A l'Intérieur A l'Intérieur
Sep
09
2005

TIFF Report: Manderlay Review

Posted by Mathew at 8:45am.

Posted in Film & DVD Reviews , Drama, Continental Europe & Russia, Toronto Film Festival 2005.

2005_09_09_Manderlay.jpg

I’ll admit, straight off, that I have not seen Dogville, so cannot compare this film to it’s predecessor, except to reference it on occasion. In fact, I haven’t even seen a Lars Von Trier film up to this point (terrible, I know). I’d like to claim this is a benefit, that I was able to watch the film with a clean mind and truly critique it, but I’ll admit that all I had heard about Lars Von Trier beforehand made him sound flawed at best, and infuriating at worst. So walking in with that in mind, I walked out considering Manderlay a film flawed at its (very) best, and infuriating at its (usual) worst.

As backdrop, Manderlay is the second film in Von Trier’s American trilogy, following Dogville, which starred Nicole Kidman as Grace, and examined small town America’s xenophobia. Here, the Kidman role is reprised by Bryce Dallas Howard, previously seen in M. Night Shyamalan’s The Village, and the subject tackled is racism.

After escaping Dogville with the aid of her father (here played by Willem Dafoe rather than James Caan of the first film) and his gangsters, they stumble upon the town of Manderlay, where slavery still remains under the harsh hand of Mam (confusingly played by Lauren Bacall, the harsh and chronologically quite dead Ma Ginger of the previous film). After Mam’s death (apparently of shock, or something. Realistically because of a bad case of plot necessity) a deal is struck for Grace to take a group of gangsters and aid the now free slaves in their attempt to run their own farm, with her father to return after a harvest to pick her up if she wishes.

The first thing to strike me about Manderlay, other than John Hurt’s narration - so smug you want to smack his unseen face right off - is that, on the basis of this film, Von Trier’s skill at writing natural dialogue is non-existent. Grace stomps about and yells rhetoric as if it’s something people do in daily conversation outside of Russia in the 1920’s. “We [White America] all owe a debt for slavery” is a rough paraphrase of something she petulantly cries at the beginning of the film. If the film wasn’t set almost 70 years after abolition, you could almost buy it. This could simply be to set up Grace’s politics loudly and clearly, but it begins a line of a far too ‘black and white’ logic, and intelligence insulting that continues throughout the film.

In Manderlay, Von Trier asks us to accept the film’s own internal technical logic – that it is quite apparently filmed on a soundstage, with most features marked out on the floor, with artificial lights visibly being used, and a hand held camera is used for almost (if not) all shots, with cuts happening during sentences. This last bit is incredibly difficult to get used to, and I’m unconvinced it’s actually acceptable. While I cannot argue that Von Trier obviously put a lot of thought into this, in Manderlay (I cannot speak for Dogville) it appears to have been put into action with somewhat a lack of conviction. In a film where the only props that I believe are supposed to be apparent are ones which are vital to the progression of the plot (while the buildings have no walls, one little girl has her own window, a physical prop), where actors have to perform an absurd pantomime of opening and closing doors (I swear you can almost see their lips mouth a ‘ca-chink, CREEEEEK’ door sound as they do it), why are such completely meaningless props such as cutlery included? Or bedding? And why are some important props (such as at least one roof, or Mam’s trees) non-existent? Indeed sometimes this just leads to a quite jarring level of absurdity – one section of the fence which surrounds Manderlay, ostensibly to keep the slaves in, is a prop, due a dual use. The rest of the fence isn’t there. So your mind doesn’t imagine a fence, it just sees a bit of fence and then a bare area. Surely not Von Trier’s intention, and if this lack of consistency is to be attributed to production designer Peter Grant, it’s certainly a case of one hand not watching what the other is doing.

At least one removal can be attributed to public outcry – the loss of the donkey, sensationally slaughtered for the film, before being cut out completely which was surely the most brutal cut of all, as it now it didn’t even die in the name of art. The fact that Von Trier actually gives a fuck what people think makes me buy this film’s logic even less – without that I’d almost be happy to write my nitpicking off as, well, nitpicking.

But my really harsh criticisms of the film are kept for the film’s attempts at meaning. It’s really quite telling that one of the few African-American actors to appear in this film was Danny Glover, in a fine performance making the best of what he’s been given - particular praise should be given to Zeljko Ivanek also, playing a chilling card shark and a slight deus ex machina - as the film’s politics towards slavery are absurd.

Mam’s Law, the book left to Grace by Mam for her to destroy on Mam’s request (which she promptly forgets about for ages, ridiculously) describes what Von Trier conjectures are the faces humanity puts on when subjugated. Only an apologist would state that the film’s pivotal plot point, concerning this book, is anything but a pathetic resolution.

Muddled in with this is George Bush’s attempt to make the Iraqi people understand democracy… Or rather, Grace’s attempt to make the slaves understand freedom. It’s about as subtle an effect as the carpet bombing of a Baghdad hospital, as she idiotically stumbles about making the kind of mistakes a reviled character in a white supremacist sitcom might – she mistakes one black person for another, and she later (which actually surprised me) forces the white slave owners, now slaves, to put on black face.

Von Trier’s complete lack of subtlety reaches it’s tragic crescendo as the film ends with Bowie’s normally utterly lovable ‘Young Americans’ played over images of African American rioting, etcetera, ad infinitum, and you honestly feel like you’ve been slapped in the face as a final insult for having sat through an unbearable 139 minutes of the most boring, least convincing critique of American race relations it’s probably possible for even someone who’s never been to America to make. If they export so much culture that we, as Von Trier claims he can, comment in an educated fashion upon them, why does this film fail so badly?

