MUBI

At the beginning, I easily detected that I had drifted into the realm of allegory and symbolism, two things which I pretty much detest. I used to eat that up because when you’re 13 years old, that’s the deepest form of expression you can muster. And there’s a whole bunch of dark and mysterious things you can do with symbolism to impress your friends and inflate your ego. But then you realize that allegory is a cop-out.

What bothers me most about allegory is that it exists in a vacuum. Every grand idea has a simple code or a key that is presented in a basic narrative, and when you figure out that code, BINGO! you can truly relish the deeper meanings of the film/novel/whatever. But all of these codes are only relevant to the work in question. Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t really get into a film unless it has some broader position outside of its diegesis. And allegory just doesn’t, beyond broad moral principles.

Anyway, at the beginning, it looked like Dogville was gonna be one big, obvious, hit-you-over-the head allegory, and it wouldn’t take long to figure out that X was supposed to symbolize Y. However, I reserved judgment on the matter until the end, and I’m glad that I did.

I began to see the film in a different light when James Caan’s gangster character showed up and acted as the avenging angel by wiping out the town to avenge Nicole Kidman and to exact punishment and justice upon the sadistic townspeople.

While watching the anonymous tommy gun-toting gangsters systematically execute each and every citizen of Dogville, including the children and one infant, I realized the absurdity of the situation and the fact that I was actually pleased to see the mass slaughter. At that point, I shifted my thinking. I came to the (perhaps false or misguided) conclusion that Von Trier, working in a way similar to imperialism, had colonized my mind. He had presented this town and its people as not worthy of existing. He had depicted them as treacherous, sadistic, oppressive, corrupt, and inhuman. When the gangsters showed up, I was glad to see them go and there was a sense of vindication.

Here is where Von Trier is making his statement on America, not through the actions of the townspeople but through their slaughter. Is this any different from American foreign policy? In every American war of the 20th century, the enemy is always depicted as Dogville was depicted, and thus support is drummed up for all kinds of military expeditions. The gangsters were not avenging angels, they were just thugs with better weaponry. The US is not the world’s freedom-loving saviour, it is a self-serving empire.

To me, the interesting thing about Dogville is not so much what happens in the plot or what is being symbolized, but rather how it is presented. Von Trier purposefully sets out to align the audience’s thinking with that of Nicole Kidman and, ultimately, the gangsters. In this vein, we see the slaughter as vindication, as morally right. In fact, it is even presented in terms of morality and justice. But we all know that there is nothing moral or just about the murder of an infant or an entire town. But for a fleeting moment, the audience revels in the massacre because of how the town and its people had been presented in the past.

I believe that that is Von Trier’s statement on America. The film doesn’t try to say anything about American people or culture, but rather American militarism and imperialism. And he does it without the use of allegory or symbolism.

Para ver DOGVILLE hay que adentrarse en la cabeza un poco de LARZ VON TRIER , esa locura que tanto admiramos y que por muchos un tanto incomprendida incluso por mi un autor que atrves de su carrera cinematografica nos a brindado un festin de locura y de recelos prpios de un ser humano perturbado o incmprendido la ok , ahora el review de la pelicula
Cuando vi Dogville y termine de verla pense ok la puesta escena correcta Nicole Kidman en uno de sus papeles emcionalmente hablando mas cansadores yo creo , y con actores de reparto brindando grandes momentos , ok una pelicula que emocionalmente hablando agota y te da una perspectiva agotadora del ser humano un tanto Desesperansodora , viendo que en cada imagen en cada pedazo de actuacion hay un agotamiento emocional Gigante , vemos la naturaleza yo diria Putrefacta del ser humano en toda su naturalidad , brindandonos shock emocionales por momentos
Recomendable solo si te gusta sufrir o si te gusta el Cine para pensar
Victor

Bold, disturbing, dark and bleak would be the best ways to describe Dogville. Von Trier’s pessimistic look at true evil in people is all of these things. Von Trier has balls, being a dutch native who can make these sorts of accusations about American life, but his perspective feels so real and gets you so emotionally invested that all you can do is sit back and watch. From the opening, where its clear from the lack of buildings that this will be anything but a conventional film, we get a strong sense of Americana, so strong in fact the very idea of the idyllic American small town is a parody of itself. People in the town are presented as being overly polite and God-fearing folk, so it really is a crushing blow to the town’s delicacy when Grace arrives, on the run from some gangsters searching for her. Saying more about the plot would be a disservice to anyone who has yet to watch the film, but quite simply you will be surprised where things go from there. Von Trier’s wall-less set is noticeable at first, but the strange thing is you get used to it and accept it as normal beyond the initial shock of it. It speaks volumes to exactly what Von Trier believes is important to film, the characters and their interactions. By stripping away any background scenery, your attention is drawn straight to the faces of the actors, which I can only imagine must have been very revealing for the cast. Maybe the most innovative film of the last decade, Dogville needs to be seen to be believed.

