Lars von Trier 'IS' American
-
gonzo-63 — 19 years ago(October 09, 2006 01:34 PM)
God I wou,d have to Von Trier was more American than the rest of us. We don't like to talk about the bad things we've done or examine them. To treally look back and see how we fuc*ed up. He brings it up so well here it. It's got to be more accurate to the human condition than you want to admit.
www.myspace.com/lilgonzito -
ras336 — 19 years ago(November 19, 2006 08:43 PM)
<<
OK.how about the "Last Samurai". Here we have an action/drama film written by John Logan and directed by Edward Zwick which combines to two major historical moments in ninetheenth century Japanese historythe 1877 Satsuma Rebellion led by Saigō Takamori and the story of Jules Brunet, a French army captain who fought alongside Enomoto Takeaki in the Boshin Warin order to make some ridiculously shallow points about the modernization/Westernization of a non-Western society in a historical milieu where there is a war in the Middle East to Westernize the region. Another movie with similar pretensions but a slightly different message is Oliver Stone's latest mess "Alexander" which is one big metaphor for the futility of Westernizing/democratizing/modernizing Mesopotamia.
Lars Von Tier is hardly the first filmmaker to make a movie about a country he has never stepped foot in with an eye for the current political scene, its done all of the time in U.S. cinema on a far more pretentious level than even Von Tier can aspire towhich is saying alot! -
nomustachio — 19 years ago(November 27, 2006 11:05 AM)
i guess i forgot to mention that i don't watch bad movies, so i've never seen any of the movies that you listed. you even listed a bad rocky. also i did use the phrase BLATANT CURRENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY. i agree that america is beep and has done some beep up stuff, but all i'm saying is that if you've never set foot on the soil of that nation you're not exactly in the best position to judge, althought he still did a good job.
to claim that directors are using actual historical stories that make for good movies to begin with the soul purpose of raising issues about current politics is possibly the dumbest idea i've heard all day, which is saying alot since i'm at a community college right now.
check out:
george washington
i
huckabeys
3 kings
roots
any of micheal moore's propaganda
monster's ball
the last picture show
all movies that are actually good that show americans displaying BLATANT CURRENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY. you might want to look up those words before you waste more of my time with non-applicable responces. everything you listed compared to Von Trier's work is extremely, extremely laughable. idiots. -
ras336 — 19 years ago(November 28, 2006 02:50 PM)
I don't see how any of the works I mentioned (Last Samurai and Alexander) cannot be read as political commentaries considering the historical milieu they were produced under? Only in your rigidly simplistic black/white world is there a neat split between strictly historical films and overtly political movie making.
Moreover, the point (which you miss in your polemic rant) is that a.) one does not need to step foot in a country to understand its most blatant hypocrisies or comment on them in an intelligent manner b.) that this has never stopped past and present American filmmakers from doing the very same with regards to the rest of the world and c.) its thus hypocritical for an American to make such critiques about Von Trier's work when nothing is said as Hollywood churns out one ignorant melodrama or comedy about some exotic, distant place in the world after another.
This entire anti-American criticism is a ridiculous blanket dismissal of Von Trier's work by Americans who are so sensitive about receiving any external criticism about our society and culture. It betrays a lack of willingness to engage his themes about the ever present tension between the baser aspects of human nature and the lofty American ideals. Both "Dogville" and "Manderlay", however pretentious they may be, make substantive remarks about American history, culture, society, ad politics. In many ways, neither two of Von Trier's works take the easy way out like a couple of the movies you champion. I mean really, Monster's Ball is a vastly overrated, unrealistic and problematic movie and Three Kings is another glorified Western where the cowboy American soldiers save the day after deciding to leave the loot. -
inwarsaw — 19 years ago(November 30, 2006 04:22 PM)
Just a few obvious problems with your "arguments".
- If you haven't seen any of those movies, how can you comment on their quality?
- I would argue that these "bad" movies are more dangerous for the public than movies such as "Manderlay". Movies like "Rocky" (et. al.) rely on emotions and are absorb uncritically.
Moreover, the movies get a wide viewing audience. This means that many people are exposed to this type of subliminal propaganda - many of whom don't posess the faculties, or don't care to make the effort, to absorb things critically. Even if one watches these things with a "critical" eye, it is difficult for the films not to skew, at least somewhat, ones perception of a place or political system. - Why do you have to go to the place you criticize? Do you have to go to China to comment on human rights? Not only that but, how long would VonTrier have to be in the US before his criticism be "worthy"? One day? One month? year? decade? By attacking Von Trier's "qualificatons" as a critic of US social issues, you don't address his arguments. You are "shooting the messenger". Who cares how "qualified" he is?! The important thing to address are his points. Do they apply? Are they valid? Where are the weaknesses in his points? etc
- A lot of those movies I listed were BLATANT CURRENT SOCIAL COMMENTARIES (at least as blatant as "Manderlay") at the time they were released in theaters. The "bad, ruthless, murderous Russians", etc I didn't include any "current" films because I just rarely watch movies like that anymore.
