Dogville (Lars von Trier, 2003)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Message
Author
User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Dogville (Lars von Trier, 2003)

#51 Post by therewillbeblus » Fri Mar 13, 2020 8:05 am

True, the appearing self-sacrifice that really is also self-focused due to an itching ego needing to be appreciated or anxious of social validation. Same. This also begs the question of - does Grace have any more ‘value’ or is she better than these townsfolk for inhibiting her own ‘impulses’ and Hobbesian nature, or is blindly following in complacency just as bad/make her share responsibility for what transpires? If all men and woman are equally devoid of true moral grounding (that twisted humanism) is she protecting herself from producing as much net harm (at least for a while) under the blanket of an ideology or just another self-serving thin mechanism? Not exactly the most comfortable question to ask the audience to sit with!

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: Dogville (Lars von Trier, 2003)

#52 Post by colinr0380 » Fri Mar 13, 2020 1:52 pm

Especially when the audience is kind of celebrating Grace's revenge too, even when it equates broken porcelain figures to the equivalent number of children in a family being shot!

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Dogville (Lars von Trier, 2003)

#53 Post by therewillbeblus » Fri Mar 13, 2020 2:09 pm

Yeah, I think it's a celebration of the realization of moral relativity, and freedom to embrace one's choice to act in judgment rather than the hiveminded suppression the townspeople engage in when acting in their natures. They are hiding behind ideology as is Grace, to polar extremes, but in the end she strips herself of her chains (literally and figuratively) and takes responsibility for that immoral part of her, choosing to act publicly and with confidence. The people of Dogville continue to diffuse responsibility and refuse to be accountable or aware of this part of them, and so they are weak for it and treated as such by the filmmaker and exposed by Grace. A complex idea of self-actualization to say the least, and while seemingly nihilistic, it's actually quite apt as taken as a metaphor for one's ability to grow to accept their own desires and actions, leaving space for cognitive dissonance and emotional reactions as valid and natural along with those of a spiritually-aligned consciences, not mutually exclusive and bearable to face as its own kind of inevitable crossroads in which to find resilience, empowerment, and personal growth.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Dogville (Lars von Trier, 2003)

#54 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:55 pm

For those who are sleeping on this because of the German intertitles, even though there are no advertised English subs, they actually do exist as an option only for the translation of the chapters, which is all you really need so that annoyance becomes a moot point

Rupert Pupkin
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 9:34 am

Re: Dogville (Lars von Trier, 2003)

#55 Post by Rupert Pupkin » Tue Mar 17, 2020 11:07 pm

therewillbeblus wrote:
Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:55 pm
For those who are sleeping on this because of the German intertitles, even though there are no advertised English subs, they actually do exist as an option only for the translation of the chapters, which is all you really need so that annoyance becomes a moot point
oh, nice found! I think that - like some Blu-Ray - it's not on the menu or pop up menu, you have to go in the subtitles option of your blu-ray player and select these subtitles which will only work for the intertitles (on some blu-ray/movies those subtitles doesn't work for dialogues but translate a letter or a telegram - when shown on the screen - a name location, etc...

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Dogville (Lars von Trier, 2003)

#56 Post by therewillbeblus » Wed Mar 18, 2020 12:17 am

I forgot just how pivotal Tom's character functions as the sly variable that most blurs the facade of logical into the reveal of emotional. He initiates the rationalization for the townspeople of quid pro quo, but in spite of his disguise of objective reason it all comes from a place of needing to be seen in his self-imposed role of the intelligent philosopher- and hopeful leader- of the group, one that he fails at in every way. So his own pathetic emotional fragility masked as the least animalistic party becomes the catalyst of harm. He rejects his own urges that may defy his morality in a physical sense, but he hides from responsibility just as much as the others, culminating in a nonchalant justification of outright lying about taking the money and illogically defines himself as her protector. The best trick this film pulls is on peeling back the onion layers for the audience is that we are seeing the play frequently with Tom as our surrogate empathizer and yet he is engaging in as much dissonance as the louder and dumber rapists and abusers, and so a well-developed person we can identify with in critical thinking, kindness, and apparent perspective, is also selfish and solipsistic at heart.

This irony to "the man with the moral mission" combined with the untethered compassion for Grace nudges the viewer as capable of moral compromise while acknowledging that this empathy (Tom's, Lars', ours) is not fake regardless of contradictions. Much like his other work, it's not a damnation but a didactic call for sobriety to human nature, the good and the bad, and a humanism that doesn't believe in strict morals rigidly defined by God but a relativist personal set governed by oneself. Part of the deal with that is we can judge but those judgments are our own and no better or worse than others, value assigned by the individual marker even if the behaviors considered flawed are objective. So if Grace decides to make a grand move later on, well she is justified to herself, and maybe to us, but that says more about us and our parameters for catharsis via subjective justice than what any God wants (no wonder Tarantino loves this movie). Grace's ease at forgiveness and placing herself on an ethical pedestal as Caan calls her out on at the end makes her more like Tom than we thought, just with opposing confidence. It's not supposed to be impartial tit-for-tat, but an anti-morality play that takes nihilism and levels the playing field completely to transparently declare all the messy truths about human behavior and psychology, not only allowing but declaring that we are our own judge, jury and executioner. No one deserves anything but they don't necessarily not deserve it either.

Rupert Pupkin
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 9:34 am

Re: Dogville (Lars von Trier, 2003)

#57 Post by Rupert Pupkin » Wed Mar 18, 2020 12:44 am

I remember when I saw it in theaters; I was totally mesmerized. I think that there is a lot of dark humor with the bondage-doggy scene kind of a clin d'œil to Luis Bunuel Belle de Jour or Tristana. This was one of the last great Nicole Kidman movie (at the same time, I had seen at the theaters Eyes Wide Shut, then The Others, and.... "Moulin Rouge"... "Nadia" came later (I love this movie); but was filmed before)

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Dogville (Lars von Trier, 2003)

#58 Post by domino harvey » Wed Mar 18, 2020 12:46 am

”Nadia”
Do you mean Birthday Girl?

Rupert Pupkin
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 9:34 am

Re: Dogville (Lars von Trier, 2003)

#59 Post by Rupert Pupkin » Wed Mar 18, 2020 4:15 am

domino harvey wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 12:46 am
”Nadia”
Do you mean Birthday Girl?
yes that was the French title for the movie in theatre in France, with Ben Chaplin, Vincent Cassel and Mathieu Kassovitz with their absurd Russian accent... I thought that Nicole was lovely as a gothic brunette. And I love the hand job sequence... :oops:

Post Reply