MovieChat Forums > Dogville (2004) Discussion > Who cares about Von Trier's portrayal of...

Who cares about Von Trier's portrayal of the U.S?

posted 10 years ago by Albino_Hyena
17 replies | jump to latest

I keep seeing all this unfounded controversy about his portrayal of the U.S on discussions of this film and "Dancer in the Dark", but to anyone who feels offended, I should ask: why do you even care?

If I was to make a trilogy of films set in Africa or Europe, and I had never visited those place because I was too scared of flying, and I presented them with an ignorant bias of the countries based on the negative things I'd only heard of but never actually experienced, do you think those citizens would care? Some guy in Denmark doesn't think that your life in the U.S measures up to his standard; so what?

"Antichrist" is the only one of his films I even enjoyed, and for all I know, maybe Von Trier is a pretentious douche in real life. It doesn't matter, though, because you can dismiss the content of his films if you didn't enjoy them.

[–] ciaran2002 10 years ago

First of all, obviously YOU care, otherwise you wouldn't have bothered to read the comments you're talking about and post your own comment. And what you've posted is very fake: you pretend to be nonchalant, but in fact you are bitter and attack LvT a lot. In the end, you're doing exactly what you're acusing him of: you're attacking a man you never met, only based on your interpretations on his work.

And by the way, people don't need to travel to US to get to know americans. You can meet them in other countries too, you can read what they have to say, what's their politics, what they stand for, and so on. The only american thing that can't be experienced without traveling to US is the landscape.

[–] Albino_Hyena 9 years ago

Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to post this? Actually, I only did so because of the reactions I saw other people making in the message boards, and honestly, I thought they were the bitter ones. I made the post to give them another perspective, so they would stop over-reacting. Once again, no matter what one guy (LvT) thinks, you shouldn't give a *beep*

[–] kmags84 8 years ago

You don't need to travel to America to UNDERSTAND Americans?? I'm a huge Lars von Trier fan so I'll get that out of the way... BUT, NOBODY has the ability to TRULY understand another Culture unless they LIVE THERE. With its History, whether good or bad, America is still the most Diverse, Multi-Cultural Nation on the Planet. People from Denmark, Sweden, Norway etc could never relate to the World Americans live in. I used those Countries as examples but it could easily be any, Europe or Asia, doesn't matter. I see so much criticism from people that have ZERO Idea of how it can be when you live amongst every race, color or religion. On my street alone, I have Hating Neighbors, African American, Jamaican, Cape Verdean, Puerto Rican and a mix of White People as well. How can someone from a Country that's 99% White understand ONE OUNCE of what this is like? The truth? They Cant! It's so unique. It's what makes America the Great Country it is, despite its problems. I can read a hundred books on China and I know plenty, my Mother worked for a Chinese Family for decades, I've spent countless days with them... But does that mean I can understand China??? That's absurd! Same goes for any of my neighbors that I've known for my entire life. You can read books and watch as many films as you'd like but it never equals the experience of actually living within a Culture of people. It's impossible.

[–] kmags84 8 years ago

*Haitian not Hating.

[–] Rmiles92 10 years ago

The thing is, the film isn't really about portraying the US. Yes, it's set in the US, yes Von Trier trolls his critics with the 'Young Americans' ending, but at the core of it, the film is about human nature as a whole.

Is this your homework, Larry?

[–] Gregor_81 10 years ago

Rmiles92 gets it.

Americana was the vessel. Humanity was the subject.

[–] jacksflicks 9 years ago

Yes, Von Trier is indeed a pretentious douche in real life, and most of his fellow Danes are on to him and can't stand him. He knows nothing about America -- he's never been here. But he's a great stylist, is in vogue, and stupid actors want to be in his stuff. And pretentious people want to seem clever by portraying themselves as his fans.

[–] elisabethskoven 8 years ago

I'm a dane, and I don't agree with one of your words. Lars is very admired in Denmark. LVT has said that Americas cultural appeal and dominance is almost omnipresent in Denmark and I agree with him. Every dane knows a lot about America on an almost intuitive level-obviously not as Americans, but still. It is the right of an artist to portray America as they see it-it's actually just him acting as a mirror on the information he has received and then interpreting it in his own fashion.

[–] jacksflicks 8 years ago

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I have lived in Denmark and visit every year. Most Danes I know can't stand LVT. Perhaps "very admired in Denmark" means admired by the type of people who would admire someone like him. The type who admire "bad boys" just for being bad boys. Is that seje?

"Admired," because he's world famous, and Danes are needy for outside recognition. I suppose a stodder like Von Trier can be admired as an artist. BJörk despises him, but he got a great performance out of her. Think of Klaus Rifbjerg, Kim Larsen and Von Trier. Until last year, when Rifbjerg died, they were in a three-way race for høvhulsmæsterskabet.

As for "has the right," sure, an artist has the right to portray a subject incompetently. He has the right to be a bad artist. In America, being a høvhul is considered a sacred right, and I'm sure Von Trier thinks that right should be universal.

