Lars von Trier demonstrates his perception of humanity through authentic characters who battle with problems ranging from realistic to abstract. Through a muddled sense of genre and clarity in his films, von Trier allows the viewer to interpret the endings of his films as they wish - while also giving his take on humanity as beastly and self-driven.
Von Trier's quote that "most films are about the fact that man is ultimately an animal who cannot control himself or his environment, but is governed instead by his insatiable desires and by his stupidity" speaks to the nature of all human beings and their egocentric disposition. Though our disposition is towards "insatiable desires" and "stupidity", our initiative should not be in this direction. Ecclesiastes 2:10-11 echoes that seeking to gratify the insatiable is a trap, as Solomon reflects that he denied himself "nothing [his] eyes desired", yet he still found everything to be "meaningless, a chasing after the wind". Being governed by one's own stupidity is a failure in Solomon's eyes as well, seeing as "the fate of the fool will overtake [him] also" (2:15). Though humans may be naturally inclined towards seeking gratification and following their own foolishness, this way of life only leads to death.
The way von Trier works to incorporate both film and literature into Dogville not only challenges the viewer, but enables greater meaning to be found in the film. The set construction being completed with lines opposed to more traditional methods will be interesting to see play out as the characters are ultimately drawn into each others spaces. I am intrigued how the character Grace will have a lasting impact on the community and how each relationship she forms develops.
The character of Grace in the film Dogville helps the members of a small town grow in kindness. Small towns are notorious for being filled with people who enjoy gossiping, and judging people. It is an interesting perspective to see an outsider (who would be judged by the townspeople) help expose and solve the problems that exist among them. This story helps the audience to remain open and not judge people who are different than them because these outsiders offer a new and fresh perspective on life.
Von Trier blends storytelling modes, borrowing from literature and theatre to push the boundaries of what constitutes a film. By experimenting with these different methods, he challenges conventional patterns of film, which keeps his audience guessing. Von Trier successfully obscures the message of his work, if there even is a definite, concrete, meaning to it.
Von Trier’s view of the world, that the world is hell, is one that is controversial yet would probably have people struggling to poke holes in it. He adeptly portrays his views by putting his cars there and the audience through grounded, yet unimaginably harrowing scenarios that, inspire of their brutality, manage to shed light and reveal truth about our world. Von Trier may be a cinematic sadist, but he is a master of his craft.
Lars Von Triers deconstruction of space within a community creates an uncomfortable environment for the viewer, as it forces the viewer to consider, is the successful concealment of immorality equivalent to the successful achievement of morality? The barrierless town provides no where to hide. There is no darkness to conceal wrong acts from your community, and yet here, those wrong acts persisted. This concept is deeply uncomfortable and it is hard to imagine a more exhausting way to live than in constant view of your neighbors.
This idea of home and room boundaries ,which are typically walls, being painted is one which presents the idea of everyone in this town of 21 people knowing each neighbors' business. It adds to an understanding that the film will be a complex display of multiple character developments through the narrator's lense and the lense of other characters.
C.S. Lewis’s “The Problem of Pain,” states that people often defend their moral wickedness by pointing to the majority of their peers who do the same. The citizens of Dogville exemplify Lewis’s point in that they are portrayed as reprehensible until Grace arrives, allowing them to reconsider their lives with a new moral compass. The self-interested citizens however, end up exploiting Grace showing that even with the chance to become better through reflection, they end up, as von Trier says, succumbing to their desires.
Lars von Trier appears to project his outlook of the inner workings of the human heart onto the characters of his films. He recognizes that humans are continually making choices contingent on their most prominent desire at the time, and this recognition often results in characters rejecting any hope or grace offered to them.
I find Von Trier's approach to morality in his films to be a bit of a conundrum. He seems to make films that deal with characters seeking morality, but then he also says "man is ultimately an animal who cannot control himself or his environment. But is governed instead, by his insatiable desires and stupidity." This completely refutes the idea that man is at all morally redeemable., so I am left asking the question, if the characters in Von Trier's films are not meant to be developing better morals, then what is their purpose? And if there is no true control over morality then why do some characters appear so morally above others?
