Dogville

Lars von Trier's Dogville (2003) is a pessimistic study of human behaviour. It tells the story of a woman who decides to hide in a small town after being chased by gangster. Eventually she finds out that the town isn't what it seems to be. My introduction to the plot might make it seem like a run-of-the-mill thriller, but it is not like that. As Lars von Trier's film often are, Dogville is a controversial film. There are American critics who hate it because it's "anti-American", while others say von Trier is extremely misogynistic. I can easily say it is neither, but it isn't a great film either. Dogville can be seen as a part of two von Trier trilogies. First of all, it is part of his so-called America trilogy - which also includes Manderlay and not-yet-made Wasington (apparently without 'h') - and secondly, it can be considered a part of his unofficial trilogy of films where women are treated badly. There is one thing I guarantee: you'll be a lot more paranoid about small towns after you have seen Dogville.

Lars von Trier uses one of the easiest tricks I know: at first he builds something really beautiful which he then boldly destroys slowly and painfully. And he is able to do that in one of the most offensive ways I can think of. It is one of the most common ways to approach "evilness" as a theme. The film's view of humans is naturally pessimistic because of that. However, the thematic depth feels ridiculously forced most of the time. There is no redeeming quality for any character in the end, which is an insultingly one-sided and childish take on evilness. In the end we realise there is nothing we can compare these evil actions to because even the nice beginning is full of people who lie and pretend to be kind. On the other hand, I have to admit it does satisfyingly explore variations of what 'evil' means.

Dogville features a lot of characters that are given almost equal attention. The major storyline does focus on Grace and - to some extent - Tom, but the people of the village are given more attention than you would expect. That is why Dogville is almost 3 hours long: each character is handled carefully. While they might be colorful and nicely varying characters, all of them are dumbened down to be extremely egocentric in the end. Maybe von Trier was trying to tell everyone is egocentric these days, but it falls flat when human behaviour is portrayed in a dumb way like in Dogville. One hides his true, obsessive and egocentric self behind fancy words, and the main character is submissive beyond human limits. Her character made me think of Dogville's plot as similar to an idiot plot. According to Dogville, von Trier's view of humans is that we deny and fight against everything unfamiliar to the point of being utterly silly and dumb. Well, that might be the case for some people and some oddities, but it is far from a general rule. This sort of thinking left me feeling disappointed and empty. Von Trier doesn't handle this perspective with enough care.

Dogville relies a LOT on the narration. Character's inner thoughts, the themes and some of the events are completely told through narration that dominates a lot of Dogville. Maybe it's von Trier's attempt to be literary - the film is even divided into clear chapters with headings for each - for shit and giggles, but the narration shows von Trier's weakness in writing. He seems unable to portray his thoughts otherwise in Dogville. While von Trier apparently wants to draw viewer's attention from things other than the content, narration certainly gathers more attention than the actual core of the content, which I see as a weird "paradox". The narration also forces the viewer to submit to one view instead of interpreting the content on his - or her - own. It sometimes simply narrates the thematic side to each scene, which is a failure in my opinion. If you are so desparate to get your message across, you'll lose the point of film as a way of expression.  With narration, von Trier totally forgets the most important rule of screenwriting: don't tell, show instead.

There are also random moments in the dialogue that really jump at the viewer as forced and silly. For one, von Trier wants to use the definition of 'stoicism' for some reason as a relevant factor in one relationship between character and it really comes out of the blue. There is also a similar moment to this when Grace changes sheets for a bed and she suddenly lets a thought slip. Even the narrator says something along the lines of "-- she suddenly thought --", which served no purpose of any kind. It left me even frustrated with the film.

Dogville has been criticized for being anti-American. Even though it is a part of "America" trilogy, von Trier's attempt is not to aim at American - Dogville is meant to be universal. Von Trier simply chose America because it is such a well known country. The universality is even addressed in the film's own dialogue. Tom is writing a story of a small town and when Grace proposes that it should be Dogville, - because it is influenced by Dogville - Tom rejects the idea. He wants the story to be universal so he wont name it the country he lives in. Von Trier has never visited the USA because of his many phobias so it is fair to say that he isnt passing judgment on the country in Dogville.

There are also people who call von Trier a misogynist, but that is not the case either. This shouldnt be said just because he doesnt treat his main female characters well and he doesnt get along with his female leads. In his films, he always portrays men as the most disgusting and worst humans. Women are mostly frail, innocent and sympathetic - with a few exceptions of course.

In Dogville's form, the most notable and famous aspect is the fact how von Trier made the whole film very theatrical. The whole film relies on one huge setpiece which has almost no props or buildings on it although it is supposed to be a complete town. Instead, the buildings' walls are marked by chalk drawings on the mat, spots are named with text on the mat and only a few important props actually exist in the film. Even though there are no doors or walls, the actors behave like there are such: they open invisible doors and dont see anything outside when they are inside a building. These theatical aspects can be seen only as a gimmick, but it is von Trier's way to make the viewer focus on the story - but it works the other way around. Now everyone only talk about "the ridiculous sets" when Dogville is brought up. You could interpret it in many thematical ways, but I think von Trier primarily thought about it this way. 

Lars von Trier is one of the founders of the Dogme 95 movement, the members of which shoot their films on hand-held digital cameras. Von Trier's use of this camera is terribly shaky most of the time so there is really no change in editing no matter what kind of a scene is going on. This of course weakens the impact of the form and makes form itself a little more meaningless. There are also a few odd details about the cinematography when viewed under the context of the "paradox" I mentioned earlier. There are a few shots that are edited heavily by CGI and these shots really STAND out from the film. They seem to serve no obvious purpose and simply mess with the form even more. There is also one scene that is sped up: this is very silly even though it fits the scene somehow, but it stands out as a silly choice rather than a good one. Von Trier's editing is quite intensive and chaotic because he likes to play with continuity - not only in the form of jumpcuts. This approach to editing is actually fitting for the film - luckily.

The quality of acting in Dogville varies a lot. Kidman is fascinating as the lead actress; she really captures the frailty of her character. Paul Bettany also gives a brilliant portrayal of his character. The rest of the cast ranges from 'irritatingly forced' to 'at least satisfying'.

In overall, Dogville isnt even a decent film, but it has been criticized for completely wrong reasons. I would only recommend you to watch it if you are willing to waste 3 hours of your life for simple controversy - or if you're a Lars von Trier fan. Wait, is there a difference between the two?

Score: 4 out of 10