Talk:Dogville

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Portal	Dogville falls within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a project to create and improve Denmark-related Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, all interested editors are welcome!
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ). (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

DOGVILE (commentary)

At another level I saw it as a respond to some of the sixties peace and love in of witch I was a part. Love and peace are things to be sought, but there are as we all know really evil people on this earth! There is Jeffery Dollmer, B.T.K.! “To quet the movie”” To set and have such a high standard for your self is good but to them say that know one could ever live up to that so I should exonerate them of all wrong is arrogant! The same punishment that you deserve for your transgressions others all so deserve! You don’t even give them that chance and that is extremely arrogant!” They made that point and also showed what going to far was! As the father says, I think we better get you out of here! Not to be forgotten that mosses was left!

DOGVILLE, (key quotes from the movie) “You do not pass judgment, you sympathize with them. A deprived childhood a homicide really isn’t a homicide, right? All you can blame is circumstances. Rapists and murderers are really the victims according to you, l call them dogs, if they’re lapping up their own vomit, stop them is with the lash. Dogs only obey their own nature. Dogs can be taught many useful things, but not if we forgive them every time they obey their own nature! I’m arrogant because I forgive people? My God can’t you see how condescending you are? You have this preconceived notion that nobody can possibly attain the same high ethical standards as you, so you exonerate them all. l can not think of anything more arrogant than that! You forgive others with excuses that you would never permit for yourself. Why shouldn’t l be merciful? You should, you should be merciful when there is time to be merciful, But you must maintain your own standard. You owe them that. The penalty that you deserve for your transgressions they deserve for their transgressions. They are human beings to. Doesn’t every human being need to be accountable for their actions? Of course they do! But you don’t even give them that chance, and that is extremely arrogant! l have no more to say.” —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Titus2 (talk • contribs) 22:08, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Contents 1 Interpretations debated 2 Interpretations deleted 3 Is there a point to this page? 4 Fair use rationale for Image:Dogville movie32.jpg 5 More interpretations deleted

[edit] Interpretations debated

POV interpretations

I think it's a bit POV to say that "Ultimately, the film is a Christian allegory" and "It's not Anti-American, it's Anti-Christian". I debated removing that bit entirely, but have instead tried to reword it, incase there are actually a number of people who interpret the film this way. Perhaps it could stand a bit more refinement in that department. --Whimper 04:43, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

"What if Jesus decided he had suffered enough at the hands of those who abuse Grace?"

Ungtss: I don't understand this phrase and that's why I changed it a few edits ago (i'm 201.138.245.25). What are you asking? I thought that you were equating (somewhat rough-handedly) those who abuse Grace with those who abused Jesus, and then wondering what would had happened if he had acted similarly. I'd rather have just the wondering part, as in: "What if Jesus had taken a similar decision?". Since you didn't like the solution, can you explain the phrase to me? I guess I must have misunderstood the whole thing. --Eliazar 11:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

apologies for the delay -- i'm studying for the bar exam:). I thought it was better to expand the sentence simply for clarity -- instead of simply "similar decision," stating exactly which decision -- that of deciding that Grace had suffered enough. the point i'm trying to make is this: From a Christian perspective, Grace in the film can be seen as a metaphor for Jesus, who is, in many ways, seen as Grace incarnate (using Grace in the sense of forgiveness and love, rather than a proper name). Grace, much like jesus, came seeking only to love and share grace, but were both horribly abused by those they came to help. however, there is one very important difference between the two -- instead of dying at the end, Grace in the movie turned around and killed her abusers. it leaves some with this this question: "Jesus brought Grace to mankind hoping to make things anew, but the world and the church have stepped all over it and made a mockery of that grace. What would happen if Jesus decided it had gone too far, and wiped them all out?" In other words, "What if Jesus decided that they had abused his Grace too long?" Is that clearer? Ungtss 02:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

(Shame on me, I'm just the worst procrastinator.) I think I see your point. So you are playing on words there? Grace as in the movie character and grace as in Jesus grace? It wasn't clear to me at all, but it seems quite cool now. I guess the main trouble was that you're thinking on Jesus avenging himself in the present (from the Church et al), and I was thinking on him avenging himself in the past (from the Jews et al), to save himself from the crucifiction. Both musings seem equally plausible to me, but only after you explained yours to me; well, to be honest, mine seems more natural to me :). Anyway, I think the question is still confusing. The verbs at the beginning ("decided" but especially "had suffered") take me to the past and conflict with "abuse", which takes me to the present. Perhaps "What if Jesus decides he has suffered enough at the hands of those who have abused his grace?" is better? Even if you do opt for that version, I think you should put some of your above explanation in the article; your interpretation isn't obvious. Thanks for explaining. Eliazar 05:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

perfect:). i'll fix the wording:). Ungtss 14:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interpretations deleted

