Danish filmmaker Lars von Trier about his latest project, "Dogville." "If someone tells you a story, you have to make an effort to believe in it.

"And when you do, it can really be good."

That the experience can also be perverse, exhilarating, explosively un-P.C. and unforgettable, it goes without saying. "The sad tale of the township of Dogville," told in nine chapters and a prologue, is the handiwork of possibly the most controversial European anti-auteur.

Von Trier is on the phone from picturesque Trollhättan, Sweden, where he just started shooting his next film, "Manderlay." He likes to make movies in sets of three, and "Dogville" is the first in what he has referred to as his American trilogy.

The director is reluctant to make interpretation easy, either. "I like films to raise questions that people will then have to answer themselves. Even I am not really sure what particular theme connects them. Why make films if you're sure?"

"Dogville," opening in Los Angeles theaters this week, can be read as a Depression-era allegory about the shabby back side of a purported American Utopia. The credits sequence juxtaposes, with cheerful rudeness, David Bowie's buoyantly ironic anthem "Young Americans" against Dorothea Lange's iconic photographs of poverty, for instance. Later, "Dogville's" omniscient narrator observes that a character "made up for his lack of preparation by lashing out haphazardly in all directions." In such moments, Von Trier makes it impossible not to see which country he's skewering.

It shows considerable cheek on the part of an artist who has famously never set foot in the United States. (He suffers from a fear of flying, as well as other phobias that appear as recurring themes in his work.) "You can criticize me for this, but I have a tendency to be inspired by things that I'm not really familiar with and that are quite remote," the filmmaker says. "It's much easier that way. You don't have to work so much doing research — I already had a remote idea about how America could be — but of course, you can make a lot of people angry."

And for some, nothing will be more offensive than the sight of Grace, the film's protagonist, played with hair-raising abandon by Hollywood megastar Nicole Kidman, spending a fair stretch of the story shackled to a diabolical leash-like contraption and being repeatedly raped.

Even so, there is elegant rhythm and plenty of method to Von Trier's provocative ways.

At first, fictional Dogville appears to both audience and Grace (a beautiful fugitive pursued by gangsters who is granted sanctuary in the village) to be nothing but a friendly hamlet nestled into a nook of the Rockies, populated by upright people who live winsome lives. It is a place of utilitarian assets — a verdant apple orchard, an abandoned silver mine, a church with a bell, a watchdog — many merely outlined on the ground in chalk.

The film's only discernable lesson is that exploring with any depth this charming slice of Americana is highly dangerous for everybody involved. By the end, the morality of Dogville's citizens, that of Grace and that of the audience all will have been called into question.

In his next film, "Manderlay," Grace (played this time around by newcomer Bryce Dallas Howard) stumbles upon another Depression-era small town in Alabama where slavery has yet to be abolished. She sets out to help straighten things, but then "everything, of course, goes awry," Von Trier says in his cordial, mellow phone manner.

Like the amiable devil from Sartre's play "No Exit," he likes to taunt with the possibility that no hell dreamed up by gods could ever measure up to the unspeakable evil that humans readily inflict upon one another.

Because his work has stubbornly, and often in an unexpectedly brilliant manner, probed ethical and moral quandaries, the United Nations recognized Von Trier with a Cinema for Peace prize in 2000. His compulsion to needle the establishment characteristically subverted the awards ceremony.

"I probably offended them because I gave an acceptance speech that was a little cheeky," he says. "I told them that an apolitical peace prize doesn't make sense to me. And that first we have to treat each other fairly and divide the world in a just way; I think that's more important than peace.

"Also, if you are dying of hunger, then you want food more than peace."

Spoken like a true Marxist.

Né Lars Trier, the filmmaker picked up the aristocratic article in homage to German directors Erich von Stroheim and Josef von Sternberg. Two other German artists, the agit-lit team of composer Kurt Weill and playwright Bertolt Brecht, are also partly responsible for the highly stylized look and feel of "Dogville." Von Trier was inspired by musical numbers featured in Brecht's 1930s plays, paradigm-shifting examples that paired Marxist ideology with cabaret-style decadence.

For "Dogville," shot entirely with a hand-held camera on a gigantic sound stage, Von Trier says he was obsessed with capturing the stylized miens and the slightly alienating experience of watching theater on television: "I can't explain why. It's a feeling I have, like when you need a specific vitamin or mineral. Then again, I always set different kinds of rules and limitations for myself."

Going back to basics is a journey that the 47-year-old Von Trier has been mapping since the mid-'90s, when he abruptly abandoned the gorgeously baroque expressionism that had characterized his early work. He coauthored the Dogme 95 manifesto — a public oath he took along with a collective of his Danish peers to banish artifice, decorum and personal taste from filmmaking.

The austere approach yielded harsh new virtues that quickly shoved one of the world's most backward filmmaking nations to the vanguard of European cinema.

Von Trier visibly rode the crest of the new wave. Using direct storytelling, grainy, realistic photography captured by hand-held cameras and quick-cut editing, he reaped acclaim and infamy with each film.

With the psych-horror hospital soap "The Kingdom," the subversively and violently anti-bourgeois fantasy "Idiots" and the contrived and heartbreaking melodramas of female crucifixion "Breaking the Waves" and "Dancer in the Dark," Von Trier proved himself a poet of varied cinematic moods, a sardonic humorist and a filmmaker of stunning visual awareness.

Or, depending on whom you ask, a misanthrope, an impertinent hack — even a "degenerate" artist, as a furious Time magazine critic labeled him in 2000.

His fiercely independent manner — he funds his work through a filmmaking enterprise he co-owns, Zentropa Film, which produces the work of fellow filmmakers through an adjacent distribution company — as well as the intense commitment he requires of his casts are well documented.

Despite past adversarial working relationships with collaborators, Von Trier has many notable admirers. His "Dogville" cast runs the gamut from icon Lauren Bacall to indie luminaries Paul Bettany, Chloë Sevigny and Jeremy Davies, as well as Kidman.

Horror author Stephen King loved Von Trier's "Kingdom" miniseries so much he decided to write a remake himself for U.S. television. (Von Trier says he finds the idea itself "very funny," although he hasn't seen the series, currently running on ABC as "Stephen King's Kingdom Hospital.") "I like to be popular with the people I like to be popular with, and I like to be unpopular with the people I like to be unpopular with," he notes.

When pressed about specifics, he keeps the references to the former vague ("they're difficult to define, but I know who they are") but happily names names among the latter.

"I would like to be unpopular with Harvey Weinstein," he says. "And I think I've succeeded."
Title: Dogville
Post by: MacGuffin on March 26, 2004, 10:20:41 AM
Quote from: rustinglass
sad news: I heard that the american release will be the butchered 117min version :(


Quote from: Weak2ndAct
Psst...

Dogville WILL NOT be cut down for american release.  I know this for a fact.


Yep. According to today's Los Angeles Times review, the running time is 2 hrs. 57 mins.
Title: Dogville
Post by: matt35mm on March 26, 2004, 03:21:24 PM
Good news.  If it even opens out here...

(Also, on the Irreversible official website, they have a special feature meant for the DVD about the special effects used in it.  Sorta interesting.)
Title: Dogville
Post by: meatball on March 26, 2004, 04:00:22 PM
It opens out here in Los Angeles.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Chest Rockwell on March 26, 2004, 05:34:36 PM
I probably wont get it for a couple of weeks, sadly.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Finn on March 27, 2004, 02:27:11 PM
It might just stay in limited release. Ebert & Roeper surprisingly gave it "thumbs down", but I was a little confused by their review. They said it was three hours long (which they thought was way too long) but everything I've read about it says that it's two hours. Which is it really?
Title: Dogville
Post by: modage on March 27, 2004, 02:30:10 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin
Quote from: rustinglass
sad news: I heard that the american release will be the butchered 117min version :(


Quote from: Weak2ndAct
Psst...

Dogville WILL NOT be cut down for american release.  I know this for a fact.


Yep. According to today's Los Angeles Times review, the running time is 2 hrs. 57 mins.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Chest Rockwell on March 27, 2004, 04:50:20 PM
Is this to say that the 2 hour version is better than the uncut 3 hours?
Title: Dogville
Post by: rustinglass on March 27, 2004, 05:01:22 PM
Quote from: A wiser man than myself once
Filmcritics are like assholes, everyone is one.


