MovieChat Forums > Dogville (2004) Discussion > SPOILERS alert - was the ending of the m...

SPOILERS alert - was the ending of the movie

posted 6 years ago by TheMan18 (12511)
3 replies | jump to latest

with how it was arguably the whole town that was shot, including women and children, and how Grace herself didn't mind that either, and not just the guilty male perpetrators (though they were too)...

Was that meant to be a comment on how society shouldn't be indifferent, let alone indulge in victim blaming, if a woman, or anyone, but in this movie's case a woman, is a victim of such vicious deeds and horrible mistreatment, and if it does remain on the side of connivance rather than at least theoretical condemnation of such deeds, it just as well is as bad and deserves to be punished as the vicious men who OFFICIALLY perpetrate such deeds on their victims?

So basically, was the ending meant to symbolize battle with an indifferent, and that way possibly just as evil, SOCIETY in these matters and was THAT the main reason they were shot and killed and Grace approved it?

Come to really think of it, that is true, let's not get too controversial here (although, heavily emotional as these discussions are, in this day and age it is highly inevitable) but let's say...

We had a standard Die Hard like action scenario, and Bruce Willis decided to not JUST fight against terrorists, who would he ALSO then kill and go after, or does that type of scenario in a related manner simply NOT apply? (Or maybe they can, but it would go into let's say "The War on Terror" type of Bush-like scenarios, right? Yes, we feel sorry for the 9/11 victims, but waging a war on Iraq was a bad mistake as well.)

Or maybe it is a lot deeper and more complex than even THAT - correct?

[–] TheMan18 (12511) 6 years ago

Also spoilers alert - The ending, with how the dog was spared, also reminded me of Abel Ferrara's "Ms .45" (aka "Angel of Vengeance") (1981) as there, the dog was also spared and not killed at the very end.

[–] Fandango (534) 6 years ago

I think it can certainly be interpreted as such, sure. As someone put once in a review, the question is: to what point do you forgive the transgressions made upon you by other who may be less fortunate, but are nevertheless committing a wrong?

Essentially, just because someone is worse off than someone else, doesn't mean they can make themselves feel better at that other person's expense, even if that misdoing will still mean their lives are better, despite any trauma (i.e., Grace was raped and abused, in the end she may have still been better off than the residents, despite the psychological impact).

[–] Drooch (5333) 5 years ago

The film challenges presumptions around morality and asks you where you draw the line. It’s genius how Grace who is ‘full of grace’ wants to forgive them until her Old Testament dad accuses her of arrogance for not judging them by the high standards she sets for herself.

I’m glad she unleashed bloody, fiery vengeance on the townsfolk, although she goes too far executing the children. They were sadistic little shits ringing the bell when one rapist had finished with her to summon the next... but they’re kids - their brains haven’t fully formed and cannot be judged as adults. The baby, of course, was a total innocent and it was monstrous to kill him.

Irresistible, powerhouse filmmaking. Von Trier is a twisted genius.