| Page 1 of 8: | [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] |
| Index | 79 reviews in total |
87 out of 108 people found the following review useful:
Art and social conscience at a high point of philosophical enquiry, 4 October 2005
![]()
Author:
Chris_Docker from Scotland, United Kingdom
Manderlay 9/10 Introducing this 'Part 2' of the von Trier American
Trilogy, actor Danny Glover said, ¨The process of storytelling is an
enormous responsibility and opportunity.¨ It is one that director Lars
von Trier takes very seriously, constantly seeming to question his role
and duty as an artist and whether the duty is to the audience or to
art itself.
Both with his Dogme movement films and now with later works such as
Dancer in the Dark, Dogville and Manderlay, his answer seems to be
firmly towards art as a worthy end in itself or at least as a serious
medium by which to raise (though not answer) questions of social
conscience. He makes little or no concessions towards audiences who are
not interested in what he has to say.
Manderlay a story about emancipation from slavery (and on a deeper
level, of the more topical problems of introducing democracy),
continues the Dogville tradition of using Brechtian acting and a
semi-bare stage. The immediate dissociation this brings from any
semblance of everyday reality, focuses our attention on the issues, in
a similar way that Greek tragedy or grand opera is able to do by
insisting that ordinary details are secondary or even irrelevant to the
main theme.
Grace (played by Bryce Dallas Howard, who takes over seamlessly from
Dogville's Nicole Kidman) travels across America with her father and
comes across an isolated town where slavery has not been abolished.
With a pure heart, god intentions, and the power of her father's lawyer
and henchmen behind her, Grace makes well-meaning but unfortunate,
ill-informed attempts to put things right. She never stops to question
the fact that she knows best, or whether her high moral values are
appropriate or whether they will win the day. Not unexpectedly, there
is much trouble in store for her.
Manderlay's high points are that it is deeply philosophical but at the
same time highly coherent and accessible. It asks important and
necessary questions about the nature of freedom and democracy. Such
questions, and the discussion which this film makes possible, are
urgently needed in the light of such unsolved dilemmas as Iraq, the
philosophical basis for the removal of Saddam Hussein, the introduction
of western-style democracy to countries like Iraq (or even
Afghanistan). The broader practical problems (also tackled by
Manderlay) of how to restore power to those who have been
disenfranchised, whether by slavery, colonialism, dictatorships or
market forces, is one that applies to many countries, irrespective of
the morality involved.
The weakness of Manderlay is that the USA (and its internal and foreign
policy) is an ideal example for any artist tackling such issues as
it's visibility provides a common focus throughout the world. Sensitive
American citizens (and politicians) however will mistakenly see the
film as simply anti-American (which is not too difficult) and avoid it.
This means the people in power who most need to see it (as they need
such fora to find answers) will probably avoid it.
But von Trier has discharged his duty as one of the most intelligent
artists of our time. He has discarded sensational entertainment, using
art as a tool to help us think outside the square and his thinking is
both profoundly stimulating and fully accessible to those with the
patience and inclination. Does art need to tantalize our senses? If so
we would miss out on some of the finest literature, the greatest plays,
anything that did not provide immediate sensory satisfaction. Works
such as Manderlay help to firmly position cinema as one of the great
intellectual arenas of art one that has the power to inform, enrich
and enlighten.
90 out of 135 people found the following review useful:
one of the bravest movies of all time, 20 June 2005
![]()
Author:
nils-pels from Denmark
Indeed one of this years best films. I have just returned from the
cinema, and i'm still thinking about Manderlay. The story continues
where Dogville ended. Grace and her father makes a short brake their
travel, and discovers that a slave is getting punished near by in a
plantation named Manderlay. Grace's father continues his travel and
Grace stays in Manderlay to set the slaves free, as they should have
been 70 years ago, when the slavery was made illegal. And of course
this is not easy.
Manderlay isn't as shocking and far out as Dogville was. Not that it
was a bad thing of course. But this is just a very much stronger film,
because you get personally involved in the characters in a way that i
don't think you did in Dogville. The only thing missing is a little bit
of action. Nothing really happens. People just walk around and talk.
The biggest scenes in the film has no direct influence on the following
physical action and development in the story. well of course they does,
but the development lies in the head of the characters. These
developments are more interesting to analyze after you have seen the
movie that during the movie. But instead of a lot of physical action we
are given as i remember three truly terrifying and terrific scenes that
are as strong as scenes in Dancer in the Dark and Breaking the Waves,
and they does in my opinion make up for the lack of action.
