ANOTHER ROUND: TIFF 2020 HIGHLIGHT #4

It makes sense that Thomas Vinterberg’s Another Round was put out by Lars Von Trier’s production company (Zentropa). The story kind of plays out like an actual Lars Von Trier film to some degree (Von Trier & Vinterberg have had a 20+ year friendship & working relationship). The basic plot of the film is centered around a set of loose/unofficial rules. Four school teachers come up with the idea/theory that by keeping alcohol in their system constantly it will help & improve their overall life. There’s lots of games that people add alcohol to in order to make them more fun. From peer pong to taking a shot every time someone does something repetitive, alcohol - when consumed as responsible as possible - can make things slightly more enjoyable. The teachers in the film adopt this basic premise and apply it to every day life.
If you stop and think for a second, this sounds like something out of a Lars Von Trier film.
Anyone familiar with his work knows that the plots to his movies, the process/making of his movies (or both) are usually bound by a set of rules (The Idiots & Epidemic), chapters/sections (Breaking The Waves, Manderlay, Dogville), laws and/or beliefs (The Element Of Crime). Another Round is no different. Our characters set out a basic set of rules & guidelines to live life by.
Thomas Vinterberg is no stranger to setting rules, guidelines, laws or restrictions around his movies either. His directorial debut (The Celebration) was the first Dogma feature so it was created by following rules. The characters in his misunderstood/underrated movie Dear Wendy are also bound by a set a specific guidelines they follow. This latest effort fits in with the rest of his (good) body of work perfectly.

It’s important to note that the main characters in Another Round are teachers. My mother was a high school teacher so I’ve seen that side of things. It can drain you and break your spirit. Dealing with teenagers that aren’t your own can be tiring even for one day (sometimes you have to deal with the teens and their parents). Imagine that being your job for decades. I’m not saying teachers deserve unconditional sympathy just because they’re teachers. They chose their line of work. No one forced them to do what they do. But with teaching, and almost any other profession, you sometimes hit a wall. You become jaded and less passionate about what you do every day (the first 20-25 minutes of Another Round are incredibly sad & depressing).
In an effort to combat the sadness & depression and make life “fun” again, the four friends/teachers keep their alcohol levels at a specific range at all times to feel some form of happiness. To me that’s both funny and sad. Mostly sad. If drinking is the only thing that makes life enjoyable then there might be a bigger problem to address (which does slowly come out in the film).

The experiment starts to work. The teachers find meaning again. Their students are happier and the overall tone of the film changes and that sad depressed vibe we get at the beginning is replaced with silliness, joy & happiness.
But, like most humans, the teachers push things too far and what starts out as a fun experiment eventually breaks down and becomes a problem.

When Thomas Vinterberg isn’t phoning it in (Kurske, Far From The Madding Crowd, etc), he has this unique ability to show how childish, silly & irrational adults can be in a really fascinating way. The family in The Celebration, the brothers in Submarino and the supporting cast in The Hunt are all perfect examples of this. The childishness & irrationality of men comes out in Vinterberg’s films more than anything else. But not necessarily in a judgy way. It just is what it is and a lot of men are wired a certain way. I don’t mean to make this all about gender but Another Round plays out like an updated slightly more sensitive Danish remake of Cassavetes’ Husbands. Besides the obvious fact that alcohol fuels both movies, it shows how, at times, men revert to being little boys even when they’re pushing 50. Women do the same thing but this particular movie just so happens to be about about men.
I may be reaching here (this wouldn’t be the first time), but Another Round speaks to the people who sometimes grow sick of their family life and daydream about doing whatever they want as a way to both “escape” and avoid a life of predictability & monotony. To have those thoughts is understandable. As humans we have a lot of irrational & unrealistic thoughts every day. That’s fine. But acting on it is another thing. Not everyone subscribes to what I’m about to say but when you hold a job, have a wife and children (like the main characters in Another Round), you sometimes have to put others first. You should always take care of yourself first in order to do for yourself and others to the best of your ability, but when you have a family you really can’t do whatever you want (even if you don’t have a family you can’t just do whatever you want).

That’s part of the problem with characters in this film. They try to intellectualize & romanticize what they think alcoholism is when in reality they’re just grownup dummies that have no idea what it is.

What’s so great about Another Round is that in someone else’s hands it could’ve been a mediocre goofy comedy about teachers being drunk on the job. But Thomas Vinterberg made a sad, soulful & somewhat celebratory film about men dealing with a mid-life crisis and I honestly love that.

THE SCHOOL OF DREYER PART THREE: MOVING IMAGERY

I have no way of proving that most of these comparisons hold any weight. Lars Von Trier (Antichrist) has made his love for Dreyer known on many occasions, and it isn't completely out of left field to assume filmmakers like Ingmar Bergman & Tarkovsky (the generation that came after Dreyer) had some subconscious residue of influence. Ingmar Bergman has openly called Carl Theodor Dreyer an "amateur" yet at the same time he has also admitted that Dreyer's films "infected" him...

