Dancer in the Dark was not a Dogme film. Which is why it was more frustrating to watch the shaky-cam.
And, a human being with a camera mounted on his shoulder is not intrusive but a camera on a tripod or dolly is? Like any other technique, a hand-held camera has to be used judiciously. It was abused in this film.
Well, yeah. I’ve read the rules in Danish, so it’s not like I don’t know it’s not dogma. Why do you think I used ‘dogma’? Because otherwise confusion arise.
And the rules where meant as a joke, a provocation.
But then he went on to win awards. It must have been a great practical joke for him. As is his name. He’s not von. He just added that to stick out.
Also, I never claimed that ‘Dancer…’ is a dogme movie, I just talked about the concept in itself, so don’t try to be snotty with me.
Being a joke or not. If ‘Dancer…’ is part of Dogme or not - really doesn’t matter. Lars von Trier has had a tremendous impact on moviemaking in the last ten years. Natural light and handheld shaky cameras for ‘realism’ is popping up all over the place. TV or cinema. You might argue that Kubrick and Barry Lyndon started the natural light trend. But it never became a trend.
Anyways - Danish cinema is very, very vital. Maybe thanks to Trier and his success. But for better examples, try to locate Pusher. Link to IMdB
I think this trend owes more to Cassavetes and his followers–who, one might argue, led in a pretty straight line to Dogme 95–than to Von Trier.
And it’s just plain childish to refuse to call him as he names himself, Von Trier–unless of course you also refuse to refer to Archibald Leach as Cary
Grant
That’s exactly how I feel. My sister and I watched it together when it first came out on video, and when it was over we stared at the blank screen for ages before talking. We felt very odd for a long, long time after watching it, almost dirty, but really glad we’d seen it.
We still reference it to this day whenever we are trying to describe a disturbing yet fascinating event, as in “I felt very Dancer-in-the-Dark”.
Whether I was being purposely manipulated or not, it certainly had an impact on me.
When I wrote that a shaky camera has little to do with realism, you wrote:
OK. I disagreed with the very notion because a tripod is only as much an interference as the camera itself. But then, in your last post, you wrote:
Realism? Did you say ‘realism’?
Or calling John Wayne Marrion?
‘von’ is an honorary title of the nobility in these parts (pr at least perceived as such). To apply it to your name is pretentious to say the least. I find it extremely childish of him to add it to his name. I know it’s part provocation, part sticking out, and I’m not buying it.
Maybe I’m not making myself clear. There are so many movies being made today, where the director uses un-steadycam,l whenever he wants to create tension or what he thinks, is a touch of realism. Following the cops up the stairs in The Negotiator comes to mind. I don’t like it. But it’s widely used, and that’s what I’m saying.
Of course, shows like Cops or even Hill Street Blues during the 80’s, could claim to be the origin for this. But Trier started winning awards and showing other moviemakers that this technique could be taken seriously. And I doubt if anyone thinks Cops is art.
Using a handheld, shaky cam, gives a ‘documentary’ feel to it. Something we’ve learned from TV. Supposedly, dogme96/‘dogma’ makes use of this, by adding a homevideo, voyeuristic feel to the movie, thereby trying to convey that what we’re seeing is more ‘real’.
For more info on the whole thing: Dogme95.
I hate the whole thing and thinks it’s a big hoax. But I have to admit, that Trier has had an enormous impact. Just the fact that I’m sitting in Sweden, discussing this with Americans, about a director/producer, using a digital camcorder, for home use, and making movies costing about $1 million, illustrates this fact.
Well, I finally saw this DVD and I thought it was a pretty good movie except for when they all broke into song and dance. Thank God I didn’t see this in the theater, because at least I was able to fast forward through all the musical numbers at home.
I used to be a Bjork fan in the Sugar Cube days, but man, her voice grates on my nerves now.
Since this thread has been revived, I’ll respond to a response:
It wasn’t that obvious to me. I’ve seen Bjork in interviews, and her portayal of Selma didn’t look that different from her behavior in real life. As I said before, I couldn’t shake the feeling that she wasn’t acting so much as just ‘being Bjork’.
I didn’t realize she was supposed to be mildly retarded, either. I did, however, get the sense that they rolled LOTS of tape to get some of the footage.
How embarrassing for you.
Thank goodness for home video. I watched The Godfather for the first time and fast forwarded through all those icky violent parts. I also fast-forwarded through all the slow parts of 2001: A Space Odyssy. Watched that sucker in 20 minutes flat!
Odyssey, that is.
My only complaint about the movie was that I had heard the version of this song that features a duet with Thom Yorke… so when Peter Stormare opened his tuneless mouth to sing in the movie, I simply cringed at the comparison. Likewise, I really really wish Bjork had sun the duet at the Oscars.
I also have to say that “New World” is one of the best movie overture themes I’ve heard: a really fantastic song and instrumental.
As for Bjork’s personality. I once knew a photographer who worked with her a little once. Apparently, she has a wildly variable mood, going from delieriously happy and silly to incredibly nasty, to disturbingly childlike in the course of seconds, without any rhyme or reason for the mood changes. So, if that’s her real-life personality, you have to at least give her cred for playing something consistently and focused in the movie.
My favorite part about the musical scenes was the way that harsh reality kept creeping into the edges of the fantasy: people’s faces being not quite right (angry or pained even though everything else in the fantasy had them acting happy and nutty): little elements of disaster that threatened to take over at any moment and that Selma had to continually distract herself from.
Well, not to knock Bjork, but…well…she’s probably a very intelligent woman, but she’s not exactly the postergirl for good mental health.
As for the character Selma, you said she behaved like a child, and that’s exactly my point. Her response to everything was that of a child, not a normal adult woman. This was true even when it did her no good, such as her childish belief in the importance of not telling secrets (even in court…even when her life is at stake). You can interpret the film and the character any way you like, but I don’t know why anyone would choose to see Selma as a woman of average intelligence who behaves like a child for fun rather than a woman of below average intelligence who behaves like a child because she is not mentally capable of behaving like an adult. Aside from making the character unsympathetic, the former doesn’t even make much sense.
[quote]
*Originally posted by toadspittle *
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.
Yeah, that’s me too. I like Tori, listen to her very rarely. I thought Dancer in the Dark was generally very good - the camera ticked me off, but for the most part I thought it worked. Whether it’s technically a Dogme film or not, it seems influenced by it to me, and I find it a very irritating gimmick.