Manderlay is the second instalment of Lars Von Trier's thought-provoking trilogy "USA - Land of Opportunities". The story starts exactly where Dogville ended. Grace, her father, and their bunch of paid gangsters stop to eat at Manderlay (Alabama), a plantation where slavery persists 70 years after its Abolition. Idealistic Grace decides to stay, free the black people, and start a communal free plantation.
The story is narrated in eight chapters: 1/ In which we happen upon Manderlay and meet the people there. 2/ The freed enterprise of Manderlay. 3/ The Old Lady's Garden. 4/ In which Grace means business. 5/ Shoulder to Shoulder. 6/ Hard times at Manderlay. 7/ Harvest. 8/ In which Grace settles with Manderlay and the film ends. The setting, like in Dogville, is an almost empty theatre set with minimalist elements of architecture, furniture and floor white drawings to mark Manderlay's different spaces and buildings. The camera wanders around the set very close to the actors, as if the viewer was filming them with his/her own video-camera; there are bird's view shots, too, in which the characters look like little pawns on a chess board. The Spartan setting helps the viewer to focus on the story and its message, not on superfluous things.
Trier is always merciless depicting Society and Human Nature, with both their flaws and virtues. Despite his bad name, he is a a true artist, and it is one of an artist' obligations -or it should be- to reflect on the issues that affect the world we live in. Four main questions are explored and implicitdly posed in Manderlay's script: 1/ Is Democracy the best political system to have a free society? 2/ Can Democracy be preached by supporting the use of guns? 3/ What is the best solution to the race issue in America (and elsewhere)? 4/ Was Abolition, the way it happened, the best way to free the Afro-American population in the USA and give them equal rights?
Grace teaches the Afro-American slaves the rudiments of Democracy, but she does so while she's escorted and supported by a bunch of armed gangsters; therefore, from a position of power and white-race superiority - the same she believes she's fighting against. Moreover, nobody has elected her, so she shouldn't be preaching anything. If this wasn't enough, Grace tries, despite being white and not a slave, to teach the Afro-Americans how to be black and free without even asking them what they want and what their opinion is. Grace became a sort of slave in Dogville, but she did not learn her lesson there. The shock that she gets at the end of the movie masterly reflects how a just system can turn into oppressive when it is imposed on people who don't benefit from it and have no voice in its establishment.
The little moral of the story is not presented at the end, but right at the beginning, when Grace's father reminds Grace of an episode of her childhood. He tells her that she had a beautiful bird in a cage, that she freed it thinking that it was the best thing for the animal, but the bird, not being wild could not survive the winter outside; she found the bird frozen dead on her window next day. Grace, in fact, treats Manderlay's slaves with affection and love, but also with the same paternalistic ego-centered view of the world she treated her bird.
All the cast members are terrific in their respective roles. Bryce Dallas Howard is good as Grace Margaret Mulligan; Howard's sweet looks help her to convey Grace's naivety, but I found her acting a bit bland at times. I would have liked seeing Nicole Kidman back in the role, as she looks fragile and naive but has more maturity, a fact that would have given an extra push to the character; having said that, I don't think that frigid Nicky would have been convincing in the hot explicit sex scene in the movie. Also very convincing in their respective roles are Isaach De Bankolé as the proud and feisty Timothy, Danny Glover as wise Elder Wilhelm, and Mona Hammond as lovely but week Old Wilma.
The music is great. I loved the fact that the movie ended playing "Young Americans" by David Bowie as the lyrics are relevant to the story, as well as the photo-slide that accompanies it, which showcases the de-facto apartheid and lack of freedom of the Afro-American population in the USA until well-entered the 1970s, not when the Abolition was issued in the USA.
The main flaw of Manderlay is that the fact that the story can be easily twisted if interpreted literally; simple minds could say that the movie supports slavery or that blames the Afro-Americans for not freeing themselves earlier, which is completely the opposite of what Trier intends. Moreover, the movie is not engaging enough at the beginning, and a bit of more editing would have been advisable. Finally, the colours and quality of the film used are very poor, which might put off some viewers; Trier was much more careful in Dogville, and the film looked nicer on the screen.
Manderlay is a a very good film, not always engaging, not for the faint-hearted, but a valid reflection about the the flaws of the human spirit, and a wonderful metaphor about the problems that plague our contemporary Western world. I loved the ending. I hope Trier finds the motivation, inspiration, time and money to finish this amazing trilogy.
Antichrist tells the story of a couple's grief after the death of their child, their progressive alienation from reality, and their descend to a personal hell, especially after they retreat to their cabin in in the forest, which they call Eden. Antichrist also
narrates the trip of the female character "She" to her inner hell, so
she becomes a demon (or the Antichrist) in an Eden inhabited by only a
man and a woman.
