Tom vs. Grace

I know von Trier can be an exhausting topic of discussion here so please try to keep it as internal as possible, i.e. don’t let your opinion of von Trier taint your academic reading of the film. or if you hate dogville so much “omigod its so overrated and kitschy” please don’t bother posting, i’m asking for help with this for a project in a screenwriting analysis. thank you.

SPOILERS:

I recently rewatched this film with a friend for the first time since its release (i saw it twice in theatres though) and I began to wonder if anyone may view Tom as the ultimate victim in this film, as opposed to Grace. I thought this was an interesting concept and had a discussion with said friend about this.While Grace was the victim throughout, she inevitably had the power all along (much like most—if not all—von Trier protags). However, if you study Tom’s character throughout the film, he begins as the moral guide and leader of the town, with all of the power in the “township,” yet by the end of the film Tom is void of his original moral qualities and admits that it is Grace that has caused his internal doubts.

While one reading of the film is that people are the same no matter where you go, i.e. evil exists everywhere, could a separate reading be that of perversion of ideal? Grace had perverted Tom’s views of humanity, just as the citizens of Dogville had perverted Grace’s personal dogma of forgiveness and mercy? Tom considers himself a philosopher, yet finds that because of Grace all of the philosophies he has held himself by have become corrupt. He expresses internal concern about his ability to restrain himself over his animal urges in regards to his physical manifestations of love towards Grace.

There are several scenes/themes that solidify a reading of Tom being the true victim of the film: He is the only one to be truly ‘tricked’ by Graces naivete and innocence. He is the only one to express intellectual desire in her, yet when the time comes to express their love physically she turns him away, yet becomes “trance-like” and “routine” with the other town member’s physical abuses of her body. She is the factor that brings out the worst in Dogville, something that Tom had no idea about—though he began as a realist, he had no idea what the townspeople were truly capable of. Tom was the only one that did not put Grace to work, but instead gave her breaks, visited her at night, and gave her special treatment (likewise he was the only one killed by Grace directly); Grace could have saved him at the end of the movie, yet decides to execute him herself (possibly the most obvious and concrete example backing this analysis).

I was just trying to find a different reading than the usual one for this film, and found this one to be pretty accurate as far as textual evidence.

Thoughts on this theory of the film? Any other examples you can find for/against this reading? Am I just grasping for straws here?

@Brentos

It’s been a while since I’ve seen this, but I did see it twice, thought, wrote and discussed the film with friends. With that, I’m not too sympathetic with the reading that Tom is a victim. I recall the reading of Tom that seemed the most compelling was a satirical depiction of a liberal—i.e., a person with many humane and liberal values, but without substance and integrity (There might be even echoes of Bill Clinton). I’m not entirely convinced of this reading. A part of me feels like the film is a hodge-podge of different ideas and issues involving America—liberal-conservative politics; Old and New Testament Christianity, critique of capitalism and violence, etc. I feel like the film lacks an overarching and coherent vision and the ideas come across as half-baked. (That’s just my impression, though.)

Besides that, I disagree with some of the specific reading of Tom:

He is the only one to be truly ‘tricked’ by Graces naivete and innocence.

My memory is fuzy about Tom or the townspeople being tricked or not, but I’m not sure Grace’s naivete and innocence were an act. She might have been aware of true nature of the people, but I’m not sure she used that trick anyone.

He is the only one to express intellectual desire in her, yet when the time comes to express their love physically she turns him away, yet becomes “trance-like” and “routine” with the other town member’s physical abuses of her body.

Are you implying that Grace should have responded to his physical advances positively? She didn’t have those kinds of feeling for him, right? And didn’t he then try to force himself upon her? As for the trancelike response to the others seemed like a coping mechnanism. I’m not sure what you’re implying: are you saying that she that she was harsh to Tom, while she actually accepted (or wecolmed?) the sexual advances of others? (I’d strongly disagree with that reading, if so.)

_She is the factor that brings out the worst in Dogville, something that Tom had no idea about—though he began as a realist, he had no idea what the townspeople were truly capable of. _

I don’t think Tom begins as a realist. He’s naive and clueless, imo. (Are you implying that Grace is to blame for the way the Dogville citizens treat her?)

Tom was the only one that did not put Grace to work, but instead gave her breaks, visited her at night, and gave her special treatment (likewise he was the only one killed by Grace directly)

And those acts, which would normally commendable, are reprehensible in this context. If he really believes in the ideals he trumpets earlier in the film, he shouldn’t just be nice to her—he should try to get her out or at least show signs of remorse.