Manderlay is also a lot stronger i it's message than Dogville was. Yes,
the message is pointed against USA, but as in Dogville, it is so much
more than just a criticism of that country... it's a criticism of the
human kind. The reason for Lars von Trier to place the story in USA is
that he likes to tease the big ones. He said that in an interview on TV
not so long ago. He also said that the screenplay was written before
the incidents in Iraq, so it's a coincidence that there are so many
parallels between the events in Manderlay and in Iraq.
Lars von Trier is in my opinion one of the biggest directors of our
time. It takes a courage, that i see in no other directors than him, to
make a film like this. Manderlay is one of the bravest movies i have
seen.
47 out of 54 people found the following review useful:
Imperialism Interpretation, 22 May 2006
![]()
Author:
brandonlevi from Portland, OR
I've only seen the film once, but I felt that the most consistent
interpretation was strictly about arrogant imperialism. I found myself
first seeing through a very direct lens of a slave narrative/American
liberal white guilt. This is an easy interpretation that lives on the
surface.
The film then transformed into a statement about the presumption that
"we" can teach others how to govern when "they" may have a system that
works better in their context. The system in Manderlay was not
overseer/slave, the system was socialism/communism and each "slave," as
Grace saw them, had his or her own specialized role. The inhabitants of
Manderlay were free within their system, but Grace was so completely
blinded by what her culture had taught her about "freedom" and
"democracy" and the inferiority of all other ways of life. The
democracy she implemented was a complete farce. Their society did not
function when the arrogant outsider who thought she knew what was best
for them began implementing her system with force. The most direct
comparison is "operation iraqi freedom" and other US nation building
exercises or sponsored coups.
I found many other characters to be representations of a global system
of oppression. The card shark was an international lending institution
like the World Bank or the IMF and the "prince" was a corrupt leader
who sold out his people for a cut of the profits of the international
business elites (like Marcos, Suharto, or seemingly countless others).
I was very pleased with Manderlay and thoroughly frustrated by
simplistic the reviews I read of it. I feel that this film falls apart
with a straightforward viewing. As a white guilt slave narrative the
film is mediocre. As commentary on imperialism and an absolutely
corrupt global system, the film is a wonderful composition. I can't
wait for Wasington.
64 out of 92 people found the following review useful:
Masterful Brechtian Treatment of the White Social Work Solutions to "the Race Problem", 17 February 2006
![]()
Author:
fictionsrus from France
Von Trier's Brechtian Gamble On Manderlay This time "liberal" is a
dirty word By Jayson Harsin
"The movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the
whole of American society . . . America must be born again!" Martin
Luther King Jr. 1967
"Dear (American) liberals, You're Idiots! Love, Lars."
In a nutshell, that is the message of Manderlay, controversial Danish
filmmaker Lars Von Trier's latest effort. Yet Manderlay is a
complicated film that will produce multiple interpretations. Some will
walk away calling it racist and anti-American. Others will find it a
condemnation of Bush's war in Iraq. Yet, as I say, it is mostly a
critique of American liberal politics. A condemnation of conservative
racial politics is its point of departure. The film's complicated style
and extreme plot produce intentional uneasiness.
Von Trier has cited German playwright Bertolt Brecht (right) as an
artistic inspiration; yet one may wonder if he is reinventing the
Brechtian wheel, one that Brecht himself admitted did not turn for
others as he had wished.
[...]
On one level, the film is set in 1930s Alabama, on a plantation called
Manderlay, where 70 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, slavery
is apparently still being practiced. Continuing the narrative of
Dogville, Grace (now Bryce Howard), after touring with her gangster
father (now Willem Dafoe) and his thugs since her departure from
Dogville, stumbles upon Manderlay with her father's entourage. She is
alerted to the anachronistic existence of slavery by a slave who asks
her for help. Her father asserts that this is a "local matter," echoing
a common Southern response to Federal intervention in race problems
that was often coded through "states' rights." It specifically recalls
the language of Martin Luther King's powerful "Letter from Birmingham
Jail," in which he responded to Southern clergymen who had accused him
of, among other things, being a meddling outsider.
White liberal American intellectuals will no doubt have a hard time
resisting identification with the white do-gooder Grace, who, like the
North, the Federal government, and the social worker, believes that
race relations at Manderlay are in moral terms not a local matter. "We
have a moral obligation," Grace says to her father, as she persuades
him to loan her gangster firepower to oversee her reform initiative.