I think Von Trier is afraid that if he ever experienced America first-hand, he would like it. And what would that do to the ignorant honesty of his cynicism that's so fashionable amongst his pretentious, infantile fans? Real quality, like Susanne Bier, gets less recognition because she's not self-publicizing. She's more Danish. Which means she's a better person and a better artist.

"LVT has said that Americas cultural appeal and dominance is almost omnipresent in Denmark and I agree with him." Is that a problem? Would you rather it be Muslim? How about Danish? Uh oh, then you're DF, and God forbid!

[–] elisabethskoven 8 years ago

I admire him, and I'm a dane. I don't admire *beep* and empty bad-boys and I don't consider him one. You should read the book about him by Politiken journalist Thorsen-he is very human and lovely and yes, not entirely normal.

You call Susanne Bier a real artist and sure she's talented. But what does she want and what does she have to say? Not much...Susanne Bier talks way more to journalists than LVT ever has. She is on panels, on tv and gives interviews all the time. LVT never does any of that.

I also like that LVT is not "Danish"-we have a sick consensus society in Denmark and LVT always challenges that. And yes, I would like us to not be so culturally influenced by America-that we see more russian, asian and european films than we do at the moment.

[–] nightbiker-1 8 years ago

"I would like us to not be so culturally influenced by America-that we see more russian, asian and european films than we do at the moment."
Simple enough, really. Just "vote" with your wallet. Refuse to watch American-based material, and start watching and going to more movies with material based on European or Russian movies, shows, plays (whatever).
Being influenced by American culture is not the fault of our culture -people are influenced be desire or fear (based on threat or similar stimuli). I lived in southern
Spain for 6 years starting in the mid '70s, there was a lot of American influence, but there was also a lot of communist influence (commiserate with being under a dictatorship). However, thanks to TV and movies (and not a little censorship from the 'state') most of my spanish friends thought of American as being more like the wild west, with a gun on every hip, etc. Though they refused to believe we had as many freedoms as I claimed, but that would be understandable -they also thought mobsters were part of the usual everyday reality. That was what they had been exposed to.
AS for LVT, well, I'm ambivalent when it comes to writers, directors and cast -I enjoy many movies made by people who have opinions and political leanings that are completely contrary to my own.
IF someone wants to believe my country is so horribly flawed, they clearly can't stand the idea of looking at their own with true objectivity -and no matter what, that is their right -and I couldn't care less. I feel sorry for them, but its really none of my concern. I go to shows to see the show, not to reward someones' opinion of me or my country.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Rmiles92 8 years ago

he's never been here

The film isn't about America, but what would it matter anyway? Plenty of writers have used places they've never been to.

And pretentious people want to seem clever by portraying themselves as his fans.

Nonsense argument. There are probably a few people who pretend to like his stuff (as there are for just about any acclaimed director or writer), but there are obviously people that genuinely like his films, not that consensus means anything.

The man doesn't blink, mom, the man doesn't blink!

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lippertokes 8 years ago

"If I was to make a trilogy of films set in Africa or Europe, and I had never visited those place because I was too scared of flying, and I presented them with an ignorant bias of the countries based on the negative things I'd only heard of but never actually experienced, do you think those citizens would care?"

You have just pretty much summarized the history of Hollywood filmmaking about other countries.

Do you think 'Casablanca' was actually made in Casablanca? Humphrey Bogart never left America to make that film, or indeed had he ever been to Casablanca.

What about 'Full Metal Jacket'? Made entirely in England, without Kubrick having ever stepped foot in Vietnam. Same with 'Apocalypse Now' which was filmed in the Phillipines, without director Coppola ever going to Vietnam.

Do you think 'The Hurt Locker' was made in Iraq? Do you think the director Kathryn Bigelow had been to Iraq? No she hadn't, but it didn't stop it winning best film at the Academy Awards.

And on and on.

None of these films present the countries they are 'set' in, as anything but dangerous backward hotspots of anti-americanism, so I think Von Trier is just trying to redress the balance, and the rest of the world has a long way to go in order to catch up with the 'ignorant bias' of hollywood films.

[–] bpollen 7 years ago

I don't think WHERE this is set is what the movie is about. It could be anywhere. It's about human nature.

It's probably more marketable if it takes place in America.

[–] iz_Moff 7 years ago

If I was to make a trilogy of films set in Africa or Europe, and I had never visited those place because I was too scared of flying, and I presented them with an ignorant bias of the countries based on the negative things I'd only heard of but never actually experienced, do you think those citizens would care?

It just so happens that Hollywood does this all the time, and not because writers\directors are afraid of flying neither, they just don't care, really.

And some people might take issue with that. But if they'd bother to say come to imdb and express their opinion, your average american viewer will respond with something like - "hey, relax, it's just a movie, who cares if it's realistic portrayal or not?". Or worse, they might insist that every idiotic stereotype and misconception is actually true, cause, you know, they saw that before in another movie or smth. And yet, they are the ones who are most likely to bash Von Trier for being "anti-american".