Grace could have saved him at the end of the movie, yet decides to execute him herself (possibly the most obvious and concrete example backing this analysis

If you go by my reading of Tom as satirical portrait, then this ending indicates a kind of appropriate justice (at least from the film’s point of view).

“omigod its so overrated and kitschy”
heh

Senses of Cinema:
In Dogville (2003), Lars von Trier took cinematic allegory to its logical conclusion and reminded us that it can be (and should be) complex, subtle, dialectical, real and open to multiple readings.
Dogville has been frequently compared to Thornton Wilder’s Our Town, but it reminds me more of the brilliantly complex allegories of Nathaniel Hawthorne and Herman Melville. In many of their tales, it is obvious that the characters represent specific ideas, but when we begin to read the tales on an ideological level, their meaning cannot be determined with any certainty.

I would lose the victim stuff as a reading. You might download the subtitles and read – it is a brilliant piece of work.

01:15:33 —>
She would probably have done things like those that had befallen her if she’d lived in one of these houses,
to measure them by her own yardstick as her father put it.

01:18:05—>
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.

The reading I like is that the story of Grace represents finding a moral imperative.
In the beginning grace was provisional, she became desired, she became lost, she became wanted, but she was never destroyed. I think LVT is saying that grace is within us, necessary to us and is an act of the will.

Tom didn’t deserve to die at the end, so I guess in that sense he’s a ‘victim’, but for the rest of the film he’s clearly pretty awful.

Tom never really cared about helping Grace, he cared about casting himself as the shepherd of the town. He could have at any time tried to steal the truck and get Grace the hell out of there. Instead he didn’t offer: He subjected her to continued torture so he’d still have his chance to be the morally superior one. And then why did he turn Grace in, thinking it was to her death? Because he was worried he might do something to sacrifice his moral superiority.

Although I tend to think Grace is closer to Von Trier’s perception of liberals than Tom. Infinitely forgiving of evil, hostile toward those who are not.

I went on a rant about Insufficient Justifcation in another thread a month or two ago. So either search that thread or wikipedia it. That’s what I think really explains the townspeople’s behavior.

Hey, Dogville may be overrated, but it’s not at all kitschy.

@Robert

The reading I like is that the story of Grace represents finding a moral imperative.
In the beginning grace was provisional, she became desired, she became lost, she became wanted, but she was never destroyed.

I don’t get the link between being provisional and moral imperative. Do you mean if she had the strong moral stance she arrived at in the end—at the beginning of the film—she would not have been “provisional?”

I think LVT is saying that grace is within us, necessary to us and is an act of the will.

I think that’s interesting, but is there a way to harmonize this view with Old Testament and New Testament allusions—e.g., the Big Man behind the curtain, “Grace” (NT), the dog named Moses barking at the end, etc.? I think one could make a fairly strong case that Grace is a Christ-figure—she bears the sins and wrongs of the people—sacrificing her body. But at the end, she transforms into the Christ the judge (the Second Coming), not Christ, the Redeemer.

I think these allusions are in the film, but, again, a part of me feels like LVT throws all this stuff in there without bringing them together in a unified or coherent whole.

Btw, having just re-watched Nashville, I think Dogville has a simliar scope, ambition and subject matter. My feeling is that Dogville isn’t as good because the ideas seemed half-baked and they don’t coalesce into a satisfying whole. In any event, I think comparing the two would be interesting.

@Jirin

Tom didn’t deserve to die at the end, so I guess in that sense he’s a ‘victim’, but for the rest of the film he’s clearly pretty awful.

Given the feelings you expressed about Tom, I’m surprised you feel he didn’t deserve to die.

Because he was worried he might do something to sacrifice his moral superiority.

Doesn’t he keep her there because he “wants” her, too? Later, wasn’t he bitter that she resisted his advances?

Although I tend to think Grace is closer to Von Trier’s perception of liberals than Tom. Infinitely forgiving of evil, hostile toward those who are not.

I think both characters can be seen as liberals. Grace is the liberal that becomes a conservative. What is the saying about liberals and conversatives? A liberal supports the rights of criminals; a conservative is a liberal who was mugged. (I’m messing this up big time, but hopefully you know what I’m talking about.)

