Dancer In The Dark (2000)
Lars von Trier
English
The least everyone could agree on Lars von Trier’s Dancer in the Dark (2000), without getting into a debate about its artistic merit, is that it is a work of immense range. Juxtaposing Dogme-styled kitchen sink ultra-realism with musical numbers replete with chorus dancers, it ambitiously attempts to marry genres that are positioned at the opposite ends of a spectrum. It’s a marriage that is perhaps doomed by construct, but in Trier’s film it is intended to be an unholy, internecine union. The flights of musical fantasy that Selma (Björk) launches into, like the stripped scenery of Dogville (2003), serve as Epic Theatrical devices that seek to thwart audience’s uncritical surrender to the film’s drama and continually remind them of the artificiality of the film’s construction. That even such a blatant disfiguration of the film’s tonal integrity doesn’t successfully prevent the audience from total emotional identification with Selma is less an indicator of the film’s conceptual failure than a demonstration of why a multi-generic cinema, like Bollywood, works on the same audience-character dynamic as the straightforward genre entries of the West and why a mixed-mode narrative doesn’t necessarily avoid the pitfalls of Realism. That’s because von Trier the screenwriter is an incurable melodramatist (tempered by von Trier the director), who, by heaping misery upon his protagonists, makes sure that there’s not a single dry eye in the house. (Unsurprisingly, he cites Douglas Sirk as a major inspiration here, but I’d think Sirk’s assimilation of Brecht’s method is a tad more successful). On the other hand, as a musical, von Trier’s film leaves a lot to be desired. He shoots musical numbers like action scenes (in contrast to Peckinpah, who shoots action scenes like musical numbers), forgetting that the secret to a great musical number lies in the Bazinian conquest of space and not time.
February 19, 2013 at 3:15 am
owing to dogme – Bazinian could not be achieved, nor could that have been a primary intention.
on a basic level – the musical numbers were expressions. superficial expressions.
glad to read you again after some time now.
LikeLike
February 19, 2013 at 8:21 am
Hi Kartikey,
Glad to hear from you, again!
Hmm, if I’m not wrong I gather you are saying that presenting neatly done, classicist musical numbers couldn’t have been the intention. Could you elaborate? Dogme goes out the window the moment von Trier had dubbed soundtrack, but even not considering that, I thought von Trier was trying to imbibe from classical musicals and create a straightforward musical in these passages. Personally, I think his choice of multiple camera setup (and his choice of shuttling between rapidly) is a goof up, with the resulting dissonance amounting to nothing.
Would be happy to hear counterarguments.
Cheers!
LikeLike
April 3, 2013 at 11:06 pm
I remember Dancer in the Dark as one of Trier’s better films, but he really is an incurable melodramatist.
Slightly off context, but isn’t the effect of music in movies mostly achieved by the spectators’ preconditioning by means of, say, the singer-icon, music-icon and/or actor-icon’s street cred (informed by the existing fad) than the actual quality of music?
LikeLike
April 14, 2013 at 10:35 am
Hmm, I wouldn’t think so really, because I believe we do have the ability to be enthralled by music/performance totally alien to us.
Cheers!
LikeLike