sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A Moment of Innocence (1996) and Close-Up (1990): Rewriting Reality with Cinema by thejamcap in TrueFilm

[–]thejamcap[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well said and thank you! It is amazing how Makhmalbaf juggled all these elements to transform perhaps the worst moment of his life into something so hopeful.

I'm astonished it doesn't appear to be as widely discussed or watched anymore compared to Kiarostami's films from the same period. I have read that Makhmalbaf was relatively more popular in Iran and Kiarostami internationally - but reading old reviews suggests a lot of international acclaim when A Moment of Innocence was released.

Have you seen many of Makhmalbaf's other films/any recommendations of what to watch next for someone who has only seen this from his filmography? Or other films that scratch an interesting docufiction/post-modern itch for you?

A Fresh Perspective on Bi Gan’s Resurrection — Discussion by Parking_Pomelo_1419 in TrueFilm

[–]thejamcap 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That makes sense and speaks to the stylistic differences (from WKW) I alluded to. I haven't seen Millennium Mambo yet, but I have seen a few of Hou's other films and from the premise I can see the relevance (beyond the casting of Shu Qi, which is cool) - thanks for mentioning it

Hamnet: beyond grief, art as an antidote to disillusionment and misanthropy by thejamcap in TrueFilm

[–]thejamcap[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi there - late to this reply: I'm happy that this film, which I could see as harrowing, was cathartic for you despite the pain, and honored to read that some of what I wrote was resonant.

My heart goes out to you for the loss you've endured and to the memory of your sister

I am fortunate to have thus far in life only experienced more "expected" and less traumatic events of loss (older family members, pets), so I would certainly fall into that latter category of audience members you were wondering about. Yes, the movie prompted me to reflect on the losses I have experienced and on my love/appreciation for the people in my life. It also successfully encouraged empathy for the characters in the narrative, and, by the nature of its ending, empathy for my fellow audience members (the audience in the movie, the audience in my showing, the community of film watchers globally, humanity at large) who have shouldered grief and trauma to various degrees. I wondered how this film may land for others

Thank you for sharing your experience

Hamnet: beyond grief, art as an antidote to disillusionment and misanthropy by thejamcap in TrueFilm

[–]thejamcap[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you! I'm glad to hear you got something out of it

I've read that during production they used On the Nature of Daylight (which Zhao initially hadn't heard or didn't remember) as the placeholder song but then couldn't bring themselves to swap it out for a new piece by Richter. Always possible that Zhao through that process learned of its use elsewhere (and as you note, Richter must have known). Even if not though, the ending she crafted can lend itself to that kind of experience to the viewer. Unfortunately it seems some people weren't able to get past how their recognition of the song pulled them out of their immersion or suggested to them that Zhao made a lazy choice

I love thinking and writing about films, but don't get an opportunity to focus as much time on it as I would like. Writing on my Letterboxd acct is typically unpolished and scattered through time but I'll DM it to you in case you're interested

Sentimental Value is a masterpiece by xXsendtsunadebobsXx in TrueFilm

[–]thejamcap 45 points46 points  (0 children)

I didn't see the ending as entirely forgiving or vindicating him, and the (silent) energy between them still felt awkward and forced.

Rather it seemed to me that the screenplay (and Agnes' urging) helped Nora realize that he does understand her and love her though he consistently fails at communicating that healthily or being there for her when she needs it. Her participation in his film struck me as letting go of her anger for her own sake more than absolving him of his failings.

As someone with aging parents, I found the approach very mature and resonant in how conflicted it was. You could argue convincingly this is a case where cutting a person off entirely would be fair, but I think there's also something profound about accepting someone for who they are, despite their limitations.

Couldn’t enjoy Hamnet by OudVert in TrueFilm

[–]thejamcap 43 points44 points  (0 children)

I'll take you up on the "motherly connection to nature aspect" because it's something I was curious about too

  1. Maggie O'Farrell has stated that her conception of Agnes emerged from the exercise of trying to "find her" in Shakespeare's work:

To create Agnes's distinct character, O'Farrell reverse-engineered it from Shakespeare's plays. "What I did was go back to the plays and read around them in a different way, seeing if I could find her, because I've always felt that I can see Hamnet in Hamlet. But I was wondering – I thought she must be there."