The long version is better.
Title: Dogville
Post by: BonBon85 on March 28, 2004, 11:14:24 AM
I went to see it last night at the Angelika. I got stuck in the back right corner because the moron I was with wanted to get drinks first so we didn't get to the theater until five minutes before it started. (And don't think I wasn't tempted to ditch the moron to find a closer single seat). The lack of walls in the film wasn't distracting, although the people who laughed every time somebody knocked on an invisible door were. I'll agree with the other comments that the beginning is a tad slow. Overall, I'm mostly just surprised more of a fuss hasn't been made over this film in the US. Maybe von Trier lucked out by releasing immediately after The Passion, so people decided to focus more on that movie since it has a higher profile. I was already surprised by how harshly he was critiquing America in the film itself, and then the credits roll and he just pounds you over the head with the idea. The credits were a bit much.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Henry Hill on March 28, 2004, 12:45:54 PM
ebert and roeper tore this film apart on their show this morning. i couldnt believe it. i thought ebert would like it. they did though go on and on about how von trier hates america and that this film could be seen as  anti-american. ebert then went on to say that a lot of movies are probably anti-american and that he enjoys them. its just on top of that this film was horrible. long and boring. and you know roeper, he gives a thumbs down for almost everything. dating back to last weeks show he gave Jersey Girl a thumbs down, and then all movies on todays show. funny.
The Ladykillers
Dogville
Scooby-Doo 2: Monster Unleased
Never Die Alone
Hellboy
Title: Dogville
Post by: BonBon85 on March 28, 2004, 03:56:09 PM
Looking at what I wrote before, I guess I didn't make it clear that I'm glad I saw it and I would recommend it. It didn't have the same emotional impact on me as Breaking the Waves or Dancer in the Dark, but it's still very powerful.
Title: Dogville
Post by: A Matter Of Chance on March 28, 2004, 06:02:41 PM
It's a great movie, I think.
Title: Dogville
Post by: modage on March 28, 2004, 06:53:23 PM
Quote from: BonBon85
Looking at what I wrote before, I guess I didn't make it clear that I'm glad I saw it and I would recommend it. It didn't have the same emotional impact on me as Breaking the Waves or Dancer in the Dark, but it's still very powerful.

its pretty easy to be powerful though, especially when being so emotionally manipulative to an audience by abusing your lead.  see also: The Passion.
Title: Dogville
Post by: BonBon85 on March 28, 2004, 07:01:30 PM
Quote from: themodernage02
Quote from: BonBon85
Looking at what I wrote before, I guess I didn't make it clear that I'm glad I saw it and I would recommend it. It didn't have the same emotional impact on me as Breaking the Waves or Dancer in the Dark, but it's still very powerful.

its pretty easy to be powerful though, especially when being so emotionally manipulative to an audience by abusing your lead.  see also: The Passion.


I totally agree (though I'm waiting for the DVD to see The Passion).  Although von Trier's films are always blatantly manipulative, I still find watching them a worthwhile experience.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Pubrick on March 29, 2004, 09:12:54 AM
Quote from: BonBon85
although the people who laughed every time somebody knocked on an invisible door were.

that is a stupid audience. damn.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Pwaybloe on March 29, 2004, 10:32:22 AM
Quote from: Pubrick
that is a stupid audience. damn.


...Nicole Kidman fans.
Title: Dogville
Post by: samsong on March 29, 2004, 05:10:38 PM
fuck Ebert and Roeper... I have little respect for both.  Well, not true... I like reading Ebert's Great Movies essays.  Roeper on the other hand has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.  

Dogville...anti American... wow, what a revelation.  I knew when I saw this last year that it was going to be HATED in the US for that very fact.  And yes, it's anti-American.  Blatantly at that.  Lars isn't shy about it either.  During a press conference he said he sees a lot of shit going on in America.  So what?  How does that effect the work as a whole?  If Ebert and Roeper and others who will be offended or unsettled by the anti-American nature of the film, that's on them.  The film has so much to offer but if they want to get stuck on that, that's fine. I personally found the anti-american-ness thought provoking and very resonant in terms of truth... I felt that von Trier was simply holding up a mirror to the country as well as being an unflichingly pessimistic view of humanity that almost felt Orwellian.  It may be a mirror that only shows the negative but it's a powerful reminder of the state of things... or that's what I thought at least. Then they go on to say that they've seen somewhat anti-American films that they actually liked but did they name one?  As I said, fuck them.  They lick so much public ass it's ridiculous.

The manipulative nature of Lars von Trier's films is nothing new... it's what he does.  But there's an undeniable integrity behind von Trier's sadistic insanity, and I find his films, albeit brutal and emotionally pornographic, very endearing.  Again I think it has a lot to do with where the filmmaker is coming from and I've never had a problem with him thus far... actually everything I've seen from Lars von Trier I adore, The Idiots being my favorite.  I dont know, Lars von Trier's films have always been love-or-hate and I'm not surprised by the reactions towards Dogville... I personally love it.  Stylistically it's one of the most interesting films I've ever seen... I was totally into the theatrical aspect of the film and was completely and utterly fascinated.  It was refreshing to see a film where the storytelling is as basic as it is in Dogville.  I love John Hurt's narrations, the chapter stops.. it creates this safe, comfortable environment of having stories read to you before going to bed as a kid, only this bedtime story leads you into a realm of that will probably have you feeling shitty by the end.  Maybe I'm going too deep into it but there's a quality about Dogville that sucked me in and spat me out completely shooken up and ecstatic about what was achieved.  I hear people bring up the pacing as a negative but I never found the film to be dull or slow at any point.

Lars von Trier is cinema's best friends, as he is constantly reinventing himself and opening new doors.  In terms of technology goes he's the absolute best.  His use of it in his films is exactly how it should be done... sparingly and intelligently.  It's never superfluous or serves any other purpose than to further his vision.  He's one of the true visionaries of the new breed of filmmakers (or the 90s new breed, anyway) and can't wait till S (which I think is Manderlay) and A of the USA trilogy come out.
Title: Dogville
Post by: modage on March 29, 2004, 05:15:53 PM
Quote from: filmboy70
they did though go on and on about how von trier hates america and that this film could be seen as  anti-american. ebert then went on to say that a lot of movies are probably anti-american and that he enjoys them. its just on top of that this film was horrible. long and boring.
Title: Dogville
Post by: bonanzataz on March 30, 2004, 09:52:29 PM
i keep watching lars von trier movies and never knowing what i'm getting into. i should know that when the name lars von trier is on the movie, it means over two hours of getting kicked in the ass. lars and michael haneke are great at that. two of my favorite filmmakers working today.
Title: Dogville
Post by: jonas on March 31, 2004, 03:38:15 PM
I'm going to see it here (in L.A.) Friday, and it's advertised as 3 hours and 7 minutes.

I'm very excited and a full review will be coming.
Title: Dogville
Post by: grand theft sparrow on April 09, 2004, 11:53:56 AM
I'm going to see this with my mother, a BIG Nicole Kidman fan, on Easter. I gave her fair warning a while back that it's not going to be standard Kidman fare by a longshot.

I anticipate being forced to leave after the first hour. Either that or I'll have to endure 3 hours of her sighing next to me, which is worse than the prospect of leaving a movie I'm enjoying.

Pray for me, brothers and sisters.
Title: Dogville
Post by: mogwai on April 09, 2004, 12:24:28 PM
Quote from: hacksparrow
I'm going to see this with my mother, a BIG Nicole Kidman fan, on Easter. I gave her fair warning a while back that it's not going to be standard Kidman fare by a longshot.

i'm afraid that your mother will disown you.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Sigur Rós on April 10, 2004, 02:19:42 PM
Yess! Willem Dafoe will stare as Grace's father in Von Triers next project 'Manderlay'.
Title: Dogville
Post by: rustinglass on April 10, 2004, 04:12:02 PM
I liked Caan, couldn't willem play an abusive landlord with a shotgun instead?
Title: Dogville
Post by: The Obstruction on April 13, 2004, 04:58:29 AM
Quote from: rustinglass
You should take a look at the audio diary that he had during the making of the idiots, it's hard to see a filmaker more crazy than that, he says ridiculous, mad things.


Is it the Jesper Jargil documnatary, if yes, i think you're right, he says a lot of crab in that, but i think it's to do with the female actor anne-louise something
She is intervining with his privat life, and my belife is that he needs to have straight lines in his private life to bare the crazy months where he is filming.
Besides of that i find that he is right in the conclusion that she is a great actor, but not quite ready, at the time of shooting The Idiots.

