To paraphrase David Denby, David Denby has lost it. The New Yorker’s movie critic now notorious for doing really idiotic things and then writing about them in excruciating detail didn’t like Lars von Trier’s Dogville, calling it, without irony, “avant-gardism for idiots”Slate reviews the reviews of Dogville.. But the movie isn’t just bad, according to Denby, it’s immoral:
The movie is, of course, an attack on America—its innocence, its conformity, its savagery—though von Trier is interested not in the life of this country (he’s never been here) but in the ways he can exploit European disdain for it.
The “of course” in the above sentence settles it, then. I was going to argue for raising the bar a bit before calling something an attack on America, maybe even as high as, I don’t know, a medium sized office tower and a commuter turboprop, but “of course,” all you need these days is a social critique denuded of any possible specificity (just look at the set), minimalist to the point of being illustrated literature, making claims about the nature of free will and moral responsibility that apply universally, including the US. The fact that American society can suffer from innocence, conformity and savagery like the rest of us is clearly an attack on American exceptionalism, unless, “of course,” it’s David Denby berating Americans for taking their children to see Mel Gibson’s savage The Passion of the Christ a few weeks earlier. Because, you see, David Denby is an American, and obviously Lars von Trier is not. Want to see something scary? Take a look at the demographic divergences in IMDB voting patterns for Passion. Check out that under-18 female vote (8.8!), but especially the discrepancy between US and non-US voters (8.0 vs. 6.7) — it must be one of the widest ever. (I certainly didn’t find a movie that generated a more disparate reaction.)
Dogville, in the end, is an abstract, aesthetic indictment of old-testament justice, while The Passion gut-wrenchingly preaches the new testament’s “turning the other torso.” When Denby’s done with them, however, it’s “attack on America” versus “tacky America,” and choosing the lesser of those two evils is child’s play. Of course.
Preface: I have seen neither Dogville or the Passion of Christ. That said, I think the telling quote of Denby’s Dogville review is:
“What Lars von Trier has achieved is avant-gardism for idiots.”
The fact that you seem to like the movie gives the ring of truth to this assertion. I remember sitting through Dancer in the Dark, praying they’d hurry up and hang Bjork just to make her shut the fuck up and stop fucking singing. I’m sorry, attacking small-town America, and in fact “small town morality” anywhere, is a meme, perhaps even a trope, that is so past its sell-by-date — like the washing up in Withnail’s apartment — that NASA may be investigating it for similarities to the Primordial Ooze from which life may have emerged. It’s just the most obvious straw man I can think of to knock around and score easy points against. The film sounds just terrible, a real ordeal. I’d like to say I will go see it in order to pass judgement on it, but i’ve decided i won’t, i may miss something good on telly, like a “Footballers’ Wives” repeat, or something on gardening on BBC2 — “When Good Topiaries. . . go Bad” perhaps. What I’ve seen of Lars von T so far is simplistic hand wringer’s pap.
What is an “aesthetic indictment of old-testament justice”? Criticism of the over-indulgent use of color in Joseph’s coat? Substituting Kosher Rock Salt for Morton’s in the tale of Lot’s Wife? Demanding tartar sauce with those loaves and fishes?
(OK, that’s New Testatment, but you get the point)
Nah, you commenters just don•t get it. Stefan maybe does, since he appreciates Triers• genius.
Lars von Trier really is one of very few european now active filmmakers to qualify for the Genius title.
Since european filmmakers don•t have the budgets to compete with the americans, they have to make up certain rules to work within.
Hence Dogma. Make art out of poverty.
Hence strange Björk musical. Make art out of a genre restriction.
American movies, which I generally hold for better than others, tend to be about adding effects to make the unbeleivable beleivable.
Triers’ later movies are about reducing the effects.
How great a lie can I make the audience want to believe without the realism of the ordinary set?
That is what Trier is all about nowadays. It•s not so much about storytelling, or flag-waving anti-americanism. Those parts are just the MacGuffins of art.
Pardon the Swenglish and spelling, by the way!
it may be the new yorker, though, that does weird things to film critics. check out David Denby’s reviews in new york magazine. they were great. when he went to the new yorker i was glad that my favourite mag had hired my favourite critic so i wouldn’t have to suffer any more Anthony Lane’s drivel. but not so. the deterioration was quick and painful to watch, the low point of ridicule reached in the review of fight club in which he proclaimed that him playing the violin in the privacy of his own home was a revolutionary act.