Revenge is a highly interesting phenomenon, and rarely a simple one. If you were to be punished deeply and personally for something where you in fact had achieved no wrongdoing, would you be entitled to revenge? People are rarely honest when they feel hurt. Perhaps they lack the strength to take responsibility for their actions; it is easier to blame the other party. Should their overzealous revenge be forgiven or should one take revenge for themselves? If you had not the courage or strength to defend yourself should you be condemned? God sees all and judges all, so we shall not fear….
To extend love in a way that can spur one to recalibrate their actions, as Grace did, is much harder to embody in daily living. When gently restoring those in sin, I find it vexing to walk the line between judgment and love while encouraging others to reexamine their own moral flaws.
When viewing Dogville, one can draw parallels to the Parable of the Prodigal Son, as recounted in Luke 15 of the Bible. Like the son, Grace is ungrateful for what she has and runs away to be independent. Ultimately, she is forced to return to her father and learn a great life lesson. That is where the similarity seems to end, as Grace has learned the life lesson of not forgiving so easily and holding people accountable, while the son in the parable has simply learned to be humble and grateful. However, like the prodigal son, Grace has learned humility, realizing that her arrogance had kept her from seeing the flaws in her ways.
Lars von Trier's Dogville has a character named grace that seems to help the good honest folk of the town much more than they help her making the town's characters sound like they are doomed for not being more than just neutral. The town is small and the people have grown disdain for each other with their familiarity with each other. Each of them have their own flaws such as feeling morally superior than others or visiting whore houses. Grace is able to help the folk in small ways but then takes a risk by helping them in more personal ways. I think Lars von Trier shows how some people in life are innately good by being able to do something for others knowing that they cannot repay you.
When analyzing Lars von Trier’s “fusion” film, Dogville, one may focus on the tumultuous and violent ending, side-stepping the inscrutable conversation between Grace and her father. As Dr. M explains, Grace’s addition to the town is one of great utility, the townspeople are grateful at first, but soon their treatment of the newcomer spirals down into a dark pit wherein all humanity is lost. Despite the inhumane conditions Grace has endured in Dogville, she wishes to give gracious forgiveness to her perpetrators, perhaps merely as a result of abuse culminating in a compromised mental state. Such a sentiment is discouraged by her father, who unconventionally acknowledges her suffering by labeling her as arrogant. Clearly numb to the great injustices of her current state, Grace models persistent forgiveness rather than holding her abusers accountable, a sentiment, while perhaps used as a perverted crutch in Grace’s case, is repeated in Biblical books such as the Gospels and Ephesians.
At 3:00 you mention that von Trier makes things not quite clear so the endings of his stories are not entirely obvious. This echoes Flannery O'Connor's storytelling that leaves us in mystery. The endings these two's stories leave the audience with fragments they must put together themselves. However, it seems von Trier's reasoning is darker than O'Connor's; von Trier aims to communicate that man is an animal and a slave to their desires, while O'Connor uses the grotesque nature of her stories to hint at redemption for her characters.
Not at present, Batman, but thanks for the encouraging words! And wait till my book project finds a publisher. I'll say more about Dogville's entire plot in that . . .
Lars von Trier's deep exploration of human nature's brokenness provides an ambiguous gateway into the field of morality, although he does not explicitly define morals or the need for them. By allowing his characters to fend for themselves, the viewer can learn more about the corruption of human intentions rather than if such intentions were explicitly stated.
Von Trier responds to the question whether Dogville portrays human morality by saying "Perhaps." He is content that the meanings of his films are often hidden. He believes most films show man's animal-like nature. This film shows Grace living up to her name, giving grace to "good country folk", whose flaws appear the more you get to know them. The townspeople's beastly nature seems to stand in contrast to Grace's kindness, which is not only practical but also personal.