But beyond that, these are completely speculative (I doubt Sylvester Stallone, John Hughes or Charles Laughton set out to mimic or pay homage to Carl Theodor Dreyer in their respective works). I feel like I have to say that given the emotional & weirdly butt-hurt twitter cinephiles that get worked up over these movie comparisons (I know it's a crazy concept to accept that one filmmaker borrowed from another or that two unrelated moving images look similar when lined up next to each other)..

Vampyr / Andrei Rublev

Vampyr /
The Witch

Vampyr /
Antichrist

Ordet / The Night Of The Hunter

Ordet / The Hour Of The Wolf

The Passion Of Joan Of Arc / The Blair Witch Project

The Passion Of Joan Of Arc / Vera Drake

The Passion Of Joan Of Arc / To The Wonder

Vampyr / Mandy

The Passion Of Joan Of Arc / Creepshow

The Passion Of Joan Of Arc / Lil Quinquin

The Passion Of Joan Of Arc / Un Chein Andalou

Vampyr / Meshes Of The Afternoon

Once Upon A Time / Marie Antoinette

Vampyr / Home Alone

The Passion Of Joan Of Arc / Bad Lieutenant

The Passion Of Joan Of Arc /
Throne Of Blood

Ordet / Rocy 3 / Magnolia

Ordet / The Sound Of Music / Trouble Every Day

ZEBRAS IN AMERICA EPISODE 47

On this episode we delve in to modern Scandinavian cinema and recommend some great rap battles to our most loyal listeners.

Enjoy...

JAUJA (CutPrintFilm.COM)

read my thoughts on Jauja over at CutPrintFilm.COM

enjoy...

PUSHER 2: A SURPRISINGLY SAD & PERSONAL FILM

He [Tonny] is very much a sidekick in his own movie - Mads Mikkeksen

If you read this site regularly you'd know I'm a big fan of Nicholas Winding Refn. I've written about the majority of his filmography on here and he's one of the few young-ish/non-master filmmakers to get a "cinema of..." installment. But at the same time, I'm really not a fan of his early work. Prior to Fear X, which laid the groundwork for all of his future films, Refn was more of a guerrilla style filmmaker who embraced handheld camerawork & grittiness like every other young indie filmmaker in the 90's who looked up to Robert Rodriguez or John Cassavetes in a confused mis-guided way. Pusher & Bleeder (Refn's first two films) were full of gangsters, thugs & drug dealing for the most part. The goings-on in his work remain the same today: the criminal underworld, gangsters, and an almost immature exhibition of violence. But there's a beauty in everything he’s done style-wise since Bronson that makes his work so good (personally, I think it was Refn's unspoken exclusion from the Danish film scene that inspired him to move away from that cinema verite style and embrace the glossier, cleaner style that most people know him for today).
I know it’s strange to write about the middle film in a trilogy but Pusher 2 is quite different from the others. After watching the first Pusher I really had no desire to finish the series but an employee at the now closed video store; World Of Video, convinced me to give it a shot...and I was pleasantly surprised. If anything it's is a loose sequel in that it takes a smaller/supporting character from the first film ("Tonny") and makes him the main character this time around. The character of Tonny is the last person you'd expect to have an entire film based on. In Pusher he's essentially a sidekick that gets written out of the story in the first half. You honestly forget about him at the end of the first Pusher. 

Tonny shows a prison tattoo to his unimpressed father; "The Duke"

Pusher 2 picks up with Tonny (Mads Mikkelsen) after just being released from prison. This is hardly a story about an ex-con trying to rehabilitate to life on the outside or doing his best to not get pulled back in to a life of crime. Instead Tonny goes straight from prison to being a gangster again (even after discovering he’s a dad). It's almost as if his time in prison meant nothing. Tonny hopes to work for his father; "The Duke" - a respected criminal with a lucrative chop shop operation. The only problem is that The Duke pretty much hates his immature son and considers him an embarrassment. Throughout the film The Duke berates & disrespects his son Tonny to point where it gets ridiculous (Tonny does bring it on himself at times). But like a sad puppy, Tonny continues come back and vie for his father's love no matter what. There's an important subplot in Pusher 2 involving "Milo" (the Serbian drug kingpin from the first Pusher film and the main character in the third installment) and there's plenty of violence and other typical elements that make a gangster movie what it is, but at the end of the day Pusher 2 is really a drama about a son wanting to be accepted by his father. Refn just disguises all of that underneath a typical gangster story. I've read conflicting stories on why he made Pusher 2. Some believe Refn put no thought in to it. He needed to make a few quick films to get out of debt so he capitalized on the popularity of the first Pusher film and quickly churned out a sequel for the money. Others seem to think the real life relationship between Nicolas Refn and his father Anders Refn (also filmmaker) was the inspiration behind the relationship between Tonny and The Duke. Perhaps Refn's motivation was a little bit of both. I don't doubt that he made it for financial reasons, but maybe his subconscious kicked in during the writing process or while in pre-production and he drew inspiration from his personal life.

