Lars von Trier 'IS' American
-
katerina-t-nemcova — 19 years ago(September 05, 2006 12:41 AM)
Im sick of Europeans hating USA - you see, Im an European too. I dont say America is perfect, but there are many things worse in Europe, believe me. And I smell this rotten odeur of envy here: we cannot swallow, that the greatsons of those poor ones we forced to leave can be mighter than we are, and that Europe is no more a center of the world.
So, von Trier was never in USA and still he can judge it? Well, he judges his own fear. -
illanwall — 19 years ago(September 15, 2006 09:49 AM)
It is very interesting that people have gotten so upset about a European who has never been to America criticizing America. Yet of all the US films about the rest of the world, how many of the directors actually went to those countries, lived there, became citizens, etc. It is either not necessary to be somewhere in order to criticise that place (in which case people need to calm down about Von Trier critiquing the USA), or else it is necessary for everyone to stop making films, writing books, etc about un-visited or lived in places. I dont think anyone is saying that this film is not really well researched, or inaccurate historically (except for the fact that it is fictional in its particular details)?
I understand that when Von Trier said he was 60% American, he was arguing that the rest of the world, and Europe in particular consume so much American produce and American influenced culture that that makes them almost American. -
attakathur — 19 years ago(October 02, 2006 06:15 AM)
Finally someone to make a point.
Noone even bothers to notice anymore that US directors shooting films about the "third world misery" or "banana-republic dictators" or asian villains have never took a breath in the air of the regions they are such superior judges of.
Yet, european snobs passing questions (not even judgements) about America, that's immediately a crime against common reason. -
nomustachio — 19 years ago(November 07, 2006 11:52 PM)
name one U.S. made film that goes there. i don't know of one that's ever displayed blatant current social commentary about another country. all of the movies your talking about are adaptations of stories about specific people from specific places and it's in our history books and beep there's no agenda. i loved manderlay, and i love von trier, but he definately seems to be waving a flag that doesn't belong to him.
-
inwarsaw — 19 years ago(November 23, 2006 12:13 PM)
WRT your challenge to name US made films that have "an agenda" (ie. to paint another nation in a bad light) In the event you were serious how about:
Red Scorpion
Red Dawn
Rocky IV
Red Heat
James Bond
Red Corner
(almost EVERY 80's action movie)
I think I'll stop there, but I think it's also worth thinking about, "can you name an US movie, where an Arab was anything but a crazy, bloodthirsty terrorist"?
In addition, we have the "news" to tell us how bad, backward, stupid and abusive all the other countries are. China, Iran, Iraq, Libya (but they're ok now because they paid $3 billion and they'll give us oil), Russia, N. Korea, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Syria geez! -
kirby-37 — 19 years ago(October 27, 2006 07:19 AM)
Boy are you ignorant, both about the content of the film and about your implications of Europe and the reality of present day America. First, regardless of what you may think of the Director of this film and its quality, it most clearly treats the historical reality of the African-American experience: that of slavery, humiliation, false promises, and continued hypocrisy about it. In the case of this poster, mind-boggling denial the only response to the film is to accuse the director of socialism.
Be that as it may, Americans have no idea how superior many aspects of European life and values are when compared to an America in which vast numbers of people have no health insurance and millions more have no homes. The EE, an entity which no less an illustrious statesman than Henry Kissinger, pronounced to be an impossibility, now exceeds the USA in population, overal wealth, volume of trade, and has the most stable currency in the world. Is a play about slavery really just a fantasy born out of envy of the USA and its wonders? Ridiculous. There are wonderful aspects to American life, many of which are already a thing of the past, but some of which we might still preserve, if we get our head out of the sand for once, and look honestly at our past and at the way we are widely regarded around the world, as a selfish bully, that helps people only when it is of strategic value and sends in the military whenever another sovereign nation refuses to do as it is told. This is the attitude ozzing from this poster's naive exaltation of American superiority.
