I absolutely second Mr APURSANSAR’s post. I’ve tried to appreciate Von Trier, but god, does he hate women. I know others try to see it differently, but its the only conclusion that actually adds up. Every film is just pointless buckets of heaping misery and brutality visited upon poor, defenseless women, with no reprieve, over and over again, ad nauseam….
He kind of pisses me off, which I suppose is his intention. I think he’s just in it for some childish shock value, like an overgrown teenage punk. Anyway, no use posting more on something I clearly dislike….
not that ive seen much of von trier’s work, but i wouldnt exactly call the women in “dogville” and “antichrist” poor and defenseless.
“you may consider it so but how much work from “anyone else” have you seen”
And you still didn’t answer my question. How does Maddin’s being a part of a “90’s breakthrough” preclude him from being filmmaker of the decade?
I will submit that if there’s a filmmaker of the 90’s, it’s probably Wong Kar-Wai. Or even… god… Tarantino? Let’s not kid ourselves. Like him or not, he was somewhat definitive… at least in this country.
And while I like von Trier very much, I don’t know if his track record is strong enough in either decade. On the other hand, part of me thinks Breaking the Waves and Dogville could do decent jobs of defending their respective decades all by themselves… (with the exception, that is, of Breaking the Waves‘s final shot of the damn ’bells in heaven’).
These suggestions are mostly terrible, except for Bela Tarr and maybe Wong Kar-wai (although My Blueberry Nights is terrible. I would also suggest Jia Zhang Ke.
I’ve only seen a couple of his films from this decade, but I doubt he’d crack a top 50 filmmakers of the decade for me.
I couldn’t care less who is the whatever of the decade, since consensus without merit is a meaningless political position. What is fascinating is the rationale used to beat back the opposition. To say LvT hates women or is superficial is the type of political corruption that ruins the entire basis of having a whatever of the decade. But that’s the way it is with ideologues…
Von Trier is the ideologue. Not finding misogyny a worthwhile artistic niche doesn’t make one an ideologue.
Maybe you have to have a fancy name to appreciate Von Trier. Perhaps I should put numbers after my name or add a Von too. Seems to have worked for a few filmmakers. But at least Sternberg had talent.
Your response verifies my point: when one starts with the wrong assumption, one draws erroneous conclusions.
The misogyny thing is kind of like seeing a peanut-butter sandwich eaten in film and assuming the film is about lunch.
But that ‘wrong assumption’ is drawn from the films themselves. We’re not talking about some bs prejudice that’s directed towards Gallo’s films for example.
Your analogy makes no sense and is absurdly reductive. There isn’t a viewer on earth who is that naive. What do you propose it is that viewers are misinterpreting as misogyny in Trier’s work?
i don’t know – maybe you can tell me where it is – someone mentioned Dancer in the Dark
Misogynist or not, Dancer in the Dark isn’t even a good film, let alone a great one.
His work has an immature feeling to it emotionally, much the same problem with someone like Kubrick, with Clockwork Orange.
“Von Trier is the ideologue. Not finding misogyny a worthwhile artistic niche doesn’t make one an ideologue.” – I agree with this statement, I don’t think I even come close to being an ideologue. Mr Peabody, I like your peanut butter sandwich analogy, but unfortunately, it doesn’t work. I know all the arguments about what a genius political provocateur Von Trier is, but the obvious truth is just that he is misogynist as hell, and yes, extremely immature and superficial in every way. I think he gets away with being lauded a smart “art film director” because of an old and common immature and lazy assumption that depictions of unmitigated misery somehow automatically equal great art. I got over silly attitudes like that when I left my hateful teenage self behind, but I don’t think Mr Von Trier ever has. He would be much better off as some low-brow horror film director, with no presumptions of “high art” or whatever.
Anyway, his old stuff was at least well crafted, even if I never liked him, but c’mon; Dancer in the Dark, Dogville, Antichrist, etc- these are crappy, sloppy films.
I think Robert’s point, Von Trier aside, is that just because you show a misogynist act or character without judging them does not indicate a support for misogyny. Cassavetes Husbands was labelled misogynistic by many misguided, though well-meaning, critics and it and he was far from that.
Von Trier’s output doesn’t deserve to even be mentioned in comparison to Cassavetes’s film. Husbands is clearly a masterpiece.
