Dogville (Lars von Trier, 2003)

Message

skuhn8 · #1 Post by **skuhn8** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 4:46 am

Boy, am I late. Just watched this for the first time last night. Wow. Again, wow.

First off, as Tom admits at the end: "Your illustration was far greater than mine." This is just an illustration and I don't believe we are meant to take these characters individually and haggle over whether the punishment fits the crime. They failed en masse as humans worthy of forgiveness. Without getting religious they were given the gift--the opportunity--of Grace, much as we are offered the opportunity to do good and live in a state of grace through our actions ever day. However, they begin down their slippery slope when they see an opportunity to exchange kindness (in this case, mere shelter) for labor beyond their needs and beyond what is acceptable. She in turn forgives them this trespass and complies. She is good, she is as Dostoevsky's Idiot, a good being who gives freely to those who ask and is thus deemed a fool by those who do not abide by genuine parameters of kindness. She is seen as weak and this merely invites further abuse. The opportunity is now one of enslavement and scapegoating. As I see it, they deserve their punishment as a society no longer interested in being Good. Confronted with their crimes in a non-derisive manner ("she did not embellish") they had an opportunity to come to terms with their sins great and small and live with Grace. They opt instead for backlash and ultimately betrayal.

The case of the mother being forced to watch her children die was an interesting (and for me as a father, painful) illustration. This wasn't so much vengeance as an "education" much as she delivered to Grace with the porcelein figurines. Her hypocricy lay in educating without interest in allowing the recipient to profit from the lesson. The chains are not removed and there is no forgiveness following the mother's sadistic lesson and when she finally learns that Grace was raped by Chuck she increases the abuse rather than reconciles with the victim. Vengeance? I think again, merely an illustration. The mother was given the shattering gift of insight into the nature of her crime before being relieved of the burden of reconciliation. For her it was too late. (And wow, is Patricia Clarkson deserving of greater attention in her roles. She is excellent!)

I think the identity or source/justification of the gangsters' power is totally irrelevant unless to illustrate a wrathful Old Testament God. They are a tool for resolution. A kind of deux ex machina that "rescues" our heroine in her time of need. As pointed out Dogville is without a god, without a moral center. Tom appears to be a passable if whimsical substitute but when his hypothetical notions are put to the test he bows out leaving Grace to act as moral center, but a morality chained by the much stronger and deficient human nature unrestricted by God's Laws. Left to their own devices they fail the test/opportunity and face the Old Testament solution. Sodom and Gomorrah. Were the inhabitants of those towns entirely deserving of their punishment? That's not the issue. It is an illustration. New Testament forgiveness is apt to fail; when it does so resolution can only be found in the Old Testament. Clean up and start over.

I fail to see how Grace could be accused of falsely representing herself. Whether she is a gangster's mole or wife or daughter isn't relevant to any discussion of human nature and it's machinations. Early on she confesses to having been raised to be arrogant and now she wants to punish herself for stealing a dog's bone. She wants to be good and throughout the film she strives to be so. Her nativity is secondary to her actions and intentions. I believe a far more relevant issue is when does she cease to be good and kind and forgiving in the face of a struggle for survival. Once chained she is no longer able to choose between staying (and doing good by her community) and escaping (whether to return to her "bad" parentage or to a new town with new struggles between good and evil). Once chained she can only comply and it is difficult to interpret her interactions with the cowardly Tom at this juncture as she can not act with free will until she has reconciled with the father.

I have to admit that I was swayed by the negative reviews of Dogville, avoided it for far too long. This movie made more of an impact on me than any other in perhaps years. A triumph. One of the few three hour films I have seen that doesn't have a single moment of excess baggage. What really struck me in the end was the notion of the folly of forgiveness. That there is in fact a line, that once crossed we do society a disservice in forgiving and that we are all capable of crossing that any moment. Kierkegaard's moment of anxiety is upon us each and every moment: a choice to do good or evil. And as a viewer I was surprised that when given the choice of leaving with her father I was afraid that she would do so without inflicting some kind of punishment on the town of Dogville. I wanted vengeance, was afraid that they would go unpunished. The father offers to spike up the dog carcass as a message but that clearly was not enough; the townspeople in their advanced state would merely see that as yet another act of Grace's betrayal of the "good town".

