A few thoughts:
1) I had a strange, good feeling watching Dogville: it's really like reading a book. Not cinema, not theatre: a book. It's the first time that happened to me. Infact, I was quite surprised afterwards in discovering that it's not based on a book.
2) Dogville is too long, but I enjoyed almost every minute of it. Lots of scenes are not strictly necessary, but they serve well the story arc and carefully lead the audience through the changing situation. Also, many dialogues about the moral aspects of the plot (which lenghten the movie) are absolutely essential.
3) I hate theatre. So, the choice of theatrical scenography and structure could have ruined it all for me. Instead, after 20 minutes I was good with that, because Von Trier does an outstanding job in making you feel involved, just like it happens with a regular movie. A great part of this involvement comes from a fantastic camera work: lots of times you will notice how perfect and how cinematographic the shots are. You could really imagine what the scenography is missing. This helps the feeling I wrote about, that it's like reading a book.
4) I don't know exactly why he chose this kind of scenography, but personally I think it allows the viewer to distance a little bit from the story; so, you know you are watching some kind of allegory, a not-so-real story in which the philosophical themes are much more important than the actual events. In this way, you're able to enjoy many over-the-top dialogues and moments.
5) The moral subtext is fantastic. Human beings, misery, evil, mercy, holiness. Dog, dogs, Dogville. The ending could have gone in many different directions, I don't mind, the good thing is giving a story such depth and tackling human behaviour.
6) Also about the ending, it's the only moment in which I would have preferred an approach a bit more cinematographic. The movie remains consistent and it doesn't suddenly change the way it's shot, but maybe it's a moment (plot-wise) that could have been a bit more dramatic. Could have. I understand that Von Trier chose to keep a low profile, so that the whole weight of the act bears on the words spoken inside the car.
7) Overall, Dogville is a very good, enjoyable piece of deeply thought cinema, where artistic license has a reason. Not an artsy movie just for the sake of being artsy.
PS: I'd like to add, I don't understand why it was met with such mixed reactions. Critics usually rave about super-artsy things, often when such things are pretentious boring garbage ("The killing of a sacred deer"), so I don't get why Dogville received a different treatment, when it's obviously much more than that.
1) I had a strange, good feeling watching Dogville: it's really like reading a book. Not cinema, not theatre: a book. It's the first time that happened to me. Infact, I was quite surprised afterwards in discovering that it's not based on a book.
2) Dogville is too long, but I enjoyed almost every minute of it. Lots of scenes are not strictly necessary, but they serve well the story arc and carefully lead the audience through the changing situation. Also, many dialogues about the moral aspects of the plot (which lenghten the movie) are absolutely essential.
3) I hate theatre. So, the choice of theatrical scenography and structure could have ruined it all for me. Instead, after 20 minutes I was good with that, because Von Trier does an outstanding job in making you feel involved, just like it happens with a regular movie. A great part of this involvement comes from a fantastic camera work: lots of times you will notice how perfect and how cinematographic the shots are. You could really imagine what the scenography is missing. This helps the feeling I wrote about, that it's like reading a book.
4) I don't know exactly why he chose this kind of scenography, but personally I think it allows the viewer to distance a little bit from the story; so, you know you are watching some kind of allegory, a not-so-real story in which the philosophical themes are much more important than the actual events. In this way, you're able to enjoy many over-the-top dialogues and moments.
5) The moral subtext is fantastic. Human beings, misery, evil, mercy, holiness. Dog, dogs, Dogville. The ending could have gone in many different directions, I don't mind, the good thing is giving a story such depth and tackling human behaviour.
6) Also about the ending, it's the only moment in which I would have preferred an approach a bit more cinematographic. The movie remains consistent and it doesn't suddenly change the way it's shot, but maybe it's a moment (plot-wise) that could have been a bit more dramatic. Could have. I understand that Von Trier chose to keep a low profile, so that the whole weight of the act bears on the words spoken inside the car.
7) Overall, Dogville is a very good, enjoyable piece of deeply thought cinema, where artistic license has a reason. Not an artsy movie just for the sake of being artsy.
PS: I'd like to add, I don't understand why it was met with such mixed reactions. Critics usually rave about super-artsy things, often when such things are pretentious boring garbage ("The killing of a sacred deer"), so I don't get why Dogville received a different treatment, when it's obviously much more than that.