- If you argue that they aren't as "Blatant" as "Manderlay". It's good that it isn't diguising itself. Unlike many hollywood films (where opinions are often "hidden", yet carefully included to affect the public's perceptions, you know what you're getting. You know you are getting someone's opinion and criticisms. You are not tricked into believing that it's purely "just a fun movie".
- Your last argument, "you idiots" is particularly strong, and I really can't counter it. It is a level of argumentation that enters a strata I am unwilling/uncapable of entering. Congrats!
-
nomustachio — 19 years ago(December 06, 2006 01:41 AM)
first of all let's not forget that i do like manderlay deeply. second of all i agree with the views of america that it portreys. by saying these things i'm not saying that i have a problem with the movie, i think that it's weak to make the movie with out experiencing what you're talking about. what good does manderlay do? how is it effective? why should i care what he has to say about it?
the movies that you bring up and still cling to as arguements are still not valid. it's not that they don't contain social commentary, back to the future contains social commentary for god's sake, but the undertones are definately not the main issue. it's called idealistic film making, check it out. also have you researched to find out that whether or not any of the directors who filmed these american films never set foot in the foreign land that they are depicting? i doubt it. there's also a difference between propaganda(rocky) and commentary (manderlay). don't get the two confused.
my only problem with von trier is primarily most of the people that discuss his movies. if you needed a movie made by someone who's never been to america to point out these flaws to you than you're blind. my other issue is why doesn't he work on what ever is going on in the places where he does live. i'm sure he's much more recognized in europe and most likely more influential as well. . . oh wait, there's no nicole kidman or danny glover and he wouldn't make nearly as much money with out america. . . who's a capatalist now.
i didn't shoot the messenger. i shot the dude playing the fiddle while the city burned.
(and i am sorry for saying idiots, you're comment on that made me laugh. i enjoyed it. freedom of message boards often brings out the beep in me.) -
muggizuggi — 19 years ago(December 07, 2006 09:48 PM)
First, I didn't see the movie, so I am not sure if this will completely miss the point. I was just reading through your discussion, and I feel that I may be able to clear some things up.
To me, it makes perfect sense that mr. von Trier would make a commentary on US politics and culture, rather than danish politics and culture (von Trier is danish, as am I), and especially the politics and culture of other european countries. It is also understandable that he would call himself "60% american" for these reasons:
Current danish politics are to a large extend just a cheap watered down version of what you have over there. It is wide spread oppinion that we do not in fact have a foreign politic of our own, since our curent prime minister (and his government) is such a big fan of George Bush, that he does and says everything he does, the way he does. Sure, Denmark is still very different from the USA in lots of areas, such as health care, tax systems, number of people who bothers to vote, and wellfare, but believe me, he is working as fast as the general public will allow to change that.
As for the culture, you would be dumbfounded to learn just how much americanization af danish culture has taken place during the last 60 or so years.
The spoken language has completely changed and now includes many english words.
The eating habbits (and weight) of especially younger generations has changed considerably.
Shops (7Eleven on every corner), MTV, clothing, music, quality of news casts, amount and type of commercials, movies, chewing gum - and the list goes on.
I am not blaming anyone, mind you, even though I obviously disagree with some of these things. In fact these things are so integrated in our culture, that they have become our own. That includes me, and also Lars von Trier, I understand.
I hope some of that was somehow useful. -
inwarsaw — 19 years ago(December 08, 2006 09:08 AM)
About propaganda vs. commentary; the main difference I can see is that propaganda is subversive, and commentary is pretty obvious.
I still don't think "setting one foot in" wherever is a valid criticism. I get what you're saying, but I think that it is an emotional argument, rather than a logical one. It's a bit of a slippery slope. If he put "one foot" in the US, is that acceptable? If not, how many feet? How long would they have to be in the US? By "shooting the messenger" I mean that rather than addressing what is said (I know you agree with and liked Manderlay, and that you're simply annoyed by someone commenting on something he's never seen/experienced), the person's credentials are questioned.
There is a second reason I think that not visiting the US is a weak argument. As "muggizuggi" points out, the US is a bit of an exception. US influence is so pervasive throughout the world (especially Europe). There are US news outlets (CNN, USA Today, etc.), US restaurants (TGIF, Pizza Hut, etc.), US fashion, lifestyle, film. Also, US policies and economic power have a huge influence on foreign policy. In Poland, there's also an idiot "Bush - clone" (in Canada as well) who will do anything to make Bush happy, in hopes of reaping economic gain. Now, what's interesting is that "economic gain", ahead of social/cultural considerations (at least to this extent), is a very US phenomenon. It is for these reasons that VonTrier, among others, feel they have a right to criticize the US. The US affects their lives, and the societies in which they live, quite directly.
