I watched Dogville tonight--what a piece of ugly swill. Von Trier really seems to hate women--not to mention the US. Woman escaping from gangsters arrives in a small American town where she has to "persuade" everyone to like her so she can hide out. Her one ally is the handsome guy who finds her escaping and he gives her advice as to how to win over everyone. She befriends each but as the gangsters seem more and more eager to find her the townspeople start to show their true colors.
This is the first of his movies that I've seen the whole of (although I watched and loved the first year of his tv series The Kingdom and liked (less) the second year of it).
If you'll remember, I started to watch Breaking the Waves a few months and after twenty minutes could not continue--it was just too damp, clingy, depressing. Next to him Bergman's a comedian. Anyway, this is the first I've seen of his "Dogma 95" films: a group of Danish directors who subscribe to the philosophy of paring down the settings to almost bare stages, very plain camera work, and doing everything possible to prevent the viewer from getting totally involved in the movie as another world.
Which I admit I don't "get"--why would I want a movie to seem as if I'm not watching a movie. I'm sure he and his fellow Dogma followers have brilliant philosophical reasons but for me it's the antithesis of cinema. Anyway, I don't really want to see any more of his movies.
To cleanse the palate I watched the mindless, fast-moving Bourne Supremacy with a really neat car chase in the last 20 minutes and Brian Cox, Joan Allen. I probably should have started with the first Bourne movie but I could figure out what was going on. Oh yeah, and Frankie Potenta (who was great in Run, Lola Run looking anorectic in this one was in the first 20 minutes.
Nicely entertaining.
This is the first of his movies that I've seen the whole of (although I watched and loved the first year of his tv series The Kingdom and liked (less) the second year of it).
If you'll remember, I started to watch Breaking the Waves a few months and after twenty minutes could not continue--it was just too damp, clingy, depressing. Next to him Bergman's a comedian. Anyway, this is the first I've seen of his "Dogma 95" films: a group of Danish directors who subscribe to the philosophy of paring down the settings to almost bare stages, very plain camera work, and doing everything possible to prevent the viewer from getting totally involved in the movie as another world.
Which I admit I don't "get"--why would I want a movie to seem as if I'm not watching a movie. I'm sure he and his fellow Dogma followers have brilliant philosophical reasons but for me it's the antithesis of cinema. Anyway, I don't really want to see any more of his movies.
To cleanse the palate I watched the mindless, fast-moving Bourne Supremacy with a really neat car chase in the last 20 minutes and Brian Cox, Joan Allen. I probably should have started with the first Bourne movie but I could figure out what was going on. Oh yeah, and Frankie Potenta (who was great in Run, Lola Run looking anorectic in this one was in the first 20 minutes.
Nicely entertaining.
From:
no subject
There are movies I refused to see when I was young because I'd read things about them that made feel they were really anti-female. Two examples were Liquid Sky and Straw Dogs--which both reportedly had really nasty rape scenes in them. I finally decided to watch Straw Dogs and thought it was very good and much more layered than I'd expected. Maybe one of these years I'll see if I can track down Liquid Sky.
From:
no subject
It took me a really long time to get around to seeing it. What got me interested ultimately was my wife telling me stories about how her dad had helped Peckinpah cheat at school. So we rented the movie and watched it together.
It was kind of eerie how much Dustin Hoffman's character resembled my father-in-law. Not so much physically, but emotionally and behaviorally.
It added a very -- interesting -- layer to the film.
It was a helluva movie.
With Von Trier, I just feel vaguely implicated in his squicky crypto-fetish. (The end of Breaking the Waves is offensively stupid -- she suffers horribly, horribly for her husband until she finally dies at which time he's miraculously recovered and then giant bells toll in the sky to show god's great approval. Fuck you Lars. Fuck you.)
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
For me, I think, what's really digging into my ribs is the deck-stacking he does to achieve his effect.
'Cause I loved Greenaway's Baby of Macon, and it covers not wholly dissimilar territory. But then, Greenaway likes for all of his characters to suffer horribly. And to be naked. A lot.
From:
no subject
Lucius has tried to persuade me to watch Dancing in the Dark or at least the musical scenes....
From:
no subject
The Baby of Macon is pretty universally reviled. It has -- as far as I know -- no distribution anywhere in any format. For some reason, people get touchy about dismembering infants, I guess. I don't think it was ever screened in the US at all. I've only ever seen a bootleg which came -- I think -- from an Italian VHS edition.
