not at all, jeff,
i didn't take it as an insult at all. ;) jeff, have you seen buffalo'66?
i'm going to stand by my assumption that von trier was very much influenced
by that film, not only by vincent gallo's aesthetic, which von trier
attempted to take one step further, but also with the group dynamics (again,
which he attempted to take one step further). dyou see what i mean? maybe
a comparison would be the wrong way of going about the whole thing, cos the
two definitely stand apart on their own. but buffalo'66 was both subtle yet
extreme, modest yet daring, short but very effective, where i found dancer
in the dark to be none of those things.
the character dynamics: 1)buffalo'66 - billy brown, a sort of one man
against the world with a soon to be saviour in layla, and when push comes to
shove, nothing matters anymore when one discovers love. 2)dancer in the
dark: selma, a sort of one woman against the world with a sort of reluctant
saviour in cathy's character, and when push comes to shove, nothing matters
anymore when one discovers music (love was already there). that's sort of a
kindergarten breakdown of the whole thing, but the similarities are just too
strong. buffalo'66 had its own musical sequence: in the bedroom with
billy's dad (doing a cover of "fool's rush in") and layla.
the point isn't that von trier attempted to remake buffalo'66 with dancer in
the dark, but that he kind of made it a joke in the process. both films
have a sort of operatic "the ridiculous meets the divine" feel to it, but
where buffalo'66 was breathtaking, dancer in the dark was so. . .
constructed, deliberate, manipulated, even in the improvised parts. my
point is that the film was too conscious, too aware somehow, and therefore
less natural. von trier has talent, but it shows too strongly, almost
deliberately in this film. i mean, i knew what he was trying to do, and
that nullified the effect, somehow.
i went to the film unafraid to be drawn in - and i was drawn in, even though
i hated the film. i'm not sure if i can agree with the bit about
matchmaking - yes, a lot of it has to do with instinct, but there's a
definite intellectual side to certain films, and i don't believe intellect
has much to do with love.
i guess that's just it: buffalo'66 was all instinct, dancer in the dark was
mainly intellect (posing as instinct), in my opinion. i did not become
emotional (which was the point) but i understand what he was trying to
accomplish. i liked buffalo'66 instinctively. i hated dancer in the dark
instinctively, but i still admire it. to me, it was effective ONLY
intellectually, and, therefore, von trier failed in his attempt to move me.
brian
i have no dogs of war, just puppies. ;)
>Well yes I did see it, but I was waiting to hear other comments before I
>let loose the dogs of war. I don't think I'm going to do that though,
>because I think that the movie polarizes people very far in one direction
>and it's no use to argue from the two ends. I loved the movie personally.
>
>A warning, the non-musical portions are filmed with a handheld so if you're
>one of the unlucky ones that can't physically handle that type of
>camerawork you might have trouble watching it. A friend of mind had to
>leave the theater 15 minutes into the movie because he felt nauseous.
>
>Anyway I think it's a much more powerful movie if you see it alone, which I
>know a lot of people won't do for some reason. Having someone next to you
>makes you self-conscious about getting sucked into the movie. Most reviews
>attacked the plot, which I don't understand because they never laid out
>specifically what they had a problem with. I didn't find the believability
>of the plot to be a problem at all. Bjork was perfectly cast for the role,
>as were most of the others.
>
>It's been two weeks since I first saw it and I'm starting to recover I
>guess. It really screwed me up for a few days afterward. I know I'm not
>alone in loving the movie as much as I do but it really throws me for a
>loop that some people hate it as much as they do. I'm the first to
>criticize a director for treating his audience like idiots (PT Anderson)
>but I didn't see that at all from Lars von Trier.
>
>It's hard for me to say why I liked the movie, just like it's hard for me
>to say why I hated Magnolia. I think both movies divide the audience into
>two groups, and because of that they bring to the surface fundamental
>differences between the people that make up each group. It's why I think
>movies should be universally used as a matchmaking device, because I don't
>think people on different sides of the fence with regard to this movie
>could ever really like each other. I'm not trying to put down your
>criticism in any way, Brian, cause I think both sides of the argument are
>valid in their own way, but there's a distance between me and most of my
>friends that I see exemplified in cases like this. It's like the
>personality needed to like this movie is a polar opposite of the one needed
>to dislike it. I hope that doesn't sound like an insult, it isn't intended
>as one.
>
>jeff b
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+-------------------- new york, london, paris, tokyo ----------------+
+------------------ everybody talk about... popjourno! -------------+
+------------------- http://www.pulped.co.uk/popjourno --------------+
+--------- to send a message to the list, please address it to ------+
+----------------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------+
+--------- declarations of love, presents, and otherwise saucy ------+
+-------- e-correspondence should be sent directly to the list ------+
+------------------- mummy at [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------+
+------------- popjourno currently has over 150 subscribers ---------+
+------------------------ (most of them lurkers). -------------------+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
