Lars von Trier is certainly not a subtle director, we all know he's sending a message with this movie (sort of) and is u
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Manderlay
MrWall21 — 16 years ago(April 08, 2009 11:18 PM)
Lars von Trier is certainly not a subtle director, we all know he's sending a message with this movie (sort of) and is using southern American slavery as an allegory for something else. So why did he choose such a morally unambiguous issue? We learned from "The Idiots" that he likes to make his audiences squirm (and his audiences tend to like it) but in this case it comes off as ignorant, racist, or both. No one I have spoken to about this movie has offered an answer or even seems to be likewise confused.
Something to be remembered here is that attitudes in the film (which takes place in 1933) are the same as those in 1862 (when abolition became a goal in the Civil War). During the war and subsequent reconstruction, southern slaveholders were forced by armed, white, moralizing Northerners to give-up their slaves, who were installed into positions of administration. Manderlay simply transposes the year of these events and then constantly attacks the abolitionists with equivocation and logical fallacies the likes of which would make Sean Hannity envious. He also throws in an ambiguous interracial rape scene just to make people that much more uncomfortable. The message I got from watching this movie was that black people are so dumb they would rather be slaves than free, and everyone would be a lot better off if they were. I hope someone can demonstrate that that is not the point of the movie. -
funnygurl — 16 years ago(April 09, 2009 06:00 PM)
Well that's not the point that I got from it.
I think he does something similar to what he did in Dogville, in terms of playing with our perceptions and expectations. Grace is in the same position as the audience when she arrives at Manderlay. She's completely against the slavery she sees. As far as she's concerned there is no moral ambiguity. It's wrong, and she's going to change it. But by changing it, she implies that she knows some way of doing things that is better, and she only needs a short amount of time to completely alter the way people have lived for hundreds of years. She thinks of herself as some sort of great liberator, and that others will fall into her line of thinking because it is "right". But she's naive and arrogant. You can't just walk into a place and grant freedom as if it were always yours to give, and you can't assume that you will be welcomed for what can be percieved as imposing a new system on people.
I think it can be looked at as a reflection on American actions in Vietnam and Iraq: going into a culture we don't fully understand, disrupting peoples lives and expecting to be thanked for it. Morally it is ambiguous, because the conditions under which they've been living
are
bad and there
is
perhaps something better. But the assumption that we are all knowing and can make that decision is arrogant. Is freedom even really freedom if it's imposed? And is America the only nation that does this? I don't think so. I think that it's a dynamic between dominant and nondominant populations in general. The issue of slavery based on race is an example that's used to illustrate the phenomenon.
You mention the rape scene which I found interesting. There's another thread here where people discuss whether if
was
in fact rape. Some people raise some interesting points on there and I suggest you take a look at it.
I don't know think the film presents definite answers to these questions. I don't think that definite answers exist. Remember in Dogville, watching how Grace was treated by the townspeople. I'm fairly certain everyone who saw that was able to say "that's wrong": she was turned into a slave laborer and a sex slave. No one could condone such treatment. And when Grace turned the tables on them there was a sense of satisfaction on the part of the viewer because she's taking a stand against it. But on the other hand there is a moral revulsion at the horror of what's happening and a revulsion at oneself for feeling satisfaction. This does the same thing but in a different way and through a different lens. It takes something that we think of as morally black and white and tries to add some shades of grey. -
MrWall21 — 16 years ago(April 11, 2009 11:47 PM)
You never addressed my original question, which was WHY Trier would choose American slavery as the allegory, becuase his message essentially becomes "abolition was wrong." I know he likes to play with peoples expectations, etc. but if he thought African American actors would be happy to jump on board then perhaps (gasp) he is not as in tune with American culture as he thinks. (I am one of those who thinks he isn't.)
-
combatreview — 16 years ago(April 12, 2009 01:01 PM)
I would have said that the answer to your question is fairly obvious, and you address it early on in your original post: slavery is a morally unambiguous issue.