Thank you for the responses!

@Jazz

Tom does not ever try to force himself onto Grace, however he does strongly express that he wants to make physical love to her, which in her battered state she refuses and says something along the lines of “if you treat me like everyone else then you can do what you want to me, otherwise we won’t be making love” to which Tom refuses, albeit reluctantly. She also tells Tom that they can only truly make love in freedom, a point which I think she realizes, but perhaps not Tom due to his moral singularity and optimistic nature, can never happen.

She escaped Georgetown and went to Dogville to find freedom from the atrocities that occur in the city, only to find the same things happening there. Ergo, she assesses that there is no one place that it is free (or that all places are equally free, depending [not taking into consideration the events of Manderlay])

I believe that Tom, while not innocent, could still be viewed as a victim. While Grace is a victim of the physical torment of Dogville, Tom is rattled intellectually, finding all of his core beliefs to be misconstrued or altogether false. Grace is obviously a victim intellectually as well, though in a different way, as she changes her definition of “mercy” and “forgiveness” at the end of the film. Tom on the other hand is left dumbfounded and bewildered at the end of the film, left with nothing to even say but “do you mind if i use this as inspiration for my novel?” Likewise, earlier in the film Tom finally begins to write, using Grace as an inspiration for the first chapter of his book.

(Are you implying that Grace is to blame for the way the Dogville citizens treat her?)

To an extent, yes. While at the end of the film she decides to destroy the town to show mercy on any other helpless person that this could’ve happened to, her presence in Dogville is ultimately what causes the citizens to act this way (to our knowledge, Liz was never treated the way Grace was before her arrival, yet is extremely attractive and clever herself. is this simply because she is native? or are there other reasons?)

The reading i’m implying is not that Tom is the sole victim of the film, but that he is in some ways as victimized as Grace. Tom having lacked the resources and worldliness Grace had, ultimately perishes.

@Jirin

It’s explained by Tom that he can’t help Grace because by the time the events become “out of control” Tom will have been killed or turned in for harboring Grace as a fugitive by the other townspeople, which is why he is forced to submit and allow all of the tortures endured by the woman he loves. I don’t think this makes him awful, but sympathetic and weak. Certainly he is not admirable, but victimization and admiration are not synonymous.

As a disclaimer: I hope that this reading doesn’t seem like i am viewing women as less-than, or that Tom’s plight is worse than Graces because it clearly isn’t. I merely noticed on this viewing that I sympathized with Tom’s character much more than I had when I had seen the film previously. As their love can never be, and as Tom proved untrustworthy to Grace by keeping the # and calling the gangsters at the end of the film, perhaps Grace kills him as a way of showing him mercy and finally setting him “free?”

Again, I didn’t exactly choose the subject for this analysis, merely looking for a somewhat original topic, so I’m trying my best to go with what i’ve got to work with. I very much appreciate the feedback.

@Robert

I have a copy of the script but have yet to read it, but i will be doing that!!
also, Senses of Cinema sounds like a great source. Thanks!

Comparing it to the writings of Hawthorne and Melville is a very interesting approach, but makes total sense.

I distinctly remember von Trier on the DVD commentary referring to Tom as the ultimate evil, which is why Grace kills him herself in the end.

@Brentos

Tom does not ever try to force himself onto Grace,…

OK, that sounds right. Still, there is something creepy and lascivious about Tom’s behavior, though.

Ergo, she assesses that there is no one place that it is free (or that all places are equally free, depending [not taking into consideration the events of Manderlay])

What point were you making here? (Btw, the romanticized view of rural people and rural life is also another Americanism.)

I believe that Tom, while not innocent, could still be viewed as a victim.

Let me ask you something: what is the point of seeing Tom as a victim? Are you suggesting that the film wants us to feel sympathy for him? If so, I don’t think that at all—just the opposite in fact. At the same time, I’m not sure Grace is a very sympathetic figure, either. In the end, her “grace” towards the townspeople seems built on naive view of the people—and she quickly turns to judgment and retribution. In fact, there really isn’t any sympathetic figure in the film.

I understand that the Von Trier and the film upset American critics. In a way, I do think one could read this as a harsh critique or diatribe against the U.S.

…, Tom is rattled intellectually, finding all of his core beliefs to be misconstrued or altogether false. Grace is obviously a victim intellectually as well, though in a different way, as she changes her definition of “mercy” and “forgiveness” at the end of the film.