What I have a hard time understanding is how Grace was "arrogant" in her being merciful. Was that because she was adopting the privilige of God to give forgiveness to those who trespass?

And the depression and poverty pics at the end. Are these to represent stoic victims that, if given the chance, become victimizers. Or is this a comment on the victims of the American system? Also an indictment of democracy as a universal panacea. To hide behind the glorious banner of democracy: but what if the majority "vote" selfishly and pettily (Bush Jr.'s second term a good example). I generally don't appreciate foreigners who have not experienced America passing judgment on my nation, but I see that von Trier has offered thoughtful insight with Dogville. Besides, how many Americans have really experienced their own nation. By and large only a very limited slice. Anyways, I'm not particularly interested in viewing the film as a critique of the US. I'd rather dig into the deeper implications pertaining to human nature.

As for the stage setting. Made me think of Sartre's No Exit: Hell is People. Dogville is enclosed. Only Grace (Good) and Gangsters (Bad) and Law (ultimately impotent) can enter and leave. We are the people of Dogville and we determine our own destiny without resource to outside guidance. God is absent; Grace is pliable; the End is ultimate.

obloquy · #2 Post by **obloquy** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:46 am

Great post.

Grace was arrogant, perhaps, for believing that her forgiveness of others wiped their sins away. The question might be, When you forgive someone, is yours the only forgiveness that matters? Should they still answer to someone for what they've done?

Your feelings on the film sound very much like my own. My first viewing was months ago, and immediately after the film I told my wife that I don't think I'd ever be able to watch it again as intense as it was. We were both in tears and completely destroyed. Now I think I might be ready for a second viewing.

kieslowski_67 · #3 Post by **kieslowski_67** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 12:30 pm

I had the same feeling after viewing the movie about 18 months ago. It left me such strong impression that it immediately went up to my top 10 favorite movies of all time. It might do not deserve the lofty rating after my second viewing. However, it still is my favorite movie of the decade. The movie made too many Americans feel uneasy and the most criticism on it so far is its anti American theme on surface. That is totally undeserved IMHO.

kieslowski_67 · #4 Post by **kieslowski_67** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 12:36 pm

Andre Jurieu wrote:I cannot state definitively if Dogville is anti-American or not, but I can't really understand why one cannot appreciate a film that critiques the culture or society they live within. There are problems and ills in every society around the world, so why exactly should we be upset that a film targets our own society? Many of us watch films by Asian filmmakers that chastise their own countries and cultures and we celebrate the political motivations behind their films. The same applies for many Iranian or Islamic filmmakers. We even praise filmmakers that turn their critical eye to other cultures they do not live within for their bold visions and statements. So why is it so offensive and distasteful when a filmmaker makes an observation through film about our own society?

Maybe because we Americans feel and believe that we are superior to other nations, and any different opinion can only come from our enemies per dear president?

skuhn8 · #5 Post by **skuhn8** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 12:53 pm

That can certainly be a big part of it. But really, noone likes to have their country criticized by an outsider. Living here in Hungary where there is a tremendous room for improvement there is an uproar when foreign editorials "offer suggestions" no matter how correct. It's a knee-jerk reaction. But then, I'm surprised that the folks that would be so sensitive would be those willing to sit through three hours of a dialogue-based "play".

kieslowski_67 · #6 Post by **kieslowski_67** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 3:12 pm

I am just joking. Abbas, Yimou, Kaige, Zhuangzhuang (in the late 80s and early 90s), Jia Zhang Ke all made a living by making movies chastising their only country and culture (right or wrong) and yet lots of their works were deemed masterpieces in the eyes of Western critics and audience. And 'dogville', a true masterpiece in all senses which deals with themes more universal, generally were greeted with negative reviews in the US. I do notice that 'dogville' generated much more positive feedback even if Cannes did not have guts to award it Palm d'Or. It's a much more accomplished motion picture than Van Sant's 'elephant' to say the least.

