MovieChat Forums > Dancer in the Dark (2000) Discussion > Not convinced by Bjorks acting abilities

Not convinced by Bjorks acting abilities

posted 17 years ago by tallbird50
46 replies | jump to latest

I watched the film for the first time last night. I have previously seen 3 of Lars Von Triers films, Breaking the Waves, Dogville and The Idiots. I loved all of these films. I found them very moving and profound. I did not think the same of Dancer in the Dark however.

I thought that the character of Selma was similar in nature to Bess in Breaking the Waves i.e. an innocent in a world of corruption and hypocrisy sacrificing everything for a loved one. The only difference being Emily Watson was believable in that role and Bjork was not.

I found Bjork unconvincing in the extreme. Her acting of "innocence" seemed contrived and twee. The musical numbers were too Bjork-ified which meant that for me it just seem like one long Bjork promo. I also found her actions which drive the tragedy of the plot stupefying. As her innocence had not been convincingly conveyed to me her actions in the court room were absurd. Keeping "mum" to the end because she'd promised too. Oh dear. How unutterably, tragically, pathetic.

She was also verging on cruelty in relation to her child. Not seeing him, not sending any message to him once she was in prison. Never buying him a birthday present because she wasn't "that sort of mum". You are supposed to sympathise as she is saving to pay for the operation but she doesn't set any money aside for the therapy that kid would undoubtedly need after such an upbringing.

I think about how that film could have been with an actor of Emily Watson's abilities playing the role of Selma and I can imagine it as being intensely moving and believable. But for me the film was irretrievably ruined by the over weaning presence of Bjork's personality.

[–] spinflux 16 years ago

I think she portrayed on of the best mothers in my generation's film history. And she is a genius as Selma. Bjork *is* beautiful performance, in everything she does.

[–] mynameisdanch 16 years ago

I cannot believe you're not convinced by her acting. I think Bjork as Selma in "Dancer in the Dark" is the one of the best performances in cinema history, especially that she is primarily a musician, not an actress.

The role of Selma isn't meant to be exactly realistic. Hence, the film isn't made to be exactly as is. But playing her is so difficult because she is very naive, very child-like and yet has a very mature heart. Not all good actresses can nail the role, and while Bjork is known for her kooky and naive music, she is really mind-blowing. I really think Oscar snubbed her almost exactly the way it snubbed Amy Adams' performance in "Junebug." Anyway, the Oscars don't exactly look for good performances anymore.

As the soundtrack being Bjork-ified, keep in mind that Lars von Trier gave her great dominance in its music department.

[–] SunriseSometimes 16 years ago

To the OP I could not disagree with you more about Bjork's acting. I was blown away by her performance. Of course Emily Watson is great in every movie she is in, and she did a fantastic job in Breaking the Waves. With that being said I do not think that Emily would have been able to pull that role off better then Bjork. In fact I can't picture any actress as a better choice then Bjork.

Perhaps you just don't like Bjork and / or her music?

Or maybe you are or were a fan of Bjork and her music to the point that it was hard for you to take her as a serious actress?

I just don't understand how anyone would be distracted by her because I thought she was amazing. I wish she would change her mind and become an actress. I know with her unique apperance and odd accent she would be limited with roles but she would be able to find a place to display her unused talent.

Sound is usually the greatest character, even if the sound is absent

[–] 28_6_42_12 16 years ago

She was amazing. I strongly disagree. She brought her own to the role, she completely became the role. In the commentary they say how she made a simple scene a lot more emotional than it was supposed to be, which often made it work better. (and if you've heard the commentary they were people who weren't that fond of her) I think it would have been a very different film with anyone else playing Selma.

"The musical numbers were too Bjork-ified"

haha, you know why? 'Cause she's Björk (two dots everyone!). She wrote the music. OF COURSE THEY WOULD BE BJÖRKIFIED!

[–] Hylas_of_the_Argo 16 years ago

I loved Bjork in this film, she gave one of the best performances I have ever seen. I did not think it was contrived at all, I've never cried in a movie so much.

A pill to make you numb, a pill to make you dumb.

[–] ladypyra 16 years ago

I had the exact opposite reaction to her acting. She came to the US for one reason only: to get her son the operation he needs. And she sacrificed everything to get it for him. This is a character that I would aspire to become. I loved her politeness and the way she took various pitfalls with grace. She was grateful for every opportunity she had to meet her one goal, no matter how meager.

Had she allowed the trial to go any other way, she risked not only being found guilty to having the money she'd saved being discovered, declared the Sheriff's, and given to his spoiled wife. All would have been lost for nothing.

I'm not a fan of Bjork's musically or am I a fan of musicals. I actually skipped most of the song and dance. But I do understand they were integral to understanding the character and the only means she has to escape her dismal jobs. The joy on her face showed her happiness for her son when he did get the bike. She was not cruel at all. She was giving him the gift of sight for the rest of his life.

Americans tend to want happy endings. I often miss the days when you really didn't know how a movie would end. Sometimes it can end no other way. Like Thelma & Louise, there could be no other ending. How can you find true freedom and find your true self and then have it taken away? And as scared as she was, she once again escaped through song. I thought she was perfect for the role and did a wonderful job of portraying a shy but determined woman on a mission. I don't think she was trying to be particularly innocent. I think she was just trying to find moments of happiness here and there in her life because it was her nature to be happy and look for the best in those around her.

