Hey folks, Harry here... I'm absolutely freaking about seeing Lars Von Triers' DOGVILLE. The cast is amazing, the subject matter intriguing and the allegory just seems amazingly of the day, but set in the past. Plus, I love that the movie apparently left Ebert scratching his head. Here ya go...
Hi Harry
Just seen Lars Von Triers latest 'Dogville' starring Nicole Kidman which has opened here to packed auditoriums in Brussels the day after its Cannes premiere.
I've only seen Von Triers breakthrough art house hit 'Breaking the Waves' (with Emily Watson) which to this day I still can't decide whether I like or not (moving spiritual enlightenment or just plain old nasty misogyny?) but have followed his subsequent releases (and the surrounding controversies) with interest and have been amused with his audience and critic-baiting tactics and outspoken views.
I didn't know much about Dogville apart from the fact it starred Kidman and was a one-set piece with houses, etc denoted by being drawn on the stage in chalk. This film is basically a filmed stage play with a hand held camera and a cast (including Paul Bettany, Lauren Bcall, Ben Gazzara, Chloe Sevigny) of about 20 and seems to be set in a tiny, remote mountain village of the title in the US in the 20s or 30s. Kidman plays a woman on the run from gangsters who ends up hiding in the village. The villagers are initially suspicious, but are convinced by their church leader who sees Kidman's presence as a perfect symbol to teach the villagers about the values of tolerance and open-mindedness then accepting and happy to have her. But when the police turn up with to stick up posters offering rewards for any information about her things start to turn dark...
Dogville is a brilliant socio-political allegory for the times we live in and can be seen as a metaphor for the uneasy relationship between big nations (read US) and smaller nations (too many options here but Iraq is surely what Von Triers has in mind when he wrote that the devastating ending). If that sounds a big turn off then it isn't if you like to use your brain once in a while and have an opinion. Yes the theatricality of the film and hand held camera and slow pace of the 3 hour film (structured as a prologue and 9 chapters) can mean it takes a while to get into this (there were several walk outs in the first hour). But if you stick to it you will be rewarded with a harsh, clever, really well thought out, directed and superbly acted parable which ends in a shockingly uncompromising (yet logical) manner that'll turn a lot of people off as well as delight (in a 'oh-my-god I can't believe this is happening' way) others. Best seen with a bunch of people who like thoughful movies since there are so many ways to interpret this, I can guarantee it will provoke much debate. Dogville will surely win the Grand Prix at Cannes and I bet Kidman walks away with Best Actress - this is her 4th superb performance in a row (after Moulin Rouge, The Others and The Hours) and the woman can do now wrong in my book.
But this will probably go down like a lead balloon in the US in the current post-Iraq climate although I'm sure Michael Moore (Bowling for Columbine) will love it...
I saw this a few days after seeing 'The Matrix Reloaded' and it restored my faith in cinema. I'd say Dogville is already the best (and most relevant) film of 2003.
By the way, Matrix Reloaded was shockingly boring and had such such inane dialogue - Morpheus please shut the f*** up. The action was OK but the big chase in Terminator 2 was better than the freeway chase here and that rave scene was just embarrasing - if only we'd been able to see all of those Zion twats massacred by the sentinels then that'd have been the film's saving grace. That's the consensus of everyone I know who has seen it (and all big Matrix fans).
Cheers
Arvo
And next we have The Mississippi Mermaid, whom I'm in love with... especially when she bitch slaps Todd McCarthy for being ridiculous. Makes my heart soar... Here she is...
Let Us Now Praise Famous Kidman The Mississippi Mermaid here. I haven't had a chance to contribute anything since reviewing "Talk to Her" last year. But in case you want any reviews of "Dogville" (it opened in my hometown today), here's my modest effort.
Let me provide a Prologue to this review (there is one in the movie). I don't know if "Dancer in the Dark" got better in the last half (I hope it did). I'll never know; I walked out at intermission. There is only so much channelling of Lillian Gish by Icelandic rock pixies I can take. So I didn't go into "Dogville" with any particular enthusiasm, thinking it all hype and no substance.
Now, of course, I'm all keyed-up without actually knowing what I really think of the movie. That - by definition - is already what a good movie should do. A good movie (I've been taught) should also be essentially visual, dialogue kept to a minimum. "Dogville" doesn't respect that (or any other) rules. But it involves you emotionally more than any movie I've seen since, well, "Talk to Her".
Prior to writing this, I read through Todd McCarthy's bizarre review in "Variety". I've always adored Todd McCarthy, but his contention that "Dogville" is a virulent attack on American values is ridiculous. As Dogville's female protagonist is on the run from gangsters, Von Triers has made a stab at historical accuracy (his one and only) by setting the story in gangster-ridden Depression-era America (the current crop of British directors - who would have us believe London is rife with Mafiosi - would have situated the story in today's East End -). If this is McCarthy's idea of anti-Americanism, then his patriotic zeal has gone right off the deep-end. I think foreign directors should have the right to set their stories in the U.S. if they want to, plenty of American directors have set their own movies in foreign countries and described the natives in less than flattering terms. It's known as "freedom of speech" - not to mention artistic license. Give me a break. If Von Triers' movie takes place in an "America of the mind", it is probably because the influences on this movie are mainly American: Faulkner, Wilder, Steinbeck and Agee.
I won't go into detail about the form of the movie. Yes, it is very experimental, resembling filmed theatre more than a "movie". There are allusions to the theatre of the absurd, the theatre of cruelty, Samuel Beckett (well, an exceedingly long-winded Samuel Beckett). Von Triers' Rocky-Mountain-Village-of-Cinematic-Memory and the predicament of his tortured heroine evoke Faulkner's "Sanctuary" and James Hadley Chase's "No Orchids for Miss Blandish", among others.
Von Triers' first great achievement lies in the extraordinary acting of his ensemble. Worthy of special mention (and Oscars) are the surprisingly (to me at any rate) sublime Nicole Kidman, the magnificent Patricia Clarkson, Ben Gazzara and John Hurt (if narrators can be nominated).
But his second (and greatest) achievement lies in presenting his audience with a film set so stylized that it is alienating and, little by little, drawing the audience into the characters' suffering so intensely that after a while you can "see" that invisible mountain, that invisible dog, that invisible mine shaft, that invisible orchard.
Like the blind character played by Ben Gazzara (who feigns sight so well, you begin to doubt he is blind), Von Triers seduces his audience into visualizing his hard-hearted little Rocky Mountain town with great affect and with a absurdist humor. His Candide-like heroine would like to believe all is for the best in this best of all possible "Dogvilles", but she (and Von Triers) are forced, regretfully, to terminate that ideal.
Also worth noting is a scene of Kidman and a truck-driver in the back of his pick-up. It is the most aesthetically beautiful scene filmed by anyone whose name is not Jean Renoir. That the scene is horrifying (in content) makes it all the more stunning.
A very disturbing and fascinating film. Maybe even a great one. The setting may be the Rocky Mountains but the themes are universal.
Yours,
The Mississippi Mermaid