It is interesting how von Trier uses Grace to force the people of Dogville to confront their personal lacking natures instead of simply knowing that each other have these shortcomings. The audience is similarly forced to take a closer look at what is really going on because von Trier strips away the usual flairs in filmmaking such as sets and dark lighting. These elements are typically used to obscure but von Trier takes them out so that his narrative can shine.
Often times it is through accusations that characters reveal their own flaws in a hypocritical and projective manner. This is the depiction of Thomas Edison Jr: he is busy accusing other to look in the mirror. Grace’s role as nurturer is what a troubled community really needs rather than accusations. Constant criticism will only lead to more negativity and complacency.
Von Trier uses the spiritual depravity of his characters and the alleged fatalistic themes contained within his films to direct the viewer's attention inward towards their own perspectives concerning hope in the midst of spiritual and emotion destitution. He projects the message that man is ultimately a savage being only pursuing after his own desires, perhaps with the intention of stirring up disagreement in the minds of those who choose to dig deeper into the films’ meanings.
Lars Von Trier combats the idea that he lacks hope within his films by turning nihilism into grace. Shooting his films on a stage makes the viewer focus on the character’s actions. Rather than highlighting the people’s faults and vanities, Grace guides the citizens through their hardships. They do not fall into an expected Von Trier creation of Hell.
When comparing Lars von Trier’s film, Dogville, to the book of Job there are many similarities between the protagonists of each. Each makes a particular statement of the human condition lacking control over the environment, and the response when the environment is hostile. Just as much as there is condemnation towards the morals and behavior of the Dogville residents, there is also an exaltation of Grace’s morals remaining steadfast despite her treatment. Similarly, Job is highly esteemed for never losing faith despite all the calamities that happened to him. Ultimately both would be rescued from suffering through an intervention outside of their control. Grace’s response to the evil done unto her when her father seeks retribution introduces another connection to scripture particularly Luke 23:24.
von Trier chooses to not make his final message entirely obvious to get viewers to contemplate the deeper meaning behind his artistic decisions. He is intentional with his film style, and depicts the often raw aspects of humanity. This can be frustrating to viewers looking for a happy ending, but von Trier's work is far from that of sentimentalism.
Lars von Trier often portrays his characters as spiritually depraved and deserving of the somewhat disappointing life that surrounds them in order to highlight the positive aspects of his main protagonists. This was evident in the Breaking the Waves regarding the religious clergy which helped establish a clear contrast between them and Bess as the movie progressed. I feel like a similar contrast may be established between Grace and the townspeople in this film.
The character Grace exemplifies a love akin to that of the Good Samaritan in Luke chapter four. While she is undoubtedly grateful for the refuge provided to her, she strives to go above and beyond by imparting new skills to her neighbors, thereby enhancing their productivity. Her compassion extends further as she assists Thomas Edison Sr., dissuading him from self-diagnosing new ailments. Similarly, the Good Samaritan does not merely stop to help the man on the roadside; he tends to his wounds and provides shelter, money, and clothing. Both Grace and the Good Samaritan demonstrate a profound love towards those around them, prompting those they help to seek recalibration and confession. This form of love, frequently preached by Jesus, serves as a catalyst for listeners of His parables to realign their lives and turn towards Him.
