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.