I'm an avid Lars Von Trier fan and an American (living in Arkansas, no less), and while I believe it is unfair to criticize Von Trier for making movies about America simply because he's never been to the country, (by that logic no director should ever be allowed to make a period piece about a time in which he or she didn't live), I do think that both installments of the America Trilogy are too over-the-top to be considered real social commentary.
I'm not saying they're bad movies, but to consider America a country where black people would be better off still in slavery is a bit of an exaggeration, as is the premise of a town in which each of the men rapes a woman and the children then torment her for being raped.
And yes, Von Trier definitely implied a status quo from the events at Manderlay with the recent pictures of black suffering in America in the final photo montage. Did anyone else notice that some of those pictures were simply of homeless people and had nothing to do with racial issues whatsoever? When Von Trier included pictures from the current century, he definitely implied, if not outright stated, that the irony of the narrator's final comments (that America was a place where black people could possibly have a decent life if they only took the opportunity) still applies today. And while it may be true that America is not always "the land of opportunity" it purports to be, it's nonetheless quite rash to assume the majority of black people CURRENTLY have it so bad in America they would be better off as slaves.
What intrigues me is actually how much LESS indicting of America Manderlay is than Dogville, and yet how much more offended Americans are by Manderlay. The worst that could be said of Dogville (one of my favorite films, mind you) is that America is blood-sucking, opportunistic, xenophobic, spiteful, always selfish, and at heart evil. All Manderlay could possibly be implying is that America is xenophobic and naive. I guess it's because Manderlay deals with racial issues, but then again, Dogville seems to be a veiled attack on America's immigration policy (first we don't want them, then we exploit them, then we try to get rid of them when they are no longer useful).
However, as an American I must concede that my origins have made the movies slightly less enjoyable; watching them one has to realize that more than criticizing human nature, Von Trier is criticizing AMERICAN nature. I could conduct myself in the way of the "enlightened Americans" on this board and masochisticly agree that my country is composed of people who are, indeed, monsters who need to be sanctioned in every way, but I would be dishonest. In all honesty, yes, the movies were less enjoyable for me because I knew that Von trier meant to question "my kind." I had been given a label, and that's the same bigotry that these movies seem to question. Manderlay seems to imply the statement "All white Americans are, at heart, bigots," which is a bigoted thing to say. But hey, it's the point of art to arouse feelings within the viewer. If a movie can succesfully make me uncomfortable, it has accomplished something.
The only real issue I can take with the films is that the fact that they are set in places that do not exist and concern events that are almost too fantastic to have possibly occurred limits them greatly as political films. It's comparable to an American making a movie about vikings existing in Denmark in the 1930's, then finishing the movie with a montage of pictures of Vikings (I know that's impossible, but this is a hypothetical situation) and current pictures of Danish buildings on fire, and intending the film as a crtique of the viking tendecies of every inhabitant of Denmark. It's unfair because the argument is based on a narrative too fantastic to have any validity.
But then again, all this is based upon my own personal impressions of the films, which may very well be comletely different from what Von Trier intended. Definitely, however, as pure pieces of cinema, without overt political connotations, both films are amazing.
Adding "*beep*" to your posts is like pixelating sex scenes in novels.
reply
share
nomustachio
17 years ago
happyhealy's post was very impressive. bravo, i enjoyed it much as well as the entire thread actually.
reply
share
ArtfulLodger
17 years ago
>>However, as an American I must concede that my origins have made the movies slightly less enjoyable; watching them one has to realize that more than criticizing human nature, Von Trier is criticizing AMERICAN nature<<
Actually I wouldn't take it so personally if I were you - he's telling fictional stories about a culture he feels is 60% relevant to his life *as he sees it*. Taking it personally would suggest I'm a (British, so by extension...) monarchist, love Blair, drink only tea and eat scones at 4pm, etc. Nobody really makes up 100% of a cultural stereotype, we're all different.
Interestingly, it's often people from outside of a culture who can see it most clearly and dispassionately, who can see the wood for the trees.
Right, tea and scones time...;-)
reply
share
Mile-O
17 years ago
"I'm not saying they're bad movies, but to consider America a country where black people would be better off still in slavery is a bit of an exaggeration"
I don't think it's about black people at all. The notion of a slave plantation just serves the means of the greater message beyond the colour of skin. Beyond, it encroaches upon a theme of liberalism. Grace, in her liberal head, seeks to give people something that they have no need for. While the reaction she gets isn't what she her do-good intentions would have expected, what other reaction could she have got from people who have no need for freedom? America is supposedly the land of the free. But the people aren't free as they still bend to the will of the law and the goverment. Likewise, Grace's slaves are given this freedom but, and while they enjoy the spoils of being free (e.g democracy) their preference is still to be governed over.
reply
share