is the word 'diary' better than the word 'blog'? probably not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
no, i will not go see dogville with you.
I do not like the films of Lars Von Trier. However, one could argue that it is not possible for me to say this, given that I have only seen Breaking the Waves (and some episodes of the original version of "The Kingdom"). After all, I am the champion of only saying something is bad if you've actually seen it. If you haven't seen it, the best you can say is: "from what I've heard and what I know about myself, I've decided it's not worth my time."
I recently read this about Von Trier in Slavoj Zizek's In Defense of Lost Causes (which is not a book about trying to get me to go see a Lars Von Trier film but, if we judge it by its title, could be):
"In his feminine trilogy (Breaking the Waves, Dancer in the Dark, Dogville), von Trier provokes us in our innermost being, stirring up automatic sympathy with the ultimate archetypal image of the victimized woman who, with her heart of gold, suffers pain. Through his 'manipulation,' he displays the lie of this sympathy, the obscene pleasure we gain from seeing the victim suffer, and thereby disturbs our self-satisfaction" (13).
But that is not at all what he achieves in the case of me. When I saw Breaking the Waves, I was horrified to the point of trauma. I could not believe what I was seeing. And it just kept getting worse. I did not get pleasure from seeing that suffering. It was horrifying. It marked me for life--I wish I could unsee it!
There was no "obscene" pleasure that horror, either. What's more, I didn't even feel sympathy for the victimized woman--it was just more horror at the actions of this cipher who seemed to me to be neither woman nor man but rather the kind of imaginary female character that could only be written by a certain kind of a man. The film I saw was so deeply misogynistic that I have never stopped being angry at Von Trier. I have never since viewed any other thing he has done. He is dead to me. Breaking the Waves is unforgivable.
Go ahead and tell me it's good art or point out to me the deep meaning that I missed. You will get nowhere. I am having none of it. I want to make clear that I understand that the pointlessness of the violence is part of the point about misogynistic societies. But then there's this: I did not need him to show me that the world is full of violence towards women (which, even when it remains widely invisible due to dominant power structures, rarely fails to press its way into the psyche, and often the waking life, of any living female). It may be possible, and even important, for art to show this. But not like that.
Which is not to say that it is unforgivable if someone, male or female, appreciates his filmmaking. His style is manipulative and cynical (those are his words, also quoted by Zizek)--he plays with what he can do to an audience, because he can, and because that says something about what film is, and what human beings are. There is no reason why every piece of art has to aim at making a point larger than the--let's admit it--uncontroversial to the point of NO-DUH omnipresence of violence amongst human beings, and how it tends to fall more heavily on women. He may or may not be aiming to show something that ought to be shown. He may or may not be making points that I would find intellectually legitimate or simply artistically valid. I wouldn't know, since I've only seen one film. But that was enough (so much more than enough!), for me, to know that I have no taste for his project.
2:52 p.m. - June 07, 2010
Xina - 2010-06-07 19:41:56
right on! totally agree!!! Personally, I find it all too traumatizing and I feel like my professional life has far too much non-fiction trauma and violence against women associated with it to make Von Trier a pleasurable use of my non-work time! I don't disagree that it's art, nor that it is valuable, just not valuable to me.
-------------------------------
Sarah - 2010-06-07 20:29:09
Lately I've been having similar thoughts about Stig Larrsen's "Girl with the dragon tattoo" (haven't read the other books). Yes, the main character is a heroine, but is the author's chronicling of violence against women empowering and informative, or merely exploitative?
-------------------------------
js - 2010-06-08 18:05:17
I actually had a small argument with Gus when I refused to go see the film version of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. He didn't understand at first why I wouldn't be "empowered" by the woman being a kickass heroine. I get that the author (apparently) was trying to make a point about the deep misogyny of his society (I haven't read any of the books, but I read some reviews of the film). And I hear that the film is beautifully shot. But still. I know myself enough to know I don't need to see it.
Also, it's funny how half of the conversations about these blog posts now appear in facebook threads instead of here. There's a second one going on there.
Also, Xina and Sarah... you both work very close to the source in fields where there is too much real-life evidence of all of this. (Serbia, Sierra Leone, the Hague.)
-------------------------------
Carol - 2010-06-10 05:56:27
Very well said. And I will not see Von Trier films again for these same reasons (after seeing "Dancer In the Dark" then just reading about "Dogville".) I also think Zizek has some misogyny that could use some examination. (Maybe someone has already examined it? Not sure.)
-------------------------------
js - 2010-06-10 06:19:38
Yeah. Zizek is not my favorite. It's a rare moment when I find myself reading something of his. But In Defense of Lost Causes is fairly interesting.
-------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
