Spoiler filled summary of the plot of Dogville here.
I read the above this morning.
Okay, so first of all:
OH MY GOD!?! :eek:
Okay, anyway, I have a question. In the above summary, at one point, someone tells Grace that if she can watch her figurines being destroyed without crying, then they will not be destroyed. Later, she tells the same lady that if she can watch her children being killed without crying, then they won’t be killed.I don’t understand exactly what this means.[spoiler]It’s destroyed only if you cry, but to find out whether you will cry or not, it has to be destroyed. That doesn’t make any sense.
Is it maybe that one is killed/destroyed, and then another is killed/destroyed only if the person in question cries?[/spoiler]
No, it doesn’t make any sense: it’s a cruel mind game to play on someone by…
[spoiler]offering them a way so save something they treasure but making it impossible for the offer to actually be good. People torture themselves even more by trying not to cry as they watch their treasure/children destroyed, and may even blame themselves for not being strong enough to prevent crying and letting their children die.
There is no seriousness to the offer of relenting. The gangsters would have slaughtered everyone in the town regardless of whether the person cried or not.[/spoiler]
How’s that for an uplifting and happy plot? I think I had the shakes for a while after seeing that movie.
if it’s clearly and obviously literally logically impossible to take the offer, then I don’t see how any cruelty intended here can be successful. It’s like if somone points a gun at my kid’s head, saying “I’ll give you one way to save your kid: Draw me a square circle.” Well… I mean, I’d be upset that they were going to kill my kid, but this additional attempt at a “mind game” falls flat. It’s just stupid. For it to be a good cruel mind game, it would have to be that I see some way to fulfill the request, but for some reason can’t succeed in doing so. Then my inadequacy plays a part in my kid’s death. But there’ s nothing about my inadequacy involved in the fact that I can’t draw a square circle. That’s just impossible. Similarly, for the character in the movie, there’s literally nothing she can do, or even imagine herself doing, in order to save her figurines. The attempt at cruelty falls flat. She would need to find it somehow within her power to save the figurines, while at the same time realizing it’s beyond her ability to use that power. That doesn’t happen in this scenario.
But my point is, not crying wouldn’t have prevented their children from dying. The very terms of the “deal” make this clear. So there’s nothing for them to blame themselves for. There’s nothing that would plausibly make them even irrationally blame themselves for, in the scenario as depicted in the description given in the link.
That summary is a little bit misleading. From IMDB, what they actually say is:
[spoiler]Vera: I believe smashing them is less a crime than making them. I am going to break two of your figurines first, and if you can demonstrate your knowledge of the Doctrine of Stoicism by holding back your tears, I’ll stop.
Grace: There’s a family with kids. Do the kids and make the mother watch. Tell her you’ll stop if she can hold back her tears. I owe her that. [/spoiler]