But, a person's position on a morally unambiguous issue does mean that they themselves are morally pure, or morally unambiguous, or indeed correct in their beliefs. If I object to Slavery this does not guarantee that my reasons for doing so are legitimate or correct. If I argue that Slavery should be abolished, that does not mean that I have a good understanding of how that abolition should be brought about, or what state of affairs I think should directly replace it, and how much socioeconomic upheaval this will cause - and indeed whether it's something that needs to be very carefully managed to make the transition less destructive. Ideology says it should happen overnight. Common Sense warns against that.
Anyway, valid morality can be espoused by those who commit wicked acts in its name. To take an example, John Brown thought his position on Slavery (with which I agree) legitimised the abduction and brutal murder of people who had not committed a legally criminal act and who benefitted from the laws that he sought to remove. Naturally I don't agree with murdering slave owners, with or without broadswords. In other words, supporting a good cause does not, in itself, make you a good person. This notion is fundamental to Manderlay.in this case it comes off as ignorant, racist, or both.
I've commented on the supposed 'racism' of this film on a different thread. I seriously think you have to have comprehensively misunderstood this film to see it as racist. It is, in part, a comment on racism - principally the veiled and hypocritical racism of Grace, but it is hardly supportive of the more overt and brutal racism expressed by other characters. The narration, obviously, is sarcastic - and that's the closest the film comes to approving of any of the racism therein.
Manderlay simply transposes the year of these events and then constantly attacks the abolitionists with equivocation and logical fallacies
Could you give some examples?
He also throws in an ambiguous interracial rape scene
Well, no he doesn't. First, it's not ambiguous, and second it's not a rape. The clue is in the way that Grace, at no point, says 'no', 'don't', or 'stop'. Also, it's something she has been explicitly (to the audience) wanting for some time. Ultimately it seems to be an unpleasant experience for her but we're in little doubt that it's what she wanted up to the point of penetration - note her cliched 'Orientalist' fantasies earlier in the film.
Her lust for the man in question is a major influence and distorts the judgement she is so proud of. It's also making the elementary point that just because Grace has good intentions does not mean that she is uncorrupted by the things that she condemns in others. Her good intentions could be seen as a sin of pride on her part - she believes that she, personally, can intervene and bring light and democracy to the benighted. She institutes lessons to tell the liberated people how they should run their society, and at no point asks any of them to tell her what kind of society they would like, nor encourages thought or discussion about it. Of course, having been kept in a state of disadvantaged ignorance they might not easily take to such a discussion. But Grace thinks that her own favoured model of society can be imposed by her will. And her will is only imposable because of the men standing behind her - armed gangsters. So all of her benevolence is only meaningful because she has men willing to threaten and kill to back her up. That's an enterprise corrupted from the start.
Moreover, when the first major issue of conflict arises in the society - the accusation that the old woman has been stealing food - Grace bows to the values of the chaotic and brutalised society she is supposedly attempting to civilise, and agrees to execute an old woman without trial or defence - and without it being a remotely suitable punishment for the alleged crime. She goes along with the baying of the mob, so to speak. She solidifies her position as dictator from that moment.
The message I got from watching this movie was that black people are so dumb they would rather be slaves than free
Then you have absolutely failed to understand it. It's not about slavery, it's about tyranny, 'liberation', revolution and idealism. It challenges the viewer with the notion that moral goodness is a complicated thing and if imposed on the whims of the morally vain it can be easily corrupted.
It would be rather astounding if the black actors in the film felt that this film was pushing the message you see in it. It would be astounding if such a film saw release without massive popular objection to it, or indeed support from the Klan.
I hope someone can demonstrate that that is not the point of the movie.
Okay, the point of the movie is t -
MrWall21 — 16 years ago(April 13, 2009 11:55 PM)
Ultimatley, I know von Trier, for all his many, many, many failings as a director/storyteller/human being, is not supporting slavery. My primary objection, which can lead to misunderstood statements, is that he seems to essentially attack abolitionism to its core. I have a BA in drama and work professionally as an actor and director, and I cannot emphasize enough how much people misapprehend the purpose of fiction. People seem to think that proving a concrete concept in a fictional universe will prove the abstract in real life. Von Trier does this many times throughout Manderlay, thus my accusations of equivocation and logical falacies, such as when Grace says that the slaves should have been freed 70 years ago, and one of the slaves asks, sarcastically, if it was okay for them to be slaves before then. Trier also has Grace flog a woman for stealing food, essentially becoming a tyrant (something Lincoln went to pains not to be, or at least to be less of, depending on your opinion). We need to remember that a fictional story in a movie does not prove anything in real life. This was something that bothered me even in fourth grade when I had to write book reports about "what I learned" from reading a work of fiction.
