Rascism in Manderlay
-
kwalstedt-1 — 17 years ago(October 12, 2008 05:11 PM)
I thought the narrator was heavily sarcastic throughout the film, though possibly most so at the end. To me the point of the film was that white liberal do-gooders are just as racist and destructive in the end as white conservatives. Von Trier protrays white liberals by turns as guilty, privileged, arrogant, naive, hypocritical, and ultimately useless. Grace thinks she knows better than the slave community that she "frees" and assumes she needs to take charge of and educate. She does not ask if they want her "help" and she does not take in any of what the people of Manderlay are telling her and showing her. She blindly proceeds with her mission, driven by guilt, righteousness, arrogance and some genuine caring mixed in. But her belief that she can and should control everything in their world ultimately leads to naught. If she had any redeeming qualities, her failure might have led her to self-reproach and introspection, but instead it makes her turn on the people she thought it was her mission to help. It's a bleak condemnation of American society by a director who can't manage any sympathy for any of his subjects.
-
Tchoutoye — 14 years ago(October 21, 2011 06:00 PM)
The narrator, that is the opinion of the movie, of the maker, the message that it is trying to convey.
Not necessarily. One of the tropes of fiction is that of the unreliable narrator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreliable_narrator
One of the weakest elements of both Dogville and Manderlay are the highly suggestive photo montages during the end credits, when the abstract allegories that constitute both films are connected to real life events.
Is Von Trier suggesting that all blacks are like those in the film? I surely hope not. I'm willing to give the director the benefit of the doubt and consider the epilogue narration an attempt to be provocative on a sensitive issue, which, due to its suggestive ambiguity, somewhat clumsily backfired and lends itself to misinterpretation. -
puradrea — 14 years ago(January 28, 2012 11:32 AM)
I'm 99.9% sure the' helping hand' comment was sarcastic (listen to the tone of voice againit was dripping with sarcasm). If you recall, the 'helping hand' in the beginning that lynched the husband who was willing trying to escape his brutal wife was directly compared to Grace's character. Grace, an arrogant, spoiled rich girl imparting her world view through force. While Von Trier's film was 'about' slavery, it was actually a parable for Americathe hypocritical pattern of wreaking havoc then forcibly extending a 'helping' hand to the poor, misguided people who are just too ignorant to pick themselves up and require assistance to free themselves (once again, Iraq). The pictures in the epilogue tell the narrative of the brutality that African-Americans have faced from slavery onward, depicted our leaders assassinatedI think Von Trier is very aware of American history, and the storyline of this parable was not a universal condemnation of African-Americans (it was after all one shocking little enclave in Alabama), but an example of how human behavior can be impacted by oppression and more-so how arrogant and hypocritical Americans can be by imposing freedom by force as an excuse to alleviate guilt for past transgressions. He basically lets you know that this was a parable for the Iraq war by showing the picture of President Bush in the epilogue's montage (not just there because Bush doesn't care about Black people)
By the way, I'm African-American too and was not in the least offended by this film. While I can't say that all of his films are 'enjoyable,' Von Trier has some really large cojones -
todnshel — 17 years ago(June 20, 2008 09:14 PM)
to quote you on this .I love some of Von Triers movies but I could not get through this one. The idea that slaves would not know what to do with their freedom, is absolute crap. There are hundred of slave narratives, political entreaties and interviews about how slaves resisted their status and runaway when the opportunity presented itself. African Americans have only had constitutional rights since 1964. You feel that privileges and advantages of the prior centuries have been completely erased in less than 50 years? Do you live in the same country I do or are you just very young? I dont find it so hard to believe that they would be hesitant or afraid or unsure. Much like a prisoner who has been conditioned to prison life and following a set schedule for 30 years and then suddenly set free. It can be very very scary.
Where would they go? who would house them? where do they get money? clothing? food? try to imagine if you will being kidnapped and set in another country, where no one knows you, you have nothing to your name, and whats more you are surrounded by the very same people that have forced you into a certain way all your life. So basically no one you can trust, or ask for help.
No the fact that they had a hard time trying to adjust isnt unrealistic to me when you think about it. -
PsychoDingo — 15 years ago(December 29, 2010 01:31 PM)
There are also many real-world stories of slaves who decided to stay with their former owners after being made free, just as there are many stories of freed prisoners who can't wait to get back into jail.
I think the point is not so much that slaves or prisoners are incapable of figuring out how to live as free people, but that some of them have developed comfort zones and want to stay in them, for better or worse, rather than deal with the unfamiliar.