(http://www.cinemaparadiso.nl/idiots1.jpg)
Title: Dogville
Post by: matt35mm on April 13, 2004, 02:25:47 PM
Saw this movie.  Very interesting.

The way it builds up is very interesting.  Towards the end of the film, it just... was completely absorbing.

Some of the video didn't even look that bad.

The person I saw it with (it was hard convincing her to go, but this turned out to be one of her favorite movies ever, it seems) and I had a good conversation about the movie afterwards.  I don't really wanna get into all the thoughts I had now, cuz I don't think I can without spoiling the movie.

But anyway, I definitely recommend it.  The movie took a gamble and it paid off, which is always nice to see.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Pubrick on April 13, 2004, 09:56:21 PM
Quote from: matt35mm
I don't really wanna get into all the thoughts I had now, cuz I don't think I can without spoiling the movie.

with today's technology, we can preface such thoughts with *SPOILER* and like sum 15th century alchemist's dream, u can talk about it.
Title: Dogville
Post by: matt35mm on April 13, 2004, 10:01:11 PM
Okay fine, the truth is that I was just lazy.  You got me.
Title: Dogville
Post by: SoNowThen on April 22, 2004, 12:37:44 PM
May I please enquire WHEN THE FUCK THIS IS COMING TO CANADA?!!!!!!!


Thanks in advance to whoever's in the know.
Title: Dogville
Post by: cine on April 22, 2004, 12:42:37 PM
Quote from: SoNowThen
May I please enquire WHEN THE FUCK THIS IS COMING TO CANADA?!!!!!!!

It's in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. :kiss:
Title: Dogville
Post by: SoNowThen on April 22, 2004, 12:50:36 PM
Right now?

If so, that's a good thing. Probably will filter to Edmonton soon. If it's already gone, then I guess I don't get it period...
Title: Dogville
Post by: cine on April 22, 2004, 12:55:53 PM
It's only in one small Cineplex Odeon in Vancouver, a small Cineplex Odeon in Toronto, and a couple cinemas in Montreal. It's been in these provinces for 2-3 weeks only. So the chances of it moving to Edmonton are slim. That's my take, at least.
Title: Dogville
Post by: SoNowThen on April 23, 2004, 08:52:23 AM
..... hahaha, so the day after I freak out, it comes to my favorite downtown theatre.


I get to see it this weekend!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Dogville
Post by: cine on April 23, 2004, 08:54:12 AM
Quote from: SoNowThen
..... hahaha, so the day after I freak out, it comes to my favorite downtown theatre.


Wouldn't it be funny if you had killed yourself on thursday night?


No?

Forget it..
Title: Dogville
Post by: SoNowThen on April 23, 2004, 09:21:27 AM
I had the noose all tied, and was just about to kick the chair out, when the announcement came on the tv, like a presidential pardon. Sadly, I had to wait until my roommate came home so he could help me down. It was an awkward situation...


 :-D


LVT: makin' actresses cry, hatin' America, and savin' lives...
Title: Dogville
Post by: Ghostboy on April 24, 2004, 01:54:36 PM
The new Entertainment Weekly reports that John C. Reilly walked off the set of Manderlay, after learning that an animal was going to be killed and consumed on set.  Go John C!

He's been replaced by a Danish actor whose name I can't remember.

I wonder if there's a Manderlay thread I should have searched for before posting this here.
Title: Dogville
Post by: cine on April 24, 2004, 02:01:57 PM
Quote from: Ghostboy
I wonder if there's a Manderlay thread I should have searched for before posting this here.

Nope, it's only right here: http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?p=95849#95849
Title: Dogville
Post by: rustinglass on April 24, 2004, 03:57:56 PM
Quote from: Ghostboy
The new Entertainment Weekly reports that John C. Reilly walked off the set of Manderlay, after learning that an animal was going to be killed and consumed on set.  Go John C!


Jesus Christ!!!!! :shock:  :shock:  :shock:
That's a bit in the documentary I'd like to see!
Title: Dogville
Post by: SoNowThen on April 24, 2004, 05:40:59 PM
Quote from: Ghostboy
The new Entertainment Weekly reports that John C. Reilly walked off the set of Manderlay, after learning that an animal was going to be killed and consumed on set.  Go John C!

He's been replaced by a Danish actor whose name I can't remember.

I wonder if there's a Manderlay thread I should have searched for before posting this here.


If it's not in the feline or canine family, Johnny C should not be such a pussy...
Title: Dogville
Post by: rustinglass on April 24, 2004, 05:50:39 PM
yeah, animals get slaughtered all the time. if there was a veterinary present, it should be okay.

didn't he read the script? did he fly up there to try and change trier's mind? or did lars push him to the limit to see what he could withstand?
Title: Dogville
Post by: Pubrick on April 25, 2004, 01:33:31 AM
if that animal was a chicken, turkey, cow, pig, or whatever else is tasty.. john c just made a fool of himself.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Ghostboy on April 25, 2004, 03:05:56 AM
It was a mule, actually.
Title: Dogville
Post by: MacGuffin on April 25, 2004, 03:30:00 AM
So then Reilly made an ass out of himself.  :yabbse-cheesy:


*taps mic* Hello? Is this thing on?
Title: Dogville
Post by: rustinglass on April 25, 2004, 03:45:24 AM
haha!
still, if ron howard's daughter can take it, he can too. unless, of course, he has gotten intimate with the mule... that must have been hard on him.
Title: Dogville
Post by: mogwai on April 25, 2004, 04:16:21 AM
guys... we're talking about a mule here, have some sensitivity!

(http://www.agriss.com/photo/humour/mule.jpg)
Title: Dogville
Post by: rustinglass on April 25, 2004, 09:06:00 AM
I read on imdb that stellan walked out too! what the fuck is going on?!
if they would slaughter a horse,what piece would Chloe Sevigny call dibs on? :-D  :-D

edit. from the same message board.
"Politiken reports that they were looking for a black male between 15 and 70 to make a mold of for a slave that will get hung in a tree, a few weeks ago. "

Seems like he really is pushing it this time.
Title: Dogville
Post by: mogwai on April 25, 2004, 10:38:06 AM
rust, which message board? i've tried with dogville, manderlay, stellan skarsgård, lars von trier, reilly etc...
Title: Dogville
Post by: rustinglass on April 25, 2004, 10:42:05 AM
manderlay- topic "if you read swedish or danish"-next to last post
Title: Dogville
Post by: phil marlowe on April 25, 2004, 10:57:56 AM
if stellan is out then we know that this is a fucked up situation, i would've expected him to be the very last to leave...

so sad
Title: Dogville
Post by: SoNowThen on April 25, 2004, 06:36:18 PM
So I just came back from this.

Brilliant.

** Spoilers (perhaps?) **

I was wondering, as it began, if I would be able to take 3 hours of chalk marks and digital video. I'll admit, it took about 30 minutes for it to stop annoying me. But I was won over in the end. Stripping everything away to just the people was perfect. And I can't single out any one performance, cos they were all great. Every one, kids included. And that last scene between Kidman and Caan is just as good as anything I've ever seen in cinema.

It's a shame that she didn't commit to the other two movies, because I could've done without her (barring EWS), until now. Wonderful work, all around. Looking forward with much anticipation to Manderlay.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Fernando on April 26, 2004, 11:02:58 AM
MINOR SPOILERS

Quote from: SoNowThen


I was wondering, as it began, if I would be able to take 3 hours of chalk marks and digital video. I'll admit, it took about 30 minutes for it to stop annoying me. But I was won over in the end.


Quote from: Fernando

Saw it yesterday, and I have to admit that the first 15-20 minutes were almost unbearable to me, then the film just lifted off like a rockett
Title: Dogville
Post by: SoNowThen on April 26, 2004, 11:04:49 AM
hehehe, big thread, I couldn't get around to reading it all...
Title: Dogville
Post by: Fernando on April 26, 2004, 11:12:35 AM
Quote from: SoNowThen
hehehe, big thread, I couldn't get around to reading it all...


