MovieChat Forums > Manderlay (2005) Discussion > Misinterpretations of the film

Misinterpretations of the film

posted 18 years ago by jeffreyurbanovsky
25 replies | jump to latest

I'm seeing a lot of misinterpretation of "Manderlay." Or what should say is that I have a much different interpretation of the film than many here. Because of the complexity of the rhetorical argument that Lars von Trier is making, there will need to be some explanation. In order to get a better understanding of this film, one should be well versed in black history, particularly after the Civil War...

What happened to blacks after the Civil War? The movie immediately addresses "40 acres and a mule." This was a measure given to blacks, by General Sherman, entitling them to land and the opportunity to cultivate it themselves. The reasoning for this act of reparation was needed because blacks after slavery had nowhere to go and nothing of value. Imagine not having any home nor any money, this is a terrible problem. Although "40 acres and mule" was a great step forward, it was discontinued by President Andrew Jackson.

Although conditions after the Civil War allowed blacks to be more free in some regards, an example being that they could vote, their situation remained largely unchanged and many were left in similar conditions of misery as before. Without reparations, or much support from the United States government, blacks had little hope. Many blacks knew how bleak the situation was, although slavery was an abhorrent practice, being "free" in an America infected with racism was not exactly much of an improvement.

The movie "Manderlay" wants to show what blacks were up against and are up against today, with what I think is a marvelous rhetorical argument in a plantation where slavery persists at the consent of the slaves. The message is that the slaves would rather continue a form of pseudo-slavery than be set free into a nation which didn't want them (remember the character who is left lynched from a tree after he has left the confines of the plantation.) What was better a plantation which the owners cared for the slaves as property or a nation filled with hate that blacks were thrown into without any reparation? Clearly, the answer is neither, but the point that Lars von Trier attempts to drive home is that blacks although "free" were not really free.

After reconstruction was ended in 1876 with the victory of President Rutherford B. Hayes, conditions for blacks become even worse as many of their voting rights were restricted. Many Americans who question why black America is in its present state wonder why, but the truth of the matter is that blacks were regarded as second class citizen all the way until 1965 with the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act (which gave away the South to the Republican Pary.) In reality blacks have been political free since 1965, although there have been many attempts to curb their right to vote to this day (blacks are an ideal target because they unanimously vote in a certain way). Even if blacks where "free" to vote, this freedom had little effect on improving their economic plight.

Many Americans today blame blacks for their current socio-economic status, with reasoning being that the Civil War was a long time ago and that there has been many opportunities since then. This viewpoint is not only in reference to white America, but also to some conservative blacks such as Bill Cosby who want to see blacks pull themselves up by the bootstrap. Clearly, Lars von Trier thinks this is ridiculous because his many argument in the movie stands out when Timothy says "you created us" and Grace goes on to whip him. Think about what that means: Grace punishes this black man for reminding her what America has done. America punishes blacks by attempting to forget them and blame them for their condition, when in fact its America that has created this problem.

The problem is not that the slaves don't wish to leave the plantation, the problem is that the world which awaits them outside the plantation is a treacherous one. That is the reasoning for the still photos after the movie is finished. In many of the photos we see blacks being beaten, brutalized, and exploited, is this really freedom? This is an incredible critique on America after slavery. Furthermore, I find that it is incredibly shameful that a director from Denmark had to present this movie.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sevenshades 18 years ago

thanks to jeffreyurbanovsky for his enlightening post. There's so much in this film: most newspaper reviewers seem to have missed the point. All I would add is that this is not the only reason Grace whips Timothy: she whips him for quoting back to her the words she said when she had him released from the rack at the beginning of the film. "We made them". But she also whips him for revenge...

[–] tokenblackdude 18 years ago

It's not about slavery.

[–] obiewanshinobi 18 years ago

It's a shame that Reconstruction ended in a political way. Sharecropping was a travesty.

However, the Civil War was a just war. The failure of the government AFTER the fact is a shame, but the fight to end slavery was a just one, and if it would've been followed up with reparations then we would not have racial tension.

It's a shame politics got in the way of justice. It's also laughable to hear people talk about how Reconstruction was corrupt and that the war was not about slavery.

John Wilkes Booth is ultimately to blame.

[–] ekoznarova 18 years ago

Thank your for this post,i needed to read something like this to fully understand what movie should say.Now i get the point of final subtitles also.

[–] joshetc 18 years ago

Von Trier also seems to be criticizing the "victim mentality" in this film as well. He seems to be saying that social oppression (a term which is of course open for definition) often creates a mentality wherein people come to prefer their status as a victim to trying to carve out some form of "freedom" for themselves. In turn this corrupts not only the victim of slavery, but the slave holder (opressor) by making them reliant on the slave for their own identity as slave holder. The film is ultimately about power relations and how the do-gooder mentality becomes another way for the ruling set to manipulate the ruled by turning them from a slave into a victim. The question he raises in this film is: which is worse slavery or victimhood?

