I was just reading a “worst movies I have ever seen” post, and I noticed that Dancer In The Dark was on it. I think it was a work of art, it is amazing, touching, wonderful. Its so…real. But, aside from my biased point of view, what did everyone else think of it?
It’s the best movie I’ll ever hate. Although I think Bjork’s music can be quite interesting, the movie was overwhelmingly depressing. The musical numbers were very cool, but I haven’t been that depressed since ** Legends of the Fall**. Nevertheless, I did purchase it for moi on the understanding that I would neve have to watch it again.
…and I can’t remember where. Someone commented that Dancer in the Dark was a commentary on the ability of visual media to manipulate the viewer. The person stated that it was a bit of a lampoon and a kind of trick on the viewer.
Interesting idea.
Biggest waste of time movie I’ve ever seen. I don’t usually get actually pissed off at movies, but this one just made me angry. CheapBastid may be talking about this Cafe Society thread, where somebody said that the whole movie was supposed to be ironic and mocking audiences, and then I went off and got carried away to the point of writing two long tirades about it.
Understand that I’m a huge fan of Bjork, and the soundtrack to the movie is amazing. But I hate Lars Von Trier and I hate that movie. I’d recommend anyone just buy or rent Volumen instead and watch the video to “It’s Oh So Quiet.” Says everything the movie could possibly say, and does it better and in less time.
I thought Dancer in the Dark was a remarkably effective and moving film. I can’t even listen to the soundtrack without getting sad.
Which is exactly why I never want to see it again.
I would never include it on a “worst films” list, though. There are a few movies that are good, but that I never want to see again; Dancer in the Dark is one of these. The reason that I don’t want to see it again is because of the effect it had on me.
Well, since I’m one of those who listed it as a worst film, I guess I should make my case.
To begin with, my perceptions were probably pretty negatively colored before I even went in. I’ve never really liked Bjork that much (the musician, not the poster!), and it wasn’t a movie I was all that interested in seeing (my wife and I made an agreement: she’d go see The Exorcist with me (neither of us had ever seen it) if I went to see Dancer in the Dark with her).
I will say that the music was extremely good, but the lyrics, and Bjork’s singing in particular, just seemed to interfere with whatever effect the music had created.
The acting felt extremely flat. Bjork and Peter Stormare both spoke so slowly through the whole thing I was wondering if it was because they weren’t native English speakers and were having trouble with their lines. Catherine Deneuve and David Morse were better, but I still didn’t feel any spark from either of them. It was as though whatever feeling they were able to kindle with their lines died the moment they closed their mouths. With Bjork in particular, I couldn’t shake the feeling that she wasn’t acting so much as just ‘being Bjork’, which was more than I cared to sit through for two and a half hours.
As for the story itself, I tried, but I just couldn’t connect with Bjork’s character. It was impossible for me to empathize, let alone sympathize, with someone so deep in denial, someone who’s insisting that her wishes be respected, but then pouts like a five-year-old when she’s being fired for ruining one of the presses because she was daydreaming on the job. She came off as a spoiled, but not very bright, child. Other movies may have similar main characters, but if the supporting characters are solid enough to provide a balance, it works. In DitD, they weren’t, and it didn’t, IMO.
Personally, I think that had the lead actress been someone other than Bjork, I would have gone into the movie with much higher expectations than I did, and would have enjoyed it much more.
Oh yeah, and story just felt too artificially manipulative; it was as though I could feel the director trying to shove an onion under my eye with each scene.
And the shaky hand-cam style of shooting made me feel ill.
Despite having defended the film in the other thread, I must say the shaky camera was very unsettling. I don’t know what he was thinking but a camera shake doth not make realism.
That’s all part of the dogma rules. You must use a hand camera.
Aside from that, Dancer in the dark is a part in a series of movies about sacrifice. For better understanding, check out Breaking the Waves, with an amazing debut performance by Emily Watson. It’s a very, very unsettling and depressing movie, too.
The hand held camera is the only thing about the film I hated. And I really HATED the hand held camera.
What I don’t get is why the hand held is one fo the ‘dogma’ rules. The rules AFAIK are ment to make the film as ‘natural’ as possible. But when I look at the world naturally thourgh my eyes the IMAGE IS STEADY!!! The stedi-cam is a replication of the way a human sees the world.
Everything else about the film I absoultly loved. I’m still haven’t gotten the soundtrack but the “I have seen it all” song runs through my mind occasionally.
I thought it was pretty obvious that the Selma character was meant to be mildly retarded.
I think this was actually what von Trier was getting at with Dancer in the Dark. He was sending up his own Dogme 95 rules. The fantasy musical sequences weren’t shot with a handheld camera, so they looked more “real” than the supposedly “realistic” scenes that followed the Dogme 95 rules.
My take on the ‘dogma’ rules is not that it’s supposed to be natural. The idea is that the process of making the film, should be kept to a minimum, so as not to interfere with the story or actors. Therefore - no artificial lights, no dollies, no tripods, minimum crew ASF.
Just in case the poster Bjork IS the same as the singer Bjork, I’d like to take this opportunity to shyly tell her that I really liked the swan dress that she wore at the Oscars.
It was a beautiful, moving film, with an amazing soundtrack and performances by Bjork.
That said, I don’t think I can ever watch it again. It was the emotional equivalent of being kicked in the head. That’s why I can’t listen to Tori Amos’s “Me and a Gun” any more. Brilliant, but just too brutal.
Damn… talk about separated at birth. Not only do I feel exactly the same about Dancer in the Dark, but I’ve pretty much sworn off of Tori’s music for the same reason. She’s very talented and I admire her deeply, but her music affects me in such a way that I simply can’t listen to it without getting depressed.
I really thought *Dancer in the Dark was a great movie, and i was totally amazed by Bjork’s performance, which i thought was excellent. I really liked the musical character of the film, the way that it would actually call a halt to the narrative (while also being a part of it), just like in a “regular” musical like Sound of Music or South Park 
.
The gender politics of this film are open to question. The total self-sacrifice of a woman in order to save a man is a pretty worn theme in literature and the arts. Still, i liked the movie a lot, and thought it was very moving.
Oh, man. I saw that movie once. Never, ever, ever again. I didn’t even want to talk to anybody for hours. It made me hate all of humanity and want to wallow in despair for days. But dammit, it was GOOD enough to do that.
I wonder if Bjork would be more interested in continuing her acting career if her single experience hadn’t been one that was so emotionally brutal… I can’t even imagine.
LC
PS- Has anyone seen the Space Ghost episode where Bjork plays his wife? It’s friggin’ hilarious.
This was his point; the movie is a commentary on audiences’ willingness to be manipulated. VonTrier is rubbing the our collective nose in our “Spielberg is God” sensibilities.
Dancer in the Dark is not a Dogme 95 film; Idioterne is the only Dogme 95 film he’s made.
I loved Dancer in the Dark, but unfortunately, I will never see it again. It affected me so much that I have never been able to watch the DVD again, so it sits in my shelf, and probably will forever. Ditto for Selma’s Songs (the “soundtrack”).
I think that a movie that I LOVE but cannot bring myself to watch ever again is high praises for all the actors and the director, since it means it really worked.
I loved it. I laid on the railroad tracks for an hour afterward, but I loved it nonetheless. She was just wonderful, as was Catherine Deneuve. A great movie. My kid turned me on to it.