Review of Dancer in the Dark (2000) by Andrew H — 02 Aug 2012

"You can't start a fire, you can't start a fire without a spark; this gun's for hire, even if we're just dancing in the dark!" I'm sorry, but there was absolutely no way I wasn't going to do that, even if that song is kind of lame, or in other words, quite obviously by Bruce Springsteen. Eh, well at least it's more exciting and a little bit less lame that most songs by Björk. Man, that girl can sing, as this film definately further proves, which makes it all the more unfortunate that she didn't really break out until the '90s, around the time the music industry was starting to realize that it didn't need real talent anymore. Actually, as much as I complain about the '90s and think that it was the first generally weak decade of modern mainstream music, at least that junk was better than the swill we got in the 2000s, and considering that it's only 2012, one can only imagine what this decade of music has in store. So, I just covered '80s, '90s, 2000s and 2010s; ladies and gentlemen, the history of lame mainstream music, as told by Cameron Johnson and mostly through Björk, and say what you will about it, but at least it was more to-the-point than Lars von Trier's Björk-centered look at music, which actually did come out during a generational turning point in music: the space between Madonna's cover of "American Pie" - which, as I've said time and again and will continue to say time and again, was the real day the music died - and mainstream music's resurrection as an unholy monstrosity, or in other words, 2000, even though this film felt like it bled a little bit over into the 2010s. No, this film isn't that overlong and dull, and lord knows it's certainly better than I'm jokingly making it sound, hitting just enough high notes to stand tall as rewarding, but make no mistake, this slow-dance film isn't to be watched in the dark, or else you might very easily, well, get really sad by the bleak atmosphere, or if nothing else, sleepy.

Okay, now all joking aside, the film isn't so much as relentlessly dull as people are saying it is, as much as it's simply draggy... to no end. Come on people, this Lars von Trier and, of all things, his "Golden Heart Trilogy" (It began with "Breaking the Waves", if that tells you anything) we're talking about, and something that von Trier can't get enough of, especially when tackling "Golden Heart", is taking on his stories with a very realist approach, in that he attempts to plunge you deeper into his worlds through overdrawn meditation upon mere life. His methods have certainly improved considerably sense the excessively bloated, consistently dull and even rather distanced "Breaking the Waves", yet only so much, and his methods are conceptually problematic to begin with, and sure enough, the film's meditation quickly turns into excessive dragging, and shortly thereafter, into simply dull. Again, the film isn't as consistently dull a plenty of people say it is, yet with all of this dragging, it's only a matter of time before the film's juice runs dry and you're left sitting there fairly bored. More than that, the film isn't so much boring, yet it does get to be disengaging, because no matter how much von Trier manages to draw enough unexpected intrigue for the most part, he doesn't pump the film with enough oomph to keep it consistently gripping, and with the film being as overdrawn as it is, with quite extended periods of nothing and even quite a bit of repetition, it doesn't take long at all before that grip loosens just enough for you to slither out of the film and lose attention. The film doesn't so much limp along consistently, yet it does drag its feet more often than not, creating an engagement distance that, after a while, and partially due to exposure to such storytelling faults as mild unevenness, particularly when it comes to characterization (Just when you thought that we were actually going to get a Lars von Trier film that was short on dirtbags, the nice guys turn, and jarringly, but at least not "Dogville" jarringly), becomes emotional distance, and lord knows that "Breaking the Waves", while not bad or even mediocre, didn't escape such a flaw without scars glaring enough for it to find itself incapable of ever reaching genuinely good. This film, however, transcends that, because although von Trier's methods remain considerably problematic and perhaps more detrimental to the film than advantageous, von Trier had, by 2000, found a firmer grip on his methods, maybe not to where they work and leave the full potential within von Trier's visions fulfilled, but definately to where you can appreciate the true quality of his craft, and boy, there sure is quite a bit of appreciation to have with this film.

