WHEN CINEPHILIA GOES BAD!

A dissertation on Lars Von Trier's self-hatred and inability to connect with humanity

(... but he's still smarter than you are.)



After my many comments on Nathaniel R.'s post about Manderlay that had basically nothing to do with either Dogville or Manderlay I am now going muse on the subject.

Dogville is brilliant and I'll tell you why. It completely deconstructs the film medium in a unique and alienating way. I mean, say what you will about the shaky camera or the chalk outlines, Nicole Kidman flashes those viperous blues at you and your sold. Von Trier makes his "stagy" concept work stylistically if not totally successfully.

Because even if you HATED Dogville, which many people did, you have to admit that it looks great. It's a good-looking movie. Even if you personally don't feel like looking at it for an extended period of time.

Okay. So we agree, love it or hate it, Dogville is nice-looking. Now think for a second... when was the last time someone did this? And did it in a way that actually worked (i.e. at least looked good).

Borderline NEVER. I mean, I think maybe Peter Brook's Marat/Sade but even that film's ardent dedication to the text's original medium (theater) was still fudged using the concept of a "play within a play". So even that film could be interpreted as a theatrical stab at realism.

Point being. Von Trier did something that NO ONE (unless I'm forgeting something) has done. He created a film based in a world of theater.

People assume that this is Brechtian and immediately get resentful. I think people say Dogville is "Brechtian" because it looks like theater and they remember that Brecht at one point did theater.

It's deeper than that. More ingenius than that. No doubt Dogville is alienating (anyone who's seen it will agree) but anything can be "Brechtian" if it causes you to be self-reflective as opposed to empathetic. Besides the characters never directly address the audience, right? There's no fourth wall in cinema so there's nothing to break. So how do you achieve the alienation effect in film when its practically impossible to violate the viewer/film connection?

Von Trier figured it out. He tricks us into thinking we are watching theater. The actors commit to every action and emotion as if they were real but the set, props, and all the physical elements are crude (as they would be in the theater). So Von Trier tricks us into suspending our disbelief when, in cinema, we shouldn't have to.

The viewer/film bond in cinema is close to that of the sleeper/dream. You really surrender yourself when you sit down to watch any movie. And when you surrender yourself to Lars Von Trier he presents a world to you that you cannot help but hate.

You hate it because it doesn't feel real and yet everyone is acting like it is. You hate it because he's using the classic cinematic device of narrator in a way nature probably never intended. You hate it because you are being forced to watch what seems to be a good person be raped.

Von Trier is, first and foremost, a sensualist. A feeler. A lover. He is not a philosopher. Political strategist. Moralist. To me, he is like an infant god who senses injustice and maliciously lashes out at his viewers who are both his targets and his worshippers. Everyone is out to get him. Everything is disgusting and pointless. He'd be a nihilist if he could just stop feeling. The only solution is make the films that seek to destroy people's sense of morality (which is what makes us human in the first place) as well as the viewer's sense of safety.

MAKE MOVIES! THROW SOMETHING ON THE SCREEN! MAKE THE BASTARDS SEE WHAT THEY'VE DONE TO THEMSELVES! (cue the Radiohead)

This is where I feel he's flawed Von Trier. He doesn't quite bring the whole thing home because he's (in my opinion) not really sure what he wants to say. So he says it all. Loudly.

But what ends up happening is that as a viewer you are already on shaky ground with LvT so when he lashes out at your values and morals by caricaturizing them on top of subjecting you to endless examples of violence and sin, you feel like you have NOTHING to fall back on. It's like "Dude, I didn't rape anyone. Stop it."

Or did I? This is the crucial missing link in Von Trier's experiment. The frustration at the artist never transfers to a genuine frustration with yourself which, of course, brings us back to the idea of Brecht and what all that means. If the aim of alienation in art is to force the viewer to be self-reflexive rather than a passive witness, then you have to leave him/her with something to anchor themselves in. If you eviscerate their morals along with their transgressions, then you spiritually bankrupt your audience into hating you.

And the only reason you'd do that is if you don't like yourself. Hence Dogville. The only reason to do the whole thing again making the exact same mistakes would be because you really don’t like yourself. Hence Manderlay. LARS! Don’t take it out on us! SHOW US THE WAY!