 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||
| Dogville
Directed By: Lars
von Trier Plot
Summary - Review 1 - Review
2 - CURRENT REVIEWS
|
|
| Set in an American Town in the Rocky Mountains in the 1930s. Lars von Trier re-explores the concept of goodness, but this in an idiom very different from that of his Gold Heart Trilogy (Breaking the Waves, The idiots and Dancer in the Dark). DOGVILLE is shot exclusively in studio with a minimum of props once again allowing the actors' maximum freedom and full exposure inspired by televised theatre of the 70s. In DOGVILLE Trier works extensively with light, sound, score and music to obtain and heighten dramatic atmosphere. [TRAILER] Check out Reviews, Commentary, and More at Zertinet.com |
LINKS
TO REVIEWS |
|
It
would be so easy to say that Dogville is an arrogant childish pretentious
movie. The problem is that isn't necessarily true. The movie is difficult to judge against most other movies today simply because it isn't like most movies today. Dogville is actually much closer to a play than it is a movie. The entire production takes place on a mostly black stage. The groundplan of the set is drawn on the floor and a few bits of pieces of what would be a normal scene is added to give the very minimal impression of location. It takes place in a void, where time of day is almost exclusively indicated by either a black or white cyc to indicate day or night. The stage is theatrically lit using varying shades of white to create senses of isolation. It's a somewhat unique concept. It's certainly a unique idea for a film, not nearly as unique for a play. As many critics have pointed out, it's very reminiscent of the play “Our Town.” The set design for this piece is well thought out and well executed, the absence of walls combined with the use of a camera makes for some amazing shots. Unlike any other rape scene in history, this one takes place outside in the open. The camera watches from not only outside the room, but inside a completely other room amongst the rest of the town members. Much like a play, at all times every member of the town is visible to the camera. Whenever any intimate scene is performed, there is always another group of people in the background doing something everyday. There is one powerful moment when all the town looks through the walls at a single character. Although director Lars von Trier takes advantage of this openness at several moments throughout the film, he also passes up some obvious opportunities to use it further to his advantage. I'm not sure why this bothered me so much, but all throughout the entire film I was waiting for a character to finally literally break down the walls and violate the imaginary boundaries set out by the set. It seems to be such an obvious way of increasing the dramatic element of the piece that it seems empty to forgo using it as a dramatic device. The lighting design, by Asa Frankenberg, is probably the most indicative of many of the problems throughout the piece. Although Frankenberg does an excellent job of providing a lighting design that accents the set and continues the ideaology, the design lacks any coherent structure to it that would add something to the piece. At times the lighting chosen for any particular scene seems almost random. When changes do make sense and are motivated by the text, these changes do not continue throughout the rest of the piece. At least three times throughout the film, the narrator comments on a change in the town – one that can only be described as a tiny change in light. While this changes of light is only all too obvious as an increase in backlight, this change lasts only a few moments and is then forgotten about. The entire piece suffers from this kind of lack of continuity. I know it may sound like the ramblings from a good grad student in any theatrical art, but yet these conventions do exist for a reason. Any good dramatic piece's design needs some kind of contrast in order to add something artistically. This is one of the only ways in which we can understand a concept is in relation to another piece. Yet Dogville has no contrast. In the first 5 minutes it sets a specific convention and then does not deviate from it. It's hard to accept the dramatic changes in these characters without any changes in the world. Much has been made of the anti-American sentiment throughout the film. Even the whole premise is somewhat anti-America. It's the exact opposite of von Trier's Dogma movement, which he saw as an affront to souless Hollywood films. People die, it uses artificial lighting, is not shot on location, takes place in an imaginary place and relies heavily on plot twists to add suspense. The plot can easily be taken as anti-America (or at least what von Trier sees as American) An 'outsider' enters the city and is allowed to stay as an act of kindness. She needs protection from outside sources that are hunting her. The town allows her to stay, but feels they should be paid back for their kindness. She goes around the town helping out each family for an hour. Of course none of these people are actual people. Instead they are mere shells that represent different facets of 'American' culture. There is an idiot who runs the church, the family that takes cheap glass and disguises it as art and of course Tom Edison and his son. Tom Edison Jr. leads the 'moral' struggle in the town as the philosopher. As suddenly as she enters the town, they all suddenly start to turn against her. Eventually the town bares it's 'true' form as the men are allowed to rape her at will at night and she is forced to work harder and harder. I actually think this method of symbolizing sections of a population with characters can be quite effective for a short piece. The problem is it is difficult to watch symbols walk around for 3 hours. The viewer needs something concrete to attach to. When all the characters are walking metaphors it's difficult to get involved in the movie on anything more than an intellectual level. I don't necessarily disagree with the anti-American sentiment of the film. The problem is that it's so sensationalized, that it's hard to take seriously. Take the somewhat stupid girl that runs the church. It's not exactly a monumental statement to say that religious people are just idiot savants following orders. Everything is so oversimplified and broken down to a few stereotypes that people use to describe the worst parts of America that it doesn't sound real. It feels like propaganda. I also feel the need to explicitly state that if Lars von Trier had not obtained a certain level of success with this movie, we would not be having this conversation. There is a certain misconception that when a reviewer tears a movie apart like this, that it's immediately much worse than a movie like say, “Mean Girls.” But the truth is that these movies are both subject to such different scrutiny. This film at the very least is an attempt at art. Regardless of the success of this film, it is contributing to the film community in a meaningful way. I end offering a bit of advice for Lars von Trier in his creation of his next movie. Rumored to be about slavery in America during the 1930's. Trier must remember that past coming up with amazing ideas for his production, he needs to execute them with an audience in mind. I might also suggest that he do some research on his next topic and visit the United States. At least then his characters might read as real people instead of broad stereotypes.  |
|
| Movies
@ Zertinet | Oscars @ Zertinet
| Main Site Best Viewed
at 800 X 600 or greater |
|