Some of us are definitely inclined to pigeonhole von Trier as misogynistic and anti-Semitic, accusations he has been navigating ever since his graduation film in 1982. In a move that offended his mother and other members of the Danish resistance, Befrielsesbilleder (alternately translated as Images of a Relief or Liberation Pictures) adopts a sympathetic posture towards a gentle, bird-loving Nazi soldier whose Danish girlfriend betrays and violently blinds him. That von Trier grew up in a culturally Jewish, albeit atheistic, household and even cast himself as a Jew in Europa mattered little to the newshounds who jumped at his infamous words about Hitler in 2011. During the Cannes press conference for Melancholia, von Trier claimed that he was “really a Nazi, you know, because my family was German,” and followed up with the claim to “understand Hitler,” to be able to imagine him “sitting in his bunker in the end” and “sympathize with him a little bit.” Ever the mischief-maker, von Trier knew his words would evoke a reaction from those unwilling to chew on his provocation, but he certainly did not anticipate being banned from the Cannes Film Festival for seven years. His detractors ignored the audience’s immediate reaction to von Trier’s shocking words about Nazis--a reaction which appears good-natured in available video recordings of the event. Pinning von Trier down and slapping a label on his forehead is easy only when we allow our lust for outrage to trump our appetite for truth. Von Trier wishes to stimulate thought about hard topics, not foment hatred. His most vehement critics appear to have overlooked what he said about the Axis power in the preceding decades. In the video documentary Tranceformers, released fourteen years earlier, von Trier’s most deeply rooted interest emerges, starkly, against the backdrop of Hitler’s Germany: "It’s fascinating. How can you . . . How can . . . How could they imagine exterminating the Jews as they did? How could it be accepted by a people who basically knew about it? How could it happen? What sort of mechanisms can get a people to behave as they did? It’s all so fascinating. It’s the closest we have had or the closest we have to true, you could say evil, isn’t it? Genuine evil . . ." The films Dogville (2003) and Breaking the Waves (1995) make it clear that humanity’s inclination towards evil, and the attendant difficulty of embracing deep good, are what interest von Trier above all else. As he elaborates in 2018, “it’s very important that Hitler is humanized because this idea that we can simply throw the case aside, and say ‘Hitler, he was evil’, yes, but he was also a human being. And that’s important to know because what he contains, or what he did, can happen again.”
The idea that the mere absence of a vice does not equate to virtue is a peculiar one. Virtue becomes more obscure with every passing day. Today, many actions that were once seen as sin are considered morally permissible.This renders the concept of vice or the lack thereof irrelevant in the discussion of what constitutes a virtuous person.
The best Dogville on RUclips by far! Thank you for the amazing work!
Lars von Trier demonstrates his perception of humanity through authentic characters who battle with problems ranging from realistic to abstract. Through a muddled sense of genre and clarity in his films, von Trier allows the viewer to interpret the endings of his films as they wish - while also giving his take on humanity as beastly and self-driven.
Von Trier's quote that "most films are about the fact that man is ultimately an animal who cannot control himself or his environment, but is governed instead by his insatiable desires and by his stupidity" speaks to the nature of all human beings and their egocentric disposition. Though our disposition is towards "insatiable desires" and "stupidity", our initiative should not be in this direction. Ecclesiastes 2:10-11 echoes that seeking to gratify the insatiable is a trap, as Solomon reflects that he denied himself "nothing [his] eyes desired", yet he still found everything to be "meaningless, a chasing after the wind". Being governed by one's own stupidity is a failure in Solomon's eyes as well, seeing as "the fate of the fool will overtake [him] also" (2:15). Though humans may be naturally inclined towards seeking gratification and following their own foolishness, this way of life only leads to death.
The way von Trier works to incorporate both film and literature into Dogville not only challenges the viewer, but enables greater meaning to be found in the film. The set construction being completed with lines opposed to more traditional methods will be interesting to see play out as the characters are ultimately drawn into each others spaces. I am intrigued how the character Grace will have a lasting impact on the community and how each relationship she forms develops.
The character of Grace in the film Dogville helps the members of a small town grow in kindness. Small towns are notorious for being filled with people who enjoy gossiping, and judging people. It is an interesting perspective to see an outsider (who would be judged by the townspeople) help expose and solve the problems that exist among them. This story helps the audience to remain open and not judge people who are different than them because these outsiders offer a new and fresh perspective on life.
Von Trier blends storytelling modes, borrowing from literature and theatre to push the boundaries of what constitutes a film. By experimenting with these different methods, he challenges conventional patterns of film, which keeps his audience guessing. Von Trier successfully obscures the message of his work, if there even is a definite, concrete, meaning to it.
