Lars Von Trier

[npcoombs]

I start this thread not to provoke another Europeans vs Americans type of tedious discussion, but to look at his use of film technically and in combination to his storytelling and politics.

Anyone familiar with his film bio will be aware of his early Tarkovsky influenced long takes and meticulous aesthetics.

His mid career was influenced by the Dogme 95 manifesto and led to a calculated use of shit looking video, full of shaky camerawork and jump zooms. We could also include (vaguely) Breaking the Waves as part of this. There was something of a Dogme ethos to Dancer in the Dark as well, even if broke all the rules.

Now his style has gone Brechtian with Dogville and Manderlay. But he continues to make use of video and hand held shots.

What does everyone think about this? Thought it might make an interesting discussion because of his rejection of film once he mastered it.

[steve hyde]

Lars Von Trier seems to have abandoned cinema for something else. Three of his films stand out in my mind: Breaking the Waves, Dogville and Dancer in the Dark. I can't say that I "liked" any of them (in the enjoyment sense of "like") But I have a lot of respect for his vision, his ability to direct actors and his auteur approach to his works.

I want to start a thread on defining and discussing "auteur", but I don't think I'll start that here since I don't have time to try that at the moment.
I will, however, point out the obvious fact that the term "auteur" and the term authentic are linked in important ways. That is where I'd like to go with that. (What is authentic cinema ?....and so forth)

That said, I appreciate and respect Von Trier's authentic outsider-looking-in perspectives on the United States. I think the approach is fair, valid and warranted. Von Trier isn't an entertainer. Entertaining does not have to be the goal.

That is all I can write now.

Steve

[The Swede]

I think Lars von Trier has proved once and for all that the only really important thing when making a mowie is the story and how you tell your story, the format comes second.
And I think that is very important.

Hans

[mattias]

you must be joking. there isn't and has never been a filmmaker so conscious about format and style as lars von trier. he always has to *fight* to shoot on dv and he had to *fight* to shoot on a virtually empty stage. it's not about not caring or not being bothered with that, but quite the opposite. something millions of dogma wannabes sadly have never grasped.

/matt

[The Swede]

I´m not talking about Lars von Trier in specific I´m talking in general terms and took Lars as an example.

My point was and is that the most important thing is the story and how it´s told not the format =Film or video.

Festen : excellent story/script + crappy video = brilliant film.

Hans

[steve hyde]

I agree that Von Trier is a talented dramatist and story teller and I agree that the most imprtant aspect of a film is story, but to take this a bit further, I would add that the importance of story is to reveal some truth about the characters....some truth about life and that is regardeless of whether the author is writng "fiction", "non-fiction" or "science fiction" or whatever.

I've always thought Dogme 95 was interesting in theory, although the published "Vow of Chastity" http://www.dogme95.dk/menu/menuset.htm
seems to have been written on the back of a napkin in a hash bar in Copenhagan without thinking things through entirely. I suppose that is why all of the chastity vows were the first thing to go. In principle, however I think rules should be broken if an artist can defend the reasons for breaking them. I also think *rules*, or some kind of parameters, can prevent work from sprawling.

Then why have a vow of chastity? If you are going to break the rules anyway, why bother? I think the virtue of Dogme 95 is that it starts a conversation about the directions of cinema as evidenced in the quote below:

DOGME 95 has the expressed goal of countering “certain tendencies” in the cinema today.

DOGME 95 is a rescue action!

In 1960 enough was enough! The movie was dead and called for resurrection. The goal was correct but the means were not! The new wave proved to be a ripple that washed ashore and turned to muck.
Slogans of individualism and freedom created works for a while, but no changes. The wave was up for grabs, like the directors themselves. The wave was never stronger than the men behind it. The anti-bourgeois cinema itself became bourgeois, because the foundations upon which its theories were based was the bourgeois perception of art. The auteur concept was bourgeois romanticism from the very start and thereby ... false! To DOGME 95 cinema is not individual!


Today a technological storm is raging, the result of which will be the ultimate democratisation of the cinema. For the first time, anyone can make movies. But the more accessible the media becomes, the more important the avant-garde, It is no accident that the phrase “avant-garde” has military connotations. Discipline is the answer ... we must put our films into uniform, because the individual film will be decadent by definition!




DOGME 95 counters the individual film by the principle of presenting an indisputable set of rules known as THE VOW OF CHASTITY.
In 1960 enough was enough! The movie had been cosmeticised to death, they said; yet since then the use of cosmetics has exploded.
The “supreme” task of the decadent film-makers is to fool the audience. Is that what we are so proud of? Is that what the “100 years” have brought us? Illusions via which emotions can be communicated? ... By the individual artist’s free choice of trickery?

Predictability (dramaturgy) has become the golden calf around which we dance. Having the characters’ inner lives justify the plot is too complicated, and not “high art”. As never before, the superficial action and the superficial movie are receiving all the praise.
The result is barren. An illusion of pathos and an illusion of love.

To DOGME 95 the movie is not illusion!
Today a technological storm is raging of which the result is the elevation of cosmetics to God. By using new technology anyone at any time can wash the last grains of truth away in the deadly embrace of sensation. The illusions are everything the movie can hide behind.

