Why were they so mean to Nicole Kidman? I didn't get it

great dad tbqh

wtf why? what did he have to say to you about it?

Probably my favorite movie. Von Trier's best by far.

the ending was cathartic as fuck

Tied with Breaking the Waves and Antichrist for me.

This film is what happens when a director internalizes Critical Theory and makes a film out of it, von Troll and pseuds actually think the narrative corresponds to reality

This movie made me realize that women getting raped is a vastly overdone trope in films.

I wish I was a high school theater teacher. I'd organize a school play of this.

I've only seen Dogville and Melancholia, liked them both, where do I go from here?

because she was alone and had no one to protect her. The people thought they would protect her and in exchange she would have to do anything they said. They were the master and she the slave. That was a nice twist ending too.

We watched a lot stuff we were too young for with my dad, I just think he really detested children's movies or something. But I'm grateful for it today

Dancer in the Dark

Antichrist

I liked the
>Do you remember the bills you had to pay? Only yesterday

>shot of George W. Bush

What other stuff did you watch that you liked?

Thanks.

better than anything Haneke's done at least.

>von Troll and pseuds actually think the narrative corresponds to reality
Not necessarily, but who are you to say it doesn't?

true

At the end of day I can't say with 100%. Though history, empirical sociology/psychology, my own experiences, the experiences of others that have communicated to me, and even other narratives point to the film being synthesized through theory alone.

>What other stuff did you watch that you liked?
Trier's tv series Riget, Tarkovskis Solaris and Andrei Rublev, Troell's The Emigrants, much of Kurosawas and Bergman's filmography are some of the examples I can think of that I watched with him from ages 10-15 that I probably would not watch today (I'm a movie casual, mostly watch tv series)

This is all stuff he taped on vhs from Swedish state television

Obviously the film takes the premise and blows it out of proportion in order to illustrate it better and provoke us, but the central "thesis" is about the corruption of power, which is observable pretty much anywhere. What do you think it's about?

One of my favorite credits scenes.

Is this movie worth watching?

I loved it but it's not your typical movie, most would probably hate it.

It's three hour movie about a beautiful woman getting demoralized, raped, and treated like shit by a bunch of impoverished yokels. Then she kills them all at the end.

masterpiece

It blows it out of proportion to such a degree that Star Wars has more nuance. Even worse is that Lars has the pretension that he is showing us a deep truth. Also there are plenty of human institutions and people which are not corrupted by power in any significant way, that premise is why the film is absurd and sits at the level of provocation rather than challenge.

>Star Wars has more nuance.
why don't you just shut up?

>Star Wars has more nuance
"No". And Trier doesn't care about that, he feeds on outrage and criticism, he wants people to react

>pretension that he is showing us a deep truth
He's showing his point of view, he said this himself in interviews

>Also there are plenty of human institutions and people which are not corrupted by power in any significant way
And there are a lot of others that are, what's your point here?

lolz they all rape the woman instead of sheltering her. so cynical and postmodern!

Yes. And getting a reaction is nothing, wanting people to react is a pathetically low bar for an 'artist'.

Points of views are nothing by themselves, maybe if he did some actual homework and then layer and weave his viewpoint into that narrative I would be impressed.

You said the corruption of power can be seen pretty much anywhere, I am disagreeing with that premise. Maybe if that premise was true and if human relations where solely shaped by power relations rather than rational trade offs then I could swallow the absurdities presented in the film.

>What do you think it's about?
How the soil of America is infested with demonic energy and hell is contained within its core

because lars von trier is a cuck who has an inferiority complex towards America, a country he's never even been to btw

>Yes. And getting a reaction is nothing, wanting people to react is a pathetically low bar for an 'artist'.
But that's not his only intention, it's his main one. One could also argue that the main purpose of any artist is to provoke a reaction on people

>Points of views are nothing by themselves, maybe if he did some actual homework and then layer and weave his viewpoint into that narrative I would be impressed.
That's your subjective opinion, i'd say that Dogville already does that

>You said the corruption of power can be seen pretty much anywhere, I am disagreeing with that premise
That was a hyperbole, but if you really don't think that in a lot of power relations there's a subjugation of the disavantaged parties you're delusional

>Maybe if that premise was true and if human relations where solely shaped by power relations rather than rational trade offs then
Not all relations are power based, Trier doesn't even say that in the film

this is true, Detroit is rich in this energy

Rust belt and Rhode Island are prominent power nodes

California likely contains entrance to hell

Purpose of an artist is to get people to reflect on and to think about reality or possible realities, provocation is only a tool. Von Trier works backwards and thinks that if he is provoking people that he is getting at some deep truth.

No it is more than subjective opinion since nothing in Dogville corresponds to or is analogous to any history and the film shows little understanding of human behavior (not just my own either).

Humans show a lot of altruistic behavior. Most disparities have to do with limited resources and energy not subjugation.

I implicitly said they are tainted to such a degree in the film that said premise would have to be true for me to accept the film.

truth

>Purpose of an artist is to get people to reflect...
Debatable, there's no real objective purpose and it all varies from work and artist

>No it is more than subjective opinion since nothing in Dogville corresponds to or is analogous to any history
I'm sure similar events happened, just look at fascism. Not that it needed that, it's not a documentary

>Humans show a lot of altruistic behavior. Most disparities have to do with limited resources and energy not subjugation.
Agree. But the opposite is also true, why are you acting like all human beings act the same way?

>I implicitly said they are tainted to such a degree...
A lot of people reacted the same way, read some critic reviews on it. Some people don't agree with his ideologies, like you, and find it preposterous, i can see where they're coming from. In my view, humans can be just as bad as they can be good, that's why i can appreciate his take on it. Gotta sleep now, see ya

>Points of views are nothing by themselves, maybe if he did some actual homework and then layer and weave his viewpoint into that narrative I would be impressed.
So much this. I find movies that are LE ABSTRACT AND ALLEGORICAL to be examples of lazy screenwriting, not wanting to interweave those abstract ideas into specific concepts, creating the true allegory. Either that or you go full surrealism like Jodorowsky or early Buñuel, which will largely kill your audience appeal but makes a smashing film.

It's kinda hamfisted, but not that bad. The ending is basically one big 'fuck you' to Christcucks, which I found somewhat enjoyable.

>Purpose of an artist
You're automatically wrong and a gigantic faggot for thinking otherwise.

>abstract ideas into specific concepts
Way to defeat the fucking purpose, sperge.

I don't get it.

>tfw she hurt her knee before filming this, and wouldn't do the doggystyle scene that Von Trier had originally designed
Like holy fuckin shit I just wish I didn't know this.

>ignoring any context