The movie is structured in four parts: Grief, Pain (Chaos Reigns), Despair (Gynocide), and The Three Beggars, plus a Prologue and an Epilogue.
The Prologue in black and white is a short masterpiece, classy image quality and tones, wonderful music and mood, perfect tempo. It really sets the mood of the rest of the film, and offers a lyricism that gets lost afterwards.
Once the first chapter starts, the movie, its colours, its lighting, the atmosphere, and the acting start to dig in and unsettle the viewer with an unidentifiable menace that you feel even before the couple moves to the woods. That menacing feeling grows at the same pace as the tempo of the movie, being suffocating when the tragic events unfold. There are amazing oniric, premonitory and surreal images blended with the real facts, but these are progressively intermixed, and the boundaries between reality and unreality, sanity and insanity, get faded out.
The epilogue is very surreal, quite easy and light, more fairytale-ish in a way, and I thought that it did not glue well to the rest of the movie in story or mood.
The movie has only two
actors, William Dafoe as He and Charlotte Gainsbourg as She, who carry out the heavy
weight of the whole movie. Their physiques really suit the gloomy
characters they play. In both cases, the roles are very demanding
physically and emotionally, so their work has to be praised. I found,
however, that their personal chemistry was somewhat lacking. Cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle produces superb bucolic images, but also eerie oniric images and tones, that are not complacent or decorative, but the third character in the movie.
Antichrist is a psycho-thriller, and it is barely gory or explicitly violent until the last 20 minutes of the film, which are horrific. The violence and horror in the movie mainly come from the atmosphere and the dark places of the human soul where the story takes the viewer to. The fact that Von Trier was quite depressed when he filmed this movie, helps the movie to portray sadness, depression, mania, mental alienation and therapy with great accuracy. The movie has that profound eeriness that Japanese horror movies have, too, but explores other themes, and is not as entertaining, to be honest.
The surrealism of the movie is more Buñuel-Dali's in "Le Chien Andalu" than Tarkosky's, although some of the forest scenes and images would remind the viewer of the Russian Master, especially in The Mirror.
***
A few tags have been attached to the film by a few critics and, more often, by those people who have not watched the movie or follow what other people say without any further questioning.
Critique given no. 1 - The movie is "offensively misogynistic" Really? I did not feel the hate towards women anywhere. The female character is a troubled spirit with a shocking behaviour, but if you consider that a proof of Trier's misogyny, you should categorise most Japanese horror film directors the same, as they have this sort of nasty women, too. To me, there is more misogyny in most Hollywood movies (in the way women are usually portrayed with regards to men and women) or in any bunch of randomly selected video-clips (where you will see women presented as trash and as pieces of meat) than in this movie. However, I don't see critics vehemently denouncing that.
The only misogyny in the film comes from the fact that the female character shifts the intellectual approach to her Ph. D. thesis called "Gynocide" (about the genocide of women through History) from a feminist one to a misogynist one. However, that is the direct result of her progressive mental and emotional alienation, in which she convinces herself that female nature is evil, as also her own nature, which explains the final horrific events. Von Trier offered an interview to Rotten Tomatoes, quite interesting, light and frank, that you might want to check if you want to see the movie or if you've already watched it On the other hand, the male character is patronising, intellectually patronising, and his approach to his wife's problem, despite the love he has for her, is too clinical and emotionally detached - aseptically empathic if you want. So is not misogynist either.
Critique given no. 2: "The viewer cannot relate to the characters and their circumstances". Of course not. The movie deals with maniac depression, even schizophrenia at times, grieving, pain, and alienation. They are not sane characters. You do not need to relate to them at all.
Critique given no. 3: "The film is depressing". That's for sure, but, again, is a film about grieving and sadness, and the viewer knew that before watching the movie. Critique given no. 4: "I do not know the point of the film", or "What is the movie about?". I think that, if the film had been more entertaining, you would not be asking that question. That is the director's fault. Still, the film has many different readings and interpretations. Some of the surreal and oniric images have no explanation, or as many explanations as you want. That is so, because our subconscious world is never straightforward or easily explainable: A fox eating itself alive, a gazelle with a dead foetus coming out, the sex scene under the tree, the dreams of the female character, some elements of European folklore and wizardry to mention just a few eerie (horrific to me) images. The mix of visual and narrative elements is overwhelming, and very complex.
***
Antichrist is an excellent movie, confusing a times, not entertaining enough, not easy to watch at all, with good performances. It contains horrific impacting images and moments that will upset you, especially if you are not into horror films. The film is still fascinating, but you are not going to recommend it to anybody to pass the time or have a nice relaxing Sunday afternoon.
Just a warning. If you are interested
in watching explicit sex images, you better chose another movie, because
you will be disappointed with the ones here, as the number of them is
limited, of short length, and anti-erotic. Nothing that will turn you on
- Guaranteed.