rs98762001 · #7 Post by **rs98762001** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:45 pm

I agree with the poster above that Dogville is so far one of the near-perfect films of this decade. It shows a master storyteller at the top of his game, both narratively and visually. Fantastic though I thought Breaking the Waves, The Kingdom and Dancer in the Dark were (never cared much for Trier's more 'subversive' films like Europa, The Idiots, and Element of Crime), Dogville is his masterpiece to date.

Anyone see Manderlay yet?

exte · #8 Post by **exte** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:41 am

kieslowski_67 wrote:I do notice that 'dogville' generated much more positive feedback even if Cannes did not have guts to award it Palm d'Or. It's a much more accomplished motion picture than Van Sant's 'elephant' to say the least.

Yeah, I think it's because he called Polanski a midget when he was head of the panel at one point. They just don't respect him, with the whole Von thing and everything. Nevermind his art, right?

Grimfarrow · #9 Post by **Grimfarrow** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:50 am

Actually, Cannes didn't have the guts to give the Palm d'Or to the best film at the festival that year: Naomi Kawase's SHARA - a film with none of the pretentions of ELEPHANT or DOGVIlLE.

skuhn8 · #10 Post by **skuhn8** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 2:10 am

And from left field we have...

Grimfarrow wrote:Actually, Cannes didn't have the guts to give the Palm d'Or to the best film at the festival that year: Naomi Kawase's SHARA - a film with none of the pretentions of ELEPHANT or DOGVIlLE.

numediaman2 · #11 Post by **numediaman2** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:12 am

A great example of why discussions about awards are pretty much irrelevant to a discussion of a films quality or worth.

I have to add to those who have complemented skuhn8 on the post: excellent. As strange as this may sound, I have yet to see Dogville yet. I have literally stored it away in my library of DVDs waiting for the right moment to view it. I think it is getting to be the right time!

Cinesimilitude · #12 Post by **Cinesimilitude** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:14 pm

So, I have an essay on this film due for an Analysis class in 2 days.

the two topics I can write on are as follows.

A. Discuss How Dogville uses pantomime and other theatrical conventions to create a sense of Immediacy or estrangement between the various members of the community. (topic A goes on to say I could choose one theatrical convention and show how it operates cinematically to construct a relationship between 2 or more individuals in the town.)

or

B. Discuss the roles that genre plays in Dogville in terms of setting up audience expectations for the outcome of the film and either foreshadowing of foreclosing upon Grace's violent departure from the town.

Could you guys maybe provide some starting points to help me get the ball rolling? Any Ideas on how I could incorporate my feelings of the films message? I feel that Grace represents an Ideology of forgiveness and tolerance with little free will, making the best of her circumstances, who resorts to a primitive form of judgement(eye for an eye) when she gains complete control over the fate of her oppressors. Any comments on that or you're own feelings on the topics would be a great help.

colinr0380 · #13 Post by **colinr0380** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:27 pm

Just wanted to say how great I thought Skuhn8's analysis was. I don't know how I missed this thread at the time!

SncDthMnky wrote:A. Discuss How Dogville uses pantomime and other theatrical conventions to create a sense of Immediacy or estrangement between the various members of the community. (topic A goes on to say I could choose one theatrical convention and show how it operates cinematically to construct a relationship between 2 or more individuals in the town.)

My guess this is to do with the lack of walls to the sets so it breaks down the artificial barriers people put up to distance themselves from events. So when Grace is being systematically abused and raped at the end of the film, and the townspeople have put her in a shed at the far end of the town, the lack of walls shows just how obvious her presence is in their minds and perhaps how their abuse is a reaction to their guilt.

This works powerfully in the scene where the townspeople decide whether to accept Grace by ringing the church bell, where Grace is stood in a representation of the mine, but theatrically in full view.