Oh no, I wasn't complaining or something, just pointing out we did feel the same way at the beginning. Great minds think alike.  :-D
Title: Dogville
Post by: SoNowThen on April 26, 2004, 11:16:21 AM
:yabbse-thumbup:

Which leads me to ask, would this movie have been even better if it was shot on film? Has Von Trier said why he sticks with digital, even for something as huge as this?
Title: Dogville
Post by: samsong on April 26, 2004, 08:07:02 PM
Quote from: SoNowThen
:yabbse-thumbup:

Which leads me to ask, would this movie have been even better if it was shot on film? Has Von Trier said why he sticks with digital, even for something as huge as this?


he likes being able to just shoot instead of having to worry about film stock, etc.  it's obvious from his films that he likes his freedom with the camera and it seems like video has provided him with just that... according to him, anyway.  he hand-operates the camera himself a lot because he likes being right there with the actors.  so i guess it just comes down to personal preference.  

had Dogville been shot on film i dont think he would've had the same artistic freedom as he did with video.  there are a suprising number of effects shots that go into the film... the overhead shots of the town had to be done with a rig of, well, A LOT of cameras that would focus on one part of the set and all those images were pieced together in the editing process.  having to do all of that on film would've been a pain in the ass (moreso than it was with video, anyway) not to mention EXPENSIVE AS HELL.  Sure he could change his vision around to suit film but in all honesty there isn't a thing wrong with Dogville... not to me, anyway.
Title: Dogville
Post by: bonanzataz on April 26, 2004, 08:59:56 PM
i LOVED the look of this movie. it would have been stupid on film.
Title: Dogville
Post by: SiliasRuby on April 27, 2004, 12:19:27 AM
I just got back from it and "Oh...My...God!" I was blown away and since I didn't read this thread (because I didn't want any spoilers) all I knew going in was it was a Lars Von trier Film with Nicole kidman. I also think the beginning was a tiny bit slow but soon as it really kicked off, it didn't stop. So I was very much impressed.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Stefen on April 28, 2004, 09:23:33 PM
We get this here on friday. Finally.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Sigur Rós on April 29, 2004, 03:16:54 AM
:cry: sorry old news
Title: Dogville
Post by: cine on April 29, 2004, 03:23:39 AM
This has been posted twice already, just so you know.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Sigur Rós on April 29, 2004, 03:29:15 AM
Quote from: Cinephile
This has been posted twice already, just so you know.


Sorry, didn't read the thread first. It was on the news in Denmark yesterday.
Title: Dogville
Post by: cron on April 29, 2004, 06:41:48 AM
I know this has been posted thrice, but this is the most informative article so far.


Reilly drops out over dead donkey
Staff and agencies
Thursday April 29, 2004

 (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Society/Pix/pictures/2003/02/18/donkey10.jpg)
A happy, living donkey
 
Actor John C Reilly has reportedly quit Lars Von Trier's Manderlay in protest over the killing of a donkey. Entertainment Weekly reports that the Chicago star walked off the film's set in Trollhatten, Sweden last month. He has since been replaced by Slovenian actor Zelijko Ivanek.
According to the swirl of rumours emanating from the shoot, 38 year-old Reilly was outraged over a scene that involved the slaughter of a donkey for food. But executive producer Peter Aalbaek Jensen insists that the donkey was old and sick and that the killing was entirely humane.

Speaking from the Zentropa production office in Denmark, Aalbaek told the Ritzau news bureau: "As it was explained to me from Sweden, everything went by the book and the entire process was monitored by a veterinarian. We were very conscientious about that, because we didn't want 70,000 American animal rights groups on our back." That said, he added wryly, "We could probably kill six children for a film without anyone raising a fuss." As yet, there are no reports of children being murdered on the set of Manderlay.

Reilly's exit marks the second major loss to the cast of Von Trier's film. Nicole Kidman was originally committed to star in the movie, following up her turn in the director's previous film Dogville, but bailed out of the project last summer. A tale of racism in the segregated south, Manderlay is the second part in Von Trier's controversial trilogy of films about America.
Title: Dogville
Post by: cine on April 29, 2004, 08:40:24 AM
I think a few more articles about Reilly leaving the film and I think Xixax.com will legally be forced to shut down.
Title: Dogville
Post by: SoNowThen on April 29, 2004, 08:54:36 AM
Quote from: cronopio
I know this has been posted thrice, but this is the most informative article so far.


Reilly drops out over dead donkey
Staff and agencies
Thursday April 29, 2004

Aalbaek told the Ritzau news bureau: "As it was explained to me from Sweden, everything went by the book and the entire process was monitored by a veterinarian. We were very conscientious about that, because we didn't want 70,000 American animal rights groups on our back." That said, he added wryly, "We could probably kill six children for a film without anyone raising a fuss."


Hahahahahaha, lovely.
Title: Dogville
Post by: ono on April 29, 2004, 09:04:53 AM
Quote from: cronopio
As yet, there are no reports of children being murdered on the set of Manderlay.

Best part of the article.  Hehe.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Sigur Rós on April 29, 2004, 09:40:35 AM
haha, I didn't think Reilly was such a crybaby!
Title: Dogville
Post by: El Duderino on April 29, 2004, 09:49:31 AM
i thought it was like a horse or cow. donkeys have no purpose. stupid john
Title: Dogville
Post by: Pubrick on April 29, 2004, 10:22:38 AM
Quote from: El Duderino
i thought it was like a horse or cow. donkeys have no purpose. stupid john

how is a horse like a cow? those are like the two most opposite animals u could name. well the most opposite u could've named would be a chicken and a whale, u came pretty close tho.

let's see, horse = majestic, elegant, good for riding.
cow = we eat the fuck out of it and everything it makes, even its shit is good for mushrooms.

i don't get what john c is crying about.. hasn't he ever had burritos? (that one's for u, mac)
Title: Dogville
Post by: Sigur Rós on April 29, 2004, 10:31:44 AM
Quote from: Pubrick
let's see, horse = majestic, elegant, good for riding.
cow = we eat the fuck out of it and everything it makes, even its shit is good for mushrooms.


bonusinfo: We eat horses too.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Pubrick on April 29, 2004, 10:32:44 AM
bonusreaction: that's f*cked up.
Title: Dogville
Post by: SoNowThen on April 29, 2004, 10:36:14 AM
Isn't there something bad about horsemeat? I have no facts, I just thought I heard....



Horses make good glue, however. But of course I would never wanna see one killed.
Title: Dogville
Post by: phil marlowe on April 29, 2004, 10:41:06 AM
horsemeat is good i say
Title: Dogville
Post by: cron on April 29, 2004, 12:00:32 PM
Quote from: the real phil
horsemeat is good i say



yuck,  it's "sweeter."
Title: Dogville
Post by: MacGuffin on April 29, 2004, 12:04:46 PM
Quote from: Pubrick
i don't get what john c is crying about.. hasn't he ever had burritos? (that one's for u, mac)


 :yabbse-thumbup:
Title: Dogville
Post by: MacGuffin on May 05, 2004, 05:12:06 PM
MANDERLAY PRODUCER DEFENDS DONKEY DECISION
Source: Contactmusic

Bosses of LARS VON TRIER's movie MANDERLAY have defended their decision to portray the slaughter of a donkey - insisting the animal they used was due to be put down anyway.

Actor JOHN C REILLY recently quit the DOGVILLE follow-up in Sweden after hearing the quirky Danish director planned to slaughter a real donkey in a harrowing scene. He has since been replaced by UNFAITHFUL star ZELIKO IVANEK and has received praise from the PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS (PETA).

But executive producer PETER AALBAEK JENSEN defends, "The donkey was old, sick and was going to be put to sleep. Its life was prolonged by two weeks. A vet put the animal to sleep off set and in accordance with Swedish laws."

But PETA president MICHAEL McGRAW hits back, "Fortunately, John C Reilly put his ethics before dollar signs and chose to do the right thing by ending his involvement with Von Trier's picture.

"It's absolutely indefensible that he was kept alive one second longer than he should've been just for the sake of this film. It really does seem impossible that in the year 2004 a film-maker thinks it's okay to kill an animal."

In the movie, the donkey is used to feed a group of hungry townspeople.
Title: Dogville
Post by: rustinglass on May 06, 2004, 05:26:39 AM
I like to think that those animal protectors are not stupid, but hell they are stupid. It's just a sick old donkey! I can't believe that they don't have any other animals to save. We loose species every year to corporate interests and suddenly a filmaker kills a sick beastl, and he's the monster?
Thousands of cows, pigs, chickens, whatever are slaughtered everyday!
Title: Dogville
Post by: Finn on May 09, 2004, 02:21:52 PM
Just saw this movie yesterday. Brilliantly creative, strong acting but I do think it doesn't justify itself at being anti-american. A lot of what Lars Von Trier is trying to say about America doesn't make any sense. To me the film would've worked better if it had been about human nature itself instead of America. But it's still a terrific film!
Title: Dogville
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on May 10, 2004, 12:33:55 AM
spoilerish

This must be the most beautifully and successfully deconstructive movie I've seen. I really couldn't get over the whole sound stage imaginary doors thing. I was giddy about it the whole time.

