Misinterpretations of the film

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.