the genre concept for the film i love. lars von trier took the classic american musical and made something more of it. as a general rule i hate musicals, they're pulp for the masses, good for easy watching which occasionally come up with some stonking songs (you're the one that i want, ooh ooh ooh), but on the whole, pointless. this is the only musical i have ever seen which has purposeq to it, a truly engaging story and songs which have a meaning to the overall story, rather than bumping up the length of the flick and giving some rather camp guys the chance to spin on the spot.
a bit of info about the director might be in order i think, and a special thank you elyn for this information, i never heard about any of this before you. lars von trier is one director of several which make up a group called, from memory, Dogma. they have a strict sort of conduct to the way their films are made. camerawork is handheld throughout, acting is normally done on the first take, all locations and scenery have to be real, no studio shite (the fact lars von trier filmed it in Sweden despite that it's supposed to be set in Washington state doesn't count =p) and usually props aren't brought, they're usually on set, although i'm not sure about that one. dancer in the dark is one of the most famous dogma films, although i think that's mainly due to being bjorks debut film. i can only hope she makes some more considering her acting skill (in fact she won best female performance at cannes). but since seeing this i'm on the look out for other dogma directors.
right the intro, odd but pleasant. a mixture of obtuse shapes, warm colours and easy listening music, the sort of tune you'd only take a tertiary interest in normally. really the three minute intro is the sort of thing i'd like to wake up to on the TV in the morning. not quite sure what it's purpose is to the film, but maybe a second watch now i've seen the whole sad film might clarify it for me.
camera work: intriguing to say the least. two different films types were used in the film, depending on the situation. i don't yet know the real difference between digibeta, DV etc. but it has the feel that relatively cheap cameras were used. the camera type used for the majority of the film was the sort used by documentaries (typically used because they are fairly cheap considering the amount of film used up in such a recording style). so in bjorks character (selma) daily life is filmed with docu camera, giving it an edge of realism. the camera shakes and zoom is occasionally which is used, in my opinion, expertly, rather than the shivery zoomy innie-outie style used in the dire american drama 24. but when selma delves into her own world and the musical scenes kick in the camera drastically changes. the camera is tripodded or on a crane and doesn't pan or zoom, each shot is static. instead fairly swift editing is used to change from angle to angle, scene to scene.
editing: it changes throughout, for the first part of the film (before the shit hits the fan so to speak) the editing style is fast paced. you're taken from scene to scene rapidly, jumping form work place at the factory, to a night scene, to a shot in somebodies house, to daytime in a forest, it's continuous. the purpose of which is for lars von trier to encapsulate as much basic information as possible about the characters, their situations, background etc. the further the film progresses the slower the editing is and there's less sudden changes from scene to scene. within the first 30 minutes of this 2 hour and 20 minute film we know where bjork works, that's she's practically in poverty, she's losing her sight, the situation between her landlords (well, they basically are), and the first suspicions we have about bill.
i want to take a minute out here to say something very important. bill is the biggest and nastiest cunt i have ever seen in a film.
i think that smoothly (ha!) moves us into characters: i think bjork was a fantastic choice as selma, at the start of the film i had doubts about bjorks acting ability, it seemed a bit shakey at first, like she didn't really know what to do in front of the camera. very quickly though i started to understand her character and realised exactly why she was acting the way she was. and by the end of the film... a superb performance is all i can say. in fact all of the characters gave a great performance, there's nobody really that i can complain about. geoff was a great and slightly creepy character, but with an honest heart of gold. bill is...well i've already said that. selma's best friend was great, easy to anger but she realises the wrong she's doing and tries to reconcile things. selma's son is a character we don't see or hear much from, despite the fact he's the reason as to why the events in the film happen. even right at the finale (sorry, second to last song :). makes sense if you've seen it) you don't see him. which does open up the question, is selma's friend telling the truth? most of the characters are fully rounded and believable characters (although i have my doubts about the cruelty of bill) which adds to the reaslim of the story, it's not just the problems selma is going through, but other people as well.
halfway through the film the story changes from hopeful optimism to near crushing fatalism. despite the fact everything seems to be going wrong in selma's life she always has a smile on her face, she smiles through it because she has such hope for her son. but by the seminal climax, which is about half way through the film the perspective changes. although there are still chances of hope they get swiped away almost immediately by a complication, a person, or even a lie designed to protect somebody. after the seminal climax one of the most striking songs in the film begins, a song where selma is able to adjust the way she feels, the only way that reconciliation can occur. when the characters admit their mistakes, apologise and think in a logical light, it was my favourite song in the film by far, well except the very final one. admittedly the final song wins in potency, it was the point that the tears really started rolling.
it could be said in the film there is a lot of pity piled on selma, but i don't agree with that. i think really people help her as much as possible, not because of her illness, but because the simple beauty of her soul makes people want to help her. she never takes advantage of anyone's kindness.
a few niggling things in the film. first off bjork's accent. it's odd to say the least. she seems to jump from a east european accent to an almost RP pronunciation and even an essex twang of not pronouncing her 't's. although that seems to sort itself out through the film, that or i was adjusting myself to her voice. the other one being the song by the train tracks, which i thought was oddly cruel. when geoff realises selma can't see properly anymore a new song starts, one where geoff tries to tell her she hasn't seen enough in life, and where bjork argues there's nothing more left to see. since geoff is deeply in love with her it seems odd he should mock her in such a way, even though of course the musical is only in her head.
there's a sentence in the film which stuck in my head, a simple one that isn't announced with any particular enforcement. 'in musicals' nothing bad ever happens'. this is of course the twist in lars von triers film. everything bad does happen, but as the songs in 'normal' musicals are fluffies to the overall happiness of the production, really they are the only escape in 'dancer in the dark' from the pessimistic view of selma's life.
i urge you to watch this film, it's not really famous and not for all tastes (particularly if you're not a bjork fan since she wrote the songs) but it's potency on the audience is strong and really does evoke emotions in you, better than any major hollywood film. a film that is essential watching in my opinion and so deserves to go in my category of 'masterpieces'.
hopefully coming soon, grave of the fireflies, another feel good movie of sorrow and pessimism
No comments:
Post a Comment