Rascism in Manderlay
-
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. -
johnslegers — 16 years ago(August 27, 2009 03:57 PM)
kwalstedt-1 pretty much explains what this film is about. Manderlay and Dogville are both stories critical or naive liberals and how they in their self-indulgent arrogance believe they are better than everyone else while at the same time preaching equality, freedom for all and other nonsense.
-
kyzasoze2003 — 14 years ago(May 19, 2011 08:43 PM)
Now that Von Trier has said he's a Nazi and sympathysis with Adolf Hitler, people will be looking at this film to see if it really is racist. I actually didn't think it was racist and as for Von Trier who knows what he really thinks, he's a crap-talker that now looks like he's dug his own grave. He doesn't want to be thought of like Mel Gibson.
-
RealDuality — 13 years ago(April 03, 2013 03:29 AM)
ZeeXy- Another liar in the media. Your probably too stupid to realize your lying.
You can go to YouTube and view his two minute response to a reporter's question that has been lied about again and again. This is YouTube at its best, cutting thru the bs to the source. If you search Lars and Nazi, it's the first video.
Lars is answering a question about an earlier comment he had made about how Bruno Ganz' portrayal of Hitler in Downfall caused him to sympathize for the historical figure during his last days in his bunker. I am Jewish, and I had the exact same reaction to this movie. This comment was about how great Bruno's performance is and nothing more.
He, further, talks about how he thought he was Jewish his whole life until his mother told him on her deathbed that he was the son of a German composer. When he says he is a Nazi, he means he is German. It's a way of speaking that allows for misinterpretation, and Lars jokes during the whole answer how he knows the member of the media is asking this question so he can purposefully mischaracterize his statements, but he goes on anyway, which I loved.
The most interesting thing about the whole incident was how the media acted like he gave a pro-Hitler/pro-Nazi speech when most of them knew that wasn't true. Some members of the media even admitted that they didn't care about the truth, only what was scandalous. -
PoppyTransfusion — 14 years ago(August 20, 2011 02:54 PM)
"america not ready for them, i think not. () if you can't see a helping hand than you only have
yourself to blame"
(along those lines), the 'only having yourself to blame' is word for word.
The narration in Dogville and Manderlay was deeply ironic/mocking/sarcastic and all told, brilliantly, by a very sincere sounding John Hurt. The idea that America gives a helping hand to anyone is what is being questioned. I think you've been suckered in and have taken it as a literal and sincere statement of the film/film maker.
I'm a fountain of blood
In the shape of a girl -
Robanjo78 — 14 years ago(August 22, 2011 11:04 AM)
The idea that America gives a helping hand to anyone is what is being questioned.
Exactly, and that is what Manderlay is about. You can not easily assimilate people or force new moral standards down on them. Remember the movie was made after the second Iraq war, which probably is the best example. But he doesn't just adress U.S. but the whole western world. But U.S. is after all the leader of the western world. -
nicholast1990 — 13 years ago(April 20, 2012 12:30 AM)
I have some comments that are here and there over your text. First, the quote at the end is logical and true. If it is meant as you say it is, then it most certainly is not aimed at the entirety of the african-americans and only at those who have failed to become well adjusted, functioning members of society. Quite a bit of these types of people exist and you're just being ignorant if you say they don't. I think that the message applies directly to all people and not just african-americans, and took the message that way assuming the way it was presented was solely because it was a understandable and shocking way to present this message. Lars loves the shock.
I agree with your last blurb about people getting over the guilt of slavery. Anything outside of regarding each race as equal just makes no sense at this point and from my experiences, is what keeps racism alive. Both on the caucasian side with guilt, and the african-american side playing the victim. I, like you, believe that color should not be your identity, but do think it plays its part. I think the film is less about blacks than it may seem and more about the US as a whole. But who knows I guess. At the very least I'd like to say anyone who is reading this after Meloncholia and Antichrist have came out should not be surprised he chose a topic that would cause controversy, perhaps just because it would. -
RealDuality — 13 years ago(April 03, 2013 02:47 AM)
misprincepessa- You took one line and you twisted it to conform to your view of Lars' perspective. You misquoted the movie by taking it out-of-context.
That being said, the fact that you got upset over a movie about slavery depicting it as an important, permanent part of American history, shows the very importance of its depiction. Our racist history is not something that we can ever escape. It is true that slavery in this sense doesn't exist anymore, but it has shaped the nature of our whole country. There are a number of places where slavery's mark can be clearly seen, like the recent hot topic of NCAA Division 1 Men's basketball and football players.
I love America, but Lars is right that slavery has shaped our nation. It has had a permanent legacy. This is the message that I got from the movie.
I like how Lars didn't shy away from making the black characters racist. Normally, movies about slavery are racist in that only the white people care about race. This is by far the most realistic movie I have ever seen about race.
I think PoppyTransfusion understood the narration better, with the comment that it is the helping hand that is being questioned. I was confused by misprincepessa's analysis; I didn't understand the movie in that context at all.
Furthermore, a number of people have commented that Lars is to blame for people misunderstanding his movie. If a movie is made the right way, as this one is, some types of people are supposed to misunderstand it.