And of course it works powerfully in the abuse scenes where it points up the hypocricy of the characters turning a blind eye to the old (blind) man feeling Grace up, or her initial rape with the children playing six feet away.

So it's probably a case of showing how this lack of walls removes this barrier using Grace and another character's interactions, say Ma Ginger and the path through the vegetable patch, and how it shows how stupid, vindictive and petty her reactions are to someone walking through a designated path, or a particular person, since Tom wanders through it before he meets Grace, and then how this vegetable patch is carried through it's final destruction, and Ma Ginger's various reactions. (I think there are much better examples, but I'll let you find them!

)

B. Discuss the roles that genre plays in Dogville in terms of setting up audience expectations for the outcome of the film and either foreshadowing of foreclosing upon Grace's violent departure from the town.

I'm not sure about genre. Perhaps the expectation of escape in the truck scene. The idea that being decent doesn't bring the same decency, subverting traditional notions of 'do unto others', or the way that while all the cruelty, pettiness and abuse is occuring the responsibility for their actions is entirely placed on the victim as if it is her fault that they are acting this way - thereby subverting notions of guilt, since the perpetrators are entirely guilt free, at least on the surface.

I just wanted to say that unfortunately I am finding the situation in this film becoming closer and closer to events in life. You can't push people around indefinitely, even the perceived weakest and least able to fight back, without eventually having your actions turn back onto yourself, even if you do feel entirely justified in the level of violence or cruelty you inflict, even if you feel that the person it is being done to deserves it somehow. Once the cycle starts, it drags everyone into a system destined to destroy itself - the system can be prolonged to some extent, but not indefinitely.

Perhaps, and this is something I got from Skuhn8's post, another big issue is choice. The townspeople were given the choice to take Grace in or not, to treat her badly or not, to turn her in or not, and Grace eventually takes the responsibility of choice away from them and chooses their fates.

It seems like this issue of choice then continues into Manderlay, where Grace is in a position of being able to force choice (an oxymoron?) on people - an uncomfortable, but important, turn around.

Cinesimilitude · #14 Post by **Cinesimilitude** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:39 pm

I think I'll write on the first one and then discuss choice and fate in it also. I don't think the film has much to do with destiny, since the entire thing could have gone down many other ways. I just thought of omething though, does anyone know why the gunshots are heard at the beginning? since grace is the guys daughter, an he doesnt want to harm her near the end, why would they be shooting at her in the first place?

skuhn8 · #15 Post by **skuhn8** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:53 am

Quite right. I thought the gunshots were for those who were aiding and abetting her mistake, perhaps the poor guy that offered to light her cigarette on a street corner or someone who nearly picked her up hitchhiking.

Cinesimilitude · #16 Post by **Cinesimilitude** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:41 pm

skuhn8 wrote:Quite right. I thought the gunshots were for those who were aiding and abetting her mistake, perhaps the poor guy that offered to light her cigarette on a street corner or someone who nearly picked her up hitchhiking.

That's how I saw it also, excet I just rewatched the film and at the end, there is discussion about her being the target of the first gunshots. Yet another reason to say Von Trier failed in his attempt here.

Roger_Thornhill · #17 Post by **Roger_Thornhill** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:23 pm

I think there used to be an old saying in Roman occupied territories (I may completely mess this up - sorry if I do): "I'm a citizen of [insert conquered territory] and a citizen of Rome." I think in many respects this applies to the US today and the rest of the world. The US may not physically occupy the world but it has an enormous influence financially, militarily, and culturally on the world's citizens. So I agree that LvT has every right to criticize the US since he's probably very familiar with US culture and what not. I guess the real question is then: is LvT critcizing the US government policies or the American people? I think either's fair game, although generalizing about any group of people (let alone a diverse population of 300 million) can be far more problematic. Unfortunately, I still haven't gotten around to seeing Dogville, but this discussion has made me determined to put it at the top of my Netflix queue.

Cinesimilitude · #18 Post by **Cinesimilitude** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:32 pm

I am hoping that what is said at the end of the film, about the questions being artful in nature, and that the film will offer no answers, is expanded upon or tied up with manderlay and washington.