Sigh_. It feels like all the films I’ve been watching, I just loathe. Though, this one I loathe a little less than "_2 or 3 Things":http://www.theauteurs.com/reviews/19171 . We’ll start with the good: The set design, top notch. At first I was against it, and hoped it’d become something more traditional, but eventually I became accustomed to the set, and took in the magnificent detail and creativity that went into it. This is truly a film that would set apart an Art Director and Production Designer.

NOTE: Spoilers will come at this point.

Alright, now that we got that out of the way, let’s dig into the negative: What the fuck, von Trier??! This is three hours of misogyny punctuated with a night cap of misanthropy. Am I supposed to believe that you’re Gung-ho for women because you set things straight with this ending? You basically demean poor Nicole Kidman in every fashion imaginable, only to be saved by — wait for it — her Dad? A man!? She couldn’t come to her brilliant epiphany all her own? These are the things that drive me mad with von Trier. We’ll use this to segue into Antichrist a little bit. Antichrist is also a film about misogyny. It’s to show how von Trier understands the female creature, but in actuality, all he does it show his contempt.

Back to Dogville. Nicole Kidman, I can stand to be in her presence, all I really remember her for is that nose in The Hours, but her performance in this, isn’t bad or anything, but is far from the brilliant performance I was expecting. This seems to be a recurring theme in von Trier’s films. Dancer in the Dark, Antichrist, these are performances that are, at best, okay, but are punctuated with a scene, a scene of grave importance, which completely nullifies the prior however-many-minutes of dullness. Okay, I may be a bit harsh on poor Charlotte Gainsbourg, but Bjork? C’mon. That was Bjork, being Bjork. Nothing special. I digress.

The camera work. At times it’s great. At times it’s just annoying Dogme 95 shit. Couple that with the “French New Wave” style editing. Jump cuts galore which serve no purpose, nor do they flatter the performances, if anything, they only bring notice to their performance and how lackluster they could be. I really didn’t get the editing decisions, not at all.

This isn’t a horrible film. It has moments of pure joy, and honestly, the ending is rewarding. I came to care (a little) for Nicole Kidman’s character, even amidst my incessant eye rolling and heavy sighing, so to see her get her Just Desserts made me smile. But the lead up to it, really took too long. But if you’re a von Trier fan (which I most definitely am not) you should enjoy this.

In Dogville, director Lars von Trier synthesizes Bertolt Brecht’s theory of “Epic Theater” with formal elements of cinema to create a parable. A comparison of Brecht’s theory of “Epic Theater” and Dogville’s formal elements reveals a socially conscious and motivated film. Theoretically, the orchestration of the cinematic fundamentals in Dogville should emotionally alienate the audience making them critical of the social processes that unfold in the film.
Bertolt Brecht was a 20th century playwright, theater director and theorist. One of many theater forms he synthesized and continually developed was “Epic Theater.” Brecht intended to emotionally alienate the audience and make them more critical of social processes that were unfolding before them and being represented by actors. He achieved this alienation effect through non-naturalistic acting, minimalist set pieces, and an episodic narrative structure. Brecht often set his plays in the past. He believed a historical setting emphasizes the universality of the themes in a play. “Brecht’s plays had little to do with historical authenticity and nothing to do with naturalism” (Mews 207). However, Brecht wanted his plays to be “realistic” and approach reality in an analytical and scientific manner rather than imitate it.
Dogville is a film written and directed by Lars von Trier that tells the story of Grace, a young woman who wanders into the town Dogville late one night in the 1930’s pursued by gangsters. The town’s people agree to harbor Grace from the gangsters in exchange for her manual labor. Later on in the movie, the audience discovers that the chief gangster is Grace’s father who is attempting to get her to “come back home” with him. The film illuminates a social process as Grace’s relationship with the town disintegrates from reciprocity into her enslavement. Von Trier based Dogville’s story on a song written by Brecht called “Pirate Jenny.” However, the associations between Brecht and Dogville do not conclude there. Von Trier set his film in a historical time period, the great depression, a technique often used by Brecht. Von Trier intentionally borrowed from Brecht’s “Epic Theater” for Dogville and merged it with some of cinema’s formal elements; acting, cinematography, editing, and mise-en-scéne. Von Trier minimizes setting, partitions the narrative into chapters, accentuates lighting, and his actors deliver non-naturalistic performances in order to “inculcate in the audience the detached, distancing attitude of the historian towards the events portrayed” (Mews 205).

