AND NOW, A LITTLE MUSIC... "DANCER IN THE DARK"

We all know what Lars von Trier is like by now. His films are dark, not for the faint hearted and heavy with the kind of twist that makes you go “oh surely not… Oh NO! He did!”. You (or at least I) need a stiff drink afterwards more often than not. So the fact that he had made a musical starring Bjork does not exactly make one think  “It’s The Sound of Music all over again…” In fact, like a lot of von Trier’s films, Dancer in the Dark comes with a warning – it is notoriously difficult to watch. None of the usual blood and gore and shocking visuals this time though… Von Trier is playing around with our emotional landscape and reminds us what horrible beings we humans can be…

Selma (Bjork) is an immigrant living in the United States. Her life is hard – her single solitary purpose in life is to build a future for her son. To this end, she works hard in a factory, saves every penny she earns and plans for the future… Her one escape from her toils is old fashioned Hollywood films and especially musicals – she even acts in the factory’s acting club… However, Selma has a secret… Time is running out for her and she has to use all her strength if she wants her son’s future to end up the way she hopes it will. The problem is that human beings – even the friendliest looking ones – are unreliable beings and… Well the long and the short of it is that you can never, ever know who you can really trust…

Alongside Bjork, whose striking voice and musical talent are the exact “secret ingredients” this dark musical needs, we have the legendary Catherine DeNeuve starring as Kathy, Selma’s friend and right hand woman at the factory. I almost couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw her, she is as ever, a pleasure to watch. And incidentally, please don’t get hung up on the fact that the film is “technically” a musical. True, there are quite a few very striking musical numbers in there but given Selma’s dreamy, almost otherworldly nature –  a nature that Bjork portrays so very well – it’s hardly out of place and any Bjork fans will follow her with quiet enjoyment as Selma drifts off into her own little world…     

And if you really hate musicals, well, at the end of the day the musical numbers that DO exist are Bjork songs, so it’s all a far cry from the face-splitting smiles common to this kind of production. To be honest with you, the second big difference is the atmos. As we all know musicals tend to be BIG. I mean, the good guys are practically angelic and the bad guys are “evil”. In Dancer in the Dark, it’s not so much an extreme of any kind but a sense of painful pathos that reigns supreme. We have a villain we simply can’t help pitying, a prince charming who annoys us – and yet we can’t help backing – and an heroine struggling against it all, not only ailing but also proud to a fault, refusing to ask for help, which ultimately leads to her demise… And the best bit ? It’s all set in rather oblique contrast to The Sound of Music, the musical Selma and the factory theatre company is putting on. Selma’s positivity and stoicism in the face of mounting odds is greatly comparable to Maria’s, the sad difference is that this story is very much set in the modern world. For all her sweetness Selma is ultimately consumed by the system and no pity is shown to her – at least not by the people who can have any influence at all over her destiny.

So first of all for Von Trier and Bjork fans, but also for fans of musicals – who want to see a bit of a different take on their beloved genre - and non-fans of musicals alike this is a must see. I am not saying you will find it easy to watch – but you won’t regret having done it either… 

SPOOKY AND THEN SOME : "THE KINGDOM"

Ok, so, technically The Kingdom is not a film but a series. In fact back in the day Lars von Trier made it as a series for Danish television. Ah yes, him. Von Trier is one of those directors you basically either love or hate. I personally love him. I mean, with his films there is always an ounce of sadomasochism going on; the films make one cringe, get uncomfortable and downright emotional and distressed. Yet they are of such good quality and so gripping that you always end up going back to them. The Kingdom is, I assure you, no different.
The Kingdom is the name of a hospital. On the outside it seems like a very ordinary hospital, with its usual dose of hypochondriac patients, well-meaning directors and surgeons who basically believe they should be ruling the world… However, look closely at The Kingdom and nothing is quite what it seems. The hospital is built on a dark secret no one is aware of and the secret is slowly seeping out of the foundations and through the walls into the hospital itself… Is Miss Drugge the hospital hypochondriac justified in her hunt for ghosts around the hospital? What is the strange and sinister masons lodge formed of the hospital staff actually up to? And what is the mystery of the empty ambulance that arrives at the hospital doors every night and vanishes again? Miss Drugge claims that these are all linked to the world of ghosts and spirits? Is she as mad as everyone claims? Or are there really spirits roaming The Kingdom that need to be put to rest?
Watching but the first five minutes of The Kingdom shows you clearly that this is not a film like many others you have seen. If von Trier wanted to make for an uncomfortable viewing experience – and he did incidentally – he has succeeded with flying colors. Said colors are used in conjunction with heavy sepia and the picture is very grainy. The camera movements are jerky, often obviously hand or shoulder cameras without resorting to a steadycam , heck or even a tripod. The cuts bounce from one to the other in crowded scenes making the viewer quite dizzy at times. Yes, it is fair to say that this was an experiment as far as the technical side of it went. Yet, as von Trier was trying to point out, even this technique serves a purpose. As we watch the series (miniseries to be fair, it is concerned of five episodes each about an hour long) we feel on edge and alienated. Our adrenalin is constantly ready to gush; we are not sure what shot will come from where next. You might be tempted to argue that you don’t know where shots will come from anyway, but see, you do. Conventional films are filmed by a set of very predictable rules, (shot – reaction shot and all that jazz) you do know unconsciously. And when a director openly and insistently defies it; it is confusing, even though you may not be sure what you’re confused about. Add to this, the storyline. Imaginative, unpredictable and very, very spooky, The Kingdom’s storyline is one of the most successful ghost stories I have seen and believe me I have seen my fair share of the little monkeys. Yes, watching this series may not be “enjoyable” in the classic sense. But you will like it. And you will learn. If nothing else it will be an experience you will not forget in a hurry…