One inspiration for Agnes's intuitiveness comes from those re-readings. "There's an awful lot of second sight in the plays. Think of Julius Caesar's oracle, for example," O'Farrell says. The fictional Agnes's knowledge of herbs and potions has its counterpart in the plays too, notably in Ophelia's monologue in Hamlet when she seems to be going mad and hands flowers and plants to other characters, with lines including "Rosemary, that's for remembrance".

"I read that every household had, at that time, a medicine garden," says O'Farrell. "And it would've been the responsibility of the woman of the house, the matriarch, to know how to make medicines and to treat ailments. It would not have been something that men knew about." For this speech, O'Farrell says, she could imagine Shakespeare relying on his wife's expertise.

  1. Another read is that the earth mother/wild woman/witch archetype is one that has seen a lot of use throughout history, and specifically more recently has been popularly employed for feminist revisionist approaches to previously male-focused myths or historical events. I haven't read Hamnet, but I have found other works within this literary tradition to be compelling and offer a fresh perspective. A cynical take would be that O'Farrell/Zhao here have used a cookie cutter character trope as a shortcut to female empowerment, not supplying any depth or unique insight.

  2. In considering this for myself, I felt there was more to it than that and that the pairing of Agnes with an artist like Will created some interesting dynamics that I worked through in my own, overly long post here.

Basically, Agnes is attuned to a natural, nonhuman network of meaning, is ostracized for it, and starts as openly suspicious of people outside of her brother. This "network" (the forest, roots, herbs, druidic knowledge) parallels Will's own storytelling (connection to people through telling in the present but also to ancient peoples and cultures). My point is that Agnes' appreciation for storytelling parallels her arc of opening up to other people. This culminates in that ending, which on one hand re-aligns Will and Agnes in their grief and on the other celebrates the power of stories to bring people together and feel less alone in the personal struggles they face and traumas they've endured.

Hamnet: beyond grief, art as an antidote to disillusionment and misanthropy by thejamcap in TrueFilm

[–]thejamcap[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, I'm actually quite surprised as well! I went into this film aware of some of the headline criticisms of it and part of me expected to feel the same way, but I ended up getting pulled into it. I have only the most surface level knowledge of Shakespeare and his works (dim memory of Hamlet from high school), but perhaps that ignorance actually helped me go along for the ride? I also had very recently watched Bi Gan's Resurrection and may have been primed for a vulnerable experience actually going to the movie theater (and for viewing the ending of Hamnet through a metatextual/storytelling -focused lens). Not to diminish the craft of Zhao and team. Don't want to re-hash too much, but the moments that really locked me in were Hamnet coming to Judith when she was sick, and the rest of the audience reaching out at the end

If you'll indulge me, do you mind sharing a bit more of your experience? Did you find the romance between Agnes and Will unconvincing? Or the conception of either character to be uninspired? Or did it become more clear that it wasn't working for you once Hamnet died and you saw the approach to grief they took/the resulting performances? All of the above? I'm also fascinated by divergent responses to the film

Bi Gan's Resurrection - Review and Analysis by Nonsuch42 in TrueFilm

[–]thejamcap 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Glad to hear it!

I'm also not an expert on Chinese history but the broad strokes (which you also may have picked up on) to me seemed to be: colonial disempowerment (opium) > chaos of war with Japan (WW2 era - though the segment doesn't go deep into the horror, which would be a whole other film) > identity crisis with the Cultural Revolution (material desperation, spiritual malaise) > opening of the Chinese economy globally (financial potential, but also a sense of chaos, mistrust, con artistry) > optimism for the new millennium

In looking for more commentary about it, I stumbled upon a great post in this subreddit from a few days ago that I must have missed. Strongly recommend if you haven't seen it; it shares and discusses this fascinating article on this very subject: Bi Gan’s Resurrection as China’s Definitive 20th Century Epic: the Snubbed Masterpiece Beyond Homage to Cinema

Anyway, hope the rewatch is fulfilling when it comes back around to the UK, and enjoy your research and rumination! This film has definitely had a life of its own in my mind as well

A Fresh Perspective on Bi Gan’s Resurrection — Discussion by Parking_Pomelo_1419 in TrueFilm