Manderlay is Trier's own little world where he can make anything mean anything. His failing is using it to moralize at us in the real world. Ultimatley, from his stories, to his dialogue, to his cinematography, Trier seems more intent on making his audience uncomfortable than on making them think about things worthwhile. -
combatreview — 16 years ago(April 14, 2009 01:11 AM)
My primary objection, which can lead to misunderstood statements, is that he seems to essentially attack abolitionism to its core.
I absolutely don't agree. If I thought this film was about slavery I agree that it would absolutely be on extremely shaky ground and seem to be attacking the abolitionist movement. It would seem rather late in the day to be making such a critique, for one thing.
I have a BA in drama and work professionally as an actor and director, and I cannot emphasize enough how much people misapprehend the purpose of fiction.
I absolutely do agree - and I would read it in a broader sense, that people can find messages that do not exist in the author's intention. Your reading of this film as being about slavery/abolition seems, to me, to be startlingly superficial. Surely you can see that while it may depict these things it is not about these things?
People seem to think that proving a concrete concept in a fictional universe will prove the abstract in real life. Von Trier does this many times throughout Manderlay, thus my accusations of equivocation and logical falacies
But your contention is, itself, based on a fallacy. The very fact that imposing your interpretation leads to the film spelling out some shockingly unpleasant things is surely, in itself, reason enough to question that interpretation?
such as when Grace says that the slaves should have been freed 70 years ago, and one of the slaves asks, sarcastically, if it was okay for them to be slaves before then.
But the whole point of that is to undermine Grace's moral righteousness, illustrate that despite her good intentions and moral certainty she still carries unintentional racist assumptions within her, and that these limit her to the extent that even the words she uses to express her righteous intentions are seeded with narrow-mindedness and a lack of thought, or indeed real empathy. The sarcastic rejoinder is a perfectly good observation and shows us that Grace doesn't have the empathy with the people she is 'rescuing' that she thinks she does, and is seen as patronising. It's not there to make a point about slavery.
Trier also has Grace flog a woman for stealing food
Quite wrong, Grace EXECUTES a woman for stealing food. Later she flogs a man for stealing money - though it's clear that her reasons for flogging him are more personal than judicial. Apparently stealing money is less of a sin than stealing food. Though notionally the old woman was blamed, ludicrously, for the death of a child, a crime she could not be reasonably be said to have committed - but for what she perceives as the good of the community, Grace goes along with the will of the mob, rather than standing up and enforcing the freedoms that she claims she is introducing. The right of the accused to a fair trail by her peers is denied the woman. That's tyranny, not democracy.
essentially becoming a tyrant (something Lincoln went to pains not to be, or at least to be less of, depending on your opinion).
Yes, but he's got nothing to do with it. The film is about a character called Grace Mulligan, who isn't particularly comparable to Abe Lincoln, except in terms of her position on Slavery.
We need to remember that a fictional story in a movie does not prove anything in real life.
Clearly, but I don't think there is an attempt to 'prove' anything here.
Manderlay is Trier's own little world where he can make anything mean anything. His failing is using it to moralize at us in the real world.
What else should he use it for?
Your criticism would be interesting in the sense that Trier might, perhaps, share the moral vanity of his protagonist. Except, you don't subscribe to my 'moral vanity' interpretation. So, do you honestly think he's just trying to say that abolition is wrong or foolish? Do you honestly think that every one of those actors in that film read the script and decided they would like to be associated with that message? The cast list doesn't swell with the names Gibsonian or Hestonian reactionaries.
