What's the point of this film?
-
MrWall21 — 19 years ago(April 01, 2007 12:39 AM)
This is a good question, and I talked with my sister at some length, and although she LOVES this movie she was unable to give an answer. If it's not about slavery, then Lars should have used a different motif, because slavery is something that actually did exist in the United States, we have historical records and everything, and guess what? The slaves were happy to be free. I usually like Europeans but Lars is just full of himself. His other films are likewise pointless and painfull. I'm not going to say he HAS to visit America to make a movie about it, but he has no grasp of the way American's talk, and that is a big deal with movies, because it reflects the way we reflect the media, thus the way we think. Nobody has the trains of thought that his characters do. And, yes, he added the VON himself to sound more impressive.
-
robbevl — 18 years ago(April 29, 2007 10:22 AM)
It's not about slavery. The actual slaves were happy to be free, indeed. It's about human nature, and how illogic it can be at times. This is not a movie about the US either. He just used it as setting because of the obvious historical background with slavery.
-
iggy_hates_spam — 18 years ago(April 21, 2007 06:42 PM)
you could also interpret it as a young girl with a bleeding heart struggling to find a solution to an unjust world despite the long trail of messed up good intentions behind her. every lesson teaching her nothing but how utterly naive she is. but hey she's a fighter.
it is kinda funny tho. all those poor dead
people, cute lil birds, and bunny rabbits. it's kinda like this political cartoon i saw. it was somali refugees running for their lives and in the caption it said something like "run they're here to bring us freedom and democracy!" -
MrWall21 — 18 years ago(April 24, 2007 01:01 AM)
You have underlined well my point. Lars has no sense of drama or what makes something engaging or meaningful. He prides himself on creating irrelevent works or nonsense with labor to disprove themselves and thus create a false point. See Zeno's Paradox.
-
Mr_Jim — 18 years ago(June 26, 2007 12:51 AM)
"It is about a spoilt rich young woman with a bleeding heart who thinks that everyone around her is dumb while she was being fooled all along, lands herself into trouble yet again (after Dogville)."
Spoilt rich young woman = United States of America -
Revolutionow — 18 years ago(April 25, 2007 04:23 AM)
From another thread, posted by jeffreyurbanovsky:
"I'm seeing a lot of misinterpretation of "Manderlay." Or what should say is that I have a much different interpretation of the film than many here. Because of the complexity of the rhetorical argument that Lars von Trier is making, there will need to be some explanation. In order to get a better understanding of this film, one should be well versed in black history, particularly after the Civil War
What happened to blacks after the Civil War? The movie immediately addresses "40 acres and a mule." This was a measure given to blacks, by General Sherman, entitling them to land and the opportunity to cultivate it themselves. The reasoning for this act of reparation was needed because blacks after slavery had nowhere to go and nothing of value. Imagine not having any home nor any money, this is a terrible problem. Although "40 acres and mule" was a great step forward, it was discontinued by President Andrew Jackson.
Although conditions after the Civil War allowed blacks to be more free in some regards, an example being that they could vote, their situation remained largely unchanged and many were left in similar conditions of misery as before. Without reparations, or much support from the United States government, blacks had little hope. Many blacks knew how bleak the situation was, although slavery was an abhorrent practice, being "free" in an America infected with racism was not exactly much of an improvement.
The movie "Manderlay" wants to show what blacks were up against and are up against today, with what I think is a marvelous rhetorical argument in a plantation where slavery persists at the consent of the slaves. The message is that the slaves would rather continue a form of pseudo-slavery than be set free into a nation which didn't want them (remember the character who is left lynched from a tree after he has left the confines of the plantation.) What was better a plantation which the owners cared for the slaves as property or a nation filled with hate that blacks were thrown into without any reparation? Clearly, the answer is neither, but the point that Lars von Trier attempts to drive home is that blacks although "free" were not really free.
After reconstruction was ended in 1876 with the victory of President Rutherford B. Hayes, conditions for blacks become even worse as many of their voting rights were restricted. Many Americans who question why black America is in its present state wonder why, but the truth of the matter is that blacks were regarded as second class citizen all the way until 1965 with the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act (which gave away the South to the Republican Pary.) In reality blacks have been political free since 1965, although there have been many attempts to curb their right to vote to this day (blacks are an ideal target because they unanimously vote in a certain way). Even if blacks where "free" to vote, this freedom had little effect on improving their economic plight.
Many Americans today blame blacks for their current socio-economic status, with reasoning being that the Civil War was a long time ago and that there has been many opportunities since then. This viewpoint is not only in reference to white America, but also to some conservative blacks such as Bill Cosby who want to see blacks pull themselves up by the bootstrap. Clearly, Lars von Trier thinks this is ridiculous because his many argument in the movie stands out when Timothy says "you created us" and Grace goes on to whip him. Think about what that means: Grace punishes this black man for reminding her what America has done. America punishes blacks by attempting to forget them and blame them for their condition, when in fact its America that has created this problem.