I'm not sure if it's more well known for the graphic infanticide, the full frontal Ralph Fiennes and Julia Ormond or it's vicious anti-church politics.
If you're interested, I could probably find a way to get the bootleg to you...
From:
no subject
I also found Prospero's Book dull.
I've got some of his short movies in my netflix queue.
I would be interested. I've heard nothing of it.
From:
no subject
Do you have a VHS player? I can just send you the copy I got. I've since managed to find a digital copy of it. Elsewise I can probably make a DVD of the digital version.
(I don't even have a VHS machine anymore)
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
If you'd still like me to send you a copy, I'll be happy to.
Just e-mail me the where-to at
voidmonster (at gmail.com).
From:
no subject
Just emailed you with it.
Thanks!
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
i'd forgotten about 'liquid sky,' which i haven't seen since i was a child.
and, now that i think about it, i can't even remember much of the film, nor how i feel about it.
.
'straw dogs' does have a very difficult rape scene, and it does bear peckinpah's typical scornful attitude toward women... and i've always found his idea of masculinity to be tiresome, at best, and often rather oppressive.
but i still find it a masterwork of american cinema.
From:
no subject
I was surprised. The fact is that none of the characters are admirable. The Dustin Hoffman character is an asshole who treats his wife like a simple child (to be fair, she behaves like a spoiled child. She has no life of her own and will not allow him to work because she's bored and he doesn't pay enough attention to her).
Before seeing the movie, I'd always been under the impression that viewers/reviewers felt she "asked for it" (the rape, that is). She certainly was being deliberately provocative (leaving the upstairs curtains open and parading around half naked) but this to me seemed obviously aimed at the guy with whom she had a "history." And it can certainly be argued that she was enjoying the sex with him--although the other guy was most definitely raping her and she was NOT enjoying it.
So we've got some contradictory stuff going on here.
What I found interesting is that the DVD packet blurb says that her rape lead to the siege of the house. This is so wrong that it makes me believe whoever wrote it hadn't seen the movie. No no no. Dustin Hoffman doesn't even know about the rape. The siege is a direct result of him rescuing the retarded guy from the mob. Duh. Anyway, this whole protection of an "innocent" is nicely ironic, because we the viewers know that the David Warner character did kill someone, even if it was an accident.
So all in all, I'm glad I finally got around to seeing it.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I sincerely hope that the writer's strike killed the remake that was happening. The impression I got from the guy that was optioning it to direct was that he specifically felt the rape scene was 'in poor taste' and it needed to fixed.
For me what's working so very well in that film is that it trots out damn near all of the ugly quasi-justifications for rape and puts them in orbit around that scene and then lets the ugliness of it shoot down all of them. There was a real tendency in films of the era to feature rape as titillation. It seems to me like Straw Dogs was the squeak of that faucet being shut off.
It's odd that I hadn't thought of it until now, but there's a scene in a more recent movie that provides a fascinating counterpoint. Claire Denis' Trouble Every Day has a scene that is strangely similar, but with the gender roles reversed. It's got the distinction for me of eliciting the most interesting audience experience of any thing I've seen. I won't fully describe what happens, but it's a moment that the film leads up to, and you know it's going to be something bad and then it's kind of worse than you imagined, but it's erotic at the same time. At the time I saw it, I hadn't seen the footage of the Milgrim experiment, so I was a bit taken aback that there were people in the audience laughing at what I was seeing. Later on, I saw the Milgrim stuff and I recognized the laugh of the guy who thought he'd just killed a man.
And supposedly Trouble Every Day is where Vincent Gallo stole the prosthetic penis he used in The Brown Bunny, or at least that's what Claire Denis says.
From:
no subject
You've gotten me to add Trouble Every Day to my queue.
From:
no subject
I am stunned that Netflix has Trouble Every Day. It's even the same edition I got. The description they have up at Netflix is... Um... Amusing.
I would describe it as a vampire movie (and Vincent Gallo even looks exactly like Vlad Dracula in it) with a Tindersticks soundtrack. It's not strongly narrative though, it kind of meanders through a thin veneer of story.
You'll probably want something fun and straight-forward to pair it with.
From:
no subject
Thanks for the warning.