Much of this film's success is owed to Mads Mikkelsen's lead performance. I don't know if it’s his face or the vibe he gives off when he's acting but I can never picture another actor in any of his roles like I do so many other actors. Tonny is an interesting and surprisingly complex human being. He's a big immature child trapped in a man's body with grand illusions of being some big time gangster. Part of me dislikes him and wants nothing to do with him. Yet we somehow sympathize for him due to all the abuse he takes from his father and everyone else around him. No one else could have played the role of Tonny as well as Mads and not many filmmakers would dedicate an entire film to an unimportant sidekick character.

A big reason as to why I'm so critical of Refn's early work is because I was introduced to him through stuff like Fear X and Valhalla Rising. I'm more a fan of his slower, Kubrick-influenced stuff. I was a late comer to the Pusher series (I first saw the Pusher films only a few years ago). In retrospect I kind of appreciate the whole series because it showed Refn's growth as a person. For me, the first Pusher film represented a piece of work made by someone incredibly young (which Refn was at the time) with dreams of becoming the next Robert Rodriguez, who watched Mean Streets WAY too many times and still got the wrong message that Scorsese's early film tried to deliver. There's actually quite a few worthy comparisons between Mean Streets & Pusher. Both films are gritty/guerrila-style stories about lower-tier gangsters juggling women problems & unstable/lose cannon friends that get in way over their heads with people far more powerful than them. Both films even end on a negatively ambiguous note.
It's no mystery that Refn thinks gangsters are "cool", even though he did try to show the negative side of that lifestyle with the Pusher series. But from the score, the overall tone and even the advertising for the first Pusher - Nicholas Winding Refn's debut came off more like a "cool cocaine-induced indie gangster flick" instead of the depressing life lesson that it really should have been. However Pusher 2 makes up for all that. The Refn who made Pusher 2 was clearly a slightly more mature adult.

AFTER THE WEDDING

Like I've said in previous entries, even movie fanatics like me miss a few important or good films from time to time. In this edition of "best films I missed..." we take a look at a fantastic film starring my newfound mancrush: Mads Mikkelsen (a PINNLAND EMPIRE favorite) – An actor I’m convinced isn’t just the most underrated actor working today but must have some kind of a speed/cocaine problem due to the insane amount of films he does each year. In fact, the only other actor to match his output (besides the obvious Michael Madsen) would have to be Michael Fassbender (another underrated actor and mancrush of mine). Anyway, enough about all this mancrush talk...

Putting aside the trickery & button pushing of Lars Von Trier (Denmark’s most prominent director) you'll see that many of today’s Danish filmmakers have a talent for tugging at the emotional heart strings with films like: Open Hearts, Brothers (the original), Things We Lost In The Fire, Pusher 2 (a film that wasn’t really about drug running & gangsters), Fear X etc. Sure not all of these movies are "great" (or even good for that matter) but at least there's a genuine attempt at trying to make an emotionally moving story. After The Wedding is the kinda movie you can legitimately call an "emotional rollercoast" without feeling guilty or even slightly corny. Writing about Susanne Beir's 2006 surprise Oscar nominated film; After The Wedding is kinda difficult without spoiling it but it’s essentially about secrecy and how things we thought were in the past can come back in to our lives. For two decades "Jacob" (Mads Mikkelsen) has been running a struggling orphanage in India and hasn’t even thought about returning home to Denmark. But when a rich philanthropist with a hidden agenda ("Jorgen") wants to invest a ton of money in the failing orphanage, Jacob is forced to return back to Denmark to seal the deal. But shortly after returning to Denmark he discovers he has a daughter he didn’t even know about. What unravels after that is a series of secrets & lies and we come to find out that things are more connected than we thought. Trust me, there's a lot more to the story but it would be wrong for me to spoil this for those of you who haven’t seen it. And just so you know, After The Wedding is available on the Netflix instant queue, so... *HINT HINT* Standout scenes include the moment when Jacob realizes he has a daughter (followed by the scene where he confronts his ex-girlfriend who kept the secret from him), the scene when Jorgen's wife discovers the secret he's been keeping from her as well as the last 10-15 minutes. After The Wedding is a well acted, emotionally draining film with an amazing ensemble cast. The standout performances come from Rolf Lassgard (the millionaire philanthropist with a few secrets of his own) and Mads Mikkelsen in an underrated leading role. Lassgard's loud & abrasive performance is evened out by Mad's more toned down and internal performance. You can count the number of times Mads raises his voice with one hand, whereas it seems like Lassgard (with his deep base-heavy voice) is yelling and crying through what seems like the entire last half of the film. He also brought depth to a  typically empty type of a character (loud, fat, wealthy philanthropist). When Jorgen's character is introduced he comes off like a somewhat egocentric asshole, but by the end of the film you realize he's a stand up guy and you wanna shed a tear for him.