I don’t necessarily disagree with this, but I think calling them victims doesn’t really fit. (Who are they victims of?) Tom is naive and pretty vacuous. He’s not a serious intellectual or a leader with character—although he acts as if he is both.

To an extent, yes. While at the end of the film she decides to destroy the town to show mercy on any other helpless person that this could’ve happened to, her presence in Dogville is ultimately what causes the citizens to act this way…

Whoa, this is not how I remember the film. What does Grace do to justify the behavior of the townspeople? (From what I remember, her biggest “crime” is that she puts the townspeople in danger because she’s hiding from her father.)

I think Von Trier would laugh uproariously if viewers interpreted Tom as a victim … because Von Trier is (ironically I suppose) tricking the audience into feeling sympathy for this character just as Tom himself is ‘tricked’ by Grace (though I also think that Tom rather tricked himself – for all his ‘book-learning’ he’s impressively daft in many ways). As previously mentioned by others on here, Tom is a pseudo-intellectual. If anything, he’s a victim of his own daydreaming. Tom is the ‘moral guide’ (though, not really, but I’ll let that interpretation pass for now…) at the beginning of the film because, before Grace’s appearance, Tom was unchallenged. He regards her refusal of his advances as a challenge. He was never in love with her; she was a conquest. Tom is a hypocrite and to find sympathy in his character is laughable and exactly what Von Trier was trying to say with this film. I’m not a huge fan of this film, but for that, I applaud him.

Also, it’s not Grace’s fault that the townsfolk of Dogville are incapable of coping with her presence. They’re naive themselves; Grace is actually much more streetsmart than she is initially portrayed (as proven by the ending). She adopts an innocent demeanour so that she doesn’t seem out-of-place amongst them.

SoS:
…but when we begin to read the tales on an ideological level, their meaning cannot be determined with any certainty.

I think ideologies only go so far Jazz – so yes she has attributes of the Christ figure, but then she kills someone.

Everyone:
Tom isn’t tricked by anyone. Remember all this is an allegory supposedly about the USA. Aren’t Americans a bunch of do-gooders who eventually fuck everything up?
If you think Grace is tricking someone, show me where that is in the script.
Grace’s character transitions:
01:18:05—>
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.

USA USA USA !!!

Tom was angry that Grace resisted his advantages because to him, he was playing the role of the protagonist who was supposed to win over the woman’s heart.

@Jazz

I believe the saying is “I liberal is a conservative who’s been unemployed, a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged”.

Tom could also be seen as a liberal, but not in the sense that I think Von Trier sees liberals. I don’t think Grace makes the transformation from liberal to conservative so much as ‘Bleeding heart liberal’ to ‘Radical liberal’.

What Grace does in no way justifies the behavior of the townspeople, but her tolerance of their mild flaws sent them the signal that their behavior was okay. So, they stripped away the socially mandated decency and acted on their true nature, knowing they would not face any resistance. Remember the montage of rednecky cities at the end? Von Trier is saying “These people behave this way because we tolerate it.”

I dunno. I’ve been reading Roberto Bolano’s book ‘Nazi literature of the Americas’, where he writes a lot of biographies of fictional Nazi writers. Some of them are hardcore Third Reich people but a lot of them are more moderates who just happen to have very intolerant viewpoints, and all I’m saying is, some of those more moderate people remind me of Lars Von Trier.

haha Jirin none of ideology carries through in the film.

I think SoS got it right and therein is the genius of the film – no ideology can be carried through – LVT thwarted that to make a complex picture of the US ethos: no certainty,
Yeah, we’re Christians, but don’t count on tolerance. Our views are multivalent, but they don’t always add up to what is right. We think we are different than everyone else, but that is a unsustainable moral imperative; hence, Manderlay.

…but when we begin to read the tales on an ideological level, their meaning cannot be determined with any certainty.

I think the complexity is why it shows up on Carney’s Selected Masterworks of Film Art

More precisely, the conflict of internal morality with external reality. Grace’s morality depends on the basic decency of others, and has no alternative to deal with people who just aren’t decent.

That is sort of a catch-22 of American morality. You can’t have pluralism without accepting everybody whether you like them or not. Von Trier sees moderation as weakness (EUROPA), so Grace has to either accept everything or accept nothing.

See, it’s that either/or analysis that makes the film something it is not or less than it truly is.
Grace has to either accept everything or accept nothing.