I don't think we can truly discuss the meaning of these films until he completes his trilogy. if he had made this first, and then decided to do more, it would be completely segregated from the others in terms of critique. but since he sat down and wrote these with 3 films in mind...

It's like I'm writing an essay on star wars: a new hope without knowing vader is luke's father. oh well...

The Fanciful Norwegian · #19 Post by **The Fanciful Norwegian** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:21 pm

SncDthMnky wrote:It's like I'm writing an essay on star wars: a new hope without knowing vader is luke's father. oh well...

That's okay, Lucas didn't know either.

Andre Jurieu · #20 Post by **Andre Jurieu** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:27 am

Sorry, I'm not understanding the logic here. Critics claimed Von Trier made an anti-American film, and he responded by saying he's making films about America because American culture has essentially become absorbed into his everyday lifestyle. Why exactly does cultural assimilation prevent an incorporated citizen from making a film critical of the culture that has become absorbed into his lifestyle? Von Trier seems to be answering a different question regarding why he deserves the right to make film about America without having visited the country. The fact that he has used a film about America to criticize the country's actions and therefore made an "Anti-American" film might be part of a related question, but it's not the exact same question.

colinr0380 · #21 Post by **colinr0380** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:56 pm

I think to add to the 'why choose America' debate I would throw in the idea that he had already covered Europe in a previous trilogy, which was no less scathing about the society there. I remember hearing somewhere that Von Trier did not mind representing the US without going there, since it seemed that US films represented (and sometimes trampled over) other nations and cultures without feeling a similar need for realism or sensitivity.

As Roger Thornhill suggests we could also talk about the way that 'Western' culture is American culture for better or worse. From Starbucks and McDonalds to multiplexes showing the latest American films, most of the rest of the world (with a few exceptions of civilisations seen as a threat and those too big to confront at present and slow in developing capitalist values, such as China) is homogenised by a set of values from beyond their own borders that exist independently of (or perhaps in superiority to) the culture of a particular nation. This of course has less to do with America in particular than with the values of capitalism, but since America is one of the most highly developed capitalist countries it is only understandable that most of the worldwide brands develop there and have the ability to be spread over the rest of the world - so you see Cola branding for example from Mexico and Japan to Africa and Russia. I would stress again though that this is probably not America-driven in particular, it is capitalism-driven - so you can get products or companies from other countries becoming world famous such as Hitachi, BMW etc just as you can get many US products that never make it beyond their border. In a sense a global meta-culture has been created where people from all over the world receive similar experiences watching Titanic or the latest Pirates of the Carribean film and are all familiar with having a Big Mac (or 'le Big Mac' to quote a certain popular film!) and this overlays the norms of their individual societies (I suppose in that sense it is unsurprising when politicians can conjure up a 'coalition of the willing' by playing to certain generally held values and receive not only no opposition but also no debate of the issue!). Of course the films, music and other major international cultural items disseminate American values as well as a by-product.

I think this overarching meta-culture is something Von Trier has often been concerned with either critiquing or tapping into, perhaps even being the reason behind his decision to shoot most of his films in the English language.

However, it seems that suggesting that the content of the USA films (so far) are purely an attack on America could miss the point. There is an explosion of the myth of America being a sort of 'promised land', but more to suggest that people are people everywhere, and capable of extremes of behaviour. The Young Americans song both shows the American Dream doesn't apply to everyone, and that in a way everyone is a Young American now. I also think the theatrical nature of the films allows them to not be seen as a 'real' but metaphoric story (with the issues of 'Grace' and choice) and is important more than just being a practical way of showing an 'American' town without going to the US. The historical setting seems to be playing with ideas of a different age: the depression and slavery - antecedents to modern questions of capitalism and race relations, but in a more distant (safer?) context.