But King was African-American and Grace is white. Should that matter?
It matters in terms of Von Trier's audience (mostly American art cinema
liberals and European intellectuals). It also matters for the history
of white social and policy reactions to "the race problem," liberal and
conservative responses, from segregation to integration, welfare to
workfare, white flight to affirmative action. Grace's color is
extremely significant. Resonances with Faulkner's Intruder in the Dust
and Absalom, Absalom can also be found in the simplicity of the white
liberal Northerner's analysis and solution to race problems. In this
sense, Von Trier's provocative film is perhaps above all else an
indictment of American liberalism (or liberal individualism),
domestically and globally. All of these aspects should be considered
through the lens of his Brechtian alienation techniques. Otherwise,
this turns out to be one of the most ignominiously racist films since
Birth of a Nation.
First, domestically: the historical debate about freedmen and
resistance to them is important. While one could go back further, the
contradictions of the modern liberal-race problem invoked by Von Trier
date from the end of the Civil War. From 1865-1867, white southerners
made very little effort to welcome African-Americans into a reborn
American society (symbolized by the historically altered Constitution).
The Ku Klux Klan together with the Black Codes terrorized
African-Americans physically and deprived them of education and the
legal franchise. While some American historians have noted the
important changes of freedmen and -women marrying; establishing
households, schools, and churches; owning 20 percent more land during
the Reconstruction years others emphasize that even so, the country
did not solve the problem of race. And the South in particular, in
terms of land reforms, enfranchisement, and education, was not ready to
change of its own accord. Many African-Americans exercised agency and
made valiant efforts to become self-sufficient, yet they faced no
little opposition from the planter class and some poor whites (even
though evidence exists of some alliances between African-Americans and
poor whites).
While Von Trier's film does little to emphasize the efforts made by
African-Americans to exercise their freedom in the ways I've noted, it
is virtuosic at portraying the structures many faced when they set foot
off the plantation (symbolized by a shortlived character who, venturing
off the plantation, waits for a sympathetic woman, a white reformer
like Grace, but finds bloodthirsty white men instead). The role of a
traveling salesman huckster also portrays the white mediation of
emancipation through debt peonage and sharecropping. The failure of
Reconstruction with the Compromise of 1877 brought a more precarious
period of civil and economic life to African-Americans in the South.
And yet Manderlay makes claims to a historical context in the 1930s.
Here von Trier's dramatic vehicle of slavery existing in the 1930s is
again more metaphorical than realist. The point is that while the
furniture of racism was rearranged, it was still the same racist
edifice. In addition, the role of an African-American leader is played
by Wilhelm (Danny Glover), a house slave entrusted with knowledge of
the entire Manderlay plantation rules and governance. Echoing views of
nineteenth-century African-American leader Booker T. Washington,
Wilhelm's analysis is that under the conditions at Manderlay, his
people will meet a better life by consenting to the old social
structures. The fact that armed gangsters must enforce the
redistribution of social roles on one piece of property, which
disappears when they disappear, is not a little reminiscent of
Reconstruction military occupation of the South and its aftermath. To
read on, see the full review at
http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/51/manderlay.htm
31 out of 42 people found the following review useful:
Second part of a great trilogy, 16 November 2005
![]()
Author:
Kostas Torn from Athens, Greece
I won't disclose anything about the film. I liked it very it much, albeit slightly less than the first film, probably because, well, the first was very fresh and innovative in the way it presented this "theatrical" world and partly because of the shocking and raw power of the story of "Dogville". In "Manderlay" we also meet with hypocrisy and cruelty, but the movie moves on a different level than "Dogville". It is clearly more philosophical-political, it carries a more visible political agenda. It also relies upon dialogue more than "Dogville" did and of course the symbolism and allegory of the first film are present here, as well. Still, the movie is a masterpiece, in the same way "Dogville" was. Of course, someone can think otherwise (not to mention those people that will accuse Trier of being "Anti-American"), but having a different opinion about it is okay and acceptable. Personally, I can't wait to see how the trilogy is going to conclude.