Another thing worth considering is that it is a mistake to fall into the trap of thinking that a movie about 20 slaves is not a movie about all slaves. People need to learn that it is possible to address a certain segment of the population without extrapolating it across the entire population. Otherwise, it would be perfectly reasonable to say that Do The Right Thing is proof that Spike Lee thinks all black people are petty racists with ridiculous hair cuts and loud radios. -
MrsBuckyBarnes — 10 years ago(December 10, 2015 03:16 AM)
I love some of Von Triers movies but I could not get through this one. The idea that slaves would not know what to do with their freedom, is absolute crap. There are hundred of slave narratives, political entreaties and interviews about how slaves resisted their status and runaway when the opportunity presented itself.
i could not get past the first 15 minutes. it sickened me to see black survivors portrayed as naive simpletons who didn't even think of trying to challenge the oppression and demeaning categorisation they were experiencing until white lady bountiful came to save them. i understand from reading a synopsis that in the end the people of manderlay just cannot cope with being free and would prefer to revert back to being slaves with no future beyond the mansion. that is grotesque. -
Mr Nuff — 17 years ago(January 24, 2009 09:39 PM)
I have to hope that the "But if anybody refused to see a helping hand, he really only had himself to blame" line was sarcastic.
Regardless, it doesn't affect the film's overall message which appears to be that slavery isn't that bad of an institution; and that all white people are viciously racist, save for a few liberals whose white guilt will only end up making things worse for everybody.
I am astounded and angry. I have to meditate on this to see if that's truly the message von Trier is really making before I write my review. -
combatreview — 17 years ago(January 31, 2009 08:30 AM)
Blimey. This is a depressing thread.
First - OF COURSE THE NARRATION IS IRONIC. Apart from it being obvious in the tone of voice employed by John Hurt, the commentary is absolutely at odds with any reasonable interpretation of events on screen, at several points, and exactly as was the case in Dogville.
Second, this film isn't about slavery, nor attempting to be a realistic depiction of Africans, of Slavery, of whatever. You might see it as being about Iraq, actually, since it's pressing the argument that you cannot go from Tyranny to fully-functioning democracy in a matter of months because the distorted pattern of society cannot so easily be rectified.
It's even suggesting that a tyrannised population may find it easier to follow the strictures of the harsh autocracy they had always lived under than confront the decisions and self-determination that had been denied them previously. This may be controversial in that it offends our idealistic assumptions that all humans share equal capacities and equal entitlement to a set of standard freedoms, but that's idealism not observation of human behaviour. Note that humans will often opt for the imposition of a harsh set of rules rather than the chaos offered by freedom - whether that be on the individual basis of a person institutionalised in a prison and unable to live comfortably outside of that regime, or whether it be the people of an East European nation voting Communism back in a few short years after finally gaining democracy.
In any case, the sharp end of this narrative rests on Grace's neck. Her character is comprehensively assassinated throughout this film, despite her good intentions, and she ends up simply as a reincarnation of the tyranny she self-righteously removed - by force, at her own personal behest, and without the actual consent of, or consultation with, those she was liberating.
Grace is depicted, increasingly, as somebody who is no less racist than any of those she condemns - she imposes 'benevolent' racist stereotypes onto other people, most notably her eroticisation of one man, on whom she also imposes the 'noble savage' stereotype. She's too caught up in wanting to see this man as proud and noble, seemingly as gratification for her own lusts for the exotic (note the 'Orientalist' imagery of her dream) that she completely fails to recognise what should have been obvious about him. She refuses to judge him as a normal human being, because she is too much caught up with her own prejudiced assumptions to be objective. As one character points out to her at the end, if she contemptuous of the people she has wished to patronise, it is surely that she is contemptuous of herself - this is the society she created with her deliberate society-building good-intentions. Yet, the whole thing was poisoned from the beginning by the assumptions and narrow-mindedness that Grace brought in with her, and indeed by her assumption that her personal model of a good society could be imposed upon people, rather than letting them find out for themselves what kind of society they should have. In other words, she's as much of a tyrant as her predecessor, it's just that she smiles more and takes longer to resort to the lash.
When she leaves, and the narrator voices her thoughts, we are Absolutely Not supposed to agree with her. Clearly, people don't, and bridle at it. So why does it not occur to them that this was the intention? -
missprincipessa — 16 years ago(July 01, 2009 03:37 AM)
So MrNuff what's your verdict? i've re-watched and find it hard to see the sarcasm. Whether or not Von Trier's intentions were pure, i just felt generally insulted by this film.