Von Trier’s view of the world, that the world is hell, is one that is controversial yet would probably have people struggling to poke holes in it. He adeptly portrays his views by putting his cars there and the audience through grounded, yet unimaginably harrowing scenarios that, inspire of their brutality, manage to shed light and reveal truth about our world. Von Trier may be a cinematic sadist, but he is a master of his craft.
Lars Von Triers deconstruction of space within a community creates an uncomfortable environment for the viewer, as it forces the viewer to consider, is the successful concealment of immorality equivalent to the successful achievement of morality? The barrierless town provides no where to hide. There is no darkness to conceal wrong acts from your community, and yet here, those wrong acts persisted. This concept is deeply uncomfortable and it is hard to imagine a more exhausting way to live than in constant view of your neighbors.
This idea of home and room boundaries ,which are typically walls, being painted is one which presents the idea of everyone in this town of 21 people knowing each neighbors' business. It adds to an understanding that the film will be a complex display of multiple character developments through the narrator's lense and the lense of other characters.
C.S. Lewis’s “The Problem of Pain,” states that people often defend their moral wickedness by pointing to the majority of their peers who do the same. The citizens of Dogville exemplify Lewis’s point in that they are portrayed as reprehensible until Grace arrives, allowing them to reconsider their lives with a new moral compass. The self-interested citizens however, end up exploiting Grace showing that even with the chance to become better through reflection, they end up, as von Trier says, succumbing to their desires.
Lars von Trier appears to project his outlook of the inner workings of the human heart onto the characters of his films. He recognizes that humans are continually making choices contingent on their most prominent desire at the time, and this recognition often results in characters rejecting any hope or grace offered to them.
I find Von Trier's approach to morality in his films to be a bit of a conundrum. He seems to make films that deal with characters seeking morality, but then he also says "man is ultimately an animal who cannot control himself or his environment. But is governed instead, by his insatiable desires and stupidity." This completely refutes the idea that man is at all morally redeemable., so I am left asking the question, if the characters in Von Trier's films are not meant to be developing better morals, then what is their purpose? And if there is no true control over morality then why do some characters appear so morally above others?
Revenge is a highly interesting phenomenon, and rarely a simple one. If you were to be punished deeply and personally for something where you in fact had achieved no wrongdoing, would you be entitled to revenge? People are rarely honest when they feel hurt. Perhaps they lack the strength to take responsibility for their actions; it is easier to blame the other party. Should their overzealous revenge be forgiven or should one take revenge for themselves? If you had not the courage or strength to defend yourself should you be condemned? God sees all and judges all, so we shall not fear….
To extend love in a way that can spur one to recalibrate their actions, as Grace did, is much harder to embody in daily living. When gently restoring those in sin, I find it vexing to walk the line between judgment and love while encouraging others to reexamine their own moral flaws.
When viewing Dogville, one can draw parallels to the Parable of the Prodigal Son, as recounted in Luke 15 of the Bible. Like the son, Grace is ungrateful for what she has and runs away to be independent. Ultimately, she is forced to return to her father and learn a great life lesson. That is where the similarity seems to end, as Grace has learned the life lesson of not forgiving so easily and holding people accountable, while the son in the parable has simply learned to be humble and grateful. However, like the prodigal son, Grace has learned humility, realizing that her arrogance had kept her from seeing the flaws in her ways.
Lars von Trier's Dogville has a character named grace that seems to help the good honest folk of the town much more than they help her making the town's characters sound like they are doomed for not being more than just neutral. The town is small and the people have grown disdain for each other with their familiarity with each other. Each of them have their own flaws such as feeling morally superior than others or visiting whore houses. Grace is able to help the folk in small ways but then takes a risk by helping them in more personal ways. I think Lars von Trier shows how some people in life are innately good by being able to do something for others knowing that they cannot repay you.
