Misinterpretations of the film
-
kiljoy78 — 19 years ago(August 16, 2006 11:15 AM)
Yes, I think it's easy for people to turn the agenda of this film around, and I am very suspicious of that. I wonder if that in itself because of one's discomfort over race issues. While I'm not saying that this parable does not also extend the foreign policy, which I clearly agree it can, but it is pretty clear a film about race in America. What I find most intriguing and what I find very glossed over is the psychological effects of slavery on slaves. Usually, when slaves are portrayed they are portrayed as honest, decent victims. This film rejects that as a false notion, which it surely was. In order to a system like slavery to work, not only do slaveowners have to believe in it, but slaves themselves must on some level, specifically if born to such a situation. That being the case, one has to wonder what sort of people such imprisonment breads. Violent people as the one woman and her children, disinterested people, like many of the slaves on the plantation, and most vividly in this movie the pleasing, chameleon. I find it very interesting how these groups exist today in the black community. There are higher rates of violent crime and higher rates a fatalistic thoughts in these communities. This is the heart of the discomfort in this movie to me. By saying that slavery breeds problematic people is this a indictment of white or black America? It would seem both.
also was it me or was the Mansi/Munsi dialogue a satirical look at pan-africanism in the black community. it seemed so to me, and appropriately so. As a black guy I find it interesting how other blacks have this kinship to Africa and even specific groups when it's unlikely any real connection exists today. I mean I could be from one area of africa, or another, who knows? -
meow9 — 19 years ago(December 19, 2006 09:15 PM)
I was confused by the Mansi/Munsi emphasis (are they "real"?). Was the distinction simply a useful plot device for Trier to articulate the different colours Timothy the chameleon takes on? Or were there many more layers which I totally missed? It seemed to get a lot of dialogue, a lot of attention.
-
janus3 — 19 years ago(September 09, 2006 03:47 AM)
great posting jeff. i'd just like to chime my 2 cents. i think this movie also had to deal with the fact that black people are better off being slaves because they can't do anything themselves. they needed laws because they couldn't function as a sovereign state by themselves. the narrator at the end even says something like "whoever says the us isn't ready for black people need only look up for a hand." i think this film also dealt with afirmitive action. grace (u.s.a) was trying to make up for them being slaves by punishing the white family (white usa)and ignoring her gangster's needs(also white usa), which happens today, the us is so hellbent on "making things right" that in the long run it's hurting the us by excluding white people and treating them unfairly. after all, the white family got punished for doing what the black people wanted which we find out at the end.
-
aquarianbrass — 19 years ago(October 06, 2006 08:02 PM)
Excatly,
People expect blacks to thrive after being set free first from slavery and then from legal segregation. Both situations left blacks without the necessary
resources to compete in the outside society but everyone somehow expects them to be alright. 'Everyone is equal now so we can play this game fair and square." Easy enought for one to say that when you acquired all the best cards while you were holding my hands behind my back.
Its like making me play the first half without half my team, and then expecting me to catch up in the second half even though I'm still a man or two down. BS. -
tricky_jgc — 19 years ago(November 27, 2006 03:51 PM)
I agree on so many levels on most of what's been written on this board.
I also found a tough speech on american death penalty (How emotional is that scene, and how representative is when Grace says: "killing won't bring Claire back"?)
Now, is the film recist? I don't personally think so, actually I find it to be quite the opposite (you know african american people not ready to face their so called freedom in a society where there was everything but), yet I feel like in times of the extreme political correctness, might be misinterpreted big time.
I mean, just 9 out of the twelve slave roles had to be portrayed by brits due to the african-american actors refusal to play them. -
logan-burns — 19 years ago(December 08, 2006 03:46 PM)
"i find it incredibly shameful" that you feel the need to 'educate' viewers with all the obvious information your presented..and its BS that you need to "be well versed in black history" to watch this film. are you kidding, you simply need to have been brought into this world to get anything from this, you don't need to be versed in history, but in experience.as for "mis- interpretations" are you kidding?
-
johnslegers — 16 years ago(August 27, 2009 04:12 PM)
Actually, I would say the topic is broader than just post-Civil War USA. In my opinion, this film just wants to show us that most people just long for a lifestyle they're used to. a lifestyle that comes natural to them because they don't know any other way. It shows us how naive liberals try to correct this, yet make mistake after mistake and in the end turn out to be even more arrogant and prejudiced than those they hate. Both Dogville and Manderlay carry a similar theme.
-
Eli_Zardo — 16 years ago(September 01, 2009 05:35 PM)
"40 acres and a mule." This was a measure given to blacks, by General Sherman, entitling them to land and the opportunity to cultivate it themselves.
The problem here,
of course
, is that General Sherman had no authority to set such a policy in the first place.
I'm not saying it isn't representative of injustices or short-sightedness or that it should have been revoked but rather what "40 acres and a mule" is misunderstood as.
Not least of which would be the fact the mule part is a complete fabrication, it was simply a
limited
land redistribution plan. -
roamingbrit — 16 years ago(October 21, 2009 02:45 AM)
This an excellent thread and I am thankful for the views people have put forward. After just watching the film myself the comments on here have helped me to more fully develop my own views and make a few things clearer to me.
This a great film I think, the style of filming, similar to that of Dogville, as well as the subject matter of course, makes the viewer focus on the dialogue more than they might otherwise.
The take on slavery in America and indeed American foreign policy are all very thought provoking, and to me that is the sign of a half decent film if it makes you think critically about something, if this film achieves anything than it is that. -
chilicheeze — 16 years ago(April 01, 2010 11:01 PM)
Yeah - but Dogville was a one time (excellent) experiment I loved it - but this was too much of a 'foreigner' butting his unwanted nose in.
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=42385905