Another thing just because he's criticizing the US, doesn't mean he "hates" the US. He may be just trying to change the world. Perhaps he wants people to stop and think, "hey, maybe all this beep isn't worth it? Maybe there's more to life than working 18hrs/day, and buying all this disposable crap?" The best way to do it is to go after the biggest, most powerful cat. Just like people who boycot Nike in hopes that the pressure gets them to change. If they do, the other companies will follow suit (like the did when Nike left for Asia). -
happyhealey — 19 years ago(December 10, 2006 01:48 PM)
I'm an avid Lars Von Trier fan and an American (living in Arkansas, no less), and while I believe it is unfair to criticize Von Trier for making movies about America simply because he's never been to the country, (by that logic no director should ever be allowed to make a period piece about a time in which he or she didn't live), I do think that both installments of the America Trilogy are too over-the-top to be considered real social commentary.
I'm not saying they're bad movies, but to consider America a country where black people would be better off still in slavery is a bit of an exaggeration, as is the premise of a town in which each of the men rapes a woman and the children then torment her for being raped.
And yes, Von Trier definitely implied a status quo from the events at Manderlay with the recent pictures of black suffering in America in the final photo montage. Did anyone else notice that some of those pictures were simply of homeless people and had nothing to do with racial issues whatsoever? When Von Trier included pictures from the current century, he definitely implied, if not outright stated, that the irony of the narrator's final comments (that America was a place where black people could possibly have a decent life if they only took the opportunity) still applies today. And while it may be true that America is not always "the land of opportunity" it purports to be, it's nonetheless quite rash to assume the majority of black people CURRENTLY have it so bad in America they would be better off as slaves.
What intrigues me is actually how much LESS indicting of America Manderlay is than Dogville, and yet how much more offended Americans are by Manderlay. The worst that could be said of Dogville (one of my favorite films, mind you) is that America is blood-sucking, opportunistic, xenophobic, spiteful, always selfish, and at heart evil. All Manderlay could possibly be implying is that America is xenophobic and naive. I guess it's because Manderlay deals with racial issues, but then again, Dogville seems to be a veiled attack on America's immigration policy (first we don't want them, then we exploit them, then we try to get rid of them when they are no longer useful).
However, as an American I must concede that my origins have made the movies slightly less enjoyable; watching them one has to realize that more than criticizing human nature, Von Trier is criticizing AMERICAN nature. I could conduct myself in the way of the "enlightened Americans" on this board and masochisticly agree that my country is composed of people who are, indeed, monsters who need to be sanctioned in every way, but I would be dishonest. In all honesty, yes, the movies were less enjoyable for me because I knew that Von trier meant to question "my kind." I had been given a label, and that's the same bigotry that these movies seem to question. Manderlay seems to imply the statement "All white Americans are, at heart, bigots," which is a bigoted thing to say. But hey, it's the point of art to arouse feelings within the viewer. If a movie can succesfully make me uncomfortable, it has accomplished something.
The only real issue I can take with the films is that the fact that they are set in places that do not exist and concern events that are almost too fantastic to have possibly occurred limits them greatly as political films. It's comparable to an American making a movie about vikings existing in Denmark in the 1930's, then finishing the movie with a montage of pictures of Vikings (I know that's impossible, but this is a hypothetical situation) and current pictures of Danish buildings on fire, and intending the film as a crtique of the viking tendecies of every inhabitant of Denmark. It's unfair because the argument is based on a narrative too fantastic to have any validity.
But then again, all this is based upon my own personal impressions of the films, which may very well be comletely different from what Von Trier intended. Definitely, however, as pure pieces of cinema, without overt political connotations, both films are amazing.
Adding "beep" to your posts is like pixelating sex scenes in novels. -
ArtfulLodger — 19 years ago(January 08, 2007 07:09 AM)
However, as an American I must concede that my origins have made the movies slightly less enjoyable; watching them one has to realize that more than criticizing human nature, Von Trier is criticizing AMERICAN nature<<
Actually I wouldn't take it so personally if I were you - he's telling fictional stories about a culture he feels is 60% relevant to his life as he sees it. Taking it personally would suggest I'm a (British, so by extension) monarchist, love Blair, drink only tea and eat scones at 4pm, etc. Nobody really makes up 100% of a cultural stereotype, we're all different.
Interestingly, it's often people from outside of a culture who can see it most clearly and dispassionately, who can see the wood for the trees.
