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
-
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/