I've deleted the absolutely unsourced, unnecessary and unfounded "interpretations" section. If you want to attempt to slice and dice a film and fit it into your particular moral standpoint or whatever personal problems you may have, make one of the many hundreds of thousands of pages that exist on the internet at this time doing exactly the same. This is absolutely not the place for it and I'm surprised it was tolerated for as long as it was. :bloodofox: 00:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised there is no attempt to cover various interpretations, even just a few would do (don't know if von Trier has publicly said much, which is why I came here in the first place). I don't think it's wrong, using NPOV, to cover various percieved controversy over the film. The absence of interpretations severely weakens this entry, relegating it to a technical description - rather like describing how a bomb was made and the time and place it was detonated, as opposed to the impact it had on people's lives. (Griff) May 23 2006

Interpretations from various sourced reviewers are dandy, as long as it has some backing and is considered notable. However, this is hardly the place to write a review of something nor is it the place to expound one's personal interpretations - particularly some of the incredibly unfounded ones we had here before. This is why this section was deleted. :bloodofox: 02:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've restored some of it, sans the Christian stuff which went too deeply into speculative original research territory to be comfortable. But pointing out the obvious fact that the film has been described as anti-American and explaining some of its easily discernible motifs should certainly be acceptable and at most be in need of some additional citations.--Eloquence* 03:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a point to this page?

If there is, I can't see it. I can watch the movie to learn the plot, thank you very much. Where are the bits discussing style, themes, and critical reaction? I'm sorry but I see absolutely no use to this article.

Agreed. Shouldn't there be a "controversy" section here, summarizing all the intepretations? --CrisDias 11:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Assuming they're sourced. :bloodofox: 00:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Part of the trouble with the non-POV policy used in this way, is that in reality, it only permits well-established English-writing critics as "good sources", because 90% of the long-standing English wikipedians are Brits or Americans. It isn't hard to find sensible discussions of Dogville in German, Swedish or French that pick up on, for example, the Christian allusions, or on the "self-centeredness" of the people in the town, but they would hardly rank as sources here because they cannot be checked in the original by some moderators and many ordinatry users, and so they'd get deleted within a week. Hell, the world of film criticism and film science isn't exclusively English-speaking (these critic may write faultless English when needed for a U.S. journal, but they don't fo their day-to-day work in English). I totally agree with the above poster: there's no point in giving a bland resumé of the film you've just seen, or is going to see. If we have a film project there has to be some place for analyzing things beyond the commonplace.

Besides, Dogville isn't the only movie of von Trier that's got sides that could be read as Christian - Bess in Breaking the waves is a pretty obvious parallel to the gospels (and of course a disturbing one). This doesn't mean it's a church painting, any more than The Seventh Seal is, but the film makes conscious use of the Christian symbolism.

Someone suggested (as a viable interpretation) that Grace embodies a critique of moral relativism: her inablility to pass judgment and halt the exploitation. My view here is rather that she can't pass judgment because she has no autonomous "place to stand" in this little town, no family, no firm work, no plot of her own; she can't afford to make anyone angry or to appear headstrong, as then she'd risk to be chucked out (a few people who loathe her or simply doesn't ¨trust her (remember, she's had it in with gangsters and she's a dangerous beauty) will be enough to get her banned at once, and thrown back into the arms of the gangsters). So she's a tad helpless against the people who begin to exploit her,and ultimately even her meekness is turned against her.

She can't ever afford to say "Fine, I'll help you, but we have to set up a deal, I'm going home by six, and I want bucks to do this" or "If you want all of this done you'd have to ask somebody else. man, my calendar is already booked full". This parallels the kind of insecurity/non-autonomy of people who work in a black job market, prostitutes or people who have to get *in* (merge with a new group, a new country, or arriving at Yale from a blue-collar backgreound) but can't afford to seem pushy and self-assertive, or they're kicked out, obliquely or ´by plain hostility (and there's always a hundred more who want your job). Some have made the parallel to Mexican illegal/semi-legal workers in the USA, yes, that could be advanced, but it's not exclusively about them. Strausszek September 10, 2006, 06:45 (CEST)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Dogville movie32.jpg

Image:Dogville movie32.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More interpretations deleted

The comments "It is at this point that the audience realizes that Kidman was one smooth criminal all along. The criminals drive away in several cars, leaving the dog barking ominously" qualify as original research, and therefore do not belong in this article. The audience may draw whatever conclusions they want without 218.188.2.81 telling them what to think. --starX 13:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This is still too argumentative for encyclopedic context: "Nevertheless, most audiences have applauded the movie's largely successful attempt to portray Nicole Kidman as a smooth criminal figure.[1]" The paragraph might be better worded to indicate split opinions between the Anti-American reaction, and Kidman's performance as a criminal, but describing the character as "smooth" is too open to interpretation to be regarded as fact. The only reason for its inclusion should be if you are quoting a review directly, in which case you should provide more of a quotation for context, and be sure to cite the source properly. --starX 12:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is simply vandalism. It has been done by the same few anonymous IPs on a number of Wikipedia entries, many of which have nothing to do with crime. Revert it if you see it, please. :bloodofox: 17:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)