Mise-en-Scéne

Von Trier and production designer Peter Grant created a minimalist aesthetic for Dogville. Chalk lines represent houses; words and sketches etched on the ground symbolize physical objects, and black and white backdrops, that alternate according to the time of day, abstract the space surrounding the town. About the setting Von Trier said, “I was also inspired to a degree by Bertolt Brecht and his kind of very simple, pared-down theatre. My theory is that you forget very quickly that there are no houses… This makes you invent the town for yourself but more importantly, it makes you zoom in on the people” (“Dogville”). While the minimalist aesthetic localizes the viewers’ attention onto the characters, it is also reminds them that what they are engaging in is an intellectual activity rather than passive spectatorship, a particular titillation Brecht had an aversion to. “As a result of the stylization of these narratives, the moral sensibilities and questions of ethical choice are foregrounded and made inescapable” (Bainbridge 146). Had the film been set in an actual town where houses, grass, and minute details consume the frame it might cause the characters to be more empathetic and therefore make the movie more emotionally intoxicating and less of a critical process for the viewer.
One of the intentions of “Epic Theater” is to portray society to the audience objectively and to leave no character motivation unexplained. This ‘paired down aesthetic’ enhances von Trier’s representation of an objective reality. There are few physical barriers that obstruct the viewer’s ability to see what is occurring ‘behind closed doors’ (there are no literal doors in Dogville, although the sounds of them opening and closing are heard). Typically, interpretation of character motivation is subjective but Von Trier overcomes subjective interpretations through the use of a sarcastic narrator who explains character action throughout the film.

Editing

Dogville is edited into nine chapters. Von Trier could have strung the film together into a fluid whole, transitioning between scenes with a simple fade-out to fade-in. However, editor Molly Marlene Stensgaard adds these ellipses between scenes, fading to text over black, for the viewer. The subtitles of the chapters tell the audience, in abstraction, what will occur in the following scene. By being told what the coming events will be, the viewer can focus on why those events will happen. For example, Chapter 2 is subtitled: “In which Grace follows Tom’s plan and embarks upon physical labor.” For von Trier, understanding the motivations behind Grace’s decision to embark upon physical labor, and why the town might at first reject her help only to accept it moments later, is important, where as spending time trying to understand the narrative is simply a barricade for the audience member.
“Brecht allowed each scene or episode to stand independently as evidence of a process taking place…The autonomy of the separate parts of a play enabled Brecht to select such material as offered in “assembled” explanatory presentation of people’s behavior” (Mews 199). Von Trier mimics this structural style as each new chapter shows a new development in the relationship between Grace and Dogville. For example in Chapter 4: “Happy times in Dogville,” the title tells us that the relationship between Grace and Dogville is functioning well and maybe even prospering. By giving the audience this information immediately, it allows them to ask, “why is this so?” In Brechtian terms, this scene functions to show how reciprocity works as an ethical code between Grace and Dogville. In Chapter 5: “Fourth of July after all” a sheriff posts a “Wanted” sign for Grace’s arrest. The townspeople demand that she works longer hours to reciprocate for their “hospitality” because she is a “greater” danger to the town. However, if Dogville truly felt that Grace was a danger to the town, they would have asked her to leave (something they prevent her from doing later on). In Chapter 6: “In which Dogville bares its teeth,” the townspeople begin to take advantage of her position with the law. Chapter 6 shows the progress of the relationship from reciprocity to the beginnings of Grace’s oppression. An analysis of chapters 4-6, as would a deconstruction of the whole film, shows individual pieces of process being illustrated. While there is a classical narrative developing through each of these chapters, editing the film into episodes and subtitling what will occur emphasizes how Dogville’s social process unfolds making it easier for the viewer to understand and criticize.

Cinematography

For the most part, Dogville was shot handheld, however there are times when wide shots from an aerial view capture all of the action in Dogville. These aerial shots emphasize the Von Trier’s objective approach to telling the story of Dogville, an approach inspired by Brecht. With the exception of these wide angled aerial shots, the framing of the shot is very naturalistic, photographed as if it was a documentary. Had the camera work been over-wrought it may have distracted the viewer’s- attention from character interaction and story. For example had the entire story been photographed from an aerial view, it would emphasize Von Trier’s objective approach to storytelling, but ultimately detract from the viewer’s ability to comprehend character subtleties and the plot. While shaping the film, Von Trier was worried about alienating the audience too much, “If you put too many layers on, it takes the audience further and further away from the film. It’s important not to do too many things at the same time or you scare people away” (“Dogville”). His apprehension reveals the nature of Dogville as a whole. It is an experimental film where none of its elements are precisely placed but rather are done as Von Trier probes his way through new territory, delicately attempting to alienate his audience to a degree that allows them to be critical but also engaged.