DOGME 95 counters the film of illusion by the presentation of an indisputable set of rules known as THE VOW OF CHASTITY.

original source: http://www.dogme95.dk/menu/menuset.htm


The contemporary "auteur" is often not an auteur at all, rather the authors of films are pressured to create film artifacts that meet the demands of Capital. The "anti-bourgeois" cinema has become accomodationist rather than subversive. In other words, instead of a cinema for the people by the people, we end up with a cinema by the bourgeois for the people, which makes the cinema yet another tool for Capital to get what Capital wants. It's the homoginization of culture and in turn such homoginzation maintains a kind of cultural hegemony. (at least that is my reading)

What do you guys think? Did someone around here say film making is not political? Nothing could be more false....

Steve

Edit: changed a poorly worded sentence

[mattias]

I´m not talking about Lars von Trier in specific I´m talking in general terms and took Lars as an example.

i know and i agree. i just don't think he's a very good example since the form has always been extremely important to him and is a major part of his storytelling.

/matt

[steve hyde]

I´m not talking about Lars von Trier in specific I´m talking in general terms and took Lars as an example.

i know and i agree. i just don't think he's a very good example since the form has always been extremely important to him and is a major part of his storytelling.

/matt

Not a very good example? Example of what? This thread is about Lars Von Trier?!?!

Steve

[mattias]

Not a very good example? Example of what?

of somebody who puts story over form.

This thread is about Lars Von Trier?!?!

so whatever people say about him here must be true? i don't follow your logic.

/matt

[steve hyde]

Okay - so Von Trier takes form seriously. I don't see anyone arguing that he doesn't. Hans said that Von Trier has shown that story is more important than form. It is a good point. On the opposite end of the spectrum I see director's like Martin Scorsese practicing a much different discipline. Scorsese knows how to make movies that sell like "The Aviator" or "Gangs of New York". Scorsese is a master of spectacle not story telling. What I'm saying is that I don't see Scorsese struggling to reveal the truth in the ways that Von Trier does. That said, I'm not suggesting that either of these directors, or anybody at all for that matter, actually have access to the Truth. I'm just saying Von Trier seems to worry about it more than Scorsese. Scorsese is a Wall Street film maker. Von Trier is not. These differences are interesting to me and in many ways I think the Dogme 95 vision of filmmaking was in response to these kinds of differences.

What I'm saying is that Von Trier's project is to speak truth to power. Scorsese's project is unclear to me at this point, but he sure spends and earns a lot of money from making movies. Like I said above, with Von Trier, I respect his vision and his boldness - I respect his auteur approach. I get the feeling Scorsese takes orders from higher up and he is good at following those orders.

Steve

[mattias]

Okay - so Von Trier takes form seriously. I don't see anyone arguing that he doesn't. Hans said that Von Trier has shown that story is more important than form.

and i strongly diasgree. that's all. von trier's films are 99% form in my opinion. sure, he might have shown that a story can be very simple yet extremely effective if told the right way, but that's another, well, story.

/matt

[steve hyde]

Okay - so Von Trier takes form seriously. I don't see anyone arguing that he doesn't. Hans said that Von Trier has shown that story is more important than form.

and i strongly diasgree. that's all. von trier's films are 99% form in my opinion. sure, he might have shown that a story can be very simple yet extremely effective if told the right way, but that's another, well, story.

/matt

Matt,

I must not understand what you mean by form?....and especially 99% form???? Because in my mind this is like saying that a significant painting is 99% paint.

What do you mean?

Steve

[steve hyde]

I think this thread was meant to find focus on why Lars Von Trier has made the aesthetic and technical choices he has made. Dogme 95 is the back-of-the-napkin manifesto that documents some of the ideas that went into his decision making. right???

The specific question is why do you (meaning anybody who wants to chime-in) think he made the choices he has made?

Are the choices good or bad? What specifically is good or bad about the choices?

Is his work still congruent with Dogme 95? He broke many of the rules - why?

Is the work still consistant with the original Dogme 95 ideal, which was to counter bourgeois cinema? ...yes, no, maybe...????

Steve

[mattias]

I must not understand what you mean by form?

well, it's not a very precise term and i'm not sure i know exactly what i mean either. ;-) you/we don't have to understand though, since the point is i don't think there's anything particularly intersting about his stories and thus i don't think he's told us or showed us anything about the importance of story.

99% paint

good example. pollock's work for example is 99% paint where others work more with what the paint is applied to look like.

I think this thread was meant to find focus on why Lars Von Trier has made the aesthetic and technical choices he has made.

go back and read my first post. it was simply a reply to something somebody else wrote. you don't have to feel threatened. ;-)

/matt

[steve hyde]

I must not understand what you mean by form?

well, it's not a very precise term and i'm not sure i know exactly what i mean either. ;-) you/we don't have to understand though, since the point is i don't think there's anything particularly intersting about his stories and thus i don't think he's told us or showed us anything about the importance of story.

99% paint

good example. pollock's work for example is 99% paint where others work more with what the paint is applied to look like.

I think this thread was meant to find focus on why Lars Von Trier has made the aesthetic and technical choices he has made.

go back and read my first post. it was simply a reply to something somebody else wrote. you don't have to feel threatened. ;-)

/matt

Maybe I sound distressed. I certainly don't "feel threatened". I was just trying to provoke a discussion of substance....

Steve