Dogville

Hated the hell out of this, and the fact that this was a staged act made it so boring and uninteresting.I couldn't even bear the torture of watching this till the end.The story they were trying to paint was nice but ,,it hurts dat they couldn't even get a real dog,they just had to draw a dog on the floor and 😩😩

Dogville-720P

Dogville-480P

source: Dogville

Lars Von Trier has attempted to create an new version of Bertolt Brecht's DER GUTE MENSCH VON SEZUAN (Good person/woman of Szechwan) centered on a different moral compass. While Brecht was focused on the corrupting nature of capitalism, von Trier focuses on the corrupting notion of being American. The is a lot to be honestly critical of in the United States, arrogance, ignorance and indifference among them. Traditionally critical works have focused on the institutions - corporations, criminals, government etc. This movie argues that the American people themselves are fundamentally rotten. Every character in this movie is a liar, rapist and/or thief. The one pure character learns from her experiences with these people by closing off her humanity and becoming a mafia kingpin. On all accounts this should be a brilliant movie - technically inspiring, amazing performances from a compelling cast. The writing is excellent. What undermines the film is this disgusting vile story that does not offer constructive criticism or moral parable, but only anger and disgust. This film is a direct attack on the character at the centre of the American society - small town America. There is no good in von Trier's America. There is no hope. There is no joy. Do not watch this film, there is nothing to be gained.

Excellent acting, excellent narration, unusual sets, etc. Might have worked if the story wasn't so weak and the characters so shallow. I suppose that such 'bold' film making might appeal to fringe art types who will no doubt gush about the various nuances that I am too unsophisticated to pick up. It is also possible that there are some aspects of the weak, manipulative characters in the film that might appeal to those who find their 'entertainment' in causing the needless suffer of others. It simply didn't work for me. I consider this a 3hr waste of time. Watched the whole thing to see if would ever redeem itself - and it didn't. Threw the DVD in the garbage.

This movie is not the best I've ever seen, and probably not as good as "Breaking the Waves". But I left the theatre astonished, shocked, sad, confused, and a bit angry with the director, for being so cruel (and true?) in portraying human behaviour with vulnerable people, for using no props, for forcing me to watch the characters in their eyes and facial expressions 'cause there was nothing to draw my attention away. But this movie deserves to be seen, because that's what an artist is supposed to do, to share a bit of his thoughts and views, without giving answers, but arousing emotions and questions: and it has probably more right to be than other blockbuster movies sold by studios with nothing but what people like to see in it.

This movie seems to be fairly well reviewed on this site, which is surprising since it is absolutely dreadful. Lars Von Trier, an interesting director without question with some very good films under his belt, decided to make a movie like a play, or something like that. So all the characters act out this movie pretending to open doors and walking around chalk outlines intended to be furniture or whatever. I have no idea what the point of this gimmick is. If you want to do a play, then go ahead and do a play. I have no clue what Von Trier was thinking with this abysmally boring movie. It is three hours of lifeless, self-indulgent nonsense. I've heard the movie is somehow supposed to be anti-American; I didn't get that. Perhaps I didn't notice that theme because I was too busy wondering aloud how a movie with such a good director and great cast could suck so remarkably. I'm American and I more or less detest the present course the United States is on as much as the next reasonable person, but if this movie is trying to say something about America or society or the state of nature or anything else remotely deep or interesting, then I'm afraid whatever theme it's going for is completely undercut by the fact that the movie is interminably boring. This is nothing more than a three-hour gimmick. I implore you not to waste your time. If you sit through this entire movie, you will end up weeping for three hours of your life irretrievably lost for nothing.

I agree with those who say this film is a disappointment. Funny, I watched this the same day I watched "Tree of Life." Within 5 minutes of Tree I knew I would love it, and I did. Within 5 minutes I knew I would hate this film, and I did. But not for the story, since I hadn't seen much yet, but for the, as the French say, mise en scène. It was a theater piece, but if I want to see a theater piece, I can go to the theater. But, unfortunately, it got worse. The acting was too theatrical except perhaps from Kidman. The story was numbing in its non development. First the town people help her, then they demand more for some nonsensical reason (it costs double to protect her), then Tom's solution is absurd. Then they turn to sadistic tortures, physical and mental, but it's not really punishment. Unbelievable for a film that takes 3 hours to tell. And of course the cruel finale that shocked many. Some have said that this could be an anti-Jewish film. Could be, but I see it more as a modern version of Sodom and Gomorrah. Grace is Abraham and at first wants to save the town, before the revealing light of the moon convinces her to have it destroyed. Whatever, this film is not worth the trouble thinking over long. It is not, clearly, a brain teaser like Mulholland Dr or Tree of Life. It is pseudo intellectual at its finest, like other films by this director, like the equally mediocre Melancholia. Final note, while watching this I didn't think it was especially anti- American, but once the end credits started rolling, it was a shock to hear Young Americans and to see images of poor Americans. Then, and only then, I thought that this piece is anti-American, and I believe it is. The song itself is anti-Americana at its best. Then I thought that the cheap set might reflect the idea that American life is seen as cheap and artificial, compared to the real, authentic European life. In any case, I can't recommend this film. It is over touted like most, if not all, of von Trier's films.

***Spoilers*** Let me start my review by saying that this film accomplishes what most filmmakers hope for when they begin the mountainous task of creating one: it provokes and engages the viewer's mind. I will not review the film's plot because prior posts have amply covered the many questions that are presented and only partly answered. This was an unforgettable film for me even though I do not accept its ideological foundations. One of the subtextual layers of the film involves what I see as a severe criticism of the film industry as a whole. I'm sure that most readers are aware of Lars von Trier's grievances. In many ways, the things he has said about modern cinema ring true. How many times have we viewers left the movie hall, after watching the latest blockbuster, shaking our heads? The special effects may have astounded us, but the characters seemed petty and one-dimensional, or even worse, a GLORIFICATION of all that is bad about our culture. I emphasized the word "glorification" in the previous sentence because I do not believe that a film should ignore the bad - just that it shouldn't make the antagonist the hero. The moving picture was invented by Thomas Edison. Because of him, we have the gift of film. Dogville begins with a father/son duo named after this famous inventor and it is here that I detect a critique of contemporary films. The younger Tom struggles to come up with a story; he wants to create something of value but he can only manage a meager three words. He walks around Dogville wanting to help its citizens, but he cannot relate to their situations. He, unlike them, does not have any financial worries because he lives with his father, Thomas Edison Sr., who brings in a comfortable pension. Tom the younger is living off of his father's success. (Edison Sr. represents old Hollywood and is presented in a kinder light than the other town residents - i.e., he does not molest Grace.) Ineffectual in influencing his culture, young Tom is the first to recognize that Grace, played by Kidman, is a gift. He introduces her to the townspeople. Grace is accepted by the townspeople and for a while all are content to share in her sunshine. But then, the benefactors begin to long for a greater exploitation of Grace. Through Tom the younger's mediation, they seek more "balance" from their relationship with Grace. No longer interested in her goodness and humanity, they want physical gratification at her expense (and ultimately Tom's). Tom eventually goes along with them and is corrupted himself. (Tom, representing modern cinema, panders to them by wooing Grace even as he furthers her captivity. He gives them the equivalent of the gratuitous sex scene, car chase, or mass explosion with resulting body count.) Grace leaves Dogville and, in the spirit of the Dogme manifesto, decides that the world would be better off if the current societal malaise were eradicated, along with all of the money and capital of the modern film industry. Hence, Grace provides the coup de grace to young Tom.