Lars von Trier 'IS' American
-
inwarsaw — 19 years ago(December 08, 2006 09:08 AM)
About propaganda vs. commentary; the main difference I can see is that propaganda is subversive, and commentary is pretty obvious.
I still don't think "setting one foot in" wherever is a valid criticism. I get what you're saying, but I think that it is an emotional argument, rather than a logical one. It's a bit of a slippery slope. If he put "one foot" in the US, is that acceptable? If not, how many feet? How long would they have to be in the US? By "shooting the messenger" I mean that rather than addressing what is said (I know you agree with and liked Manderlay, and that you're simply annoyed by someone commenting on something he's never seen/experienced), the person's credentials are questioned.
There is a second reason I think that not visiting the US is a weak argument. As "muggizuggi" points out, the US is a bit of an exception. US influence is so pervasive throughout the world (especially Europe). There are US news outlets (CNN, USA Today, etc.), US restaurants (TGIF, Pizza Hut, etc.), US fashion, lifestyle, film. Also, US policies and economic power have a huge influence on foreign policy. In Poland, there's also an idiot "Bush - clone" (in Canada as well) who will do anything to make Bush happy, in hopes of reaping economic gain. Now, what's interesting is that "economic gain", ahead of social/cultural considerations (at least to this extent), is a very US phenomenon. It is for these reasons that VonTrier, among others, feel they have a right to criticize the US. The US affects their lives, and the societies in which they live, quite directly.
Another thing just because he's criticizing the US, doesn't mean he "hates" the US. He may be just trying to change the world. Perhaps he wants people to stop and think, "hey, maybe all this beep isn't worth it? Maybe there's more to life than working 18hrs/day, and buying all this disposable crap?" The best way to do it is to go after the biggest, most powerful cat. Just like people who boycot Nike in hopes that the pressure gets them to change. If they do, the other companies will follow suit (like the did when Nike left for Asia). -
happyhealey — 19 years ago(December 10, 2006 01:48 PM)
I'm an avid Lars Von Trier fan and an American (living in Arkansas, no less), and while I believe it is unfair to criticize Von Trier for making movies about America simply because he's never been to the country, (by that logic no director should ever be allowed to make a period piece about a time in which he or she didn't live), I do think that both installments of the America Trilogy are too over-the-top to be considered real social commentary.
I'm not saying they're bad movies, but to consider America a country where black people would be better off still in slavery is a bit of an exaggeration, as is the premise of a town in which each of the men rapes a woman and the children then torment her for being raped.
And yes, Von Trier definitely implied a status quo from the events at Manderlay with the recent pictures of black suffering in America in the final photo montage. Did anyone else notice that some of those pictures were simply of homeless people and had nothing to do with racial issues whatsoever? When Von Trier included pictures from the current century, he definitely implied, if not outright stated, that the irony of the narrator's final comments (that America was a place where black people could possibly have a decent life if they only took the opportunity) still applies today. And while it may be true that America is not always "the land of opportunity" it purports to be, it's nonetheless quite rash to assume the majority of black people CURRENTLY have it so bad in America they would be better off as slaves.
What intrigues me is actually how much LESS indicting of America Manderlay is than Dogville, and yet how much more offended Americans are by Manderlay. The worst that could be said of Dogville (one of my favorite films, mind you) is that America is blood-sucking, opportunistic, xenophobic, spiteful, always selfish, and at heart evil. All Manderlay could possibly be implying is that America is xenophobic and naive. I guess it's because Manderlay deals with racial issues, but then again, Dogville seems to be a veiled attack on America's immigration policy (first we don't want them, then we exploit them, then we try to get rid of them when they are no longer useful).