Ultimatley, from his stories, to his dialogue, to his cinematography, Trier seems more intent on making his audience uncomfortable than on making them think about things worthwhile.
You say this, but you don't say what you mean - a logical fallacy of your own, a non-sequiter. You've ignored some of my points, illustrated that you don't remember the film very accurately, and are apparently unaware of the existence of the concept of a 'metaphor'.
You asked for somebody to disprove your reading of the film. Honestly, I don't believe you've halfway succeeded in presenting a reading of the film that is plausible.
Now, if your critique was that Trier is being obvious and crude in banging on about Iraq, which is getting to be very boring, I would think you were on to something. But you persist with a superficial reading of a story that doesn't bear serious scrutiny.
Now Dogville IS about slavery. But perhaps you think it's a -
j30bell — 16 years ago(April 14, 2009 01:49 AM)
Why slavery?
Well, in a film about tyranny and freedom, slavery is a useful device. It is, after all, the most extreme form of unfreedom.
Manderlay could be applicable to Iraq. It could also be applicable to the Russian Revolution, or any number of demagogic revolutions. -
funnygurl — 16 years ago(April 15, 2009 10:26 AM)
If people can misunderstand and misinterpret a film does that mean it should be done differently? Because to me it seems that no film would ever get made if that were the case. People bring their own beliefs and prejudices and ideas to any work of art that they encounter. That isn't a new thing and it won't change. But when we think about the implications of our intial impressions and see that something doesn't quite add up (as you've seen that the apparent advocacy of slavery doesn't make sense) hopefully we question it a bit further, thereby calling our own values and beliefs into question as well.
-
j30bell — 16 years ago(April 15, 2009 03:58 PM)
People bring their own beliefs and prejudices and ideas to any work of art that they encounter. That isn't a new thing and it won't change.
I agree, and arguably shouldn't change, since the audience is part of the creative process. However, there are objectively nonsensical interpretations of art as well. Saying Manderlay is anti-abolitionist is like saying The English Patient is pro-sand or Into the Void is anti-snow. What a film contains isn't the same thing as what it's about. -
soo_z_g — 14 years ago(March 12, 2012 11:58 AM)
Bravo, combatreview, for your two long, very apt posts on this thread. I believe you conclusively answered all of the points of the O.P. (both in his original and subsequent posts), and if he fails to see that, he is being obtuse. By a statement made later on by the O.P. - "I know Von Trier, for all his many, many, many failings as a director/storyteller/human being" - the O.P. makes evident that he is biased against Von Trier on every level. His mind is obviously closed to any logical arguments.
-
johnslegers — 16 years ago(August 27, 2009 04:34 PM)
The message of this film :
- Liberals are naive and arrogant fools who feel superior but make one mistake after the other.
- Tradition is not always but often a choice more succesful than revolutionary new ideas even if tradition means submission to what (at first sight) appears to be opression.
Freed slaves were just a context.
-
DC_Collins — 14 years ago(April 25, 2011 01:43 AM)
Manderlay
is postulated as the 2nd of 3 movies in LVT's
Amerika
trilogy. Slavery was chosen because slavery was instrumental in the creation of American wealth.
2. The movie illustrated ways in which the former slaves deliberately adhered to expected behaviors, despite being legally unbound from overt servitude. They acted this way because there was no greater societal framework beyond the plantation for them to enter, and within that space there was no model of empowerment; only various ways of meeting white expectation.
3. The whites who forcibly put blacks into slavery refused to see that they could not undo the damage of slavery by mere legal emancipation. There was no true sharing of power, only a pretense of cooperation. Whites were still deciding limits and boundaries of behavior for blacks, whether idealized or demeaned. Both groups were irrevocably altered by the pre-existing system of objectification inherent in slavery.
4. Slavery was legally practiced by the nation's founders, creating a fundamental hypocrisy in America which cannot be erased or undone by legislative means. Corrective legislation seems to ironically perpetuate the unequal dynamic toward African diaspora in the United States. The taking of real power by blacks is often feared and warded against in this country by the liberal elite and reactionary conservatives alike.
http://www.imdb.com/board/10087239/