Reviews
Dogville (2003)
Left me just short of satiated
I must say, I was waiting to see this film more than any other for the past year. I saw it Saturday night, and I can't say yet that I've totally formed my reaction to it. To a certain extent, like McBuff said, it lacked an emotional impact, such as Dancer in the Dark, which leaves you sobbing no matter how many times you've seen it. I've nothing against so-called cold movies, like Kubrick's were often described, but they never sear into your memory as much as the more emotional ones. Also, I agree that the credits sequence, with the Bowie song and the images - those left more of an emotional impact than anything before it. Had the whole film felt like that, well, I'm sure von Trier is capable of doing such a thing. But I also wonder, and maybe he's explained this, why he tacked on these photos and song? I was never bored, and the lack of a traditional set/props while the film still holds your attention is testament to von Trier's story and the amazing performances of the actors. I think it's the most stripped-down performance one could see, in terms of how exposed a story and an actor are. At a play, the fact you are seeing real live people is itself a distraction. In this situation, you are more removed and more able to make a judgment based on "just the facts," if you will. That being said, I thought the movie was hysterical, acting amazing, I loved the set experimentation - it all worked for me. The narration thing was worn well too, helping to create a fairy tale feeling. Hurt's dialogue was funny, it wasn't intrusive or cheap like it would be used in a Hollywood movie. But I was left feeling slightly disappointed. The ending didn't leave me all that surprised, and seeing an ending coming is always a letdown. And finally, other users said this too, if you are looking for a film that's saying, Hey, look how evil or bad all of us are and redemption doesn't seem to exist, there are better films out there that have tackled this subject before.
Spider (2002)
May be Cronenberg's best
I was lucky enough to see a screening of this in Queens, where David Cronenberg spoke about the film afterwards. He may be the most intelligent filmmaker working today. This is such an incredibly complex film, with so many levels of interpretations and ambiguity, which most great films offer an audience. The acting is first-rate and Oscar-worthy in a literal sense, not a bulls*** Hollywood sense; the composition of the shots is beautiful; the story is flawless and engaging; the production design is perfect - I could go on, but you get the picture. What's unfortunate is so many critics are discussing this film as one about schizophrenia, which it really isn't, nor was it meant to be. As it turns out, it is an excellent representation of the schizophrenic experience. But Cronenberg intended it to be representational of the human condition, with all its mysteries, uncertainties and existential anxieties. What was never an uncertainty, however, is Cronenberg's skillful mastery of delivering genius.
Ken Park (2002)
One of cinema's bravest films
I saw this movie last night at Lincoln Center. I'll bet 99% of the crowd knew pretty much what they were going to see, yet at least half of them seemed stunned and speechless when the movie ended. I was surprised myself at the amount of full-frontal male nudity, with plenty of hard-ons. Probably some of that could have been cut, because after a while it didn't serve a purpose. The story itself, in terms of a traditional narrative structure, isn't so great. It' just a question of, OK, at what point will these kids turn on their parents or whomever? But the message of the movie was delivered full-force, and by making his statement in the way he did, Clark has made what may be the bravest film since Pasolini's "Salo." Really glad I got to see this, and I hope the potential distributor, American Cinemateque, comes through so more people can see it.