26 out of 34 people found the following review useful:
A Mighty Continuation..., 1 October 2005
![]()
Author:
xbluntx from United States
A person may not have to see "Dogville" before they get to this film--
but it helps. Von Trier takes his time getting where he is going,
laying tracks in plenty of directions, and if you are not familiar with
his style and don't know that it will all end with a colossal crunch,
you may feel bored or confused. Fear not, though-- this movie's climax
and finish depend wholly on the build-up, and when they happen they are
shattering. In a shorter movie with less nuance and fewer ideas
presented, it would just be exploitation.
Critics who say that Lars von Trier is just grinding an axe and that
his views on America are unwelcome and inaccurate are missing the
larger point. So far the two movies of his new trilogy seem to be
seething with questions, not preaching answers. The spectrum of
perspectives and philosophies presented make these movies themselves as
experimental as the moral quests of Tom in "Dogville" and Grace in
"Manderlay". We get to share initial outrage, labor for a solution, and
then despair in how easily it all falls apart once human weakness and
natural disaster are factored in.
Adjusting to the change of casting takes a few moments, but then it
just fits right in with the theatrical nature of these movies. Anyone
who has seen a play performed with different casts knows that the two
productions are weird cousins, and this can make actors shine in their
individual gifts. I would have loved to see Nicole Kidman devour this
role, but Howard's youth and vulnerability really add to the tenuous
nature of her power over Manderlay and its dark secrets.
I think it's lucky that von Trier is not an American. If an American
director showed these images of oppression and slavery, he'd be reviled
even moreso, especially if he were white. Americans demand
"sensitivity" from movies about real issues, and violence and
humiliation are really only safe subjects in horror films and art
cinema. Sometimes it takes an outsider to show you what you look like
to the world and remind you of the work you have left to do. This movie
feels distinctly American in its woe and in it's heartsickness at good
deeds gone not unpunished. Isn't change impossible? Haven't we given it
our best shot already? "Manderlay" agrees with us-- but urges us to
keep trying.
50 out of 87 people found the following review useful:
it's a von Trier - so what do you expect, 10 June 2005
![]()
Author:
wudamay from Denmark
I have already several years ago decided that Lars von Trier's movies
can neither be called good or bad, they are always different and
thought provoking but most certainly also irritating and annoying.
Manderlay is no exception.
Our heroin spots a dictator on the axis of evil, storms in with light
sabers and an ever-optimistic smile, brushes away the dictator and her
regime, and is proud of having brought freedom and democracy to yet
another place (any similarities with other persons - living or dead -
are fully intentional and of course debatable).
But how do you make democracy work when people have not learned it
through practice and the collective memory of democracy's fallacies
since the ancient Greek city states. How do you make people value their
freedom and be responsible for their own fortune, when it is much more
comfortable to blame someone else for their fate.
Von Trier brilliantly and ironically discusses these issues with
surprising twists in the plot. But he will most definitely offend all
kinds of Americans who will be too rash to judge this movie as anything
between a misunderstanding and an insult of the American people of
whatever color.
Bryce Dallas Howard (Grace) delivers a great performance.
To make a movie on an almost naked stage with imaginary doors etc. is
very different from anything else and it actually could contribute to
focus more on the actors performance (as on a theater stage). But I
think that the hasty cutting of scenes and the annoyingly shaky
hand-held camera actually diminish the actors chances of delivering a
forceful performance. I don't mind the hand-held camera of the Dogma
movies, but this is no Dogma movie. It has "artificial" music, sound
effects, lightning, requisites, etc. So why bother to have a hand-held
camera.
Manderlay is an excellent movie for anybody who enjoys being provoked
or how wants to confirm her/his prejudice about von Trier as a weird
director with tendencies to be proud-to-be-old-Europe.
19 out of 26 people found the following review useful:
Learning Democracy, 4 November 2006
![]()
Author:
Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
In 1933, after leaving Dogville, while traveling with her father
(Willem Dafoe) and his gangsters to the south of USA, Grace Margaret
Mulligan (Bryce Dallas Howard) sees a slave ready to be punished in a
property called Manderlay. The slavery had been abolished seventy years
ago, and Grace becomes revolted with the attitude of the owners of
Manderlay, keeping slaves in their cotton fields and following
predetermined despicable rules called "Mam's Law". Grace decides to
stay with some gangsters in Manderlay and give notions of democracy to
the slaves and to the white family. When harvest time comes, Grace sees
the social and economical reality of Manderlay.
