Sunday, June 3, 2012

Dogville (2003)

Dogville presents a challenge to the sophisticated viewer. The challenge is how much of a given rhetorical situation can rest on concept alone and still be convincing.  Of course, there is no way of taking the director and audience out of the equation.  There is, however, a direct sense of purpose, though very little context enriching the purpose.  As a result, the film has a concept and purpose, but little context.  The character of the film's direction and the manner of its reception are thereby asked to suspend the quest for sophistication.

The film opens with narration and an overhead view of a sound stage where the "places" are represented only as chalk outlines.  Grace (Nicole Kidman) wanders into Dogville one evening, apparently on the run from gangsters.  The town is left to decide, several times in the film, whether she should be allowed to stay, and at what price.

The themes are ready-made.  Intolerance, suspicion, jealousy, ignorance, and a fear of the many run the gamut.  Director Lars von Trier makes little effort to hide how these themes constitute his idea of America and the American national identity.  In fact, as the credits roll at the end, we listen to Bowie's "Young Americans," and watch unflattering pictures of America (for example, one of Dorothea Lange's pictures of the migrant mother).

Additionally, in one of the town meetings, Liz Henson (Chloe Sevigny) asks Thomas Edison Jr. (Paul Bettany) "Are you for us or against us Tom?"  The question is simply whether Tom commits to identifying with Dogville and its people, and by extension, whether he identifies as American.

What is striking about these themes is how they present an idea of America, that is, an idea alone.  Von Trier has never been to America and so his conception must rely on ideas rather than experience, at the very least, for the sake of integrity.  It is as if von Trier's two films on America (Dogville and Manderlay) are conceptual remakes of D.W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation and Intolerance.  The overwhelming difference is simply that Griffith sustains an immanent critique, while von Trier remains an outsider.

The fundamental concern with viewing the film then becomes one of how to take a wholly external view of America under these projected themes.  And the question is valid even if one has never been to America or identified with it.  Hence, though Ebert did not like the film, he had the wherewithal to ask rhetorically if a David Spade movie was any closer to being an accurate look at America on account of Spade being American.

If the American viewer sympathizes with von Trier's take, there are at least several grounds for doing so.  From a conceptual standpoint, anyone might have to ask to what extent these themes are at play in forming a national identity--American or otherwise.  Another possibility is that the thematic content is already something Americans are self-conscious of as being part of their national identity, and so they are not a stretch to consider.  A final reason may be that Americans desire the bare bones approach to the uglier side of their history.  Perhaps they welcome the reminder of core issues precisely because their own view has become too sophisticated.

IMDb rates this film 7.9 stars out of 10
Film 101 rates this film 4.5 stars out of 5

Other films in von Trier's oeuvre include Breaking the Waves, Dancer in the Dark, Melancholia, and Europa.