Review of Dancer in the Dark (2000) by Alex M — 14 Oct 2009

Lars von trier has stated that his films aren't intended to entertain, rather they are supposed to make the audience feel a certain way, or have a lasting impact on the viewer's psyche.

This movie was exactly that. first the goods before the many bads, technically:

1. the acting was really good. bjork was outstanding in the role, a person I didn't necessarily admire or relate with, but I did feel sorry for her and the situations she put herself into. it was quite harrowing to see the way the character was taken so advantage of and torn apart. Bjork was probably the last person for me to see act well but she really pulled it through.

And the finale was just really hard to watch. I could barely sit thru it. it was such a powerful and emotional scene.

2. I liked the documentary feel to it. I liked seeing INTO selma's life instead of seeing it from the objective or cinematic view. but there was one part of the "documentary" feel that utterly ruined the watching experience for me.

Bads:

1. I respect bjork and her unique singing talent(she can hold amazing notes) but her singing style mixed with choreographed dance numbers equaled pure garbage in this. it just didnt work. AT ALL. lyrics were nonexistent, she and the other actors would just be saying in monotone the dialogue from the script, just to the music. it didnt work. how does that make it a musical number?

2. the whole being blind thing was just sad but it wouldve been better to see it from her pov at least once thruout the movie. so there were many times where she could "see" just a litlte bit and then other times, she'd be bumping into things and stuff. it was inconsistent. I dont blame that on the acting, I blame it on the director's blocking and way she was supposed to portray her blindness.

3A. the editing was truly HORRENDOUS. there were countless jump cuts, random frames missing, and sometimes scenes would just cut from one to the next without warning. this was very sloppy, and I wonder if it was because editor and director decided the "real life" shots were just so badly shot that they couldnt find any other way to link them with flow. its jarring and really takes you out of the film several times. one possible reason I can see them having done this is for the whole "documentary raw" feel. but that doesnt work either cuz raw implies not editing or cutting out.

B. also the camera/visual quality for her life it was dull colors and grainy, and for the dance numbers, they would put color filters(mostly red or yellow) and then switch to video, where the actions would go much quicker and colors more vibrant. I see why they did this but it looked bad overall. they had 100 cameras too for dance numbers..thats just mad.

4. its too long.

5. title is okay but something about the title implies we'll see something somber and artistic, a dancer in the dark but it is really a metaphor for the character's blindness despite her ambitions to be a dancer.

Overall, the film was an okay watch 1 time. the ending was powerful. but everything else before it was just filling stuff and I just didnt care about alot of it.