And the ending was mindblowing... it really couldn't have ended any other way.
Title: Dogville
Post by: mogwai on May 10, 2004, 09:52:26 AM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
spoilerish
And the ending was mindblowing...

yep.. that's a spoiler alright. :yabbse-grin:
Title: Dogville
Post by: cron on May 20, 2004, 09:44:59 PM
(http://www.politiken.dk/images/04/05/04/0405042023296250_C228B6FD95862D8807F89AE15B8161.jpg)

Bryce honey,  you don't smile in a Lars Von Trier set.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Pubrick on May 20, 2004, 09:47:20 PM
i was right..

Quote from: Pubrick
i see, von trier is finally going to address the issue of ugly chicks.
Title: Dogville
Post by: matt35mm on May 20, 2004, 10:07:40 PM
... this... this is the face that replaced NICOLE KIDMAN???

I'd say this nearly warrants a "WTF??" but I'm gonna go ahead just trust Von Trier on this one.
Title: Dogville
Post by: SoNowThen on May 20, 2004, 10:48:20 PM
Whoa guys... I'm the one who makes shallow observations on actresses around here...
Title: Dogville
Post by: godardian on May 21, 2004, 12:03:19 AM
Quote from: SoNowThen
Whoa guys... I'm the one who makes shallow observations on actresses around here...


 :lol:  I like to think we all have a little Homer Simpson in us (the little Homer inside Pubrick says "ugly chicks," and every once in a while I find myself speeding to the nearest Krispy Kreme before I drown in my own craving-saliva).

I'm sure the movie will be fine. I didn't exactly find that Dogville posed Kidman in a lot of glamor shots or anything... as long as you can wear a dew rag and believably bear the suffering inflicted by "wholesome communities," you'll do fine in a von Trier film.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Pubrick on May 21, 2004, 12:18:24 AM
Quote from: godardian
(the little Homer inside Pubrick says "ugly chicks," and every once in a while I find myself speeding to the nearest Krispy Kreme before I drown in my own craving-saliva).

that's true, mostly he says:

(http://xixax.com/files/P/innerhomer.JPG)
"Food goes in here"
Title: Dogville
Post by: godardian on May 21, 2004, 12:30:58 AM
Quote from: Pubrick
Quote from: godardian
(the little Homer inside Pubrick says "ugly chicks," and every once in a while I find myself speeding to the nearest Krispy Kreme before I drown in my own craving-saliva).

that's true, mostly he says:

(http://xixax.com/files/P/innerhomer.JPG)
"Food goes in here"


You always have the exact right Simpsons capture for every occasion. I love cartoon(ish) characters that are all self-involved appetite- Homer, Cartman, Jerri Blank, those horrible(y funny) Seinfeld characters. They make me laugh.

von Trier should do a comedy (has he ever?).
Title: Dogville
Post by: samsong on May 21, 2004, 01:58:31 AM
Quote from: godardian
von Trier should do a comedy (has he ever?).


The Idiots is a comedy (for the most part).  It's his best film, or my favorite of his anyway.
Title: Dogville
Post by: godardian on May 21, 2004, 11:18:02 AM
Quote from: samsong
Quote from: godardian
von Trier should do a comedy (has he ever?).


The Idiots is a comedy (for the most part).  It's his best film, or my favorite of his anyway.


I've seen it, and I don't really consider it a comedy, although it does have its laughs (compared to his other films, especially). I really liked it, though. I guess for von Trier, it is a comedy... kind of like Todd Solondz's films can be viewed as "comedies." Satires... comic nightmares, perhaps?
Title: Dogville
Post by: samsong on May 21, 2004, 06:15:34 PM
Quote from: godardian
Quote from: samsong
Quote from: godardian
von Trier should do a comedy (has he ever?).


The Idiots is a comedy (for the most part).  It's his best film, or my favorite of his anyway.


I've seen it, and I don't really consider it a comedy, although it does have its laughs (compared to his other films, especially). I really liked it, though. I guess for von Trier, it is a comedy... kind of like Todd Solondz's films can be viewed as "comedies." Satires... comic nightmares, perhaps?


If The Idiots is a comic nightmare (and I agree with that description) I've never seen/experienced a more beautiful one.  I think it has enough laughs to warrant the title of "comedy"; its tone and atmosphere makes it feel like one too, despite its commentary.  Have you seen Carl Dreyer's Gertrud?  Supposedly The Idiots is von Trier's Gertrud, like Dancer in the Dark is his The Passion of Joan of Arc and Breaking the Waves is his Ordet.  I have the Criterion's Dreyer box set but it's taking me a while to get through it :cry: ... though I guess I could use, "I'm still recovering from Ordet" as a valid excuse.  :-D
Title: Dogville
Post by: Gold Trumpet on May 21, 2004, 08:21:43 PM
Quote from: The Silver Bullet
And the Audience Says Woof

It seems to me that Lars von Trier has outdone himself with Dogville (2003). If you loved him before, you'll probably fawn over this picture. If you hated him...well, maybe you shouldn't see it.

Personally, I find von Trier to be an endlessly fascinating and often frustrating filmmaker. That doesn't mean I particularly like him or his movies, but that I'm merely intrigued by him and his work. Dogville is no exception. As with Breaking the Waves (1996), The Idiots (1998) and Dancer in the Dark (2000), von Trier has gone to great lengths in Dogville to alienate his audience and has succeeded absolutely at doing so. I don't think it's his best post-Dogme film [or his worst], but it's easily his coldest.

Where von Trier's personal [and distinct] style was used in his earlier pictures to suggest docudramatic reality, it actually does the opposite in Dogville. Handheld cameras are still employed [and still create of a sort of intimacy between audience and image], but it's fairly obvious that this is no longer an aesthetic choice, but a personal preference [and I believe von Trier has actually verified this himself]. And even if there was some aesthetic purpose to the nature of Dogville's photography, von Trier's other stylistic choices would render it irrelevant anyway. The minimalist and highly presentative set is reminiscent of George Mosher's filmed production of Thornton Wilder's Our Town (1989), and indeed the film seems to be taking many of its cues not only from the theatre and its innovators, but from Wilder's play also. It is this bizarre style – the set, the title cards, the omnipresent voice of the Narrator – that ultimately prevents the audience from ever getting too close to the characters and the story. However [and here's the real conundrum], nobody ever actually said that von Trier was trying to engage us emotionally. Dogville is not a film of emotions, but of ideas – both specifically political and universally philosophical [not to mention aesthetic]. To that end, von Trier was almost wholly successful.

It's all very Brechtian, of course – and all very calculated on the part of von Trier. In one of the film's more uncomforting sequences, Chuck (Stellan Skarsgård) rapes Grace (Nicole Kidman) on the floor of his home, where she has been minding his children. This scene, more than any other, really illustrates how in control of his art von Trier is. He chooses to frame the rape from afar – not intimately as we may expect – and thus, as the set is without walls, the camera seems less uninterested in Grace's plight than it is in the other citizens of Dogville. It's unsettling, because we realise that the camera's apathy is our own. We fail to [really] connect with Grace on an emotional level [as we usually do with the characters in other films] and then we are unsettled by this when we realise it.

But our inability to connect to Grace isn't von Trier's shortcoming as a filmmaker – it's ours as people. The film has been deliberately constructed to show us this, and von Trier is again almost wholly successful in doing so. Yes, he seems very excited by the idea of tricking his audience in order to make them feel bad about themselves. His less-than-subtle manipulation of the audience has prompted many to think of him a sort of cinematic sadist – someone who is "abusing" cinema, and who holds the audience in an eternal state of contempt. I'm not saying that this isn't partly the case [actually, I think it is], but it's certainly not the full one. Brechtian alienation techniques have a far greater purpose than that, and Lars von Trier [slightly skewed though he may be] is not oblivious to this fact.