She saves Moses doesn’t she?
01:26:24,760 —> 01:26:26,760
Grace was the first to recognize it. It was Moses. His survival was astonishing.
A miracle. No, just let him be.They will have spotted the flames in Georgetown by now.
Some one’ll come and find him. He’s just angry because I once took his bone.

Here’s the moral imperative of Dogville.
01:11:24,295 —> 01:11:26,760
Father: The only thing you can blame is circumstances. Rapists and murderers may be the victims, according to you. But I, I call them dogs, and if they’re lapping up their own vomit
the only way to stop them is with the lash.

Grace: But dogs only obey their own nature. So why shouldn’t we forgive them?

Father: Dogs can be taught many useful things, but not if we forgive them
every time they obey their own nature.

@Jazz
Whoa, this is not how I remember the film. What does Grace do to justify the behavior of the townspeople? (From what I remember, her biggest “crime” is that she puts the townspeople in danger because she’s hiding from her father.)

This argument doesn’t really hold up unless you use Liz as a foil to Grace, in which Grace’s presence in the town does cause a sense of unease and bring out the worst in them. Whether this is Grace’s fault i’m not sure, but by her just being there, the townspeople show their “true colours.” Grace doesn’t do anything in particular, yet the townspeople do these things as a sort of black mail to her, even though they don’t show any intent of ever actually turning her in (save Tom). Liz is the antithesis to Grace; she is essentially what Grace was looking to become when she left Georgetown for Dogville, but soon learned that she would never be the sweet, unassuming rural girl.

What point were you making here? (Btw, the romanticized view of rural people and rural life is also another Americanism.)

Indeed, this may be the most overt Americanism of the film, and it proves the romantic rural life to be just as harsh and gritty as street life. The point i was making on this one is that Grace leaves Georgetown and goes to Dogville looking for freedom—because of her romanticized view on rural life, the same view that Chuck once felt himself—only to find a harsh reality. In her search for freedom, she was instead enslaved and abused by what she believed would make her free. Likewise, she set Tom free by executing him, which could been seen as her final act of vengeance against Dogville, her final act of ‘mercy’ or ‘grace’ to the citizens of America, or her final act of love to Tom (or all three).

@Robert

The dialogue between Grace and her Father is the most unique scene in the film, in that it shifts the tone so dramatically for that small but very important conversation. And yes, it is very allegorically and thematically heavy to the whole film, so i will be using that.

@MissMedia

I am trying to go from the source itself and not much more, so i am trying to not include what the director has said about the film outside of the film, i.e. interviews, director’s commentary, etc. (but i suppose i will watch the directors commentary after this project, if i’m not completely tired of this film by then _{_})

@Jirin

Tom was angry that Grace resisted his advantages because to him, he was playing the role of the protagonist who was supposed to win over the woman’s heart.

Yes, i find this completely accurate. Tom sees a very romanticized view of himself that he wants Grace to see in him as well, but can’t.

This is exactly what I was looking for. thank you. I suppose i’m going to be losing the ‘victim’ angle altogether. I wanted to see a victim in this film, but after these discussions it seems quite impossible. Although, I do not find the film anti-American per se. Being from Ireland and living in America I feel gives me a perspective on how Europeans view Americans, especially since the Bush administration, and i don’t see anything in this film that i’ve seen expressed by people in that area, although i haven’t been to Scandinavia, so their views on America could be much different.

I’m going to re-watch the film again tonight with these perspectives in mind, and will probably have more to add.

@Robert

Those quotes support my ‘Grace reinforced their behavior by tolerating it’ hypothesis.

She may have saved the dog, but she killed the children. Those children may have treated her just as badly as the adults, intentionally getting her in trouble and making a game out of the town’s treatment of her, but in their situation they are just as innocent as the dog, just following the adults’ lead. Sparing the dog seemed like Grace reverting back to her core nature.

She has the moral imperative of the external reality understood, but at Manderlay finds it unsustainable and too complicated to implement because of internal morality.

01:27:20—>
Whether Grace left Dogville or on the contrary, Dogville had left her (and the world in general) is a question of a more artful nature that few would benefit from by asking and even fewer by providing an answer.
And nor indeed will it be answered here!

@Brentos

This argument doesn’t really hold up unless you use Liz as a foil to Grace, in which Grace’s presence in the town does cause a sense of unease and bring out the worst in them.