Acting

According to Brecht, the result of an actor’s performance should not be the empathy of an audience member. Brecht denounced the use of drama for the sake of pacification, but demanded that the actor demonstrate the motivations of his or her character. “He (the actor) should in no way hide the fact that he has studied the event and formed an opinion about it. He will make very sure not to consider the behavior of the personage he is imitating as natural, inevitable, or in character…He becomes a contradictory personage…simultaneously expressing the sentiments of his role and his own” (Weideli 73). In Dogville, most of the ‘imitators’ seem to follow Brecht’s method of acting. Paul Betanny is a British actor who plays the character of Tom Edison. Betanny morphs his voice into a confused accent that only sometimes matches his environment as it wavers between Southern American, Northern American and British intonations. Betanny’s accent exemplifies the entire cast’s approach to character in Dogville, while not banausic they are portrayed with a sense of heightened reality where naturalism is void and characterization is accentuated. Roger Ebert makes a relevant note on the allegorical orientation of the acting in Dogville, “The actors (or maybe it’s the characters) seem to be in a kind of trance much of the time. They talk in monotones, they seem to be reciting truisms rather than speaking spontaneously, they seem to sense the film’s inevitable end.” The characters in the film are gears in a machine that Von Trier continually cranks as the film progresses so the viewer can comprehend what clockwork they produce as a whole. The actors intentionally make it seem as if the characters “sense the film’s inevitable end” because the actors do not portray them as if their actions were “natural” or “inevitable” but rather as if they were people that understood their philosophical position in the film and how they contribute to a social process.
Nicole Kidman stars as Grace. Grace’s name symbolizes her character attributes. In the beginning of the film she is kind, forgiving, and tolerant. While the town slowly takes advantage of her, eventually becoming abusive and oppressive, Grace forgives them, “ The people who live here are doing their best under very hard circumstances.” Kidman’s presence works in several ways for Von Trier’s Brechtian film. Kidman’s physical beauty visually sets her apart from the other actors who appear plain, or old and weathered in her presence. This enhances the viewer’s understanding of Von Trier’s personal sentiments towards the townspeople’s ethical standards: Kidman’s humanitarianism is beautiful, Dogville’s selfishness is base.
Kidman’s acting, as well as her physical attributes, establishes her philosophical position in the parable. Kidman often speaks softly and in low tones representing her motherly and altruistic qualities. It is only at the end of the film when Kidman makes a utilitarian choice to massacre Dogville’s inhabitants for “sake of other towns, for the sake of humanity” that she assumes a stern and unsympathetic tone. Kidman’s dialogue delivery, facial expressions, and posture mirror her ideological motivations, which is a method of acting that results in a non-naturalistic performance.
As Ebert noted, the acting is far from naturalistic. However, the performances are cohesive and the characteristics and intonations of the actors’ voices and movements are delicately accentuated to not create an illusion, but remind the viewer what they are watching is a representation of reality.
Conclusion
Von Trier’s synthesis of Brecht’s “Epic Theater” and film’s formal elements may appropriately be called “Epic Cinema.” Von Trier’s ‘Epic Cinema’ intends to alienate its audience and reveal a social process. Von Trier creates a parable by making the representation of a social process the primary objective of the film. Von Trier shows the audience the effects of unethical selfishness through illustration. To say that this process is the only one shown in Dogville would be very minimalist, as the film works as a political critique of American foreign policy, capitalism, as well as many other things. However, the tension between egoism and altruism was chosen because of its prominence and simplicity that complements the predetermined brevity of this paper.
I, the author of this essay, will sacrifice the formality of this paper to admit that I do not have empirical evidence that proves ‘Epic Cinema’ achieves its aims universally among its audience members. I only have my own experience of Dogville to document the film’s effects.
Author John J. White writes, “The keynote of this scientific theater (“Epic Theater”) is…change. Brecht calls for a type of theater that generates new thoughts and feelings in the spectators that leaves him productively disposed.” Von Trier may not care whether the audience is moved to action, but considering numerous similarities between “Epic Theater” and Dogville, I doubt it. I believe von Trier’s ‘Epic Cinema’ was for the most part effective in its aims. While watching the film, I felt distant enough from the characters and the environment to philosophically analyze the choices of each character as the film progressed. I did not understand every character’s motivations the first time I saw the film, but during the second viewing I realized that von Trier included all of the information necessary to comprehend them. I do not believe that the process that unfolds is verisimilar one, and I was not moved to “action,” but I was productively disposed after the film, and discussed it with my friends. If anything, this is the intellectual probing that Von Trier would like to provoke through the use of “Epic Cinema.”

