Review of Dogville (2003) by Matthew B — 18 Nov 2009

Von Trierâ??s minimalist aesthetic enhances his representation of an objective reality. There are few physical barriers that obstruct the viewerâ??s ability to see what is occurring â??behind closed doorsâ?? (there are no literal doors in Dogville, although the sounds of them opening and closing are heard). Typically, interpretation of character motivation is subjective but Von Trier overcomes subjective interpretations through the use of a sarcastic narrator who explains character action throughout the film.

Von Trier was worried about alienating the audience too much, â??If you put too many layers on, it takes the audience further and further away from the film. Itâ??s important not to do too many things at the same time or you scare people away.â?? His apprehension reveals the nature of Dogville as a whole. It is an experimental film where none of its elements are precisely placed but rather are done as von Trier probes his way through new territory, delicately attempting to alienate his audience to a degree that allows them to be critical but also engaged.

Betanny morphs his voice into a confused accent that only sometimes matches his environment as it wavers between Southern American, Northern American and British intonations. Betannyâ??s accent exemplifies the entire castâ??s approach to character in Dogville, while not banausic they are portrayed with a sense of heightened reality where naturalism is void and characterization is accentuated. Roger Ebert makes a relevant note on the allegorical orientation of the acting in Dogville, â??The actors (or maybe itâ??s the characters) seem to be in a kind of trance much of the time. They talk in monotones, they seem to be reciting truisms rather than speaking spontaneously, they seem to sense the filmâ??s inevitable end.â?? The characters in the film are gears in a machine that Von Trier continually cranks as the film progresses so the viewer can comprehend what clockwork they produce as a whole.

Kidmanâ??s acting, as well as her physical attributes, establishes her philosophical position in the parable. Kidman often speaks softly and in low tones representing her motherly and altruistic qualities. It is only at the end of the film when Kidman makes a utilitarian choice to massacre Dogvilleâ??s inhabitants for â??sake of other towns, for the sake of humanityâ?? that she assumes a stern and unsympathetic tone. Kidmanâ??s dialogue delivery, facial expressions, and posture mirror her ideological motivations, which is a method of acting that results in a non-naturalistic performance.

I believe von Trierâ??s â??Epic Cinemaâ?? was for the most part effective in its aims. While watching the film, I felt distant enough from the characters and the environment to philosophically analyze the choices of each character as the film progressed. I did not understand every characterâ??s motivations the first time I saw the film, but during the second viewing I realized that von Trier included all of the information necessary to comprehend them. I do not believe that the process that unfolds is verisimilar one, and I was not moved to â??action,â?? but I was productively disposed after the film, and discussed it with my friends. If anything, this is the intellectual probing that Von Trier would like to provoke through his creation of â??Epic Cinema.â??