Shoot, I can barely remember Liz. But how does the film set her up as a foil? Are you saying that Liz becomes part of the community without disrupting it; therefore, this makes Grace culpable for the way the townspeople behave? Again, I can’t recall anything that Grace does that justifies their treatment of her, so remind me if there is anything.

The point i was making on this one is that Grace leaves Georgetown and goes to Dogville looking for freedom—because of her romanticized view on rural life, the same view that Chuck once felt himself—only to find a harsh reality. In her search for freedom, she was instead enslaved and abused by what she believed would make her free.

OK. And I mostly agree with this. Reading this and Tom’s fate, just makes me feel more strongly that film targets both characters as objects of derision. When I first saw this film (twice), I didn’t think it was only a critique on America, but thinking about the film—what I remember—makes me feel like the film is filled with scorn and contempt towards America/Americans—at Tom—the vapid and ineffectual liberal (fie on you liberal-Democrats who didn’t stand up strong enough to Bush!); Grace, the equally vapid, do-gooder liberal who turns conservative (fie on all you liberal-Democrats who supported the Iraq War!); and the townspeople, representing the venal, bloodthirsty (supporting the War) general public.

If this indeed is a proper reading of the film, the film would diminish in my eyes.

Regarding whether Tom deserves to die: I suppose maybe by the internal logic of the film he does, but my personal judgment is that the only justification for killing somebody is to prevent future loss of innocent life.

Regarding Grace disrupting the town: At the beginning she did not. She was accepted happily, and at that point in the film, she was thought of as a member of the community. Their thought process: “She’s helping out but not that much, the only explanation is that we really like her.” Then, they saw the poster that said she was ‘Extremely dangerous’, and suddenly the risk of keeping her became more apparent.

At this point, here is what happens: Grace suggests “Maybe we should take another vote on whether I can stay.” Tom vetoes that and forces his will on the situation: Grace stays, but she serves everybody on hand and foot. Suddenly, they weren’t keeping her because she was helping out: For that the reward did not justify the risk. Their attitude became “We’re risking our lives for this, that entitles us to compensation,” because that is the way Tom framed the situation.

If Grace had tried to leave right at that point, they would have let her. If Tom had not forced his will on the situation, the town would have continued to behave by their mask of decency, and not resorted to their true nature.

Regarding the film as a poke at the US:

I don’t really see that metaphor being specifically applied to the US, I think he’s satirizing archetypes of people he observes in general.

“I don’t really see that metaphor being specifically applied to the US”

Even though it ends with Bowie’s “Young Americans” played over photos from Holdt’s American Pictures?

Even though it ends with Bowie’s “Young Americans” played over photos from Holdt’s American Pictures?

And…

…the staging and set design recalls Our Town
…Tom is Tom Edison Jr. (while his father is also in the film—allusion Bush I and Bush II?)
…idealism of rural life, allusions to Christianity,

@Jirin

Regarding whether Tom deserves to die: I suppose maybe by the internal logic of the film he does, but my personal judgment is that the only justification for killing somebody is to prevent future loss of innocent life.

But suppose the Tom is a satirical and mocking portrait and the killing part of the symbolic criticism—and darkly comic, perhaps. (Another scene like that—the one from Robocop where Robo guns down the executive(?).

At this point, here is what happens: Grace suggests “Maybe we should take another vote on whether I can stay.” Tom vetoes that and forces his will on the situation: Grace stays, but she serves everybody on hand and foot. Suddenly, they weren’t keeping her because she was helping out: For that the reward did not justify the risk. Their attitude became “We’re risking our lives for this, that entitles us to compensation,” because that is the way Tom framed the situation.

And don’t the townspeople claim that they’ll help someone in need? Again, I feel like the film is mocking the townspeople and indirectly criticizing America.

Btw, reading your description made me thinking of immigration issue in our country. The film could be mocking the way we take pride in accepting anyone into our country. It seems to be saying. “Yeah, you’ll accept them if they provide cheap labor or other economical benefit. But once that stops, screw you.”

Eh, that’s true, but I don’t think what he says applies any less to Europeans than Americans.

I think the X factor in the immigration debate is that America’s got all these entitlement programs, and immigrants who don’t work will fall back on them by default.

It’s more like “Yeah, we’ll accept you so long as you pose no risk or financial threat to us.”

@Jirin

Eh, that’s true, but I don’t think what he says applies any less to Europeans than Americans.