Call me thick, call me ignorant, call oblivious if you like to his 'subtle style and implications' this one just doesn't do it for me
Also one shouldn't forget how much he loves to shock and disturb, and how self-righteous he can be I've always loved his work, and if/when he comes out with something new I'll see it but in this case I don't feel his argument of having been fed US media his entire life is enough to justify a supposed awareness and leveled, thoughtful view of the problem.
It feels more like an attempt to shock at any costs.
Furthermore as a little and interesting note the extras do show that when the cast and crew were shown that series of photographs during the credits, many of them were really offended by these, others willing to debate, but in any case, even among them, these photos created serious controversy. I vaguely remember a few walking out on the project but this may be wishful thinking.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
The Dude -
combatreview — 16 years ago(July 01, 2009 02:06 PM)
i've re-watched and find it hard to see the sarcasm.
Seriously? But every single line of the narration (I assume this is what you mean) is sarcastic! The very fact that you find the narrator's statements objectionable is an indicator of this. Moreover, it's the same narration as in Dogville - which again is heavily sarcastic. When characters we can see with our own eyes to be corrupt or wicked are sympathetically described by the narration, we have a choice in whether we just accept the opinion handed to us, or question what we are shown. The overt intention of the film is that it's narrative authority should be questioned. If it seriously meant the many objectionable things it superficially says, you could prosecute it for incitement to racial hatred.
Also one shouldn't forget how much he loves to shock and disturb, and how self-righteous he can be
I think we absolutely SHOULD forget this, because it's an observation about the director, not the film, and is effectively an excuse for not engaging with what is on screen. Just because you find something shocking certainly doesn't mean that it was done simply to offend your sensibilities. It doesn't mean that it wasn't, mind you, but some sensibilities deserve to be shocked, or that if something is shocking then it SHOULD shock us. The sight of people being casually cast overboard to drown in 'Amistad' is very shocking - but is it just gratuitous, or is it because the truth is shocking and the fact that it's shocking should not prevent us from having to look at the truth. The truth can be shocking, but I'd rather be shocked and know the truth than cosy and ignorant. So the intention to shock can be perfectly legitimate as a tool and as a consequence.
Furthermore as a little and interesting note the extras do show that when the cast and crew were shown that series of photographs during the credits, many of them were really offended by these, others willing to debate, but in any case, even among them, these photos created serious controversy.
Absolutely. But all 'controversy' means is that it divides opinion and creates discussion. What is wrong with that? Much, I would suggest, is RIGHT with it - I'd hate to go into a film that didn't want to discuss anything, just to tell me what the director believes I should think.
I imagine it all spins on the personal interpretation of the film - the photo montage is a bit of a cheap and scattergun shot at the US specifically, but should not be misread as an encapsulation of the entire film's argument - which is MUCH broader than that. It's like the flippant parting shot of somebody who's just finished their side of an argument - not the best work, but not the substance of their argument either. I dare say the montage changes the emphasis of the film for some people, and they don't like that change in emphasis. Nonetheless, I don't judge a film by its end credits, I judge it by itself. -
Mr Nuff — 16 years ago(July 11, 2009 03:10 AM)
I didn't write a formal review. I'm not sure why; maybe I just got busy, maybe I meant to check out Dogville to gain greater understanding of the writer's technique. In any case, it's been too long and I don't feel like writing one now.
I still think the ending was vague. Sure, it could have been sarcastic, but it sure wasn't obvious as many here claim.
I certainly won't call you thick or ignorant by feeling insulted by this film. You
should
feel insulted by this film. If the film isn't as racist as it appears to be, then you should at the very least feel insulted by the writer's impeccably poor execution of heavy subject matter that caused many people to misunderstand his intentions.
To address combatreview's points: I think the movie is very much about slavery. It depicts a real event in American history: the struggle of slaves to adopt the lifestyle of American citizens in the South after being freed. And, just like in this movie, many slaves were unaware for years of the Emancipation Proclamation. Comparing this to Hussein's Iraq where the people were not slaves but were, at the very worst, under a bloody monarch, is ridiculous.
Is it suggesting that a tyrannized population may find it easier to follow the structure of an "autocracy"? Possibly, and that's the problem. By doing so, the writer trivializes the plight of black slaves. The argument that slavery was bad, "but at least they were structured" ignores the utter brutality of American slavery. The most horrific thing that happens under the slaveholder (as far as I can remember, it's been a while) is the whipping of a slave. If they also featured torture, rape, mutilation, killings and attempts to run away the argument that the blacks were better off under the slavemaster would've been a harder point to make. Which is why I imagine they weren't included, yet every problem of adapting to the new society was included (many of which were still issues under "structured" slavery).
Sarcastic narrator or not, regardless of intentions; the more I think about this movie, the more it seems like an updated version of Birth of a Nation.
