Manderlay

I have already several years ago decided that Lars von Trier's movies can neither be called good or bad, they are always different and thought provoking but most certainly also irritating and annoying. Manderlay is no exception.

Our heroin spots a dictator on the axis of evil, storms in with light sabers and an ever-optimistic smile, brushes away the dictator and her regime, and is proud of having brought freedom and democracy to yet another place (any similarities with other persons - living or dead - are fully intentional and of course debatable).

But how do you make democracy work when people have not learned it through practice and the collective memory of democracy's fallacies since the ancient Greek city states. How do you make people value their freedom and be responsible for their own fortune, when it is much more comfortable to blame someone else for their fate.

Von Trier brilliantly and ironically discusses these issues with surprising twists in the plot. But he will most definitely offend all kinds of Americans who will be too rash to judge this movie as anything between a misunderstanding and an insult of the American people of whatever color.

Bryce Dallas Howard (Grace) delivers a great performance.

To make a movie on an almost naked stage with imaginary doors etc. is very different from anything else and it actually could contribute to focus more on the actors performance (as on a theater stage). But I think that the hasty cutting of scenes and the annoyingly shaky hand-held camera actually diminish the actors chances of delivering a forceful performance. I don't mind the hand-held camera of the Dogma movies, but this is no Dogma movie. It has "artificial" music, sound effects, lightning, requisites, etc. So why bother to have a hand-held camera.

Manderlay is an excellent movie for anybody who enjoys being provoked or how wants to confirm her/his prejudice about von Trier as a weird director with tendencies to be proud-to-be-old-Europe.

I won't disclose anything about the film. I liked it very it much, albeit slightly less than the first film, probably because, well, the first was very fresh and innovative in the way it presented this "theatrical" world and partly because of the shocking and raw power of the story of "Dogville". In "Manderlay" we also meet with hypocrisy and cruelty, but the movie moves on a different level than "Dogville". It is clearly more philosophical-political, it carries a more visible political agenda. It also relies upon dialogue more than "Dogville" did and of course the symbolism and allegory of the first film are present here, as well. Still, the movie is a masterpiece, in the same way "Dogville" was. Of course, someone can think otherwise (not to mention those people that will accuse Trier of being "Anti-American"), but having a different opinion about it is okay and acceptable. Personally, I can't wait to see how the trilogy is going to conclude.

Anti-American or not? This seems to be the most important question for many American viewers when deciding whether to like von Triers trilogy of films about America. Uninteresting as the discussion may be i must still say that i don't think it's anti-American, rather it just shows a very bleak view of humanity in general.

In my opinion Dogville was an amazing film. Even though it was artificial to the core with it's theatrical style i still felt it all the way to the bone. Seldom have i seen such an arty movie that still worked so well. Amazing actors, a story that is brutal and inhuman and an amazing ending. Doing a follow-up to such a movie is not easy, and yet von Trier has promised to make two. Today i saw Manderlay and the question is if it lived up to the expectations given by Dogville.

Right from the beginning Manderlay is at a disadvantage compared to Dogville. The theatrical style with it's stage-like setup and minimum of props has already been done and is not as unique as it was when Dogville was released. Also the lead actress Nicole Kidman is missing, replaced by the (at least to me) quite unknown Bryce Dallas Howard. Also James Caan as her father is replaced by Willem Dafoe. So how did they do? Willem Dafoe is in my opinion one of the most talented actors today in Hollywood and he does excellent here as usual, Bryce Dallas Howard on the other hand is rather pale as a replacement for Kidman. Don't get me wrong, Howard does a decent job of tackling the lead and she fits rather nicely in the movie. However she lacks the width and depth in her acting that Kidman has honed through the years and Howards version of Grace feels more shallow and a lot less haunted.

Otherwise the actors are, like in Dogville, the main attraction. One of von Triers main skills must definitely be bringing out the best in his actors. Everyone performs well despite the demanding format of the movie. The minimalist style demands it's actors to perform well at all times as there is no room for mistakes and nothing to cover them up.

Dogville is in my opinion a better movie than Manderlay. The story is more multi-layered, the actors (especially Kidman) are better and the moral points are presented in a much more powerful way. Yet Manderlay is undoubtedly also a good movie, as well as a good continuation of the story about Grace. If you enjoyed Dogville and accepted the format in which it was presented my guess is that you'll enjoy Manderlay. Part of the point of watching Dogville for me was that it was food for thought and Manderlay also gives you reason to think. So even though this was not as good as Dogville i'm still not disappointed.

In 1933, after leaving Dogville, while traveling with her father (Willem Dafoe) and his gangsters to the south of USA, Grace Margaret Mulligan (Bryce Dallas Howard) sees a slave ready to be punished in a property called Manderlay. The slavery had been abolished seventy years ago, and Grace becomes revolted with the attitude of the owners of Manderlay, keeping slaves in their cotton fields and following predetermined despicable rules called "Mam's Law". Grace decides to stay with some gangsters in Manderlay and give notions of democracy to the slaves and to the white family. When harvest time comes, Grace sees the social and economical reality of Manderlay.

"Manderley" is the second part of Lars von Trier trilogy initiated with the awesome "Dogville" and following the same aesthetic of theatrical scenarios. I was impressed with the magnificent performance of the gorgeous actress Bryce Dallas Howard that I know only from her minor participation in "Book of Love" and her lead role in "The Village". The screenplay of "Manderlay" is great, with the narrative being very well conducted by John Hurt, and in spite of having no action and being developed in a low pace, the plot is interesting until the very last scene. I did not understand the point of Lars von Trier in the end, since Grace defends the democratic principles inclusive with the suffrage, but Wilhelm tells her that "she sent the guns away too soon". Therefore, does Mr. von Trier believe that guns are necessary to establish democracy? Or is he making an analogy to the present situation in Iraq, showing that democracy can not be reached by the use of force? Another point is the social and economical situation of the poor former slaves, free only in laws but without condition to survive seventy years after the abolishment of slavery. The same happened in Brazil and I believe in the countries that used slave labor, therefore the wounds exposed in Manderlay are universal, and not only an American issue. The kind of assistance that Grace gives to the former slaves is full of good intentions and does not resolve their situation, since she has never reached the root of their problem. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Manderlay"

I've only seen the film once, but I felt that the most consistent interpretation was strictly about arrogant imperialism. I found myself first seeing through a very direct lens of a slave narrative/American liberal white guilt. This is an easy interpretation that lives on the surface.

The film then transformed into a statement about the presumption that "we" can teach others how to govern when "they" may have a system that works better in their context. The system in Manderlay was not overseer/slave, the system was socialism/communism and each "slave," as Grace saw them, had his or her own specialized role. The inhabitants of Manderlay were free within their system, but Grace was so completely blinded by what her culture had taught her about "freedom" and "democracy" and the inferiority of all other ways of life. The democracy she implemented was a complete farce. Their society did not function when the arrogant outsider who thought she knew what was best for them began implementing her system with force. The most direct comparison is "operation iraqi freedom" and other US nation building exercises or sponsored coups.

I found many other characters to be representations of a global system of oppression. The card shark was an international lending institution like the World Bank or the IMF and the "prince" was a corrupt leader who sold out his people for a cut of the profits of the international business elites (like Marcos, Suharto, or seemingly countless others).

I was very pleased with Manderlay and thoroughly frustrated by simplistic the reviews I read of it. I feel that this film falls apart with a straightforward viewing. As a white guilt slave narrative the film is mediocre. As commentary on imperialism and an absolutely corrupt global system, the film is a wonderful composition. I can't wait for Wasington.