Now, it's a long while before the film incorporates musical numbers, and even when the musical numbers become part of the film, their returns are few and far between, yet when they do arrive, if I can be quite honest, more than a few fell flat (Shoot, a few are just flat-out terrible), all too often getting to be too Björk, as in cheesily overstylized, kind of lame and, yeah, well, embarassingly lifeless (Man, I hate post-'80s music so much), and it doesn't help that the lack of inspiration in many of these musical numbers really to emphasize how much Lars von Trier really is no musical director. The film is a very flawed musical (Really, the soundtrack's quality peaks at a fantastic opening overture that owes much of its being great to not having the really bad lyrics found in almost all of the numbers that follow), and yet, when these numbers do hit, they really do spark the film up quite considerably, supplementing its essence, whether when it being delightfully lively or darkly restrained. Still, lord knows that consistently good musical numbers can't carry the entire tone of the film, let ones that are this hit-or-miss, so it falls upon the shoulders of Lars von Trier to carry this film's tone, and although his storytelling methods remain considerably faulty, as I said, this is still him working on his grip on atmosphere, and that really goes a long way, for although the film is often too steady, to the point of inevitably dulling out, von Trier drenches the film in a consistent aura of intrigue that doesn't simply keep the film from becoming all that boring or disengaging all that often, but makes the film a bit entertaining when it's not too slow. Still, when things do down, oh boy, let me tell that the film gets... not as disturbing as people say, but still pretty messed up, seeing as how this is Lars von Trier we're talking about, and that's just the way it should be, as von Trier really will draw some intense dramatic depth from the grimness at moments that really do define this film in a fairly potent fashion, and by the time we reach the film's remarkably heartbreaking end, von Trier leaves you with much to chew on. Von Trier's direction is quite flawed, as it always is, but still ever so certainly inspired on an immense level, and there are more than a few certain golden occasions - from John Morse's Bill Houston character's death scene to the "My Favorite Things" scene (or at least until the song actually starts to perk up Björk's Selma Jeková character) - that really propel this film and solify this directorial performance as one of von Trier's absolute best (It's certainly the best directing job I've seen him do thus far), which isn't to say that this film's high points hit as hard as they do just because of von Trier's direction, as there is a myriad of strong performances in this film, with the strongest, of course, being by the dancer in the dark herself. Seriously, as good as her actual singing is, Björk's music is lame, but then again, so is Jared Leto's, yet that doesn't stop him from being an acting powerhouse, and it darn sure doesn't stop Björk (Yeah, her stage name doesn't sound too professional, so I'm going to refer to her by her real last name: Guðmundsdóttir... Okay, I'm sticking with Björk), as she portrays the initial innocence and profound good-heartedness of the Selma Jeková character with such immense and human charm, and when push comes to shove and leaves Jeková's innocence and safety in ruins, Björk delivers on immense emotional range and impacting layers that not only stops you cold, but completes the defining of Jeková as not simply a character, but a genuine person. Björk is sensational and almost transformative in her powerfully inspired and inspiring portrayal of a good woman plagued by misfortune, and if you see this film for no other reason, see it for Björk's revelatory acting, as it truly does carry this film and helps greatly in making it as rewarding as it is.

As the curtains close, the lights come on and wipe the drool off of your mouth (Go watch "Melancholia" and then come back and tell me that this Lars von Trier film is boring), you're left feeling as though the film outstayed its welcome, probably because it totally did, being excessively overdrawn through nothingness and repetition that may not drive this film down to boring all the time, but definately leaves this film to dull out eventually, and with the slight but, in the long run, considerable moments of unevenness exacerbating the distance in engagement and, to a certain degree, emotional investment, the final product finds itself not always terribly graceful, and yet, it eventually finds its footing just enough for you to not go unrewarding, because for every faulty musical number, there is a lively one, while for every fault in Lars von Trier's direction, there is a piercing high point, and with Björk keeping consistent in her immensely charming, when not heart-wrenchingly riveting lead performance, "Dancer in the Dark" (Is anyone else suspicious that von Trier makes some movies just so that he can show off an awesome title he came up with?) ultimately hits more high notes than sharp ones and stands as a more often than not engrossing drama.

3/5 - Good.