If the writer wanted to simply show the virtues of harsh structure versus democratic chaos, he should have picked a different historical event. -
combatreview — 16 years ago(July 11, 2009 06:46 PM)
I still think the ending was vague. Sure, it could have been sarcastic
How could it NOT be?
An innocent human being is swinging by his neck, murdered, as those words are uttered. This is what is known as a juxtaposition, and is not there by coincidence. By this reasoning we might imagine that the song 'Strange Fruit' is actually about fruit that happens to strangely resemble human bodies.
In all seriousness - do you really think we're supposed to see this and think 'yes, the narrator's absolutely right', quite apart from our own innate objections to the words being said on their own - which ought to be the first clue itself.
but it sure wasn't obvious as many here claim.
It SO is. The fact that you don't recognise it perhaps proves your point, but I honestly cannot help but suspect this is more indicative of the passive viewing technique of filmgoers these days than the failure of the film to say what it means. Film, like any other medium, is sometimes intended to be actively questioned by the consumer - and if consumers do not wish to do so, that is their failure. I once sat in a room watching the film 'Glory', and heard one of my fellow viewers condemn it as 'racist'. What he was of course doing was confusing the depiction of something with the condoning of it - because he just assumed that the film was inevitably endorsing what it was showing him. There is too much of this going on today given that we are supposedly a far more 'media-savy' generation.
If the film isn't as racist as it appears to be
then perhaps we should wonder why it was not roundly and widely condemned as racist on its release? And why the KKK or some other organisation do not cite it as propaganda in their favour? And why Danny Glover has not condemned it from the rooftops? And why Bryce Dallas Howard is not a bette-noir of certain political groups for her endorsement of this 'racist' material? Do you seriously imagine that an actively racist film starring high-profile performers, from a critically acclaimed director, could get away with mass-condemnation? Note that this is not even the most controversial film Von Trier has ever made!
To address combatreview's points: I think the movie is very much about slavery.
Why? Because it has slavery in it? That's a very naive starting point, surely? The main character is the daughter of a ganglord, and backed up by his thugs, so perhaps this film is very much about 1930s Organised Crime? Or perhaps that's just a device available from the period setting?
It depicts a real event in American history
Well, no it doesn't. It depicts a wholly fictional scenario using fictional characters, composed using factual elements of US history. This is not a historical film, merely one with a historical setting - and if you are in any doubt about this, you might reflect on the total lack of sets, hilighting the theatrical nature of the scenario to the audience. Moreover, the whole point of Manderlay is that it's a place where the historical event you cite has NOT taken place!
the struggle of slaves to adopt the lifestyle of American citizens in the South after being freed.
Again, this isn't in the film at all. Name me one single character in the film who does what you have just described, i.e. a former slave personally struggling and aspiring to their rightful status as a US citizen. The whole point of the narrative is that the social change occurs only because of Grace and her armed thugs - even then she has to push and cajole the populace to live in the manner she has decided is best for them. And that's the story being told on screen. Find me data that shows Von Trier is making a film about former slaves integrating into US society in a way that parallels the content of this film and I will be keenly interested.
And, just like in this movie, many slaves were unaware for years of the Emancipation Proclamation.
That is a tenuous relationship at best. Do you not think that if Von Trier had intended to make a film about slavery he might have, you know, actually made it ABOUT slavery?
Comparing this to Hussein's Iraq where the people were not slaves but were, at the very worst, under a bloody monarch, is ridiculous.
It isn't. I refer you to the dictionary. The words 'allegory' and 'metaphor' are both worth meditating upon before resorting to words like 'ridiculous'. If one does not wish to resort to allegory or metaphor, then one has to be literal (a word again worth meditating upon). The only literal way of dealing with a specific event is to illustrate it specifically. But do we think MASH was about Vietnam or Korea? Sure, it's SET in Korea, but it was made and shown during the Vietnam war. When Olivier made 'That Hamilton Woman' in the middle of the 1940s and filmed the scene where Admiral Nelson lectures his contemporaries on the nature of tyrants, and how they should not be appeased do we SERIOUSLY think the film was made to warn the world of the evils -
RealDuality — 13 years ago(April 03, 2013 03:14 AM)
MrNuff- You lied about what's actually in the movie in your post.
I don't believe you really watched it. Maybe, it was on in a room you were in and you saw a few scenes at best.
There IS a black person who gets lynched for trusting the kindness of white people. There is another who gets whipped for stealing, which you partially remembered.
The movie isn't about how the structure of slavery is good, but how it is permanent. It is about the continuity of that structure thru the lasting effects of slavery on the preceding generations.