Dogville Review
by Jerry Saravia (faust668 AT aol DOT com)February 3rd, 2005
DOGVILLE (2004)
Reviewed by Jerry Saravia
RATING: Four stars
"Dogville" is a masterpiece of theatre, and intrinsically flawed cinematically. How can a film be both things? Well, consider that this is the avant-garde work of Danish director Lars von Trier, who made one of my favorite films of the 1990's, "Breaking the Waves." He is the creator of Dogme95, a group of directors who use found locations, shoot on hand-held video, and so on. "Dogville" fits the bill to a tee. It is as experimental as one can imagine, as any film can be, but its theatrical staging limits its goals. Still, despite some flaws, this is a remarkable achievement and a near-masterful morality tale as only von Trier can make.
The town is Dogville, a Rocky Mountains hamlet so hidden from the world that it only has one major road to get there, Elm Street. There are fifteen denizens in this town, including a retired doctor (Philip Baker Hall) who's also a hypochondriac, a blind man (Ben Gazzara) who loves to talk about sunlight and shadows, and the town's lone sexpot (Chloe Sevigny). The most significant character is Tom (Paul Bettany), a would-be writer who holds town meetings to discuss the "goodness" of people. Into this sleepy hamlet comes Grace (Nicole Kidman), a woman on the run from gangsters. Tom takes her in because he likes her and doesn't want her to climb the surface of a mountain to escape. Tom persuades the townspeople to accept Grace and use their innate goodness to give her a chance. They give her two weeks - if they like her, she can stay. If not, she better buy some good shoes and climb that damn mountain. Grace offers to help the townspeople - they are reluctant at first, but then she starts getting paid for unnecessary work. All is fine and dandy until the police come into town looking for Grace, who may be a bank robber. Is she a simple bank robber who's holding some stash somewhere, or is she more dangerous than the people of Dogville might have thought?
As I mentioned earlier, Lars von Trier could never make a straightforward film without indulging in stylistic strokes. The difference is that, this time, von Trier has taken his Dogme rules and relied on a simple set. As evidenced by the opening overhead shot, we notice that this is simply a soundstage with chalk outlines of character names and streets (even a chalk-outlined dog named Moses). There are no visible doors or walls - the chalk outlines are the only geographical indicators of this town. Even a small rock formation stands in for a mountain. We do see a real car, a real bench, some real beds, and a wall that stands in for the window display of a small shop. Outside of that, one has to suspend disbelief and assume that this is a real town. The problem is that it obviously resembles a theatrical setting where a play is about to transpire. I admire von Trier for taking this big a step but it limits and robs us of any real visual images (even Ingmar Bergman's "After the Rehearsal," which used sets, was never this stagy). There are only three striking images in the film. One is of Grace in a truck from an overhead angle as she sleeps while we see her through a transparent tarp. The other is the introduction of Grace at night as she walks calmly down the road while everyone sleeps. Lastly, I love the use of overhead shots in general, though von Trier doesn't allow for more inventive camera set-ups.
Such theatrical staginess, though, doesn't diminish the story - in some ways, it enhances it. This is strange because I just said that, visually, the film fails to work as a visual poem. Yet the story and characters emerge so clearly and provocatively that I didn't mind too much. The reason I give it more credit is because I expect von Trier to do something like this. Other directors might have failed where von Trier succeeds admirably.
The most powerful performance is clearly Nicole Kidman's, the most adventurous actress of our generation. She evokes the fragile, human, emotional side of Grace so well that we can't help but adore her. She is like a lost puppy seeking sanctuary from killers. The town of Dogville slowly embraces her, but then they abuse her, torture her, rape her, humiliate her, and then deny they are doing such wrongdoing. Kidman evokes so many layers to Grace (including a shocking character revelation) that it is easily the most brave piece of acting she has ever committed to film.
I also admire Paul Bettany as the intellectual Tom who falls in love with Grace. Tom's dilemma begins to stifle him - does he love the townspeople more than Grace or vice versa? If the townspeople want to do away with Grace, will he be on their side or is he on Grace's side? Bettany is so good at camouflaging what the character might really be thinking that he'll keep you in suspense as to his inevitable decision.
The rest of the cast is also excellent, including Lauren Bacall, who is feisty over her gooseberry bushes, Stellan Skarsgard as a sexually repressed apple orchard farmer, Jeremy Davies as a dim checkers player, Patricia Clarkson as a mousy, strict mother who is fiercely protective of her children, and James Caan as a mob boss, among others.
"Dogville" is compelling and fascinating from start to finish. It is the kind of dazzling, experimental work we expect from Lars von Trier. The ending comes in huffing and puffing when it should have climaxed smoothly. Still, despite its minor faults, "Dogville" is a rare, brave, challenging work.
For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/Jerry_at_the_Movies.html
Email: [email protected] or at [email protected]
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