The theatrical nature of Dogville and its heavy reliance on Brechtian technique clearly suggest that von Trier is sick of audiences going to the cinema to escape the world and its issues – he is sick of audiences "leaving their brains at the door". Is there really anything wrong with wanting to teach? von Trier wants to make the audience think, and maybe even learn a little something about themselves – even if it's something that they may not like. The most contrived moment of the film [and the one in which von Trier's influence feels most ubiquitous] is Grace's extreme change of heart at the film's climax. The scene, like the general artifice of the film's visual style, makes it impossible to really believe what is happening – but that's the whole point. We're not supposed to believe fables and parables; we're just supposed to learn from them. Dogville is not a film you can escape into the false "reality" of – it forces you to think about what is being said as opposed to what is happening. Its mission is not like that of other films and von Trier's is not like that of other filmmakers. As far as Grace's character goes, it's a pretty unbelievable moment [and I would imagine for many, too extreme a turnaround] though in regards to von Trier's manipulation of the audience, it's actually sorta perfect – we've left ourselves open [just like Dogville]. As an audience [and as people], we automatically feel that we deserve the mercy Grace is willing to offer us – but the thing is we don't, and that's the final lesson. We're not worthy of Grace [both the character and the state of being], because we're ultimately no better than dogs. It's not a "nice" lesson to learn, of course, and Dogville is not a "nice" film to sit through – but who on Earth said it was, and who on Earth said it had to be?

At the very least, Lars von Trier knows what he's doing. You just have to ask yourself if that's good enough for you, and it very well might not be. Some would say that von Trier is a genius because he has such an acute ability to manipulate. Others would call him evil. But the only difference between the sort of manipulating done by Lars von Trier and that done by someone like Steven Spielberg is that the former is manipulating you in a way that makes you feel and think things that you might not like, while the latter is trading in more visceral sensations. There's nothing better or worse about either one, of course – they both have their purpose. Whether or not they serve it is the question, and the answer is much too subjective for me to answer. You have to do that for yourself. So see the film. You'll love it or hate it. To each his personal own.


This review - mostly positive - is the best review I've come across on this site for the film. My opinion for the film is negative, but I'd like to speak them in contrast to this review so I feel I am on solid ground with my criticism.

It is this bizarre style – the set, the title cards, the omnipresent voice of the Narrator – that ultimately prevents the audience from ever getting too close to the characters and the story. However [and here's the real conundrum], nobody ever actually said that von Trier was trying to engage us emotionally. Dogville is not a film of emotions, but of ideas – both specifically political and universally philosophical [not to mention aesthetic].

After watching the movie the full length, I really became aware of the specific coldness the film was trying to convey. At the beginning, I kept thinking what a wreck the film was in trying to convey the emotions of intimate theater to screen and how Ingmar Bergman would have done things differently. That said, with the bizarre style of the set, title cards and the voice of the narrator, the story, even though it wasn't trying to engage us emotionally, never presented a story of much intelligence or depth beyond simple novelty that was not unique for America at all, but just about every country for that time period. Its strange that Von Trier wants to make a film that is critical of the United States, but sets it in a time period and location that doesn't do any of the above. Minus the scant traces of Americanism in this film, this village easily could have been European.

Also, with the slim intelligence or freshness in the story, comes the praise I always felt Von Trier never was deserving of. Yes, his filmmaking is beyond his story, but how much talent of craft comes from weilding ideas out of the stale? Beyond Von Trier's new concept of staging drama, there is little that is actually refreshing. Apologies of his art that he does this for the higher ideas are just that, apologies. In art, great ideas come from great art. Considering Von Trier didn't want to engage us emotionally, it is intelligent of him to hire an actress for the lead who really is a statue of acting - Nicole Kidman - but her ability to come across a statue of beauty in every role isn't a good trait, but one that symbolizes her own weakness as an actress. Her facial expressions and lashing out of emotions come across as imitative at best and she hardly ever attains the greater depth in a role. A lot of things in film are rationalized where the bad become good cause its purposes is beyond the usual. The fact it has a purpose beyond the usual is great, but a lot of fluff work is getting the aclaim it doesn't deserve. The staleness of this film torpoed any chance of attaining the higher aim.

But, Silver Bullet, complements on an excellent review. Even if I disagreed, with Dogville discussions in full swing, it should be brought back to easy reading for everyone else.
Title: Dogville
Post by: The Silver Bullet on May 22, 2004, 08:31:35 AM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
But, Silver Bullet, complements on an excellent review.

Thanks, GT. Much appreciated.
Title: Dogville
Post by: rustinglass on May 22, 2004, 10:26:29 AM
Quote from: godardian


von Trier should do a comedy (has he ever?).


Not exactly a comedy, but epidemic is surely his most funny feature:
" I'm still not used to being a priest. In half a day you can become a dentist. In a day you become an airline pilot. and in two a priest. They said I was to be a priest, so I studied for two days. They gave me a book. I opened the book... it was goddam latin! I told them: "This book is goddam latin!". They said that I was a catholic priest. "


btw...SPOILERS FOR KILL BILL








there is a shot in epidemic tht is very similar to kill bill's buried alive scene. oddly enough, Tarantino managed to make it more breathtaking than von trier.
I didn't type "spoilers for epidemic" because I'm not really spoiling anything.
Title: Dogville
Post by: El Duderino on May 27, 2004, 10:46:58 PM
it finally started showing here. i went today. it was my first Lars Von Trier film, and i didnt know what to expect. at first, i didnt like it, but then by Chapter Two, i was hooked. all members of the cast were good, especially Stellan Skarsgaard. all in all, i thought it was great. 4 and a half/5
Title: Dogville
Post by: The Perineum Falcon on May 31, 2004, 02:50:57 PM
I left the theater with a sense of elation that hasn't happened nearly enough lately. It's that feeling I get when I see a film that is undeniably, unquestionably well done.
I enjoyed this film, as much as one can, and it's the first Von Trier film that I've ever finished watching (Zentropa and Dancer in the Dark, I just couldn't get into at the time), so that should say something.
But I went in with a little hesitation. It could be that I wasn't completely sure I'd like it, in fact, I thought I might hate it and with it being 3 hours and all, that's quite a commitment for me. It could also be that I was going in alone. Normally, I'd drag someone to see a movie they didn't particularly care for, but I just couldn't with this one (and this certainly has something to do with the reason I stated prior).
And at first, it was alittle strange, the non-existent walls and doors, but I quickly adapted. I loved the dialogue and the acting was top-notch.
There were a few moments that I didn't like, but they're so overshadowed by what I liked that I can't even recall them right now.
I should probably go a bit more in depth, but I can't review a movie for shit, at least not as well as some others here might, so I apologize if this is a little sparse. But I'll end with my verdict:
Great movie.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Ravi on June 03, 2004, 09:46:15 AM
http://www.dvdfile.com/software/dvd-video/archive/2004/06_02.html

Also sure to provoke controversy is Lar Von Trier's already-infamous Dogville, starring Oscar-winner Nicole Kidman. Due for release on August 24th, this one includes an anamorphic widescreen transfer and Dolby 5.1 track, along with the acclaimed "Dogville Confessions" documentary by Sami Saif, on the intense behind-the-scenes drama that went into the making of the film. List price will be $26.95.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Finn on June 03, 2004, 09:49:47 AM
Finally we hear something! Sounds great!
Title: Dogville
Post by: Pubrick on June 03, 2004, 09:54:21 AM
u Region-1ers crack me up.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Finn on June 13, 2004, 04:12:19 PM
I think back on this film and I think it's still just as brilliant as when I first saw it. But one thing I can't get over is the anti-American thing. I thought the movie worked best as a study on human nature and Von Trier should've left out the photographs on the credits to point the film toward only Americans themselves. I love the David Bowie song, "Young Americans". But of course if you listen to the lyrics, Von Trier's just being snide about the whole thing. I think the film works great with that song as it is, but maybe he should've left those anti-American parts out of the movie. I'm an American and I'm not offended by the movie. But the film just didn't have any "justification" on that level. Any comments?

Also, any more word on the dvd?
Title: Dogville
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on June 15, 2004, 04:41:24 PM
I think of it more as Von Trier combating the romanticization of oppressive American small town culture. Mark Twain explicitly said he wanted to do the same thing with the South.
Title: Dogville
Post by: matt35mm on June 15, 2004, 07:16:20 PM
I was waiting for someone to connect Lars Von Trier with Mark Twain.  I dunno why, but I just was.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Finn on August 01, 2004, 10:26:32 PM
Pay attention to the lyrics...

"Young Americans" by David Bowie

They pulled in just behind the bridge
He lays her down, he frowns
"Gee my life's a funny thing, am I still too young?"
He kissed her then and there
She took his ring, took his babies
It took him minutes, took her nowhere
Heaven knows, she'd have taken anything, but

All night
She wants the young American
Young American, young American, she wants the young American
All right
She wants the young American

Scanning life through the picture windows
She finds the slinky vagabond
He coughs as he passes her Ford Mustang, but
Heaven forbid, she'll take anything
But the freak, and his type, all for nothing
He misses a step and cuts his hand, but
Showing nothing, he swoops like a song
She cries "Where have all Papa's heroes gone?"