I am not talking about specific acts or characters in the films, I am talking about the filmmaker, his beliefs and intentions. And comparing Von Trier to Cassavetes is like comparing Motley Crue to Mozart – clearly ridiculous…
I am not talking about specific acts or characters in the films, I am talking about the filmmaker, his beliefs and intentions.
Oh okay, because that I couldn’t care less about that either – but if you find a film or something in a film that purports to be misogyny – let us know where/what it is – I’m pretty sure what you got there is peanut-butter sandwich and just don’t know it.
Btw, we all knew that Mike Spence was not comparing von Trier and Cassavetes.
When you answer like that, you don’t win points, you highlight your reading comprehension skills.
@RWP3: The filmmaker’s beliefs and intentions being misgonyst usually means that his films are as well, or in other words the whole concept behind the films. There can´t be much doubt about it that “Dancer in the Dark” and “Dogville” are expressions of hatred against women, wether unconscious or not, and it would be wrong to ignore that fact. There is a certain element of immaturity in LvT’s films which is not so much manifested in acts or characters, but in the development of his stories.
Asking where the misogyny in a film like Dancer in the Dark resides is the equivalent of asking where the paintings are in the Louvre.
I’m well aware that depicting/representing acts in films (or any art) does not equate to condoning them. Trier, however, goes out of his way to do it in nearly every one of his films and usually for no apparant reason. Or if there is a reason, it’s usually absurdly manipulative; disgustingly so.
Dancer in the Dark is from the “Golden Hearts” trilogy – are you saying he pulled one over on the viewers and the Palme D’Or people?
Where is Dogville an expression of hatred against women? have you even seen these films?
I don’t understand where this is coming from….
How would you label it if the female protagonist becomes a sex toy for the whole village, and gets constantly abused, but is unable to free herself without the help of her male liberators?
Yes, I’ve seen both films, but I’m wondering whether you have. I don’t see how Dancer belonging to a trilogy has any bearing on the matter either, or the fact that it won the Palme D’Or.
As for Dogville, are you kidding me?! As Apursansar says, she’s raped and treated like sh!t throughout the film and then we have to swallow that disgusting revenge ending, as if it’s all OK now.
Oh dear Sir RWP III, please don’t be so insulting and presumptuous, you make yourself look silly, its just a film fan site…
My reading comprehension skills are quite fine, thank you, I was making a funny, ha ha,…
However Apursansar did sum it up better than I presently could:
“RWP3: The filmmaker’s beliefs and intentions being misgonyst usually means that his films are as well, or in other words the whole concept behind the films. There can´t be much doubt about it that “Dancer in the Dark” and “Dogville” are expressions of hatred against women, wether unconscious or not, and it would be wrong to ignore that fact. There is a certain element of immaturity in LvT’s films which is not so much manifested in acts or characters, but in the development of his stories.” – Perfect
The hatred in his films is pretty apparent, he’s not exactly known for subtlety, so I’m not going to write a scene-by-scene analytical essay to prove it. The “peanut-butter sandwich” is a nice talking point, but again, I’m not talking about a specific scene or action (I’m not that stupid and judgmental to think that misogynist character= misogynist film, and I don’t doubt anyone on this site would ever be that stupid, so don’t talk down to people), but the filmmaker’s very intentions and concepts behind his films.
Also, for the record, I probably enjoy quite a number of films that others would legitimately consider misogynist or whatever, so I’m not passing judgement that you or anyone is a bad, woman-hating person for liking Von Trier films. As far as I’m concerned, I’m just pointing out the obvious and it shouldn’t be ignored, whether you like the films or not.
She didn’t represent womanhood – you got a peanut-butter sandwich there Apu.
She represents finding a moral imperative – that is why all those things happen to her.
01:18:05,560 —> 01:18:10,360
And all of a sudden she knew the answer to her question all too well:
If she had acted like them, she could not have defended a single one of her actions and could not have condemned them harshly enough.
It was as if her sorrow and pain finally assumed their rightful place.
No, what they had done was not good enough.
I expect the young folk here not to get this stuff, but you?
“She represents finding a moral imperative”?- that’s just laughable, man, that’s like arguing that all the cartoonish violence in Tarantino’s films is really about "finding a “moral imperative”. C’mon, who ya’ kidding?
I guess I’m too young and naive to grasp such deep thoughts… ha, ha…
Me too apparantly….
I knew I shouldn’t have put my age in my profile! Damn whippersnappers.