Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2004 12:22 pm
Dogville
Well, firstly let me just say that everyone (well, everyone who is old enough) should see Dogville.
It's hard to describe what the film actually is. Is it a modern parable or fairytale? Is it a film that simply condemns human nature? Or is it a film that inspires humans to reach up and be the best that they can be? Is it artistic nonsense that will only appeal to film school students? Or is it cutting edge drama that will hook everyone?
It's actually all of these. There's certainly a message in the film, but it's not quite clear what the message is.
It is artistic nonsense? Actually I think some of it is. The minimal sets take a while to get used to, and only really result in a couple of pay-off shots. While these shots are effective, I have to question the decision to film the whole film this way. It's a shame, because the lack of a physical set will undoubtedly put a number of people off as soon as the film starts. A shame, as the minimal dressing means the viewer's attention is automatically fixated on the actors and the dialogue. And this acting and script is the pinnacle of the filmmaker's craft. While the film is three hours* once the initial introductions are complete and the narrative takes over you will be gripped and the rest of the movie will fly by.
However the film is not "entertainment". Like the Passion of the Christ, the film has been created to be uncomfortable viewing – it needs to be if it is to have the impact desired, and in many ways it is most disturbing to watch.
I hate to say this, but I think Nicole Kidman is the weakest link in the film. While the ensemble cast is superb (and contains some surprisingly famous acting legends) Nicole doesn't quite hit the mark for me. Throughout here whole performance seems a little too monotone to me. I accept this may have been an artistic choice, but her performance never really reaches the extremes of emotion the part seems to demand.
I'm going to paste a link to the IMDB listing, because I want people to read about this movie and even if this post convinces one person to see the film when they otherwise wouldn't then I'll be happy.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0276919/
Oh, and Lars Van Trier's "Dancer in the Dark" is worth seeing too, for the same reasons.
(* With PAL speedup it was 2 hours 50 minutes.)
Well, firstly let me just say that everyone (well, everyone who is old enough) should see Dogville.
It's hard to describe what the film actually is. Is it a modern parable or fairytale? Is it a film that simply condemns human nature? Or is it a film that inspires humans to reach up and be the best that they can be? Is it artistic nonsense that will only appeal to film school students? Or is it cutting edge drama that will hook everyone?
It's actually all of these. There's certainly a message in the film, but it's not quite clear what the message is.
It is artistic nonsense? Actually I think some of it is. The minimal sets take a while to get used to, and only really result in a couple of pay-off shots. While these shots are effective, I have to question the decision to film the whole film this way. It's a shame, because the lack of a physical set will undoubtedly put a number of people off as soon as the film starts. A shame, as the minimal dressing means the viewer's attention is automatically fixated on the actors and the dialogue. And this acting and script is the pinnacle of the filmmaker's craft. While the film is three hours* once the initial introductions are complete and the narrative takes over you will be gripped and the rest of the movie will fly by.
However the film is not "entertainment". Like the Passion of the Christ, the film has been created to be uncomfortable viewing – it needs to be if it is to have the impact desired, and in many ways it is most disturbing to watch.
I hate to say this, but I think Nicole Kidman is the weakest link in the film. While the ensemble cast is superb (and contains some surprisingly famous acting legends) Nicole doesn't quite hit the mark for me. Throughout here whole performance seems a little too monotone to me. I accept this may have been an artistic choice, but her performance never really reaches the extremes of emotion the part seems to demand.
I'm going to paste a link to the IMDB listing, because I want people to read about this movie and even if this post convinces one person to see the film when they otherwise wouldn't then I'll be happy.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0276919/
Oh, and Lars Van Trier's "Dancer in the Dark" is worth seeing too, for the same reasons.
(* With PAL speedup it was 2 hours 50 minutes.)
lol.