All night
She wants the young American
Young American, young American, she wants the young American
All right
She wants the young American

All the way from Washington
Her bread-winner begs off the bathroom floor
"We live for just these twenty years
Do we have to die for the fifty more?"

All night
He wants the young American
Young American, young American, he wants the young American
All right
He wants the young American

Do you remember, your President Nixon?
Do you remember, the bills you have to pay
Or even yesterday?

Have you been an un-American?
Just you and your idol singing falsetto 'bout
Leather, leather everywhere, and
Not a myth left from the ghetto
Well, well, well, would you carry a razor
In case, just in case of depression
Sit on your hands on a bus of survivors
Blushing at all the Afro-Sheeners
Ain't that close to love?
Well, ain't that poster love?
Well, it ain't that Barbie doll
Her heart's been broken just like you have

And
All night
You want the young American
Young American, young American, you want the young American
All right
You want the young American

You ain't a pimp and you ain't a hustler
A pimp's got a Cadi and a lady’s got a Chrysler
Black's got respect, and white's got his soul train
Mama's got cramps, and look at your hands ache
I heard the news today, oh boy
I got a suite and you got defeat
Ain't there a man you can say no more?
And, ain't there a woman I can sock on the jaw?
And, ain't there a child I can hold without judging?
Ain't there a pen that will write before they die?
Ain't you proud that you've still got faces?
Ain't there one damn song that can make me
break down and cry?

All night
I want the young American
Young American, young American, I want the young American
All right
I want the young American
Young American
Young American, young American, I want the young American
(I want with you, I want with you want)
All right
(You want it, I want you you, you want I, I want you want)
Young American, young American, I want the young American (I want to want, to want, to want , to want I, I want you)
All right
(Lord I wanted the young American)
(young American)
Young American, Young American
I want the young American
Title: Dogville
Post by: modage on August 28, 2004, 12:29:20 AM
Quote from: mutinyco
BIG SWEATY OFFENSIVELY ODOROUS SPOILERS

Eh...I think Von Trier's films are manipulative garbarge. A jaundiced view of America from somebody who knows nothing about America. The problem is: his point of view doesn't hold water. There's nothing about Dogville from its manipulative, rapist townsfolk to its Barton Fink finale that connects to anything I understand about America. I think Von Trier thought that something needed to be said about America at this particular moment and that he was the person to do it -- but he didn't achieve his goal. He's never been here. He's essentially a communist, socialist at best.

I think the film was an interesting attempt, but it just doesn't work or hold attention. He's hitting too many beats that he's already hit (let's punish a woman and manipulate the audience beyond comprehension), and references to Our Town or Barry Lyndon aren't going to save it. And another thing: IT"S WAY TOO LONG. He could've accomplished his goal in half the amount of time.

yeah.  3rd Von Trier film after Breaking and Dancer (neither of which i enjoyed). but as much as i hadnt liked those i still was completely optimistic when i popped in the dvd.  there were a few moments where i  WANTED to be wrong, i wanted to love this film and did not want to sit through 3 hours of something i didnt like just to say i didnt like it.
 
unfortunately that didnt happen.  the stages, if it was meant to strip everything away and bring the focus on whats happening was a ludicris idea and heavily distracting.  the story would've been better served with locations, but that probably would've put the focus back on, the story, which was sparse and pretty weak.  it was ambitious to try to do something so different but that doesnt mean that it worked and i think perhaps some people are quick to give something daring a pass for trying.  i am not.  there was WAY WAY too much narration, the title cards telling you what was going to happen in the next chapter were obnoxious, and the end credits david bowie/picture montage was also EXTREMELY obnoxious.

but it was ATleast watchable and somewhat engaging.  the apples shot was really cool looking and i did get a certain thrill during the final chapter SPOILERSduring the revenge.  (while the father being caan was predictable from the phrasing in the beginning 'they took my father'.  i've seen too many movies to believe that he's dead when youre talking like that.) END SPOILERS

this movie was FANTASTIC actors in a bad play with great lighting filmed (mostly) badly in a movie thats too long and too preachy.  really the cast was the only thing that kept me interested (specifically nicole kidman who i really like), making it probably my favorite of his films but thats not saying much.  and i am now the last geek on earth to write in about this film.
Title: Dogville
Post by: NEON MERCURY on August 28, 2004, 02:06:36 PM
Quote from: themodernage02
and i am now the last geek on earth to write in about this film.


one more geek left...........

well, i rented this last night...b/c i didn twant to buy it b/c i couldnt even watch the first 20 mins of dancer in the dark b/c i thoguth it was boring.so, anyway.......


spoilers00.....


...the first 20mins were boring .but then it flew.....as for the anti-american sentiments which are plenty.i didnt get bothered by them that much b/c the type of behavior that the inhabitants of dogville inflict are every-phucking-where...people lie, rape, kill, abuse..and destroy each other .....thats not an american thing .its everywhere..so, while watching the film i didnt cry and think "this danish mother phucker.how dare he do something like this"......instead i was like this is a great film regardless of its intentions od anti-americanisms......its manipulative.........but what the phuck...ill roll with it anyway....i like films and i will surrender myself to a films logic and ideology...........the acting was perfect.........and besides eyes wide shut this is kidmans second best..........bettany/stellen rule as always.......and the patricia clarkson scenes were killer.........th eending is incredible..even though th efilm had the fake vibe w/ chalkllines and sh*t.i still cringed and felt sick when everyone got dealt with.....even the baby....damn, that rough sh*t.............and the best line was when kidman gets her revenge and flips patricia lines about "not crying" right back on her..that was wicked.................and hearing bowie at the end was icing......


end of spoilerss...........



as for the dvd .i will get it now that i have seen it.....and i was wondering is the commentary track good..or just to much on the technical side..........???
Title: Dogville
Post by: Finn on August 28, 2004, 03:45:58 PM
the first 20 minutes was one of my favorite parts :?
Title: Dogville
Post by: meatball on August 30, 2004, 11:15:08 AM
I don't regret the three hours I spent watching dogville, but I won't spend another three hours to watch it again.

The acting was good, and I enjoyed the set.

It felt like I was sitting in the town hall, watching Lars Von Trier taking Paul Bettany's place to preach. I can't even say it was an intelligent morality play, just bitter towards humanity. It's nothing new, insightful, or mildly entertaining -- for me, anyways.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on September 11, 2004, 09:46:53 PM
Can anybody think of an older movie, something like The Truman Show maybe, that has the same kind of artifical set situation as Dogville?

I thought this was interesting... "dictum ac factum" is Latin for "word and deed."

(http://xixax.com/files/jb/dogville05.jpg)

Just in case anyone is into Descructionism, I still think this is the most desconstructive movie I've seen. The gooseberry bushes are not gooseberry bushes, i.e. they're the "signifier" of the "signified." It's almost textbook Descontructionism.
Title: Dogville
Post by: cron on September 12, 2004, 11:01:52 AM
JB, could you elaborate on this?

Quote
The gooseberry bushes are not gooseberry bushes, i.e. they're the "signifier" of the "signified." It's almost textbook Descontructionism.


A website or a book would help. thankee
Title: Dogville
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on September 12, 2004, 12:25:46 PM
http://130.18.140.19/mmsoc/ss.html

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/decon-body.html

http://www.fastload.org/de/Deconstructionism.html
Title: Dogville
Post by: cron on September 12, 2004, 02:03:39 PM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
http://130.18.140.19/mmsoc/ss.html

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/decon-body.html

http://www.fastload.org/de/Deconstructionism.html

gracias!
Title: Dogville
Post by: 03 on September 16, 2004, 05:57:34 PM
i apologize if this has been discussed already; i did not see it in this thread: did anyone on first or seconde glance notice similarities to 'vivre sa vie'? the music, the titles
Title: Dogville
Post by: samsong on September 16, 2004, 07:47:46 PM
Quote from: 03
i apologize if this has been discussed already; i did not see it in this thread: did anyone on first or seconde glance notice similarities to 'vivre sa vie'? the music, the titles


I saw Vivre sa vie - one of my very favorite films - after having seen Dogville and described it to my friend who hadn't seen it as, among other things, the narrative/stylistic blueprint for Dogville.  I'm glad I'm not the only one who made the connection.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Just Withnail on September 17, 2004, 09:51:45 AM
If this turns out to be one of the cases where you get a couple hundred "I noticed it too"-replies, then I figure I'll just chime in early and not be one of the slow guys.