However, as an American I must concede that my origins have made the movies slightly less enjoyable; watching them one has to realize that more than criticizing human nature, Von Trier is criticizing AMERICAN nature. I could conduct myself in the way of the "enlightened Americans" on this board and masochisticly agree that my country is composed of people who are, indeed, monsters who need to be sanctioned in every way, but I would be dishonest. In all honesty, yes, the movies were less enjoyable for me because I knew that Von trier meant to question "my kind." I had been given a label, and that's the same bigotry that these movies seem to question. Manderlay seems to imply the statement "All white Americans are, at heart, bigots," which is a bigoted thing to say. But hey, it's the point of art to arouse feelings within the viewer. If a movie can succesfully make me uncomfortable, it has accomplished something.
The only real issue I can take with the films is that the fact that they are set in places that do not exist and concern events that are almost too fantastic to have possibly occurred limits them greatly as political films. It's comparable to an American making a movie about vikings existing in Denmark in the 1930's, then finishing the movie with a montage of pictures of Vikings (I know that's impossible, but this is a hypothetical situation) and current pictures of Danish buildings on fire, and intending the film as a crtique of the viking tendecies of every inhabitant of Denmark. It's unfair because the argument is based on a narrative too fantastic to have any validity.
But then again, all this is based upon my own personal impressions of the films, which may very well be comletely different from what Von Trier intended. Definitely, however, as pure pieces of cinema, without overt political connotations, both films are amazing.
Adding "beep" to your posts is like pixelating sex scenes in novels. -
ArtfulLodger — 19 years ago(January 08, 2007 07:09 AM)
However, as an American I must concede that my origins have made the movies slightly less enjoyable; watching them one has to realize that more than criticizing human nature, Von Trier is criticizing AMERICAN nature<<
Actually I wouldn't take it so personally if I were you - he's telling fictional stories about a culture he feels is 60% relevant to his life as he sees it. Taking it personally would suggest I'm a (British, so by extension) monarchist, love Blair, drink only tea and eat scones at 4pm, etc. Nobody really makes up 100% of a cultural stereotype, we're all different.
Interestingly, it's often people from outside of a culture who can see it most clearly and dispassionately, who can see the wood for the trees.
Right, tea and scones time;-) -
Mile-O — 19 years ago(February 05, 2007 04:50 AM)
"I'm not saying they're bad movies, but to consider America a country where black people would be better off still in slavery is a bit of an exaggeration"
I don't think it's about black people at all. The notion of a slave plantation just serves the means of the greater message beyond the colour of skin. Beyond, it encroaches upon a theme of liberalism. Grace, in her liberal head, seeks to give people something that they have no need for. While the reaction she gets isn't what she her do-good intentions would have expected, what other reaction could she have got from people who have no need for freedom? America is supposedly the land of the free. But the people aren't free as they still bend to the will of the law and the goverment. Likewise, Grace's slaves are given this freedom but, and while they enjoy the spoils of being free (e.g democracy) their preference is still to be governed over. -
k_jodie — 19 years ago(January 24, 2007 06:53 AM)
" i doubt it. there's also a difference between propaganda(rocky) and commentary (manderlay). don't get the two confused."
Your argument is so confused it's comical. The fact that you just summarily defined propaganda, an incredibly elusive word that deals with the power relations that govern every part of our lives and has occuped great minds for centuries - from marx to foucault, orwell to adorno - reveals such a simplistic viewpoint.
Even a narrow definition of propaganda from the The Institute of Propaganda Analysis is 'the expression of opinion or actions by individuals or groups deliberately designed to influence the opinions of other individuals or groups with reference to determined ends'. I canot imagine what your so-called commentary looks like of it doesn't doesn't do any of that. You seem to think that propaganda is just commentary with subversive goals of brainwashing. May I suggest that the subversiveness depends entirely on viewpoint and can therefore be disregarded when dealing with some kind of objective fact.
