I didn't realize this was a play. I couldn't watch it once I realized it. Say what you want..but I just can't get into something like that. Is there a reason why this isn't in the usual movie format? It's to bad because the plot looks pretty awesome.
shareThe film is very philisophical, it contains visual articulations of morality, which lie principally in the stripped down, theatrical aesthetic that is adopted by Trier. Such a pared-down aesthetic in this, first and foremost is, driven through atheistic design to elicit greater attention to the characters and their actions. The use of set highlights the stark and uncomfortable environment that ‘Dogville’ situates regarding morals and the nature of humans.
The minimalistic, yet rich visual style that Von Trier applies, that includes symbolic bold chalk outlines on a blank sound stage, indicates something organic, voided and layered. The lack of walls showcase acts that shock and frustrate the viewer as we see everything - the ‘bite’ of Dogville
It's genius.
This is one of the most pretentious posts I've ever read in here. It's almost a parody of itself. You know when films and tv series mock/parody those pretentious art critics who just love to praise conceptual works of art as awful as they can be? That's exactly how you sound. And this is coming from someone who loved this film. I think it's funny how a lot of people keep defending the use of minimalist scenery by saying that it makes the audience focus on the characters, when the fact is that for most people it had the exact opposite effect: it was distracting as hell. And frankly, I think all the relations you made between the scenery and character actions/feelings were either pulled from your ass, or from a director's interview (which would mean from his ass). Although I must say, even though you sound pretentious and I think you pulled those explanations from your ass, they do make kind of sense.
shareBecause there are no walls in dogville.
share[deleted]
"Absurd extreme" is the correct description.
shareYou are a fool and an ignorant. Far worse things have happened in small American towns, or anywhere else in the world. If you feel that the location is a critic of America and don't see the universal message about the human nature, you are lost. Stop watching cinema and watch Hollywood's action crap instead.
shareI thought it was brilliant. You always knew what everyone was doing, and I felt then that the small amount of scenery provided showed important points, and also let me focus on character development.
shareI still wish that "Dogville" was filmed like a "normal" movie. Yes, I understand the rationale for making it as it was, but for most people that just distracts from the story. And sitting through all this for *three hours* is honestly asking too much of all but the most adventurous viewers.
I'm not saying this should have been a Hollywood-style movie, I just think the story would have benefited from a straightforward approach.
[deleted]
What makes it a play, though? The fact that it's on a soundstage? Many films use soundstages, but perhaps not as blatantly soundstagey ones.
My counterargument to you is that it's on film, and therefore it is a film. When people talk about the "movie format," what does that mean? What, other than the set and the signature von Trier handheld camera, makes it anything other than a movie. Of course, I'm not denying that the set could be distracting (I didn't find it to be, but I know others do), but I don't think it makes it a play rather than a movie.
It is a playback of a play. What makes it a play is staying on one set and pretending things are there that are not, such as doors, bushes, pathways, the dog, etc.
To be a movie, it needs real props. Doing so would've made the effort more than the rather poor $1.5M in the US. That is not too shabby for a play, however, which it is.
I Agree completely. For it to be a "play" or a film in a "play" format I would have thought that it would have all bee performed in one direction (the audience) and that the camera would have been one locked off shot. Most theatre that I have seen has much more elaborate sets and props. Does this mean that the plays that I have seen are presented in a "Film format"?
This film makes use of dramatic shot choices, natural performances, tension building edits and every other device that cinema employs. It's lacking one element that we are used to seeing in either film or theatre.
"Never eat yellow snow"
I found the video format more distracting than the lack of sets. The average American Sitcom is more of a play than this. Limited number of sets. No exteriors or exteriors that are clearly sets on a soundstage. All of the camera angles from the front of stage or audience POV. All of the performances being directed towards the audience. Theatrical, exaggerated performances.
I say "average" in a slightly presumptuous way as the only US Sitcom that I watch on occasion is Big Bang Theory and I used to watch What's Happening. Season 1 of Friends felt more theatrical than this but I didn't watch beyond that.
"Never eat yellow snow"
von Trier was applying "The Distancing Effect," which was coined by Bertolt Brecht (who called it Verfremdungseffekt because he was German). It's a way to distance the audience from characters in a film (or for Brecht, a play). When an audience watches a performance, they picture themselves in the film. They connect with the characters and sympathize. With the Distancing Effect, we as an audience don't connect, and therefore are more inclined to analyze the actions of the characters from an intellectual standpoint.
So, the way the effect is achieved is by constantly reminding the audience "you are watching a movie. This is fake." There are certain ways to do this. Brecht used to create elaborate, nonfunctional, sometimes physically impossible sets (doors coming out of sides of houses, etc) to jar the audience. He also was one of the first notable playwrights to have characters (narrators and chorus notwithstanding) "break the fourth wall." Characters would even randomly break in to song and dance from time to time. One of my personal favorite tactics (which is evident in Paul Bettany's performance as Tom in Dogville) is actors would occasionally PURPOSELY give bad performances and break character. It's kind of brilliant once you know that's the goal.
So no, this is not supposed to be a play. It IS metaphorical for the citizens of Dogville, but it's also a reminder you're watching a movie. Did you notice all the continuity errors, bad handheld camera moves, and jump cuts? Those were also for the Distancing Effect.
The "play" format was interesting to me. However the shakey camera made me so sick i couldnt finish it
share