  • Digg This
  • Stumble It!
  • Reddit
 

Reader Comments

  1. Donkee 09/09/2005 @ 7:50pm

    I dont think it fails i think you failed to get the point… I cant think of a worse film to go see without first seeing what came before…

  2. mathew 09/09/2005 @ 7:55pm

    First of all, all films should be able to stand on their own two feet (Even Empire Strikes back would be great fun without knowledge of Star Wars, even if it took a while to pick up what was going on). So that’s a bit of a failing, if it *is* one. Feel free to enlighten me, though, as to the point I missed, I think my view is valid, honestly. He’s a love him/hate him guy, guy.

  3. Donkee 09/09/2005 @ 11:55pm

    love him / hate him is an excuse fan boy reviewers use on Von Trier cause they want people to think they are still cool… i dont think all films should have to stand on their own? isnt that up to the director?

  4. Todd 09/10/2005 @ 3:12pm

    I don’t think the love him / hate him thing is a cop out with Von Trier. He’s probably the most extremely polarizing director working today ... there are a lot of intelligent people who fully understand the points he’s trying to make who loathe his films ...

  5. mathew 09/10/2005 @ 4:51pm

    I hope I’m one of those people. Honestly sometimes I wonder.

  6. Edwin 09/12/2005 @ 5:37pm

    Slavery is one of the least important subjects in the film. It is used to adress several other subjects that have a much more universal meaning. Pragmatism versus idealism, freedom versus happyness.. It shows the confrontations between the people that choose between those possibilities and the price we sometimes have to pay for these choices.

    And oh yes, Von Trier succeeds very well in kicking against childish small-town mentality, as it prevails in the US. Get over it.

  7. mark parsons 09/13/2005 @ 7:44pm

    to matthew: i think you failed to understand von trier’s use of scenery and props. the techniques he employs have multiple effects: focus the viewers attention (more) on the acting of the actors (does that sound redundant?); critique a materialist culture (ours); enact mimesis (a part standing for the whole, an important idea in this film); and ssentialize characters in a very transparent (read old-fashioned cinema) way.

    also: you argue that von trier lacks “subtlety.&” could you explain further? i mean, i guess i gon’t understand why someone “ought to be&” subtle.

    aside from your “harsh&” critique of the film’s attempt at meaning, most of your other complaints tend to revolve around the idiocy of the plot and its machinations. do you in fact understand that the film is allegorical? it would seem you do not.

    would love ot hear more.

  8. Todd 09/14/2005 @ 9:49am

    I love Von Trier, but as I say in my own review of this he’s as subtle as a brick to the head. Some love him for being brash, but that’s definitely a valid criticism ... what he’s got to say he says LOUDLY ...

  9. Daniel 09/16/2005 @ 3:02am

    Lars von Trier states that his films are not for the masses. Only for those who like reasoning and new perspectives. As a comparison, he thinks that 80% of the Danish people are too dumb to make justice to the true meaning of democracy - no wonder he is considered a hero in Denmark!

    I must say that I find Matthew’s review rather single minded but most amusing. To me, Lars von Trier’s strength as a film creator is his ability to use unconventional methods to tease our minds and keep us on our toes on difficult questions. Matthew’s ability to adapt his perception seems limited - maybe because of convention? If Matthew has never seen von Trier before one can only wonder if he has ever seen anything but American mainstream movies? Lars hates mainstream - including national heroes such as HC Andersen.

    Why? Because they sooth instead of tease you.

    One interesting issue is what I heard from an interview with von Trier about his personal background - grown up with 100% freedom with no restrictions what so ever - he claims that too much freedom makes you unhappy. To keep himself from total frustration as a child, he had to set up his own frames to somewhat handle this scary freedom.

    Maybe Matthew is a good example of political correctness and too full of “nobody should touch our life-style&”? wink

    I think Bowie is great with the pictures in the end (similar to Dogville). This reminds you that there are MANY truths behind the fact that these are all true pictures… Matthew just hates to admit this!

    I say - if you like brain stimulation and something really substantial to discuss afterwards - go and percieve this stunning piece of art!

  10. El Sucre 09/29/2005 @ 3:20pm

    In the same fashion that Von Trier has never directly experienced the USA but comments on it solely based on media impressions, I will now review “Manderlay&” without seeing it, will base my review on media impressions of the movie:

    Manderlay is a HUGE waste of time. One of the worst movies ever. I’ve heard of first time film school filmmakers making awful but better movies then this. (I am, however, glad that Von Trier & co. created Dogme 95 - very useful for indie filmmakers world wide.) Anyway, if your choices are between suicide or watching this movie, then I would find it very difficult to recommend you an option. Movies like these are for simple thinkers who cannot grasp the complexity of life and deal with it effectively but are content with focusing on illness and death and raising those aspects up as the most important, enjoyable and valuable aspects of living. Staring at any street corner in America for two to three hours would be time better spent. Manderlay is useless. The worst 3 hour block of American mainstream/free television is better than Manderlay.

  11. Daniel 12/05/2005 @ 12:49am

    El Sucre!

    I agree. It is sometimes extremely unpleasant to face common problems from new perspectives, especially when you think you know everything so well.
    -----

Post Your Comments

You must be a registered member to post comments.

If you have a Twitch account, click here to sign in.

If you don't have a Twitch account, click here to register. Don't worry, it's free!

Launch The Twitch Video Player

Stuff We Like

Shop at our affiliated sites and support Twitch while feeding your pop-culture addiction.

Our Latest Film & DVD Reviews

More Film & DVD Reviews...

Our Latest Interviews

More Interviews...

Recent Contests & Featured Content

Recent Comments