The Film 'Manderlay' as Told in Eight Straight Chapters

source: The Film 'Manderlay' as Told in Eight Straight Chapters

source: The Film 'Manderlay' as Told in Eight Straight Chapters

I find it interesting to note that many critics have expressed an outrage against this film because its director, a man who has never been to this country due to a fear of flying, has dared to paint a picture of America that we may not like. It's funny, because for the past 100 years of film-making, American cinema has taken liberties with criticizing other cultures and presenting racial stereotypes left and right without batting an eye (and even awarded such films either on acting or directing, etc.). Most recently, THE LAST SAMURAI presented a portentuous and condescending Tom Cruise teaching a samurai of all people how to be... a samurai! Now we cringe and scream when a Danish director brings a movie that touches on a part of our history we'd rather not touch? It's interesting though. I went into MANDERLAY only for its Brechtian concept and nothing else. Not having seen DOGVILLE, I can't opine in terms of how does this compare to its predecessor. It did take me a little to get into the swing of the story, but once I got past the gigantic blueprint that was the mise-en-scene, even though the story kept changing tones from a straightforward epic to an erotic drama and back again and John Hurt's voice kept resembling Anthony Hopkins' in BRAM STOKER'S Dracula, I was hooked. However, I never got the sense of history being perverted in the name of anti-Americanism in watching the events of MANDERLAY unfold. Nor did I begin comparing it to America's attempt to bring democracy to Iraq. What I did get, though, was a sense of watching a much different version of the Shirley Jackson story "The Lottery" in which a woman, in trying to do a right, gets stoned by a ritual that has no true meaning but is there because of something called the Stockholm Syndrome: where people have come to accept their situation and do nothing to change it. Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) kept giving me data that she was like Tess Hutchinson from that short story -- idealistic, quick to act, and innocent of her surroundings. She is the younger version of Mam (Lauren Bacall), who at first seems to be the victimizer but is later revealed to be the victim. She's thrown into the battlefield of Manderlay, trained much like Patty Hearst, until one day Manderlay exposes its ugly teeth and comes out to bite her in the last ugly chapter. And this is what I believe is the theme of MANDERLAY: in trying to do a right, one person unleashes a flood of wrongs because there are people who do not want to be taught. Lars von Trier has presented in this film a sharp but exacting allegory of human nature that is not meant to be take literally but is aimed at the thinking audience.

If you find this at all disturbing, don't see this movie!! http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4866458 I know the typical responses to this post are unavoidable...Yes I eat meat. Yes I know that people kill animals to survive in some cultures (poverty stricken America in the 30s) but there is NO reason to do so for "art" and "entertainment". its disgusting. I find scenes of animal hardship hard to watch in any movie, but usually say to myself "it MUST be a fake dog" or "that has to be a special effect". Well no trick photography here folks. I can't see how anyone with a heart can watch this movie knowing that the scene is real. People use the "art" card to justify anything immoral.

After being blown away by the cinematic masterpiece that was "Dogville", I eagerly anticipated the follow up. The anticipation however was thwarted. Firstly Nicole Kidman and James Caan did not reprise their roles. I am not sure as to the reasons why, maybe they had busy schedules, maybe they were too scared to commit to another Lars picture? There was also no media buzz around "Manderlay" which was disconcerting as it seemed that nobody thought it worth a mention (despite being nominated at Cannes). Secondly, it's arrival in the UK came with a whimper. In it's first week it only showed at no more than four cinemas in London. By it's second week, only one. I also have not heard about screenings outside the city. However I managed to find a screening and was about to enjoy what everybody else seemed to be missing out on. This was not to be. Firstly Bryce Dallas Howard can not act. She played Grace as an ignorant, arrogant and self-righteous spoilt brat. Now these were the criticisms of her character in "Dogville", yet Nicole Kidman made her into a sympathetic American heroine. Bryce was not this. To add insult to injury, the script was so corny and over-sentimental it seemed just as well that Nicole didn't have to speak such crap. The use of actors from "Dogville" (Jeremy Davies, Chloë Sevigny and Lauren Bacall) in different roles was an excellent idea, however they just weren't used enough. It felt like they had just been borrowed from their break during the filming of "Dogville". The whole film feels like it was filmed alongside "Dogville". The spark, the effort and the originality is lacking from "Manderlay". It's a terrible shame as this film has all the makings of a great story. The performances from the slaves are outstanding considering their acting backgrounds (Blossom from "Eastenders", Aunty Pearl from "Family Affairs" and Llewella Gideon from "The Real McCoy") as they manage to hold their own alongside Danny Glover. however the film focused on Grace's plight and not theirs. That was the central mistake of the film. For by the time the film ends, what should have been shocking and heartbreaking (and even offensive) becomes about Grace's own plight. The film ends with a nasty taste in the mouth but not as bitter as the one in "Dogville". What should have affected me deeply left me scrambling for the exit in time to catch the last train home. It is therefore no surprise that the final part of the trilogy "Wasington" was announced as on hold as of 10 February 2006. Whether this will remain so is uncertain as it seems Lars' great idea has extinguished. In my opinion, start something new. "Dogville" was a masterpiece, that is enough.