Right, tea and scones time;-) -
Mile-O — 19 years ago(February 05, 2007 04:50 AM)
"I'm not saying they're bad movies, but to consider America a country where black people would be better off still in slavery is a bit of an exaggeration"
I don't think it's about black people at all. The notion of a slave plantation just serves the means of the greater message beyond the colour of skin. Beyond, it encroaches upon a theme of liberalism. Grace, in her liberal head, seeks to give people something that they have no need for. While the reaction she gets isn't what she her do-good intentions would have expected, what other reaction could she have got from people who have no need for freedom? America is supposedly the land of the free. But the people aren't free as they still bend to the will of the law and the goverment. Likewise, Grace's slaves are given this freedom but, and while they enjoy the spoils of being free (e.g democracy) their preference is still to be governed over. -
k_jodie — 19 years ago(January 24, 2007 06:53 AM)
" i doubt it. there's also a difference between propaganda(rocky) and commentary (manderlay). don't get the two confused."
Your argument is so confused it's comical. The fact that you just summarily defined propaganda, an incredibly elusive word that deals with the power relations that govern every part of our lives and has occuped great minds for centuries - from marx to foucault, orwell to adorno - reveals such a simplistic viewpoint.
Even a narrow definition of propaganda from the The Institute of Propaganda Analysis is 'the expression of opinion or actions by individuals or groups deliberately designed to influence the opinions of other individuals or groups with reference to determined ends'. I canot imagine what your so-called commentary looks like of it doesn't doesn't do any of that. You seem to think that propaganda is just commentary with subversive goals of brainwashing. May I suggest that the subversiveness depends entirely on viewpoint and can therefore be disregarded when dealing with some kind of objective fact.
I won't go on with the rest of your points because they are founded on the same kind of false assumptions. Can I suggest, if you really want to get to the bottom of these interesting and complex issues (which i think you admirably do), always question what you assert as fact because that's what you're trying to do to your subjects(manderlay). -
Howlin Wolf — 9 years ago(December 06, 2016 09:31 AM)
why should i care what he has to say about it?
because people can often accidentally get the right answer, even when they're misinformed
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!" -
memefactory — 18 years ago(June 19, 2007 05:36 PM)
Spot onin fact, I'd say it often takes an outsider to be able to really look at somehting. I am thinking of LAND AND FREEDOM, the Ken Loach film about the Spanish Civil War in particular, though there are scads of other films, books, and so on out there that illustrate this.
As for Amercians getting all shirty when they think they are being criticized - it has always been this way (except in San Francisco, where if you don't HATE America then something is "wrong" with you). We have always been a defensive people and I am sure the reasons are varied. What I would like to say to my fellow countrymen is this: America is NOT the best place in the world and it is also NOT the worst - it is simply one country of many and like every other country on the planet, it has a mixture of things that person A will see as good and person B will see as bad, and so on. So relax, people and get over the collective American neurosis about America. If we are going to go out into the world and throw our weight around then the rest fo the world has a right to comment on us.
Nuff said. -
logan-burns — 19 years ago(December 08, 2006 03:40 PM)
I think one way of viewing the von Trier quote, "American is sitting on our world. I am making films that have to do with American because 60 percent of my lif is America" that forindcine cites is that America is like an umbrella over the world. everyone in the world is deeply deeply deeply effected by this country whether they have set foot here or not; america's hands are in all placesuntouched but touching..
-
joni-oksa — 19 years ago(January 01, 2007 08:03 AM)
I loved first one, I am going too see this movie next week. Us citizens are so pissed off about things what "might" have been occured in us 1930. Come on most of us were not living back then even. Racism in whole world was on totally different level that is now.
"so-called modern Europe." explenations please for this one. -
CinemaRomeo — 19 years ago(March 15, 2007 12:58 PM)
No, he's NOT "American". This is like saying I'm English because I speak the language, I'm "Chinese" because I grew up watching kung fu movies and eating their food, and I'm "Spanish" because of our "cowboy" rodeo culture.
Guess what? One of the biggest media empires in America, Fox, is owned by an Australian. Russell Crowe, Hugh Jackman, Nicole Kidman and Mel Gibson are Australians. Does this make me an "Australian" too?
This is a flimsy excuse. Lars just doesn't like America. Fine. That's his opinion. He doesn't have to watch our shows, go to our movies, or buy from an American franchise.
Come to think of it, I don't have to buy, rent, or attend a film showing his silly, distorted portrayals of my countryeverybody wins!!
Don't knock masturbation - it's sex with someone I love. ~Woody Allen -
muggizuggi — 19 years ago(March 25, 2007 12:06 PM)
You are completely missing the point. Sorry.
"Lars just doesn't like America. Fine. That's his opinion."
Are you sure? I never heard him say that.
"He doesn't have to watch our shows, go to our movies, or buy from an American franchise."
While it might be theoretically possible for him not to, it would be highly unlikely. I mean, he would have to make a real effort not to.
To my knowledge, our country is not, and has never been, influenced in such a profound way, by anything else. Yes, perhaps when the christians came 1000 years ago. That was pretty big, too.