In point of fact, you’re probably correct. But does the film also take the same view? I sense not—i.e., the criticism seems primarily directed at America/Americans.

It’s more like “Yeah, we’ll accept you so long as you pose no risk or financial threat to us.”

The film’s bottom line: the openness to immigrants—and, as a country, we are more welcoming and inviting than other countries—is based strictly in terms of economics—not altruism or noble principle. In other words, the film mocks the notion of a caring nation; it wants to knock our pride in this down a few notches. Anyway, that’s one potential reading. (I’d have to see the film again—because I don’t recall feeling like the film was this anti-American.)

The bottom line of the film to me had more to do with criticizing liberals’ tolerance, which he deems arrogant, of the behavior of the far right. I don’t get the sense it’s directly about immigration. Because, pro-immigrant feelings really are of an altruistic nature, it’s just that altruism is trumped by fear and economic stress.

@Jirin

Sorry. I meant to say the “the film’s bottom line with regard to the immigrant issue.” I don’t think immigration is the main point of the film (although I do think it could be part of its critique of the U.S.).

Because, pro-immigrant feelings really are of an altruistic nature, it’s just that altruism is trumped by fear and economic stress.

Throughout our history, they may been seen as a positive economic asset, too—e.g., cheap labor that could be exploited; military conscripts; the U.S. economy has also benefited from well-educated immigrants (see WWII). But even seeing ithem in this way is dehumanizing.

Well, I’ve seen the film two days ago and decided to pick the latest of similar threads on the film to write a few words. I’m strongly with Jazzaloha on Grace being a Christ figure. Why is the film called Dogville as there is only one dog, that happens to be named Moses? Why all they die and only Moses is left alive? Also, it’s Moses that first meets Grace, when she enters town. Here the story is even darker than the Old Testament story, as even the children die, by their mother not meeting the test. Main theme of the film is light. Grace (the Divine light) vs. Tom Edison (the artificial light), who tries to replace the lacking priest in town. The Divine light they obviously lost, it’s only the blind man who remembers it. Most allusions in the film are quite direct, even the end:
“Whether Grace left Dogville or on the contrary Dogville had left her and the world in general..”
but given the scarce theatrical decor they fit perfectly. And the choice of this theatrical decor is also justified – there is no natural light in the film!

To me, one of the best von Trier’s films (I still favor Melancholia though, due to its extraordinary psychological power).

t’s interesting to see Tom as victim, the defeat of his idealism, but i’m still inclined to see it more as a critique of liberals found wanting, come to the crunch- too concerned about keeping the peace and mediating than standing up for the downtrodden against oppression. i remember black work colleagues telling me at least they know where they stand with the National Front, and there was more than enough evidence of “liberal”- minded people not living up to their own proclaimed standards, unwilling to go outside a comfort zone of their own self-image, and so the (more obvious) baddies triumph.

Readings of the film may take a different twist with Trier’s later infamous Nazi comments but i still see it as a leftist critique of religious hypocrisy and bigotry, applied here to the US- with the rise of rightwing fundamentalism- but also applicable to other countries, so many being anti-immigrant.

And it’s not just the Bushes of this world: Obama is no victim, in my mind, even if some policies he wanted to implement have been scuppered. What hope is there when the poor and ideals are betrayed by those purporting to represent them? The Democrats have been Republican lite, in UK Labour went New Labour, i.e Tory, and resentment of powerless and abandonment felt by the working class has been exploited towards bigotry and scapegoating – of the wrong targets. Republicans are ruthless in their Republicanism, Tories in their Tory-ism- yet the liberals kowtow to big business and the media and fail to make a stand.

I’ve had very mixed reactions to Trier but admire Dogville- its striking form as well as content, and Kidman is excellent (now i understand she has some struggle with facial expression due to faceliftitis, but that’s another issue)

On the religious front- as mentioned above, the film represents the altered and artificial nature of so much organised religion, divorced from and totally twisting the source. Much of Catholicism and what the pope stands for as well as US Rightwing Fundamentalism for me are a complete perversion of Christ’s message to the point that were he to return he would probably end up being executed after a spell in Guantanamo, or similiar crucifixion-type outcome, at the hands of the rabid professed “Christians”. The message of religious perversion of original source can be extended beyond Christianity of course. In the face of 21st century trends, Dogville is right not to be mealy-mouthed.