FOOD FOR DEEP THOUGHT FROM "DOGVILLE"

If you follow cinema news even at a most basic level, I am pretty confident you will have heard of Lars von Trier. The man has a bit of a reputation. He started a Scandinavian version of the neo-realist movement (but then was the first to disobey his own rules) and makes films that can be described as “strange” at best, from The Kingdom (whose filming and editing makes it hard to watch for all but those with the strongest stomachs – and I don’t mean blood and gore, I mean jiggling about) to the deeply symbolic and philosophical “Europa” trilogy that will leave you wondering for months if you get carried away… The America trilogy was one of his newest projects and Dogville made quite a lot of noise at the time of its release. Quentin Tarantino (a favorite of mine as you know) called it one of the greatest films ever made. I don’t know enough about films to be able to make such a strong comment but Dogville is without a shadow of a doubt one of the films that has struck me the most. Therefore, I am really excited about sharing it with you this week… Now, what is this two and a half hour long masterpiece about? Well, Lars von Trier claims that the point of the film was that evil can exist in anyone, that anybody is capable of evil… I must say that’s a strong and scary point to make, and von Trier has made a dashed good job of making it…
Dogville is the name of a town. Well, you would hardly call it a town really… It’s just a small street with a small bunch of rag tag people living on it really. The only one with any high moral ideals is Thomas Edison Jr. His father is the doctor of the area, so he has the luxury of being able to pursue a career as a writer. His major project is to “educate” Dogville. And it is just on such a night; Thomas is getting ready to explain to the townsfolk that they don’t know how to “receive gifts”. The self-same night, a young stranger, Grace comes to town. Now, Grace is in a bit of a predicament. There are some dangerous men, gangsters after her so going back to the big city isn’t an option. However, there is no way forward either seeing as Dogville is on a dangerous mountain ledge. So, Grace must stay in Dogville, if she is to survive of course. Now, the good citizens of Dogville are not quite sure what to make of this. She is a fugitive from gangsters, can’t go to the police, and cannot speak about her past for her own safety. She is prepared to work, but what work is there to be done in their humble shacks? For Thomas Edison Jr. this is the perfect opportunity to demonstrate his point and bring some morals to the town. So Grace, ends up staying. And with a little coaxing it turns out that there are some things to be done around Dogville after all, if Grace insists that is… Soon Grace has settled in, even getting wages for her labors… Until WANTED posters with Grace’s face on it begin appearing… The citizens of Dogville will, naturally, hide Grace. But they do not feel comfortable openly lying to the law. The price for Grace’s safety must go up… How far up it will end up, however, is anyone’s guess…
Dogville is a striking film in many ways. Not least because of the setting. Because there is no setting. The entire film takes place in what appears to be a large empty warehouse colored black. The houses, streets, plants and even animals are marked out on the floor with chalk. So, eerily enough, there are no walls. And in any one shot you can clearly see what is going on in the other houses (I found this aspect especially eerie not least because I often imagine or try to anyway, what is going on in other flats and other houses… In this world you can actually see it – we can anyway!) There is some furniture, but only the bare necessities. I mean, there are no doors on a lot of houses – the actors pretend to open and close invisible doors. There is even an invisible dog (you can, funnily enough hear him though). There is also no nature and no natural light. What light there is, is again not openly absent but the bare necessities. So, the one tool Mr. von Trier has to tell his story is his actors’ performances. A strikingly appropriate choice for a film intent on exploring the depths of the human soul…
And as for the exploration… Well, the argument as to whether or not we are all capable of evil or not do come up be it in philosophical contexts or day to day events… This film makes a remarkably clear point of proving this to be the case. I mean, if I told you the end of the film, out of context, you would probably not be able to understand how that happened. However, the slowly climbing tension, the enmity of the citizens of Dogville, an enmity that they themselves were not aware of at first that slowly seeps into the relationships and leads them all slowly, surreptitiously and inexorably to a rather horrible place… It’s that typical “we don’t like strangers round here” kinda small town hostility, so familiar from westerns, but multiplied and made real… More spiteful. At the very end, when the credits start rolling, von Trier makes a second point, superimposing Young Americans by David Bowie with a series of very striking photographs from impoverished American shanty-towns – towns just like Dogville - he makes the film into a commentary on the whole of American society… “Dog” ville, “Dog eat dog”, heartless capitalism and all that jazz… There is a lot more to say about the film but I’ll let you go on ahead and actually watch the film first…