When analyzing Lars von Trier’s “fusion” film, Dogville, one may focus on the tumultuous and violent ending, side-stepping the inscrutable conversation between Grace and her father. As Dr. M explains, Grace’s addition to the town is one of great utility, the townspeople are grateful at first, but soon their treatment of the newcomer spirals down into a dark pit wherein all humanity is lost. Despite the inhumane conditions Grace has endured in Dogville, she wishes to give gracious forgiveness to her perpetrators, perhaps merely as a result of abuse culminating in a compromised mental state. Such a sentiment is discouraged by her father, who unconventionally acknowledges her suffering by labeling her as arrogant. Clearly numb to the great injustices of her current state, Grace models persistent forgiveness rather than holding her abusers accountable, a sentiment, while perhaps used as a perverted crutch in Grace’s case, is repeated in Biblical books such as the Gospels and Ephesians.
At 3:00 you mention that von Trier makes things not quite clear so the endings of his stories are not entirely obvious. This echoes Flannery O'Connor's storytelling that leaves us in mystery. The endings these two's stories leave the audience with fragments they must put together themselves. However, it seems von Trier's reasoning is darker than O'Connor's; von Trier aims to communicate that man is an animal and a slave to their desires, while O'Connor uses the grotesque nature of her stories to hint at redemption for her characters.
Really wish you had covered the whole film your commentary was amazing . Is there a spoiler review ?
Not at present, Batman, but thanks for the encouraging words! And wait till my book project finds a publisher. I'll say more about Dogville's entire plot in that . . .
Lars von Trier's deep exploration of human nature's brokenness provides an ambiguous gateway into the field of morality, although he does not explicitly define morals or the need for them. By allowing his characters to fend for themselves, the viewer can learn more about the corruption of human intentions rather than if such intentions were explicitly stated.
Von Trier responds to the question whether Dogville portrays human morality by saying "Perhaps." He is content that the meanings of his films are often hidden. He believes most films show man's animal-like nature. This film shows Grace living up to her name, giving grace to "good country folk", whose flaws appear the more you get to know them. The townspeople's beastly nature seems to stand in contrast to Grace's kindness, which is not only practical but also personal.
It is interesting how von Trier uses Grace to force the people of Dogville to confront their personal lacking natures instead of simply knowing that each other have these shortcomings. The audience is similarly forced to take a closer look at what is really going on because von Trier strips away the usual flairs in filmmaking such as sets and dark lighting. These elements are typically used to obscure but von Trier takes them out so that his narrative can shine.
Often times it is through accusations that characters reveal their own flaws in a hypocritical and projective manner. This is the depiction of Thomas Edison Jr: he is busy accusing other to look in the mirror. Grace’s role as nurturer is what a troubled community really needs rather than accusations. Constant criticism will only lead to more negativity and complacency.
Von Trier uses the spiritual depravity of his characters and the alleged fatalistic themes contained within his films to direct the viewer's attention inward towards their own perspectives concerning hope in the midst of spiritual and emotion destitution. He projects the message that man is ultimately a savage being only pursuing after his own desires, perhaps with the intention of stirring up disagreement in the minds of those who choose to dig deeper into the films’ meanings.
Lars Von Trier combats the idea that he lacks hope within his films by turning nihilism into grace. Shooting his films on a stage makes the viewer focus on the character’s actions. Rather than highlighting the people’s faults and vanities, Grace guides the citizens through their hardships. They do not fall into an expected Von Trier creation of Hell.
When comparing Lars von Trier’s film, Dogville, to the book of Job there are many similarities between the protagonists of each. Each makes a particular statement of the human condition lacking control over the environment, and the response when the environment is hostile. Just as much as there is condemnation towards the morals and behavior of the Dogville residents, there is also an exaltation of Grace’s morals remaining steadfast despite her treatment. Similarly, Job is highly esteemed for never losing faith despite all the calamities that happened to him. Ultimately both would be rescued from suffering through an intervention outside of their control. Grace’s response to the evil done unto her when her father seeks retribution introduces another connection to scripture particularly Luke 23:24.
Nice work
Thanks, Mitch!
Excellent
von Trier chooses to not make his final message entirely obvious to get viewers to contemplate the deeper meaning behind his artistic decisions. He is intentional with his film style, and depicts the often raw aspects of humanity. This can be frustrating to viewers looking for a happy ending, but von Trier's work is far from that of sentimentalism.
