Review of Dancer in the Dark (2000) by Barbara D — 13 Mar 2011

Lars von Trier has got to be one of the strangest film-makers in the industry. His films stir up a number of responses from critics ranging from critical acclaim to pure hatred. 'Dancer in the Dark' is no exception.

'Dancer in the Dark' is set in a small American town in 1964. The protagonist is a Czech immigrant named Selma, who works in a factory to support her son, but she's hiding a secret from both him and everyone else; she's going blind. Not only is she going blind, but blindness runs in the family so her son will eventually go blind too. And thus, she works tirelessly at the factory to save up enough money for her son's operation, but everything that can go wrong goes wrong when she is accused of murder.

While the concept sounds interesting, I can see why this movie stirs up so many mixed emotions with viewers and critics. I for one found it horrible to sit through, but there are a number of things that stopped me from hating it all together. The first is Bjork's performance. Generally when we hear of singers acting in films, we think of Mariah Carey in 'Glitter' and Britney Spears in 'Crossroads'. Bjork completely debunks the stereotype that singers can't act, which for me was really unexpected. She becomes the character, who is pretty endearing and interesting.

I also like the fact that Lars von Trier actually tried. While many people have passionate opinions from both sides of the argument, you've got to appreciate him for trying. Even though the film is ridden with problems, you can still see that a lot of effort was put into it, especially the ending. The ending was another thing that stopped me from hating the film. It felt very real, almost as if it was actual footage and not a scripted film. So while there are good things about 'Dancer in the Dark', they're not enough to save it.

First of all, the idea that Selma is lying about being blind leads to a number of questions. Why is she so ashamed of it? Why didn't she just tell her son in the first place? It would've been so much easier if she had told him that blindness ran in the family so that he knows that she has to work for the money for his operation. I know she's lying to the people at work because she'll be fired for being blind, but she's putting peoples' lives in danger. In one scene, she nearly gets her arm ripped off because 1, she's going blind and 2, she's daydreaming.

Second of all, I could not stand the poor screen quality nor the shaky camera. Right from the beginning of the film I was thinking to myself, 'Oh God, please don't let the whole movie be like this.' I was also hoping that maybe the screen quality and camera work would improve in the musical numbers, but that wasn't the case. To Lars von Trier's credit, I can see what he was trying to do. I'm guessing the reason why he went with the shaky cam was that he wanted it to look as real as possible. Selma after all thinks that moving to America is going to be like Hollywood film, so the shaky cam would represent how different it is from her expectations. Although I can see what von Trier was trying to do, I still stand by my opinion that it didn't work. It just made the film annoying to watch and a lot of the time, it made me sick.

Thirdly, I couldn't stand the musical numbers. I'd have to agree with David Stratton that the singing was bad and the dancing was bad. Lars von Trier may be an artistic film-maker, but he doesn't know how to make a musical. First of all, every musical number has a purpose. You can't just chuck songs in there for no reason, otherwise the musical won't make sense and it'll seem forced. For example, we have a scene where Selma is at a train station with one of her friends who is realising that she's nearly blind. She tells him that she's seen all she needs to see and then proceeds to sing about it. In a musical, the numbers only happen when the characters ran out of words and so they have to express the meaning of the scene in song. Selma just did express meaning by saying that she's seen it all. On top of all that, the songs themselves (with the exception of the last one) were awful. Bjork is known for her distinctive, off-beat style and that is exactly the kind of style we have in this film. Those strange avant garde songs may work on her album, but not in a musical.

Apart from the musical numbers, another fault was just the profoundly depressing nature of the film. We have Selma who is a perfectly nice character and every hope she has for happiness in the future is completely thwarted by her accusation of murder. We hardly ever have moments of joy other than the musical numbers (which were bad, so they don't count), so most of the time it just seems depressing. I know the movie is meant to be sad, but it can't be gloomy the whole time. Take 'Schindler's List' for example. That film would be called depressing by many, but there are a number of uplifting, and inspiring moments. If the whole movie had been about people getting killed, it would've been unwatchable. I also don't like the fact that the focus in 'Dancer in the Dark' is on Selma and not the relationship with her son. After all, he is the catalyst that drives her to work so hard. Shouldn't we see more of him? Shouldn't the entire focus be on their relationship and how her accusation affects him?

Well, whether you like it or not, 'Dancer in the Dark' is an expression of art. Whether it's good or bad is up to the viewer to decide and Lars von Trier is happy that so many people are debating his film. The website for 'Dancer in the Dark' contains many reviews, which include the negative ones. Generally, I think that it had potential. Maybe if Lars von Trier had omitted the musical numbers, fixed the camera work, made it less depressing and focused on the relationship between Selma and her son, 'Dancer in the Dark' would be a strong, memorable film. Instead, it was a big jumbled mess. I can understand why people actually like this movie and I certainly won't criticise them for liking it, but for me, it really didn't work as well as it could have.