I won't go on with the rest of your points because they are founded on the same kind of false assumptions. Can I suggest, if you really want to get to the bottom of these interesting and complex issues (which i think you admirably do), always question what you assert as fact because that's what you're trying to do to your subjects(manderlay). -
Howlin Wolf — 9 years ago(December 06, 2016 09:31 AM)
why should i care what he has to say about it?
because people can often accidentally get the right answer, even when they're misinformed
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!" -
memefactory — 18 years ago(June 19, 2007 05:36 PM)
Spot onin fact, I'd say it often takes an outsider to be able to really look at somehting. I am thinking of LAND AND FREEDOM, the Ken Loach film about the Spanish Civil War in particular, though there are scads of other films, books, and so on out there that illustrate this.
As for Amercians getting all shirty when they think they are being criticized - it has always been this way (except in San Francisco, where if you don't HATE America then something is "wrong" with you). We have always been a defensive people and I am sure the reasons are varied. What I would like to say to my fellow countrymen is this: America is NOT the best place in the world and it is also NOT the worst - it is simply one country of many and like every other country on the planet, it has a mixture of things that person A will see as good and person B will see as bad, and so on. So relax, people and get over the collective American neurosis about America. If we are going to go out into the world and throw our weight around then the rest fo the world has a right to comment on us.
Nuff said. -
logan-burns — 19 years ago(December 08, 2006 03:40 PM)
I think one way of viewing the von Trier quote, "American is sitting on our world. I am making films that have to do with American because 60 percent of my lif is America" that forindcine cites is that America is like an umbrella over the world. everyone in the world is deeply deeply deeply effected by this country whether they have set foot here or not; america's hands are in all placesuntouched but touching..
-
joni-oksa — 19 years ago(January 01, 2007 08:03 AM)
I loved first one, I am going too see this movie next week. Us citizens are so pissed off about things what "might" have been occured in us 1930. Come on most of us were not living back then even. Racism in whole world was on totally different level that is now.
"so-called modern Europe." explenations please for this one. -
CinemaRomeo — 19 years ago(March 15, 2007 12:58 PM)
No, he's NOT "American". This is like saying I'm English because I speak the language, I'm "Chinese" because I grew up watching kung fu movies and eating their food, and I'm "Spanish" because of our "cowboy" rodeo culture.
Guess what? One of the biggest media empires in America, Fox, is owned by an Australian. Russell Crowe, Hugh Jackman, Nicole Kidman and Mel Gibson are Australians. Does this make me an "Australian" too?
This is a flimsy excuse. Lars just doesn't like America. Fine. That's his opinion. He doesn't have to watch our shows, go to our movies, or buy from an American franchise.
Come to think of it, I don't have to buy, rent, or attend a film showing his silly, distorted portrayals of my countryeverybody wins!!
Don't knock masturbation - it's sex with someone I love. ~Woody Allen -
muggizuggi — 19 years ago(March 25, 2007 12:06 PM)
You are completely missing the point. Sorry.
"Lars just doesn't like America. Fine. That's his opinion."
Are you sure? I never heard him say that.
"He doesn't have to watch our shows, go to our movies, or buy from an American franchise."
While it might be theoretically possible for him not to, it would be highly unlikely. I mean, he would have to make a real effort not to.
To my knowledge, our country is not, and has never been, influenced in such a profound way, by anything else. Yes, perhaps when the christians came 1000 years ago. That was pretty big, too.
-
CinemaRomeo — 19 years ago(March 26, 2007 04:05 PM)
Well, I've never traveled to your country, so I can't say how "theoretical" a possibility it would be for him to avoid American business in Denmark. I do find it difficult to believe that it would be that hard, especially since Lars probably makes quite a lot of money.
"Are you sure? I never heard him say that"
There are those who defend von Trier by saying that he doesn't really hate America, he just hates our current administration. I hope you'll forgive me when I say I'm deeply suspicious of the truth of this. "Dancer in the Dark" was released in 2000, right when Bush had just gotten into office and before Sept. 11 happened and there was plenty of outrage over the film's portrayal of America (I haven't seen that one so I can't say if the outrage was justified or not).
When I saw "Breaking the Waves", I thought it was a beautiful film set in Scotland. In no way did I think it was a criticism of the Scots themselves. On the other hand, if von Trier had made not one but THREE films criticizing the country, I would think he had something against the Scots.