I posted in another forum recently that more than an attack on the US in particular this series would instead seem to be much more important in viewing Von Trier's career. Dogville seems to sum up the 'broken heart' trilogy, and Manderlay the 'Europe' trilogy. Washington would therefore seem to be crucial in showing the direction Von Trier is going to go with the next stage of his career, or it could be a summation of his entire career up to this point - perhaps a combination of both. It also doesn't surprise me that he perhaps wants a break before making Washington, if he ever does make it, because the film would probably be a very big step into the future, as well as being the end of the trilogy, with all of the pressures and expectations that brings.

Antoine Doinel · #22 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:51 pm

I have to agree with gubbelsj. I found Dogville to be an effective allegory about (the hypocrisy of) religous fanaticism, particularly when used as a tool to develop governments. In fact, I found von Trier's photo montage at the end to be somewhat tacked on, diminishing the impact the film already had.

justeleblanc · #23 Post by **justeleblanc** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:05 pm

Antoine Doinel wrote:I have to agree with gubbelsj. I found Dogville to be an effective allegory about (the hypocrisy of) religous fanaticism, particularly when used as a tool to develop governments. In fact, I found von Trier's photo montage at the end to be somewhat tacked on, diminishing the impact the film already had.

This is von Trier at his most von Trier, ending the film shockingly mediocre. Take a look at Waves or the text on the screen during Dancer for other examples. I wonder if it's deliberate. Do you remember president Nixon?

Cinesimilitude · #24 Post by **Cinesimilitude** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:18 pm

could I get some criticism (constructive, preferably) on this paragraph?

[quote]Trier's use of pantomime asks the audience to see the events metaphorically instead of literally, to convey his message of choice and fate. The film's set is one giant interior, furnished with unfinished homes and lines of chalk drawn on the floor to designate each area of the town. The viewer is given just enough to grasp the time and space of the scene, and as the characters interact there are no distractions, adding an air of urgency to the events that unfold. The intentional lack of walls allows for an omniscient view of all that goes on, heightening the effect of the town's transgressions. A perfect example of this is when Chuck(Stellan SkarsgÃ¥rd), after attempting to justify his lust with a speech about how she had tricked him into believing she cared, rapes Grace in his home as the camera dollys back to reveal the entire town, going about their daily routine, oblivious to the horror taking place in the corner of their â€œworldâ€

lazier than a toad · #25 Post by **lazier than a toad** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:35 pm

justeleblanc wrote:This is von Trier at his most von Trier, ending the film shockingly mediocre. Take a look at Waves or the text on the screen during Dancer for other examples. I wonder if it's deliberate. Do you remember president Nixon?

Von Trier at his most von Trier, I totally agree.

And think that it is on purpose, in abundance, for example, in The Five Obstructions. Especially during the fifth, when he, acting humbly, gets Leth to read out the criticism of von Trier's behaviour as cynical and hipocritical. But which becomes rather, a criticism of Leth's behaviour and career/life/personality for the very same. Whilst, most painfully of all, Leth doesn't appear to be aware of any of this. And von Trier, naturally, sits back smugly as the peices of his game/film fall into place to reveal his devilish agenda.

I think it displays von Trier's incredible arrogance, cynicism, duplicity, knowledge of those, and (sick/dark) humour therein. Although he makes the audience feel guilty (that is uncomfortable for a reason) and challenge their prejudice laden sadomasochism/underlying way of thinking, he does not deny that he too is guilty. Which is humble and honest, I guess, but his own knowledge of what he is doing and ability to say "I am guilty", makes it in turn arrogant, etc.

At the same time I think that is what makes him such a great director as he ruthlessly and rarely with any pity attacks, undermines and destroys the preconceptions and misconceptions which govern our everyday lives. And, essentially, does not spare himself or those he does or has respected (e.g. Leth). (This reminds me a bit of Fassbinder - which is enough to make him one of the greatest living filmmakers in my books.)

As well as the titles you mentioned above I get the same feelings from Epidemic (and its trailer), The Idiots, Manderlay, even Boss of it All, especially, but not exclusively, at the ends of those films. And worst of all he seems to behave the same in interviews.