I noticed it too.
Title: Dogville
Post by: cine on October 07, 2004, 11:27:12 PM
I just watched this tonight.

And I agree with Mutinyco and GT.  :(
Title: Dogville
Post by: picolas on October 08, 2004, 12:20:27 AM
i love it.

thread rebalanced :!:
Title: Dogville
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on February 02, 2005, 11:53:18 PM
I'd like to remind everybody that you can vote ANY film from 2004 as the BEST FILM for the XIXAX AWARDS.

Couldn't think of a good thread to put this in.. so I chose this one.. DOGVILLE.. at random.

Thanks.
Title: Dogville
Post by: modage on February 03, 2005, 09:35:57 AM
Yes, ANY film.  Regardless if it was an animated one, or one about superheroes.  

(http://nexbase.net/albums/The-Incredibles/The_Incredibles_poster2.jpg)
Title: Dogville
Post by: kotte on March 14, 2005, 10:18:21 AM
How was this overlooked at the Oscars??

If nothing else, how the fuck did they miss Kidman's performance in it? Best performance of the year.

Is the direction Oscar only about camera-movements? How about directing actors? Von Trier did something amazing in this film.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Pubrick on March 14, 2005, 11:08:12 AM
Quote from: kotte
Is the direction Oscar only about camera-movements? How about directing actors?

not since they nominated atom egoyan for the sweet hereafter hav they displayed any knowledge of what a director does.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Finn on March 14, 2005, 04:08:32 PM
I certainly wasn't expecting it to be nominated for any Oscars just because the Academy hates unique and different movies. If it was up to me, it would've been up for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress, etc...
Title: Dogville
Post by: UncleJoey on March 14, 2005, 10:54:18 PM
The Academy didn't shun Dogville because it hates unique films. It shunned it because it wasn't very good.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Sara Shagal on March 15, 2005, 12:55:49 AM
Yay for Dogville.
Title: Dogville
Post by: rustinglass on March 15, 2005, 05:31:56 AM
Quote from: Pubrick

not since they nominated atom egoyan for the sweet hereafter hav they displayed any knowledge of what a director does.


come on... polanski winning was great.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Pubrick on March 15, 2005, 05:53:43 AM
Quote from: rustinglass
Quote from: Pubrick

not since they nominated atom egoyan for the sweet hereafter hav they displayed any knowledge of what a director does.


come on... polanski winning was great.

that win was motivated by pity.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Finn on March 15, 2005, 07:05:52 AM
and he couldn't even accept it because he was off with young girls
Title: Dogville
Post by: Pubrick on March 15, 2005, 07:12:32 AM
i don't get it
Title: Dogville
Post by: ono on April 14, 2005, 01:43:52 PM
SPOILERS

Finally saw this a couple days ago.  Horrible film.  I have this theory about people who like certain films.  It started with Closer (well, Fight Club actually), and now it is branching out to include Dogville.  The theory is not fleshed out yet, but the gist of it is you can tell a lot about polarizing films, and the people who like them.

Dogville started brilliantly.  The opening shot was great, as was the detached pull-back from the first rape.  But from the Dr. Seuss narration to the faulty logic, everything about this was a misstep.  Well, almost everything.

The final conversation between Grace and her father was such a perfect scene, it belonged in another movie along with the settings and characters.  This script was a blueprint for a much better movie somewhere, a movie which Von Trier will never be capable of making because he's so caught up in sensationalism and critiquing things he has no clue about.

The ending was brilliant, a real fuck-you to expectations, but that doesn't make up for two and a half hours of torture.  This is not Dancer-in-the-Dark life-affirming torture, either.  This is not transcendental.  This is emotional pornography from a wunderkind past his prime.
Title: Dogville
Post by: 03 on April 14, 2005, 01:53:50 PM
now i can sleep at night.
Title: Dogville
Post by: ono on April 14, 2005, 01:57:42 PM
Quote from: 03
now i can sleep at night.

Glad I could help cure your insomnia.  Cinephile should know something about that, too, if you're still having trouble.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on April 14, 2005, 02:23:02 PM
Ono, I'm trying to find your actual criticisms in that bizarrely insubstantial review. Tell me if there's something else...

Quote from: onomataviva
Finally saw this a couple days ago. Horrible film. I have this theory about people who like certain films.  It started with Closer (well, Fight Club actually), and now it is branching out to include Dogville.  The theory is not fleshed out yet, but the gist of it is you can tell a lot about polarizing films, and the people who like them.

Dogville started brilliantly.  The opening shot was great, as was the detached pull-back from the first rape.  But from the (1) Dr. Seuss narration to the (2) faulty logic, everything about this was a misstep.  Well, almost everything.

The final conversation between Grace and her father was such a perfect scene, it belonged in another movie along with the settings and characters.  This script was a blueprint for a much better movie somewhere, a movie which Von Trier will never be capable of making because he's so caught up in (3) sensationalism and (4) critiquing things he has no clue about.

The ending was brilliant, a real fuck-you to expectations, but that doesn't make up for two and a half hours of (5) torture.  This is not Dancer-in-the-Dark life-affirming torture, either.  This is (6) not transcendental.  This is (7) emotional pornography from a wunderkind past his prime.

1. That's a pretty unfair and lazy comparison. Just because it's colorful and a little archaic? The narration helps with the fairy tale atmosphere. I thought it served a similar purpose as Barry Lyndon's narration. It, along with the chapter breaks, is just a colorful conceit. Why is that offensive?

2.
Quote from: samsong, critiquing Sin City,
i felt a lot of it was over-the-top beyond reason

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
You lost me when you complained about it being "beyond reason."


3. What do you feel was sensationalized?

4. What exactly is Von Trier saying that he's somehow unqualified to say?

5. Aesthetically torturing? Narratively torturing? Tonally torturing?

6. I don't think it's supposed to be. Were you expecting What Dreams May Come? (Do you mean "transcendant"? I don't think it was supposed to be that either. And I think you're too quick to compare it to Dancer In the Dark, which, by the way, I don't think was ultimately transcendant.)

7. Again... which emotions? which scenes? why?
Title: Dogville
Post by: Finn on April 14, 2005, 05:23:51 PM
I'm confused as well by Ono's review. Of course I totally disagree with it being a horrible film. By the way, the movie works much better in theaters. If you want the dvd, then get the 2-disc special edition region 0 version instead of the crappy region 1 with hardly any extras.
Title: Dogville
Post by: cine on April 14, 2005, 06:10:26 PM
Quote from: picolas
i love it.

thread rebalanced :!:
Title: Dogville
Post by: Pubrick on April 14, 2005, 08:02:18 PM
Quote from: onomataviva
critiquing things he has no clue about.

this is the bit that fails in every argument against the film. it's not about the film, but about the misconceptions and pretentions one has against von trier. how do u know what he "has a clue about"? i assume ur talking about the america thing. yet we sumhow accept historical dramas from ppl who've never been to 18th century france.

what we know is not always based on what we've seen or where we've been, just as the structure of the town and film itself, it can be what we understand it to mean.
Title: Dogville
Post by: Stefen on April 14, 2005, 10:51:33 PM
i bought the region 1 dvd when it was released blindly, and I just can't get through it, i've tried time and time again but it just isn't happening, i'll keep it though cause maybe someday ill finish it or at least impress some chick with it on my shelf between dick tracy and dude wheres my car.
Title: Re: Dogville
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on November 15, 2016, 01:16:36 AM
Finished rewatching this tonight. Why haven't I been doing that more often?

And why isn't Dogville widely acknowledged as one of the best films of all time? Seriously though. The writing is just stunning from beginning to end. I found myself basically gasping at something brilliant every few minutes. And it's funny! Darkly comic even in its bleakest moments. Never sacrificing sincere pain for satire, retaining both.

The performances, too, are just... completely their own thing. The same way Yorgos Lanthimos gets something very singular out of his actors, LVT does in Dogville.

It seems like a culturally appropriate time to revisit Dogville in a way I can't quite explain. There was one scene that hit me particularly hard this time. At about 2 hours 22 min, Grace emerges from her shed to find the town's residents inexplicably friendly and cheerful — which, she soon realizes, is only masking the darkness and betrayal underneath.