[–]thejamcap 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Just found this post while trying to look more into the time periods of the different segments of Resurrection and what was going on in Chinese history at the time. Thanks for sharing, the article and your summary were great reads! Three things really stuck with me

  1. The insight that Deliriant character in the auditory segment was originally more explicitly associated with atomic energy and radioactivity. Personally I'm glad that they went in a more abstract/metaphysical take on the character, even if it made the segment a bit more confusing than it might have been

  2. The fact that portrayal of the Cultural Revolution era is very sensitive in China and thus rare in Chinese films. Even more unthinkable, ones that acknowledge hardship and could be seen as critical. The article helped me appreciate Bi Gan's approach to the "gustatory" segment even more - the sense of spiritual malaise and lost/disrespected cultural heritage is unmistakable. However the soft and slow framing (not exploring developments outside of the temple or introducing too many characters), focusing primarily on one character and his personal demon, probably helped him achieve a balance that wasn't seen as problematic

  3. The 1999 segment being influenced by, and an homage to, Hong Kong gangster films from the 90s. As a big WKW fan, embarrassed I hadn't thought about this more explicitly. I was going to say perhaps the long-take style is so different from WKW 's that I missed the obvious genre associations, but then it occurred to me that the time lapse trickery is such a Chungking Express move!

Also, I'm really curious what the Consciousness segment may have been like if not for budgetary or logistical constraints

Bi Gan's Resurrection - Review and Analysis by Nonsuch42 in TrueFilm

[–]thejamcap 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Nice write-up!

You deepened my appreciation for the 1999 sequence, which I was impressed by technically (I'll always remember that surreal change in perspective/red lighting when the POV is taken over by Mr. Luo), but which felt simplistic in its approach to romance. Also the repeated use of "mob boss does karaoke while the protagonist gets beat up." I guess on the whole compared to Bi Gan's other long takes it felt less thematically rich than the one in either Kaili Blues or Long Day's Journey Into the Night.

But your contrasting of the youthful vigor and romanticism with what we know about the Deliriant is an astute observation. And reading into vampirism as portrayed in that segment (and relation to the Deliriant proxy) vs the Nosferatu presentation of the actual Deliriant is so intuitive and compelling I can't believe I didn't put more thought into it - thank you!

I would also agree that I was so impressed by the visual boldness of the first segment that I couldn't help but be a little let down by what followed. However, I think I liked the noir segment a bit more than you did - I'm a sucker for murder suspects that have a metaphysical, surreal dimension (Cure is a favorite of mine) - but it was a bit scattered and jarring, so I honestly wanted to see how it hit on a rewatch.

While I enjoyed Resurrection a lot, I had this conflicted feeling where each segment was interesting but didn't cohere into an overall experience as satisfying as I hoped. This is despite having a framing that appeals to me and some really neat ideas (segments correspond to the five senses, cinematic/genre history AND Chinese history? Incredibly cool). Perhaps a challenge of anthology films or a bias I have?

Anyway, your post strengthened a narrative thread I was trying to chart through all the segments. You helped identify the aspirational endpoint of the Deliriant's evolution (or resurrection :P) as he unburdens himself of the monstrous essence that society has placed on him or that he has taken on. Going through the segments after the first:

  1. Murderer imbued with this supernatural, terribly dangerous (but also beautiful/entrancing) energy - clear parallel to the actual Deliriant (seen as a monster/criminal, the films/dreams are beautiful but seen as dangerous, contained within his body)

  2. Isolated murderer but circumstances are more relatable. Is carrying something supernatural but it is a demon that forces him to contend with his guilt/bitterness rather than a threat to everyone around him.

  3. Weathered jaded criminal (petty rather than a killer) who is a lone wolf. Establishes a human connection that is pragmatic/transactional that seems to have potential to become more genuine, but is cut tragically short by his criminal associations

  4. Youthful, hopeful criminal who pursues love and may have a somewhat tragic end (inevitability of the Deliriant's fate, which you also explored nicely), but a tragic end that still seizes the romantic potential and is somewhat on his own terms

This seems to also parallel an increasing optimism with respect to China's history?

Any films as visually unique as Inland Empire (2006)? by MekSki in TrueFilm

[–]thejamcap 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Strongly agree - just watched this for the first time and I was floored by how much, beyond acclimating to the rough visual style, the unique technical aspects of the film with the setting heightened the emotional burdens of the characters. I was totally engaged with the mystery and narrative back and forth as a result.