Despite the fact he has never set foot in the United States director Lars von Trier thinks he knows everything about the country, its history and its people. Here he presents a film which is utter nonsense. Which might not be so bad if it was at least entertaining, inoffensive nonsense. But instead what we have here is a movie which is excruciatingly boring and a message which is downright shameful, not to mention dishonest. The blatant anti-American agenda makes it impossible to take this movie seriously. This movie will offend you as an American. And if you're not American, that's OK because this movie's racism will offend you as a human being. Blacks are portrayed as being helpless and stupid, destined to be forever completely reliant on whites to survive. If you're white? Well of course it is your fault that all blacks are helpless and stupid. Somehow von Trier has managed to make a movie which will have people of every race decrying its racism. He just threw a bunch of trash at the wall to see what sticks and the stench ends up covering everyone involved with this film. If you can somehow look past the ludicrous message and think that this could at least work as a reasonably compelling movie you'll be disappointed on that front as well. This overly pretentious film goes on and on but nothing of any interest ever seems to happen. Forgetting the offensive nature of what is being presented the fact is this is simply a terribly boring, incredibly flawed movie. Most of the acting performances leave a lot to be desired although that probably has a lot to do with the hideous script. The movie is saddled with a narrator who simply refuses to shut up. The minimalist staging whereby most everything from doors to buildings to gardens are not actually there but instead represented by chalk lines indicating what should be there wears thin. Simply put, nothing about this film works. It's a movie which is unlike pretty much anything else you've ever seen so I suppose you could give it credit for being unique. Unfortunately it's uniquely terrible. And if you manage to sit through the whole thing as the credits roll you get the final ultimate insult as von Trier presents a bunch of photographs of poor, homeless black Americans sleeping on sidewalks. Because of course all blacks are poor and helpless. Although seeing multimillionaire black actor Danny Glover's name pop up in the credits during this sequence would seem to undercut that message. Most African-Americans are not obscenely wealthy like Glover. But if he ever actually came to this country perhaps von Trier would notice that most African-Americans are not homeless bums either. And in case you haven't figured out his agenda by now interspersed with those photographs von Trier throws in a photo of one George W. Bush. Because even though this is a film set in the 1930s von Trier just wouldn't feel whole if he couldn't contrive to get in a shot at Bush. Because there were certainly no homeless people during the Clinton years. And there's never been a white homeless person. Ever. Surely Bush makes for an easy target but come on now anyone with half a brain can do better than that. After sitting through this garbage I think saying he has half a brain might be giving von Trier way too much credit.

Its an opera about human weakness. It goes down into the spine as a hard punch. Though-provoking, ground-breaking, sometimes pretentious, but not in a flattered intentional way. Its a grower like Dogville was when it was once released. If you cringe at first, you have enjoyed the movie. It makes you think(and think carefully) about the deep-raw-growing feeble state of the human ego driven behavior. Be ready to develop a strange but healthful fear, a reasonable fear for society. Europe has delightful directors, but Lars von Triers is even more then just directing good skills, he is a philosopher and he knows how to make amendments on his ideological status.

I recognize I will be immediately outed for being American... But this film is total garbage. I should clarify that I love every other Von Trier film I've seen, Dogville happens to be my favorite. I am anti-Bush and anti-war like every other person with a brain in their head, so nobody give me any haughty European attitude about my country's regrettable foreign policy. All that being said, it feels like this film was written by a precocious fifteen year-old who just found about out all the history "they didn't teach you in schools". Von Trier's snappy I- bet-you-didn't-know-that approach to history in post civil war America in laughable, (I went to public high school in the south and none of this was shocking to me) and if he thinks he is turning any heads about the Iraq war I offer that the only people who watch this movie are liberal-minded intellectuals to begin with. Not that preaching to the choir can't be easily confused with rallying the troops, but please spare me the claims that this film is either "important" or "brave", look to his past films to fulfill these claims. Dogville was delicate and artful, difficult but justified, frustrating but ultimately powerful and a valid "important" statement about all of our (especially the artist's) roles in society. Manderly is a ham-fisted jab at "america's" "underbelly" that will certainly leave you sore, but probably not in the way it was intended to.

OK, let's get this over with. I didn't like Manderlay to not even a close degree as I liked Dogville. First and foremost, I just don't think Bryce Dallas Howard is any good in this. Oh sure, she's playing the female-heart-of-steel character Grace as her interpretation, but there's just something, and I do think it's physical, that she lacks. (She actually looks elfish in this role). I'm not saying that Kidman is the ONLY actress that could play this role.. Let's see, Emily Watson, Reese Witherspoon, heck even Sharon Stone (ok, maybe I'm pushing it a bit there) could have done it. On the same note, why they would choose Willem Dafoe, normally a fine actor, don't get me wrong, to replace James Caan is beyond me. The story, about a Southern plantation which is full of freed slaves not too sure of what to do now that the Patriarch (who is played by Lauren Bacall, which actually is the one brilliant in-joke of the movie (or the second, as Udo Kier and Jean-Marc Barr return as Mafioso thugs from Dogville). This story is tries to get down to the bottom of racism in America, but just becomes a bit of a silly preaching statement with a somewhat ridiculous revelation in the end. I sure hope this series redeems itself with 'Wasington'. Hey Lars! Here's an idea! Get Lauren Bacall to play Grace this time out! Wouldn't THAT be interesting!?

I was expecting something very inferior to Dogville, which is, but i forgot that it did not need to be as good to be great. Again, one or another person (many of them not very bright) will say that it's only anti-American crap, but, again, it's more, way more than that: a brutal critic to the idealism which recognizes no national barriers and can be applied to any ideology, without any exception that i know; Communism/Socialism and Christianism specially comes to my mind; Grace could be seen as the socialist leader who brings the Marxism and releases the workers (the slaves) from oppression of the bourgeoisie (Mam and her family), or the priest with the word of God to the savages (again the slaves), and punishing the sinners (Mam and her family one more time). The weak point is that aesthetically is not close to be as interesting as his previous film, and i think that Trier knew it and so the style is not so important here. Bryce Dallas Howard delivers a great performance, and does not try to imitate Nicole Kidman, but create her own vision of the character, like they were 2 sides of the same person. In my opinion, this one is only edged by Dogville in Von Trier's career.