At the same time, I think it is incorrect to suggest in 2006 that there has been no progress in race relations since Deconstruction days although I am not sure this is what is intended. This is a brilliant film, only slightly less powerful, in my view, than its predecessor, Dogville. -
benemy — 19 years ago(February 10, 2007 10:16 AM)
"The bottom line is that he's just another Eurotrash socialist who can't handle the fact that the poor people who left the misery of 18th and 19th-century Europe built something that is completely eclipsing so-called modern Europe."
\
whoever wrote this is perhaps the most misfortunate ignoramus on earth. Eurotrash socialist? America is somehow eclipsing modern Europe? HA.. I can guarantee you one thing you misled wanker, I have been to 42 of the 50 states in America and have seen some of the most absurd poverty, blatant racism, complete wealth disparity, a baffling amount of ignorance (oh paris, is that the capitol of amsterdametc ), the most obese and health avoiding group of beached wales, voilence for NO reason like I have never encountered in europe.. OR ASIA for that matter
America is a third world country with a high amount of millionaires and billionaires tilting the scales to make it appear prosperous. You are also the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon IN WAR, and with tragic consequences.. yet you bark at every other country in the world to end their arms race deeming them IRRESPONSIBLE!? You also ask the world to surrender their arms and then go about invading any old country that your dickhead president has a personal grudge against.
America.. civilised? PFFT! -
gonzo-63 — 19 years ago(October 09, 2006 01:34 PM)
God I wou,d have to Von Trier was more American than the rest of us. We don't like to talk about the bad things we've done or examine them. To treally look back and see how we fuc*ed up. He brings it up so well here it. It's got to be more accurate to the human condition than you want to admit.
www.myspace.com/lilgonzito -
ras336 — 19 years ago(November 19, 2006 08:43 PM)
<<
OK.how about the "Last Samurai". Here we have an action/drama film written by John Logan and directed by Edward Zwick which combines to two major historical moments in ninetheenth century Japanese historythe 1877 Satsuma Rebellion led by Saigō Takamori and the story of Jules Brunet, a French army captain who fought alongside Enomoto Takeaki in the Boshin Warin order to make some ridiculously shallow points about the modernization/Westernization of a non-Western society in a historical milieu where there is a war in the Middle East to Westernize the region. Another movie with similar pretensions but a slightly different message is Oliver Stone's latest mess "Alexander" which is one big metaphor for the futility of Westernizing/democratizing/modernizing Mesopotamia.
Lars Von Tier is hardly the first filmmaker to make a movie about a country he has never stepped foot in with an eye for the current political scene, its done all of the time in U.S. cinema on a far more pretentious level than even Von Tier can aspire towhich is saying alot! -
nomustachio — 19 years ago(November 27, 2006 11:05 AM)
i guess i forgot to mention that i don't watch bad movies, so i've never seen any of the movies that you listed. you even listed a bad rocky. also i did use the phrase BLATANT CURRENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY. i agree that america is beep and has done some beep up stuff, but all i'm saying is that if you've never set foot on the soil of that nation you're not exactly in the best position to judge, althought he still did a good job.
to claim that directors are using actual historical stories that make for good movies to begin with the soul purpose of raising issues about current politics is possibly the dumbest idea i've heard all day, which is saying alot since i'm at a community college right now.
check out:
george washington
i
huckabeys
3 kings
roots
any of micheal moore's propaganda
monster's ball
the last picture show
all movies that are actually good that show americans displaying BLATANT CURRENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY. you might want to look up those words before you waste more of my time with non-applicable responces. everything you listed compared to Von Trier's work is extremely, extremely laughable. idiots. -
ras336 — 19 years ago(November 28, 2006 02:50 PM)
I don't see how any of the works I mentioned (Last Samurai and Alexander) cannot be read as political commentaries considering the historical milieu they were produced under? Only in your rigidly simplistic black/white world is there a neat split between strictly historical films and overtly political movie making.
Moreover, the point (which you miss in your polemic rant) is that a.) one does not need to step foot in a country to understand its most blatant hypocrisies or comment on them in an intelligent manner b.) that this has never stopped past and present American filmmakers from doing the very same with regards to the rest of the world and c.) its thus hypocritical for an American to make such critiques about Von Trier's work when nothing is said as Hollywood churns out one ignorant melodrama or comedy about some exotic, distant place in the world after another.