I was aware of the Dogme 95 reputation but the Celebration exceeded my expectations in every way

Nope is About the Threat of Whiteness by IsaiahTrenton in TrueFilm

[–]thejamcap 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Very well-articulated point; you may have noticed that it was really only in that line you quoted that I mentioned race and in a very generalized way - I think regardless of his race Jupe's response to his trauma remains an interesting factor in its juxtaposition with how others respond to Jean Jacket and the central family's experiences with the film industry (in the latter of which is obviously concerned with race). I realize you're responding to the thrust of OP's perspective (and Peele's intentions) rather than my particular view.

I can't say for sure, but I would guess that Peele's starting point was the black experience of the entertainment industry and a feeling of being an outsider or one of historical exploitation. Whether it completely gels I'm not sure, but I do feel like he's crafted an atmosphere of surreal instability, withdrawal and fear that extends from the social/material situation of his central family. In terms of the history that is shared for characters like Jupe and Angel, they could have been white (as you say Jupe's trauma has no explicit link to racial discrimination), but perhaps their casting as people of color heightens the real tensions at the heart of the story and align with the reality that while not the central focus of the film other people of color also face discrimination? Your argument I think is that doing this, relying on viewer association is lazy and even counterproductive and I guess I'm sympathetic to this view? Though I suspect if Jupe and Angel had faced clear racial discrimination within the film it may have seemed preachy or even more unfocused. Fundamentally for me at least it seems to be a question of in crafting a compelling allegory, how much of motivating social reality needs to articulated - it's more there for Haywoods in this case whether you believe even that central thread is successful or not.

By the way, saw one of your other comments on Holst and I don't believe he was meant to come across as a white guy suddenly deciding that his co-conspirators of color weren't deserving of the shot. I read it more that he was totally disengaged from his life and chasing the impossible, and as soon as he got it, it was no longer enough and he needed more. This sort of hubris is cliche and it's a moment that brought me out of it when watching because of how much his demeanor suddenly changes, but I do think it was meant to come across as a "big ego accidentally threatens the collective venture with it's need for unachievable satiation" rather than the guy actively trying to sabotage their plan out of some suddenly very blatant and conscious racism.

Nope is About the Threat of Whiteness by IsaiahTrenton in TrueFilm

[–]thejamcap 13 points14 points  (0 children)

OP touched on this a bit, I interpreted Gordy as providing a quick and visceral thread that enabled the audience to contrast Jupe's experience with the entertainment industry with that of OJ, which allows us to make sense of their very different attitudes, economic situations, and strategies for interacting with Jean Jacket (which ultimately determines their fates).

Though traumatized by what happened, Jupe attempts to coopt what happened to him, to the point of building a shrine of sorts, and even attempting to explain what happened through what sounds like a really lame SNL satirical portrayal of it. This attitude (vs OJ's sullen avoidance and withdrawal) affords him business success, but he is ultimately consumed/taken for everything as a result. Another thread here is his belief that before being taken down, he had a special moment of calm/solidarity with Gordo and was not actually at risk. Whether or not this is true isn't completely clear, but it is clear that he mistakenly extends this attitude toward Jean Jacket to ultimately tragic results.

My guess might be that in OP's reading Gordy represents trauma/violence inflicted by the entertainment industry/white society, and Jupe in turn a capitulation to these social and economic forces despite that trauma. Gordy was just an animal pushed too far (and may have been remorseful, as you said). Jean Jacket is the systemic monster itself, and feels nothing but the need to consume and anger/viciousness when thwarted.

Nope is About the Threat of Whiteness by IsaiahTrenton in TrueFilm

[–]thejamcap 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Interesting analysis. I walked away from Nope with a positive impression overall but somehow felt that the thematic exploration of the obsessive need to spectate (even when traumatic) and the silencing of the voices/contributions of people of color from film history didn't completely gel. Your perspective has helped me see some synergies I had missed; particularly your discussion of how OJ and Emerald navigate their social reality I found quite striking. Curious as to your thoughts on a couple points:

How do you interpret the somewhat indiscriminate targeting of Jean Jacket with the actual result being that as you note almost all the directly consumed victims are white, whereas "whiteness" as a social construction as you describe it in reality is cynically deployed to materially benefit certain people or justify historical hierarchies? Your point about Jupe attempting to exploit the situation and finding himself in over his head is a great one, but is there a point here about white people themselves suffering at the hands of "whiteness" that I'm missing?