[–] morejudolid 18 years ago

Many believe that this movie is more geared towards criticizing American foreign policy in our days than racism or slavery. The situation and the example of slavery is used as a metaphor for intruding in local affairs in other countries of which the big powers are quite ignorant.
Grace pretends to improve their lives by chopping down the trees to build houses, because in her Western mentality having a nice house is important, but she doesn't ask for advice. If she had asked the locals the foreman would have told her about the barrier against wind. This is an example of what big powers in Europe and N. America do in other countries, interference without real local knowledge.
You could also argue that there is a parallel between the gangsters looking for weapons and not finding any, with the failure of finding any weapon of m.d. recently where we all know.
The movie also draw parallels with the fall of communism. There are more and more people in ex-communist countries that would like the return of communism and feel cheated by this new open market. They 've gone from having all their needs covered, secured jobs, food on their tables, free universities, education, etc to the situation of unemployment, non stability, expensive education, expensive private care. And the situation is the same as Grace father explained, we think we are free, but are we really? Working 9 to 5 to spend all the money on cheap technology which makes the rich richer, and in many countries now with a huge housing bubble which makes people literally slaves to the bank during the 25-35 years of their mortgage.

[–] LeaBlacks_Balls 18 years ago

I agree with you. I saw this as more of a tirade of sorts against American foreign policy.

American forces (Grace) arrive in Iraq (Manderlay), quickly free it, and introduce democracy to the people. And America (Grace) thought once Saddam (Mam) was dead, the people would be rejoicing and the war (slavery) would be over. Little did America (Grace) know what we (she) were getting into.

And I think this film tries to predict what America will do with Iraq in the future.
Once America realizes that the Iraqi people can't/won't live with democracy (or at least OUR version of it), we'll lord over them, and then maybe we'll eventually leave them. Just as Grace did at Manderlay.

[–] kiljoy78 18 years ago

Yes, I think it's easy for people to turn the agenda of this film around, and I am very suspicious of that. I wonder if that in itself because of one's discomfort over race issues. While I'm not saying that this parable does not also extend the foreign policy, which I clearly agree it can, but it is pretty clear a film about race in America. What I find most intriguing and what I find very glossed over is the psychological effects of slavery on slaves. Usually, when slaves are portrayed they are portrayed as honest, decent victims. This film rejects that as a false notion, which it surely was. In order to a system like slavery to work, not only do slaveowners have to believe in it, but slaves themselves must on some level, specifically if born to such a situation. That being the case, one has to wonder what sort of people such imprisonment breads. Violent people as the one woman and her children, disinterested people, like many of the slaves on the plantation, and most vividly in this movie the pleasing, chameleon. I find it very interesting how these groups exist today in the black community. There are higher rates of violent crime and higher rates a fatalistic thoughts in these communities. This is the heart of the discomfort in this movie to me. By saying that slavery breeds problematic people is this a indictment of white or black America? It would seem both.

also was it me or was the Mansi/Munsi dialogue a satirical look at pan-africanism in the black community. it seemed so to me, and appropriately so. As a black guy I find it interesting how other blacks have this kinship to Africa and even specific groups when it's unlikely any real connection exists today. I mean I could be from one area of africa, or another, who knows?

[–] meow9 17 years ago

I was confused by the Mansi/Munsi emphasis (are they "real"?). Was the distinction simply a useful plot device for Trier to articulate the different colours Timothy the chameleon takes on? Or were there many more layers which I totally missed? It seemed to get a lot of dialogue, a lot of attention.

[–] Drooch (5333) 5 years ago

It possibly had the purpose of drawing attention to racism within minority communities - something often ignored by do-gooder whites.

[–] Drooch (5333) 5 years ago

Good observations.

Although it’s not people from ex-Communist countries that want to see that system return - they hate the poverty, misery and tyranny it creates. No, it’s overprivileged yet envious and resentful Marxists in the West and the students they indoctrinate who naively think Communism could ever actually work despite countless examples of its catastrophic failure.

[–] janus3 18 years ago

great posting jeff. i'd just like to chime my 2 cents. i think this movie also had to deal with the fact that black people are better off being slaves because they can't do anything themselves. they needed laws because they couldn't function as a sovereign state by themselves. the narrator at the end even says something like "whoever says the us isn't ready for black people need only look up for a hand." i think this film also dealt with afirmitive action. grace (u.s.a) was trying to make up for them being slaves by punishing the white family (white usa)and ignoring her gangster's needs(also white usa), which happens today, the us is so hellbent on "making things right" that in the long run it's hurting the us by excluding white people and treating them unfairly. after all, the white family got punished for doing what the black people wanted which we find out at the end.

[–] Rudolf_Ahab 18 years ago

Have you ever heard about the difference between motive and theme? To me it seems you have confused the two. Think about it.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]