Review of Manderlay (2005) by Fame B — 02 Nov 2008

Completely unsurprised that people cannot see how Manderlay is "entertainment." Even those who admire it as a "serious" social-artistic enterprise of merit, I think, miss the point.

Just because a work of art contains rhetoric which is "political" does not make it a mere pamphlet.

There is, in fact, no such thing as "entertainment" as opposed to "serious art." All art is entertainment which requires intelligence. All art is either aesthetically accomplished or not: original, clear, refined, and complex, or not.

Thus, the lord of the rings - featuring now on the AFI 100 best list - is yet another hollywood abomination while Manderlay is "entertainment" and art at its best.

No thing in itself is "fun." "Fun" is a formula a person makes up his mind to follow for whatever reason. Lord of rings is a monstrously inoriginal, trite, tedious, shallow, obvious, sentimental, pretencious, unfunny, cheaply moralizing, and riddled with formal cliches. Frankly, I found it very difficult to sit through Lord of the rings.

On the other hand, I find Manderlay's "minimalism" exhiliratingly aesthetic, accomplished, refined, and, in fact, rich in wonderful detail. I enjoyed the film greatly.

It is more moderate than Dogville in physical violence, though perhaps somewhat more controversial in terms of subject matter.

I do not find that it is less enjoyable - multiple rape and a mass murder, wonderfully artistic though they are in Dogville, are not necessary for an artwork to be "fun.".

Manderlay is a great sequel to a great film. It is only the fact that its a sequel that makes it "weaker." As part of a whole, however, it is maintains the same level of artistic accomplishment as its predecessor.