Lars von Trier often portrays his characters as spiritually depraved and deserving of the somewhat disappointing life that surrounds them in order to highlight the positive aspects of his main protagonists. This was evident in the Breaking the Waves regarding the religious clergy which helped establish a clear contrast between them and Bess as the movie progressed. I feel like a similar contrast may be established between Grace and the townspeople in this film.
The character Grace exemplifies a love akin to that of the Good Samaritan in Luke chapter four. While she is undoubtedly grateful for the refuge provided to her, she strives to go above and beyond by imparting new skills to her neighbors, thereby enhancing their productivity. Her compassion extends further as she assists Thomas Edison Sr., dissuading him from self-diagnosing new ailments. Similarly, the Good Samaritan does not merely stop to help the man on the roadside; he tends to his wounds and provides shelter, money, and clothing. Both Grace and the Good Samaritan demonstrate a profound love towards those around them, prompting those they help to seek recalibration and confession. This form of love, frequently preached by Jesus, serves as a catalyst for listeners of His parables to realign their lives and turn towards Him.
He lost me when he said that he understood Hitler and topped it by saying he was a Nazi
Some of us are definitely inclined to pigeonhole von Trier as misogynistic and anti-Semitic, accusations he has been navigating ever since his graduation film in 1982. In a move that offended his mother and other members of the Danish resistance, Befrielsesbilleder (alternately translated as Images of a Relief or Liberation Pictures) adopts a sympathetic posture towards a gentle, bird-loving Nazi soldier whose Danish girlfriend betrays and violently blinds him. That von Trier grew up in a culturally Jewish, albeit atheistic, household and even cast himself as a Jew in Europa mattered little to the newshounds who jumped at his infamous words about Hitler in 2011. During the Cannes press conference for Melancholia, von Trier claimed that he was “really a Nazi, you know, because my family was German,” and followed up with the claim to “understand Hitler,” to be able to imagine him “sitting in his bunker in the end” and “sympathize with him a little bit.” Ever the mischief-maker, von Trier knew his words would evoke a reaction from those unwilling to chew on his provocation, but he certainly did not anticipate being banned from the Cannes Film Festival for seven years. His detractors ignored the audience’s immediate reaction to von Trier’s shocking words about Nazis--a reaction which appears good-natured in available video recordings of the event. Pinning von Trier down and slapping a label on his forehead is easy only when we allow our lust for outrage to trump our appetite for truth. Von Trier wishes to stimulate thought about hard topics, not foment hatred. His most vehement critics appear to have overlooked what he said about the Axis power in the preceding decades. In the video documentary Tranceformers, released fourteen years earlier, von Trier’s most deeply rooted interest emerges, starkly, against the backdrop of Hitler’s Germany: "It’s fascinating. How can you . . . How can . . . How could they imagine exterminating the Jews as they did? How could it be accepted by a people who basically knew about it? How could it happen? What sort of mechanisms can get a people to behave as they did? It’s all so fascinating. It’s the closest we have had or the closest we have to true, you could say evil, isn’t it? Genuine evil . . ." The films Dogville (2003) and Breaking the Waves (1995) make it clear that humanity’s inclination towards evil, and the attendant difficulty of embracing deep good, are what interest von Trier above all else. As he elaborates in 2018, “it’s very important that Hitler is humanized because this idea that we can simply throw the case aside, and say ‘Hitler, he was evil’, yes, but he was also a human being. And that’s important to know because what he contains, or what he did, can happen again.”
The idea that the mere absence of a vice does not equate to virtue is a peculiar one. Virtue becomes more obscure with every passing day. Today, many actions that were once seen as sin are considered morally permissible.This renders the concept of vice or the lack thereof irrelevant in the discussion of what constitutes a virtuous person.
yeahhh...spoiler alert, the town, in fact, does not seize the opportunity to better itself. Pretty much the exact opposite, actually.
Too true, unfortunately . . .