This entire anti-American criticism is a ridiculous blanket dismissal of Von Trier's work by Americans who are so sensitive about receiving any external criticism about our society and culture. It betrays a lack of willingness to engage his themes about the ever present tension between the baser aspects of human nature and the lofty American ideals. Both "Dogville" and "Manderlay", however pretentious they may be, make substantive remarks about American history, culture, society, ad politics. In many ways, neither two of Von Trier's works take the easy way out like a couple of the movies you champion. I mean really, Monster's Ball is a vastly overrated, unrealistic and problematic movie and Three Kings is another glorified Western where the cowboy American soldiers save the day after deciding to leave the loot. -
inwarsaw — 19 years ago(November 30, 2006 04:22 PM)
Just a few obvious problems with your "arguments".
- If you haven't seen any of those movies, how can you comment on their quality?
- I would argue that these "bad" movies are more dangerous for the public than movies such as "Manderlay". Movies like "Rocky" (et. al.) rely on emotions and are absorb uncritically.
Moreover, the movies get a wide viewing audience. This means that many people are exposed to this type of subliminal propaganda - many of whom don't posess the faculties, or don't care to make the effort, to absorb things critically. Even if one watches these things with a "critical" eye, it is difficult for the films not to skew, at least somewhat, ones perception of a place or political system. - Why do you have to go to the place you criticize? Do you have to go to China to comment on human rights? Not only that but, how long would VonTrier have to be in the US before his criticism be "worthy"? One day? One month? year? decade? By attacking Von Trier's "qualificatons" as a critic of US social issues, you don't address his arguments. You are "shooting the messenger". Who cares how "qualified" he is?! The important thing to address are his points. Do they apply? Are they valid? Where are the weaknesses in his points? etc
- A lot of those movies I listed were BLATANT CURRENT SOCIAL COMMENTARIES (at least as blatant as "Manderlay") at the time they were released in theaters. The "bad, ruthless, murderous Russians", etc I didn't include any "current" films because I just rarely watch movies like that anymore.
- If you argue that they aren't as "Blatant" as "Manderlay". It's good that it isn't diguising itself. Unlike many hollywood films (where opinions are often "hidden", yet carefully included to affect the public's perceptions, you know what you're getting. You know you are getting someone's opinion and criticisms. You are not tricked into believing that it's purely "just a fun movie".
- Your last argument, "you idiots" is particularly strong, and I really can't counter it. It is a level of argumentation that enters a strata I am unwilling/uncapable of entering. Congrats!
-
nomustachio — 19 years ago(December 06, 2006 01:41 AM)
first of all let's not forget that i do like manderlay deeply. second of all i agree with the views of america that it portreys. by saying these things i'm not saying that i have a problem with the movie, i think that it's weak to make the movie with out experiencing what you're talking about. what good does manderlay do? how is it effective? why should i care what he has to say about it?
the movies that you bring up and still cling to as arguements are still not valid. it's not that they don't contain social commentary, back to the future contains social commentary for god's sake, but the undertones are definately not the main issue. it's called idealistic film making, check it out. also have you researched to find out that whether or not any of the directors who filmed these american films never set foot in the foreign land that they are depicting? i doubt it. there's also a difference between propaganda(rocky) and commentary (manderlay). don't get the two confused.
my only problem with von trier is primarily most of the people that discuss his movies. if you needed a movie made by someone who's never been to america to point out these flaws to you than you're blind. my other issue is why doesn't he work on what ever is going on in the places where he does live. i'm sure he's much more recognized in europe and most likely more influential as well. . . oh wait, there's no nicole kidman or danny glover and he wouldn't make nearly as much money with out america. . . who's a capatalist now.
i didn't shoot the messenger. i shot the dude playing the fiddle while the city burned.
(and i am sorry for saying idiots, you're comment on that made me laugh. i enjoyed it. freedom of message boards often brings out the beep in me.)