"Manderley" is the second part of Lars von Trier trilogy initiated with
the awesome "Dogville" and following the same aesthetic of theatrical
scenarios. I was impressed with the magnificent performance of the
gorgeous actress Bryce Dallas Howard that I know only from her minor
participation in "Book of Love" and her lead role in "The Village". The
screenplay of "Manderlay" is great, with the narrative being very well
conducted by John Hurt, and in spite of having no action and being
developed in a low pace, the plot is interesting until the very last
scene. I did not understand the point of Lars von Trier in the end,
since Grace defends the democratic principles inclusive with the
suffrage, but Wilhelm tells her that "she sent the guns away too soon".
Therefore, does Mr. von Trier believe that guns are necessary to
establish democracy? Or is he making an analogy to the present
situation in Iraq, showing that democracy can not be reached by the use
of force? Another point is the social and economical situation of the
poor former slaves, free only in laws but without condition to survive
seventy years after the abolishment of slavery. The same happened in
Brazil and I believe in the countries that used slave labor, therefore
the wounds exposed in Manderlay are universal, and not only an American
issue. The kind of assistance that Grace gives to the former slaves is
full of good intentions and does not resolve their situation, since she
has never reached the root of their problem. My vote is nine.
Title (Brazil): "Manderlay"
19 out of 29 people found the following review useful:
A Critique of Black America as much or more so than one of White America, 12 February 2006
![]()
Author:
chas2u from Australia
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
In the age of quick cut MTV-style action packed cinema, danish director
Lars von Trier brings welcome relief in the form of minimalist
backdrop, and insightful dialogue. Reality TV eat ya heart out.
Manderlay is the second film in Lars von Trier's "USA - Land of
Opportunities" trilogy, in which the Danish writer/director takes an
outsider's observations on American society, culture and politics.
Following on from Dogville (2003), Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) is
separated from her gangster Father (Willem Dafoe) in the town of
Manderlay and the cotton plantation owned by Mam (Lauren Bacall), run
by her small population of slaves (including Danny Glover).
Idealist Grace decides that it is her duty to "free" the slaves,
unbeknownst to her that the slaves don't want to be "freed" and want
Grace to take over as "Mam". Institutionalised and compartmentalised
into groups by traits previously, the former slaves once freed, force
Grace to enact tough gangster justice on the ill-disciplined and the
unfortunate.
A hard critique on Black America for preferring the safe life of
servitude and full bellies, instead of seeking full and unconditional
freedom. Both the elder black statesman Wilhem (Danny Glover) and the
young proud black buck Timothy (Isaach De Bankolé) both sell out their
own people in each his own way.
In the end, its the liberal black man that is hanging at the tree by
his neck, and Grace finds out that proud Black America prides itself on
being "who we are because you made us".
Poor idealistic Grace could only whip them and run away as fast and as
far as she could from these Graduate Americans.
LVT takes the moral high grounds in this second part of the trilogy on
human nature and weakness (not seen Dogville yet), and Bryce Dallas
Howard gives a "wide-eyed innocence of youth" performance. Danny Glover
and the rest of the cast carry her and the film to a higher level.
LVT Concludes the film with a photo montage of American racial
injustice, from Martin Luther King Jr to Rodney King to Dubya.
He misses out Condeleeza, but maybe her time will come in the third
part "Washington".
23 out of 41 people found the following review useful:
Von Trier 2, mankind zero, 1 October 2005
![]()
Author:
flasuss from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
I was expecting something very inferior to Dogville, which is, but i forgot that it did not need to be as good to be great. Again, one or another person (many of them not very bright) will say that it's only anti-American crap, but, again, it's more, way more than that: a brutal critic to the idealism which recognizes no national barriers and can be applied to any ideology, without any exception that i know; Communism/Socialism and Christianism specially comes to my mind; Grace could be seen as the socialist leader who brings the Marxism and releases the workers (the slaves) from oppression of the bourgeoisie (Mam and her family), or the priest with the word of God to the savages (again the slaves), and punishing the sinners (Mam and her family one more time). The weak point is that aesthetically is not close to be as interesting as his previous film, and i think that Trier knew it and so the style is not so important here. Bryce Dallas Howard delivers a great performance, and does not try to imitate Nicole Kidman, but create her own vision of the character, like they were 2 sides of the same person. In my opinion, this one is only edged by Dogville in Von Trier's career.
| Page 1 of 8: | [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] |
| Plot summary | Ratings | Awards |
| Newsgroup reviews | External reviews | Parents Guide |
| Plot keywords | Main details | Your user reviews |
| Your vote history |