maggiecat

I watched DOGVILLE. Much fuss is made over Lars Von Trier being a misogynist. I keep thinking a director as intelligent and as talented as he can't simply be in it for the thrill of treating his female characters cruelly. But you watch DOGVILLE, and put it with his other films DANCER IN THE DARK and BREAKING THE WAVES, and it's hard not to wonder why is it he constructs his films around female protagonists who suffer as they do. Bjork said she'd never act again after DANCER. And Nicole Kidman was too "busy" to continue working with Von Trier after DOGVILLE. I myself almost walked out of DANCER when I saw it. How much cruelty can you watch a character take before you write off the storyteller as having a sick fascination with matyrdom? Who wants to watch that?

If misogynist fantasy was all he had to offer, then I suppose the answer is "no one." But the thing with Dogville is that while Kidman's Grace suffers all sorts of cruelties, in and of herself she is rather opaque. And she offers little resistance to the men who come to abuse her and use her. And it struck me that what disturbed me--as a man--was watching the pathetic and sad male characters. There is not a single positive image of male desire in the film. The cruelty to Grace is not the cause but the effect of the twisted and warped ways in which men channel their desire.

Did you know Von Trier's production company (Zentropa) also makes porn films? It's how he pays for movies like DOGVILLE. I would imagine he's also directed a few porns, though that's only speculation. The point being that sex and the facsimile of desire are not far from his mind. By day this man greenlights films that feature all manner sucky-fucky, films that work to sublimate male aggression and desire into socially acceptable forms. Then by night he scripts films that deconstruct and investigate the vagaries of that desire...in what I might add are beautiful films, with excellent performances by talented actors and actresses.

Speaking of performances, Paul Bettany was the revelation. I never got tired of watching his character. His scene with Kidman on the bench when they reveal their feelings to each other is just heartbreaking and sad. He plays Tom with simple thoroughness and naivetee. Lauren Bacall proves you can give that woman the directions on a bottle of shampoo and she can make it interesting to watch. And was not Ben Gazara's revelation to Grace that he is in fact blind a tour de force? The depth of his feeling in that moment threatened to drag the whole film down with him into his heart's abyss.

In the end, though, I thought DOGVILLE tried to say too much. The film had me hooked for the first hour or so, until Von Trier decided he had some Big Ideas he needed to express and all the character work that these amazing actors had been giving him went out the window. Von Trier trusts his heart to a point until his fear of cheap sentiment outweighs his need to disburden himself. Then he begins moralizing in ways he would never tolerate in his own characters.

BREAKING THE WAVES is a more succinct example of this tendency. Emily Watson in her role gives him 110%. The she gets the door prize of a cartoony ending that does a dissservice to what both she and Stellan Skarsgaard had fought to achieve all film. That's how I feel about the ending of DOGVILLE. But what do I know? Maybe Von Trier is just smarter than I am. And maybe a good old fashioned revenge tale is all he wanted to tell.

If you haven't seen ZENTROPA or his mini-series THE KINGDOM, then do so. In ZENTROPA he follows his instincts to the very gut-wrenching end without flinching. And THE KINGDOM allowed him to indulge his impish nature without obligation to express a Big Idea. Both films are thoroughly satisfying and leave no aftertaste.

Did I mention I admire his work and consider him one of the most talented directors alive today? Just so you know where I stand.