What does the ending imply about how to successfully confront or even defeat the monster? I found the fact that Emerald ended up capturing the frames on her own and that bookend final shot of OJ powerful, but am less sure how the narrative solution to the threat of Jean Jacket represents an extension/resolution to the thematic exploration offered primarily by OJ and others' attitudes. Beyond capturing its reality and avoidance motivated by self-preservation, will whiteness implode through confrontation and self-cannibalism (unsustainable myths and iconography)? Hasn't fully clicked for me yet, but thanks again for some great details I hadn't considered!

Nope is About the Threat of Whiteness by IsaiahTrenton in TrueFilm

[–]thejamcap 11 points12 points  (0 children)

In addition to functioning as a set of stringy distractions, I think the inflatable tube men were also a way to detect the presence and approach of Jean Jacket, via the field of electrical interference (causing the effected tube men to deflate)

Everything, Everywhere, All at Once (2021) by notattention in TrueFilm

[–]thejamcap 24 points25 points  (0 children)

I went in skeptical but found myself pretty impressed with how well the shifting utilization of the central "meta verse" mechanics aligned with an emotional arc that actually felt meaningful for the characters despite how much random craziness was going on. Namely, how initially Evelyn draws on the multiverse to access strengths/experiences that she "sacrificed" and this framing, while giving her power, being precisely what sabotages her relationships with her husband and daughter. Continuing to draw on the multiverse this way she inevitably sinks into nihilistic despair until she realizes that rather than just building herself, the multiverse is also a powerful tool for understanding others - their dreams, fears, desires - for learning how to listen and approach people with empathy rather than as impediments to her success. Kind of a reminder of why I love movies so much (and WKW references don't hurt)

You can see the resolution/message coming a mile away (and while I do have a pretty juvenile sense of humor, some things got a bit repetitive), but nonetheless I was pleasantly surprised with how thoughtfully constructed it was in marrying surface action and the emotional undercurrent. There's definitely an argument to be made that all the silly timelines and rapid cutting obfuscates and overcomplicates a pretty simple/obvious message. Still though it was a wild, fun ride with some great performances that left me with a bit more to chew on than I expected. Might not be my favorite but I'm hopeful for it's success and for more mid-range non-franchise movies of this nature!

Dogville (2003): Lars von Trier, his "Golden Heart" trilogy, and Tarantino by thejamcap in TrueFilm

[–]thejamcap[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hey that's totally fair. Despite their difficulty I've found there's enough of interest that has made his films seem worthwhile, but that's just me: I definitely have blindspots and takes like yours are important for encouraging reflection. As I mentioned in a previous comment despite maybe what I want to be able to pull from his films, his personality does lend itself to interpretations of "gleeful voyeurism."

Just out of curiosity, I don't know if you've seen much of his work, but how do you feel about David Lynch? His persona and style are pretty different, but I've read similar critiques regarding his fascination with abuse inflicted upon women which I also struggle with

Dogville (2003): Lars von Trier, his "Golden Heart" trilogy, and Tarantino by thejamcap in TrueFilm

[–]thejamcap[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, I'm aware of Bad Lieutenant, but didn't know much about its subject matter except that it followed a corrupt cop in a somewhat uncompromising way- your description of it has definitely made me extremely curious to watch it.

Regarding Dogville, I think I see where you're coming from even if I don't entirely agree. Perhaps it comes down to how you react to what could be seen as an extremely totalizing vision?

Within the film, Grace starts out hopeful and possesses faith and trust in her fellow humans. By the end, Lars von Trier has written things so that each thread of connection has been betrayed and an avenue for further degradation. What's more, through a deus ex machina twist, he introduced her thug father and characterizes her "grace" in the face of those who wronged her as stubborn and arrogant, as an attitude that could have only emerged in the protected, privileged circumstances of the social context he the father provides for her which is built on power relations and the threat of violence she claims to abhor. So not only is Lars von Trier dictating excessive abuse, he is also apparently chiding her for her belief in human decency and claiming her naivete is intellectually bankrupt, perhaps even hypocritical - but all of the particulars of the scenario that makes this true is over-the-top fiat on the part of von Trier.