The only thing I found out of character was the killing of the cop. I got that she couldn't see well enough to shoot him with compassion but the brutal bashing of his skull would not be something this woman would have been capable of. His cowardice was his own character flaw. Once he was accidentally shot, she should have taken her money and stood her ground. His bank could have verified his financial condition in her behalf. Some secrets one does not have to keep after someone has betrayed them.

But once the brutal deed was done, she had only one course of action to take. To protect the hidden money so it all was not done in vain.

[–] modica 15 years ago

If anyone can get through the murder scene and not be devastated and shocked by the power of it, then I don't know if anyone can give me a better example of a realistically acted scene. I was shaking after I saw that scene the first time. One of my favorite performances ever.

[–] chris-2512 15 years ago

This movie sucked hardcore ass.

[–] The_Butcher_of_Ibelin 15 years ago

All of the things you're describing have to do with the writing, not her acting. If you didn't like her acting in addition to what you mentioned then hey, to each their own, but she didn't write the story and decide how her character should or shouldn't act; whether her decisions were right or wrong, or what their consequences might be; her job was to act out what was put on paper.

Here lies one whose name was writ in water - Keats

[–] tallbird50 15 years ago

I know it's not completely clear and the way I put it is open to interpretation but I did mean her acting was unconvincing rather than the story was. I said that I found Bjork unconvincing in that role.

I think I could have seen the exact same film with Emily Watson in the Selma role and been in bits by the end. But Bjork was not convincing as an innocent to me. You have to believe that Selma is as innocent as she is behaving or it is farcical.

[–] himiyio 15 years ago

1. her character was not meant to be an innocent pixie from the land of fantasy. the way her character was written, she was a woman with desires, ideals, responsibilities stemming from a huge amount of guilt. totally a different creature from watson's character in breaking the waves.

2. bjork is not a trained actress. she has stated that is not acting, so much as reacting. in that sense, she doesnt do the things she does with the idea that it will cause a kind of reaction to the audience. she does it because it is literally happening to her.

that scene where she is forced to kill, her anguish is apparent, not just in the face, but in the seeming drain of her energy. she actually seemed so stressed, she looked like she would have ran off if not for the fact that she is so weak to even stand properly.

i think, bjork did an excellent job. i feel really sorry for her, not her character, for having to immerse herself into such a hideous role, and not having the capacity to seperate herself, like she said, "i'm not like one of those people like robert de niro, who can become so many people. i'm just me."

in essence, if you're not convinced by her acting, well in many cases, you shouldnt be. because really, she is not acting at all.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ElectricKoolaidAcid 15 years ago

Ditto the OP! It's like Bjork tries too much to act like a child...yes she looks young for her age. But whoopdy-do, so do many of us. The whole film sort of turned into a look-at-me! music video. There is some arrogance about her, and that's why I couldn't STAND the musical parts. Save it for MTV.

[–] mad_men 15 years ago

I don't understand. Why do you blame the actress for the story she didn't write??? :s

[–] tallbird50 15 years ago

I can understand your take on my post as there is a lack of clarity on my part. But I do state that it is Bjork's acting ability I'm taking issue with in my post.

"I found Bjork unconvincing in the extreme. Her acting of "innocence" seemed contrived and twee"

"As her innocence had not been convincingly conveyed to me her actions in the court room were absurd."

I do tangent off to criticize the plot at one point but my main point was that Bjork was rubbish as an actor in this film which meant I was unable to suspend my disbelieve.

[–] megaruda 13 years ago

i Think she did a flawless job when talking about acting i just think the character was bad, a bad written character in a good script, the first 30 mins or so are very nice entertaining to watch, but when the character or Selma starts becoming stupid until she finally makes her climax of stupidity even the greatess actress can´t save that...

[–] tallbird50 13 years ago

I agree that the storyline definitely made it challenging for Bjork to act convincingly. There were points where her charisma showed through and she was charming but this was, as you say, only at the beginning during the exposition. I've enjoyed her music and thought she was interestingly individual and was I really looking forward to seeing another side to her. But I think I was just plain gutted when I watched it. It was a bit like a farce but without any sequences when someone falls off a roof and the laughs.

I think we were being asked to sympathise with the Bjork character but her every action was being driven by her ineptitude and poor judgement and were going to take a massive personal toll on her son. Not a sympathetic character and not a convincing storyline.

Lars Von Trier is definitely a challenging film-maker and a bit hit or miss for me.

I'm still looking forward to seeing "Melancholia" though.

[–] megaruda 13 years ago

After thinking the whole day about it i kinda liked it, its like she expected everything to go just fine like a miracle would save her in the last moment like in musicals still while i was watching i was so angry about the unverosimily of bjorks character that i could only dislike Selma for being so annoying and cry about everything instead of doing something about it, but then again i suppose thats what the writter wanted to let the audience know she kind of trusted in justice or belived it would be like a standard normal movie where eeveryones happy at the very end.