FROM THE EYES OF A MASTER : WAR "EUROPA"

As we said, this week I will attempt to share my impressions of a few old masters I have had the good fortune of watching recently. Now, these are directors of truly world-class talent and depth, and I do not claim to be an expert on anything but I do seem to have acquired a fair bit now, which gives me the confidence to rattle on a bit about them. Take Lars Von Trier for example. Now, the first film I watched by him was actually the Dogville series. Marvelous, hard-hitting and truly original film. I then got into him and started researching, trying to dig up more of his stuff. Now, Trier is among other things, a master at editing. Now, editing, if you’re not actually looking for it so to speak, can rather feel like nothing too tough (and the basics are indeed not). What, you just lump the scenes together and that’s it, right? Well, although it can be done like that, there is also the fact that it isn’t so much what you say but the way you say it. And in cinema, the way you say a thing can actually change the entire “thing” – now that kind of editing, is tough indeed. Trier is a master of using technical tricks and novel ways of telling a story to convey feelings and messages – subliminal or overt. Europa is the third film in his Europe trilogy. True to style I have the first at home (I have actually watched it, don’t worry) but have never seen the second. I felt it was OK to go ahead with it; the aim of the trilogy is a description and critique of post-WW2 Europe. Now, admittedly I now feel I will have to watch the first one (Element of crime) with fresh eyes but Europa by no means suffers from not having watched the first two. It is a vivid description of post- WW2 Germany, not so much the physical description though, but the emotions… The picture painted is, I must say, a lot starker than the physical…
Leo Kessler is an American of German descent. He decides, after the Second World War, that the time has come to show some compassion to Germany, so he arrives in the country and under the patronage of his rather gruff uncle and begins to work as a sleeping car conductor on the trains. Leo’s aim is to do as much good as he can and learn about his country of origin but as he goes deeper and deeper into the country, learning about it and even learning to love it, he will begin to see that things are not all they seem. And that Germany is, in fact, a lot more complicated than he first thought it was…
Now this film of Lars Von Trier’s is celebrated as one of his deepest and most original, especially due to his examination of the subconscious. Firstly, one must know that Lars Von Trier is part of a group of directors who want to give a message with their films. He founded the Scandinavian Realism movement back in the day (a group that had very strict rules about how they filmed, basically from using only natural light to, in the same style as the Italian Neorealists, using the services of amateur actors). Now, much in the way of French New Wave, the aim of this group is to actually get the audience to “participate”. That is to say, you are not swept along in the story in a semi-hypnotic state (and Von Trier gives a very powerful poke to that state of spectatorship all through the film although I will not tell you how so as not to spoil the effect) but you are invited to remember it is a film and actively think about the message. Now, the problem with that genre is, that it tends to bore the general public to tears and beyond. (Tell me honestly how many of us have actually succeeded in watching a Truffaut or a Goddard from beginning to end? I haven’t tried yet but will in the weeks to come, check back to see if I do!) Lars Von Trier, very intelligently sits just on the cusp between this genre and an average exciting adventure film. And this is the toughest pose of all to pull off. I mean, the guy has very serious messages about the human mind and the soul to put across which he does, and he does it in a way that gets the audience “out of themselves” and begin to think, but at the same time there is a story to get caught up in, our hero’s life is in danger and he faces tough choices and you grip the arms of your seat and tremble as you wish the film would both go on forever and end your agony at the same time.
I’ll give you one example of the “message” bit though, to give you an idea. Now, the film is shot in black and white. But you will notice that parts of it are actually in color. “Why?” One can’t help but ask oneself. Well, if you watch them closely you will find these are moments of heightened emotion for the characters. It’s like in life, your day to day blends into the back-ground in a (black and white?) mass, while some moments, some important moments (important for you anyway) stand out in Technicolor (so to speak). Isn’t that a brilliant way of highlighting moments, adding to the emotion? You might remember this gimmick from somewhere else; it was later picked up on in another Hollywood film, Pleasantville (starring Toby Maguire and Reese Witherspoon). The two were modern day teenagers who get sucked up into a ‘60s TV show (long story) and the world is very reserved and black and white, but after the children arrive, the possibility of true emotion appears, and every time a character experiences true emotion(anything from sex to true sorrow) they become “colored”. Gimmicks like that… Politically speaking of course, I don’t think I need to go into the significance of the young naïve American going into war-torn and traumatized Europe brimming with “good intentions” and not much else… I’ll let everyone draw their own conclusions there…
I can go on and on but I won’t, just watch the dang thing. Then watch it again.