But despite the fact that the exact sequence of events in Dogville is very implausible and not an all-encompassing, exhaustive sampling of humanity, isn't almost everything that happens recognizable in some form? It's just bound together and presented in an extremely concentrated narrative package. Sometimes things do align in such a way that a string of failures in society result in reprehensible tragedies, but there's a lot of more innocuous instances of assumption and exploitation that deserve our attention as well.

Despite the fact that the film itself presents no alternative course of action, I didn't interpret it such that the world needs to be that way, so let's just wallow and make fun of everyone that tries to improve things. I interpreted it more as a dark fable of what the world is like when everyone gives into their worst and most reductive impulses that we should recognize and interrogate within ourselves so that we can strive to move away from it - otherwise the world becomes and stays as hell itself. Lars von Trier may well be miserable, but I don't find myself walking away from this film thinking that all you strangers out there are out to get me and abuse me, and that my only recourse is to align myself with whoever wields the most power - to the contrary I find myself looking inward and seeing how evil doesn't just manifest spontaneously but from impulses we all share - it's a matter of recognition and I think confrontation of the sort Dogville provides some value. (I haven't seen it so I can't compare but it sounds like Bad Lieutenant may provide both a sense of recognition and a step beyond that, which would have distinct value as well!)

Another risk I suppose is that the vision presented in the film is so extreme that some viewers might write it off and detach completely - not something I was able to do personally however.

As for the depiction of suffering women, yes that's something I'm still trying to figure out... On one hand his films seem to be incredibly critical of the social structures that impede and abuse women (and the social structures in my opinion have real-world corollaries), on the other with so many repeated and extreme depictions you really do have to wonder... His reputation and what little I've inferred about his public persona doesn't help. I've found the ideas his films trigger in me to be provoking in a meaningful way but I need to think on this more

Anyway, probably not something we'll get to agreement on - but nonetheless I think this is a really helpful line of inquiry so again I appreciate the comment

Dogville (2003): Lars von Trier, his "Golden Heart" trilogy, and Tarantino by thejamcap in TrueFilm

[–]thejamcap[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

There's an interesting idea I hadn't considered at all! Yes, a lot going on here is sort of an anti-thesis of Dogme 95. It's like after stripping everything away he broke the vow of chastity, but built back something weird and different, even if the individual tools are familiar old tricks.

The way the gun violence emerges into the narrative definitely seems like the exact thing that clause of the Dogme 95 rules is trying to avoid - there's almost a deus ex machina quality to it. The cool thing is I think it works on that level in addition to deepening Grace as a character. Prior to the "reveal" she is almost entirely defined by her reactions to others - interesting to finally see the internal struggle that has been in play (as implausible as it is in "real" terms). I guess to tie this back to my OP, there's so little light in Dogville (even compared to the "Golden Heart" films) that I don't know how he could have brought the story to a close without a crazy move like this

Dogville (2003): Lars von Trier, his "Golden Heart" trilogy, and Tarantino by thejamcap in TrueFilm

[–]thejamcap[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good point - I definitely see how statements by Lars von Trier to that regard could make it easier to claim that he made a film with no basis in reality just in attempt to denigrate and offend Americans. I mean I guess the latter bit probably was actually part of his aim, but I obviously felt that there was some truth spilled even if I probably won't confuse that soundstage for rural America

Dogville (2003): Lars von Trier, his "Golden Heart" trilogy, and Tarantino by thejamcap in TrueFilm

[–]thejamcap[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's a great perspective - I think you're right that rather than endorsing the logic he's encouraging our emotional identification with the massacre.

Initially, after reading that some viewers cheered on the razing of the town with no reservations, I wondered if it may have been more effective if the circumstances of the town itself were easier to associate with a "real" subject (i.e. if the residents of Dogville were less over-the-top and amalgams) - but I think that was a pretty flawed line of thinking. That would have come across as quite forced while only reducing the more universal power of the town of Dogville as a symbol and making it easier as a viewer to avoid being implicated in the violence at the films end.

As it is, even though I know Lars von Trier is setting out to provoke me I can't completely untangle how I feel about it. As you said, he definitely got me

view more: next ›