I mean Jesus Christ, come on. First "Dancer in the Dark", then "Dogville", then "Manderley", and now "Wasington"! The last three are a trilogy called "USA - Land of Opportunities" and just in case we didn't get his point, he plays the Bowie song "Young Americans" in each of them while we get treated to shots of the unfortunate in different periods in history.
Yeah, I think he's got an axe to grinda particularly nasty one too
Don't knock masturbation - it's sex with someone I love. ~Woody Allen -
muggizuggi — 19 years ago(March 27, 2007 06:48 AM)
"Well, I've never traveled to your country, so I can't say how "theoretical" a possibility it would be for him to avoid American business in Denmark. I do find it difficult to believe that it would be that hard, especially since Lars probably makes quite a lot of money."
You are still missing the point. It is not about business, it is about culture.
"There are those who defend von Trier by saying that he doesn't really hate America, he just hates our current administration. I hope you'll forgive me when I say I'm deeply suspicious of the truth of this."
First, just so we know what we are speaking the same language, I assume you define "America" as the country USA, with all its citizens. If you have some other definition, please elaborate.
Now, try to think of a reason why anyone would hate that.
I can think of a few, but none that would apply to danish citizens.
Can you?
"When I saw "Breaking the Waves", I thought it was a beautiful film set in Scotland. In no way did I think it was a criticism of the Scots themselves. On the other hand, if von Trier had made not one but THREE films criticizing the country, I would think he had something against the Scots."
Again, you are completely missing the point. It is not about criticizing a foreign country, it is about exploring a cultrure.
It makes perfect sense for Lars von Trier to make his movies about American cultural history, because he feels a part of that culture. That makes its history his own.
"I mean Jesus Christ, come on. First "Dancer in the Dark", then "Dogville", then "Manderley", and now "Wasington"! The last three are a trilogy called "USA - Land of Opportunities" and just in case we didn't get his point, he plays the Bowie song "Young Americans" in each of them while we get treated to shots of the unfortunate in different periods in history."
Yes, he is a very pessimistic person. Have you ever seen a happy movie done by him?
Anyway, don't you think there is an important story to be told about the unfortunates in the land of opportunity? Or do you really think it should be taboo? -
CinemaRomeo — 19 years ago(March 27, 2007 01:53 PM)
Muggizuggi, I don't think your distinctions make all that much sense. Take the one between "business" and "culture". You say that Lars is simply exploring a culture and that he makes films about American cultural history because he feels a part of it. I don't really see how he can do this unless "business" and "culture" are conflated to mean the same thing. After all, we don't share the exact same history, so Lars apparently thinks he's American because his country trades with ours and apparently our franchises and television shows seem to be doing pretty well over there.
I always found it kind of bizarre that so many people around the world think they know America because of McDonald's, 7-11, Elvis, etc. Or because you see the obnoxious drunken tourists. I always found this somewhatcondescending.
By the way, when I say "America", I do mean the USA, with all its citizens, since I often hear sneering and judgmental stereotypes about the American people as a whole from people in other countries.
I sometimes go back and forth on how I regard this director. I saw "Dogville" and "Manderley" and expected to be completely angered. But when the films were over, I felt instead a mixture of annoyance and amusement. When I read an interview with Lars, I almost like the guy. He's kind of funny.
As far as your last question, I do think we shouldn't ignore the poor and unfortunate. What I dislike is the smug, self-righteous tone von Trier takes. He's so off-the-wall with his vision that I think it says more about him than about the United States.