Works Cited

Bainbridge, Caroline. The Cinema of Lars von Trier: Authenticity and Artifice (Directors’ Cuts). London: Wallflower Press, 2007. Print.

“Dogville – Lars von Trier, Nicole Kidman, Lauren Bacall, Paul Bettany – CIA.” Cinematic Intelligence Agency – CIA. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Nov. 2009. <http://thecia.com.au/reviews/d/dogville.shtml#a2>.

“Dogville :: rogerebert.com :: Reviews.” Rogerebert.com :: Movie reviews, essays and the Movie Answer Man from film critic Roger Ebert. Web. 16 Nov. 2009. <http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040409/REVIEWS/404090303/1023>.

J., White, John. Bertolt Brecht’s Dramatic Theory. Rochester, N.Y: Camden House, 2004. Print.

Mews, Siegfried. Critical Essays on Bertolt Brecht (Critical Essays on World Literature). New York, New York: MacMillan Publishing Company., 1989. Print.

Weideli, Walter. The Art of Bertolt Brecht. New York City: New York University Press, 1963. Print.

DOGVILLE is a movie that really defies all convention.,just so unique,and i didn’t see this movie style coming!brilliant filmaking by von trier,and anthony dod mantle(oscar winning D.O.P of SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE,fyi).surely the best cinematography i’ve seen in long time! as for the story and the setting itself, well,i know this is not for everyone (maybe many people will hate its style and its conclusion),but it gives me to thinks again about humanity,and the aspect of human nature as a whole.Damn great!

I think that this is one of the greatest films I’ve ever seen.
How he touches all the philosophical and sociological questions of human exsistance, and how he reflects it through woman’s question in society it’s just perfect, i cant say anything else.
This also one of the first films that showed so beautiful how human will and do abuse power and how we are unable to forgive and forget. Sweet revenge? Maybe, but more human indecency.
Magical!

Lars von Trier has a unique and sometimes brilliant vision for the screen, and he knows it. Subsequently, I think he’s developed some type of elitist mindset which makes it hard for me to truly enjoy his films. I find many of them overly dramatic for the sake of being artsy, and honestly don’t exactly understand the hype that the judges at Cannes have consistently built surrounding characters like him and Haneke. This is a problem they will continue to encounter throughout their entire careers, as the mass acclaim that will forever be attached to figures such as Kubrick or Welles is based on the fact that they were never pretentious. They created pictures which were equally as powerful to the art-house enthusiasts as they were to average film-goers. Lars Von Trier will in all likelihood never achieve the respect his idols had, without a serious decrease in ego. Personal opinions on the director aside, this film is a masterpiece. As a moderate (leaning slightly left from center) libertarian born and raised in Queens, I feel the claims that this film is “blatantly anti-American” are a little silly. It isn’t really anti-anything. It makes a very insightful statement regarding the balance that exists in the world between good and evil, ignorance and intelligence, and so on. It uses the United States, (for all intensive purposes) the current epicenter of functioning civilization to provide a story about the positives and negatives of existence. If the screenplay were a book written 100 years ago, I have a feeling it would be an essential piece included in the majority of college philosophy classes. For those angered by the socialist undertones, watch a Godard film and realize that Trier’s political message in cinema had been delivered before he was even born. For those angered by the controversial end credits, rather than becoming defensive, accept that the issue of inequality in the world will always exist, and it means different things to different people. I found the story entertaining and contemplative, and the acting to be quite natural. I’m a sucker for experimental cinema, and I thought the stylistic concept it was shot in was totally genius. As long as it is, I would gladly watch this time and time again, much like I would find enjoyment in reading The Brothers Karamazov on multiple occasions. This is a film intended for interpretation and unfortunately hyper-sensitive film fans have overlooked its excellence due to their predetermined opinions on unrelated subjects. Politics and film have a few things in common, but they most importantly share the need to be analyzed with objective eyes for the sake of actual understanding. In this world there is not only black and white, but a gray area whose size supersedes either of the others. This film relentlessly explored that area better than any other film I’ve ever watched. From a proud American and otherwise Lars von Trier hater, this is one of my favorites – 5 stars.