The problem is not that the slaves don't wish to leave the plantation, the problem is that the world which awaits them outside the plantation is a treacherous one. That is the reasoning for the still photos after the movie is finished. In many of the photos we see blacks being beaten, brutalized, and exploited, is this really freedom? This is an incredible critique on America after slavery. Furthermore, I find that it is incredibly shameful that a director from Denmark had to present this movie."
Orson Welles never made an all-yellow movie. -
MrWall21 — 18 years ago(April 26, 2007 06:07 AM)
This is the same arguement I hear from other marginalized groups. I spoke with a woman who is convinced that women are no better off now than they were a hundred years ago because there is still sexism. The point of eternal victimization is not a point at all, it is a plea, or a petition, and in the case of Manderlay, it is one being made with fiction. Since being forced to write book reports in grade school I have been troubled by the insistence that fiction "teaches" us something. I would also have to write about what I "learned" from the piece of fiction. But fiction is made-up and can be crafted to illustrate any point.
Manderlay is a work of complete fiction, it is not even a dramatization of historical events. A true historical film could have better illustrated an historical or social truth, but that is not what Lares is about. If your interpretation is correct, then it is only about driving home a message of guilt and racial identity (and the idea that blacks are essentially helpless in all things) to a useless group of people. Real racists, and people who can do something positive for black Americans will not see this film, respect the director, or change their behavior. Not if they see this movie and not is the pseudo-intellectuials who do see it throw a big fit.
By the way, Andrew Jackson had nothing to do with 40 acres and a mule, he was president thirty years before the Civil War. -
rubi6047 — 18 years ago(April 28, 2007 05:49 AM)
A) "Pseudo-intellectual" is a word used by pretentious hipsters.
B) You know he meant Johnson. Don't derail threads with underhanded tactics like that.
The movie in a nutshell: Naive liberal chick destroys everything she touches because her ideals don't translate into practical solutions for the problems she's trying to solve, and she always makes things ten times worse. I can see why conservatives have such a burning hatred for this movie. Yeah, of course it must be a narrow criticism of the Iraq War, just like every other movie ever made.
"BE ATTITUDE FOR GAINS!" Bodhidarma -
MrWall21 — 18 years ago(April 30, 2007 06:23 PM)
No, I don't know he meant Johnson, and I saved that correction for last out of respect, so as to NOT "derail" his thread. And "Pseudo-intellectual" is a word that fits somewhere, I thought I was using it appropriatley enough. Don't go name-calling just because of someone's lexicon.
-
mrura — 18 years ago(July 25, 2007 08:34 AM)
So, if all the racists of the world don't see a movie and change their behaviour, does that immediately make the film pointless? Is every fictional movie representation of the holocaust useless if it doesn't end neo-nazism? The "logic" of your argument is astoundingly simplistic and unrealistic.
The movie was entertaining on it's own, simply as a story. In addition, we are given another view on a historical subject that may just open a few eyes and get people thinking. It needn't change the world to have a point.
Politics aside for a minute i just want to say that from beginning to end i couldn't STAND Bryce Dallas Howard's "acting" in this movie. i never disliked her before, but after this, i'm starting to. -
MrWall21 — 18 years ago(August 03, 2007 01:44 AM)
You are the first person I've ever heard call a Lars von Trier movie "entertaining". Shocking. As for calling my criticism "simplisitc", I found you're response rather simplistic. I was trying to demonstrate that the movie won't touch ANYONE or change ANYONE's mind, and you interpreted that as meaning that it must change EVERYONE's mind.
-
mrura — 18 years ago(August 03, 2007 06:52 AM)
Maybe i am, but surely not the first to think it. I watch movies to be entertained, and i found both Dogville and Manderlay quite entertaining. How do most people see them?
I'm not so sure it won't "touch" anyone. And i'm not so sure the point is to "change anyone's mind". Did Farenheit 9/11 change anyone's mind i doubt it. People tend to see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe.
All i'm saying is that, for me, a movie needn't do more than entertain or intrigue me in some way to be considered successful in my eyes. If it gets me thinking about a social issue, even for just a few minutes, then all better but it's not essential.
By the way, it would have been rather tough to make a documentary about an era from which essentially everyone is dead. With no live witnesses/interviews, don't you think just about any "documentary" movie made could be spun to fit a director's viewpoints just as easily as any work of fiction? Hell, again look at 9/11 every who disagreed with Michael Moore's viewpoint just screamed that he skewed the facts to serve his own purpose. Or many just refused to see the movie at all. I think delivering a message in a work of fiction reaches a broader audience and, ironically, comes off as LESS manipulated than a documentary.
Also by the way, i didn't intend to insult you by calling your view simplistic. Perhaps, "idealistic" was a better choice of words. -
-
mrura — 18 years ago(August 06, 2007 08:40 AM)
ok, i suppose it possible. it still doesn't address anything else i said.
specifically, it's neither necessary nor more effective to make your point in documentary form.
i enjoyed both movies well enough and eagerly await the final part.