Don't knock masturbation - it's sex with someone I love. ~Woody Allen -
tulipgirl — 19 years ago(April 03, 2007 02:50 PM)
My darling. You're probably aware that the world is becoming the global village which means little by litlle we're all drawn into the same culture. And guess what, that global culture or shall we call it pop culture is actually American. I think you would also agree with me the thing that makes a nation isn't their territory but the culture. So, by being surounded our whole life with American things, movies etc. we are also being taught to live an American style of life. Please don't underestimate those things. They are all responible for buliding our personality. Isn't the philospohy of modern capitalism, which of course originates from America, also thing that determines our thoughts and actions. And yes, power of media is tremendous, more than we realise it. So, proud of it or not, want it or not we all have something American in ourselves. We don't have to see any US state for that. They have all visited us. The one of the things which makes us different is our education which here in Europe wants from us to have a little bit different perspective of the world. That also isn't thrue for all European countries because Western Europe where I temporarily study (otherwise am from Eastern Europe) adopts American philosophy even in education. So Lars von Trier has every right to say that he is also American. And if you look at his movies from that perspective you will notice that
by critisizing American culture he also makes critics on himself. And it's not only about critics. It is pointing out things which are not good in our culture and what he wants from us is to look up into ourselves and try to change something. -
CinemaRomeo — 19 years ago(April 04, 2007 08:03 AM)
First of all, the philosophy of modern capitalism DIDN'T originate from America. It came from the Scottish Enlightenment. On our continent, we've tried a variety of economic systems, from Communism to Mercantilism to our modern "mixed" economy. Yes, I guess we're more "free market" than many other nations, but I think that's relative.
I suppose in a sense we're becoming a global village. After all, you and I are communicating with each other right now, without having to leave our respective homes, something that would've been quite difficult a couple of decades ago. In fact, I can't imagine trying to communicate with all these other people from all these other nations at one time by phone! "Six way calling??" lol..
I'm curious about what you mean when you say Western Europe adopts an "American philosophy" in education. I really hope you're not studying Dewey, Thoreau, and Whitman at the expense of Heidegger, Sartre, and Nietzsche. We don't even do that here.
Also, I'm all for criticizing what you see as weaknesses or deficiencies in a culture. Or wanting people to become better.
What's strange to me is the way von Trier does that. Instead of moving from nation to nation to explore painful aspects of the human spirit, he sticks with one and makes a trilogy. It looks less like an "exploration" than a desire to piss us off, become notorious, and make money. In other words, it seems verycapitalist of him.
Don't knock masturbation - it's sex with someone I love. ~Woody Allen -
rhea_b24 — 18 years ago(April 08, 2007 07:05 PM)
I think it makes sense if he feels 60% american. You make movies about stories you identify with it - and if it happens to be the american story so be it. I think he has a right as anyone in the world to criticize the culture most of the world has adopted and if there are people criticizing in their homes, in their workplaces and criticizing how they feel about a certain part of the very culture that is directly affecting them,(not saying that one has to be influenced 60% by a culture to write an effective story - we all know what happened in Nazi Germany and write a critique of the treatment of the jews without setting a foot in the country) then why is it such a big thing to put it on film? If you have not noticed, the United States at the moment is the centre of controversy. Many people may feel the same as Lars, many will not, but it is good that he is able to express his opinions and put them on film for the world to see and decide whether they want to accept his views or not, because, no matter how much i shout my opinions they will definitely not reach a worldwide audience the way Lars' ideas have - opening the floor for discussion on why you might or might not agree with his views (we are on a message board are we not?). He has the privilege of using his talent to voice his opinion.
-
CinemaRomeo — 18 years ago(April 09, 2007 10:06 AM)
I agree, sort of. I'm not saying he can't make any film he wants, just that his rationalizations for this trilogy don't really hold water with me. If you'll notice, the objection I brought up had to do with that "60% American" thing. I just take offense to that.
Lars hasn't sworn an oath of allegiance to the United States, so I don't know where he gets off calling himself "American" in any way, shape or form. My life as an American has been heavily influenced by the British Empire. Even our documents such as the Constitution and Bill of Rights and so forth are heavily indebted to British tradition. I even speak English, for cryin' out loud! But it doesn't make me "British", no matter how much of the culture and way of life I've soaked up.
Don't knock masturbation - it's sex with someone I love. ~Woody Allen