After The Wedding is a testament to how talented Mads Mikkelsen is and how well he can adapt to any genre (which makes my anticipation for Thomas Vinterberg's The Hunt, a role which got him best actor at Cannes this year, even greater). To the general movie-going audience he's known for films like Casino Royale, King Arthur & Clash Of The Titans while to people like me he's known for the films of Nicholas Winding Refn, Flame & Citron and Adam's Apple. If you notice, what’s making today's prominent/breakout actors & actresses so in demand is their ability to adapt to any kind of genre. Besides Mikkelsen and Fassbinder, actors like Michelle Williams, Jeffery Wright, Vera Farminga, Ryan Gosling, Josh Brolin, Tom Hardy & Joseph Gordon Levitt manage to bounce between indie/art house and commercial films pretty seamlessly.
And Mads Mikkelsen's status in Hollywood is only about to get bigger as he's not only been taped to play the villain in the next Thor movie, but he'll also be playing a young Hannibal Lecter in an upcoming U.S. television series (not sure how I feel about that one, but whatever)

I would really like to jump out of a helicopter one day (as a stunt). In Denmark you can’t make these big action movies, so I hope I get to do it somewhere else someday - Mads Mikkelsen

What I also love so much about After The Wedding is that Susanne Bier keeps the stuff about the orphanage to minimum and doesn't play in to the white guilt angle about the noble white guy who feels obligated to help the poor struggling brown people. But she still throws in a few scenes here & there to remind us of why Jacob came to Denmark in the first place (there's a subplot about Jacob and his father-like relationship with one of the Indian children back at the orphanage).

This movie also sheds light on the importance of having a father (or father figure) in ones life (especially in the life of a young woman).
After The Wedding is part of the growing number of good "art house" films from around the world that are crossing over in to U.S. theaters that TRULY represents world cinema (with the obvious exception of UK Cinema which gets grouped in with American cinema come award season). Films like; Dogtooth (still can’t believe this was nominated for an Oscar), The White Ribbon, A Separation & Monsieur Lahzar are all further examples of this. You have no idea how many times year after year I make it a point to see as many films from around the world as possible only to find myself scratching my head at the recognized and nominated films that I either haven’t heard about or aren’t that good that end up getting nominated for awards or shown in the theaters.
Including After The Wedding on my list of best films of the last decade MAY be a stretch but it at least makes the shortlist and is a must-see.

ANTICHRIST: CHAOS REIGNS

I know this is the third movie in a row but all of the recent Lars Von Trier press (the nazi comment at Cannes, beef with Drive director and fellow Dane; Nicolas Winding Refn, Shia Lebouf apparently having unsimulated sex in his upcoming film) just so happens to coincide with the phase I'm in at the moment. Between my write-up of Nicolas Roeg's Don't Look Now and The Cinema Of Lars Von Trier, I think its time we actually get in to this movie and how its grown on me in the last two years. Not to say I disliked the movie when I first saw it or anything but I was more caught up in how disoriented and fucked up it left me feeling that I didn't really pay attention to the acting, imagery and possible messages behind the movie. Trust me, even a movie fanatic like myself rolls my eyes when I hear people talk about how moved or affected they were from a movie or a particular scene (just sounds like they're exaggerating). But Antichrist did kinda mess with me - from demonic talking foxes to the flashback scene when Charlotte Gainsbourg notices sounds coming from the baby monitor yet does nothing to prevent her son's death. Like many other Von Trier films (Europa, The Idiots, Manderlay, etc) Antichrist was also shrouded in controversy before it even reached the general public. To this day I think people are STILL too caught up in scenes of penises ejaculating blood to realize that this is a really good film with great imagery and acting (especially from Gainsbourg). Lets also not forget that Lars was able to keep our attention for two hours with a cast made up of only two people. Not since What Happened Was has there been such an entertaining movie with only two actors. Gainsbourg's performance is both awesome and kinda tough to watch at times. She really goes all out in her performance from masturbating completely naked in the middle of the woods with her legs spread wide open to her ability to display grief & sadness.

As I pointed out in my School Of Tarkovsky series, Antichrist is one of the best dedications to the filmmaking style of Andrei Tarkovsky since Carlos Reygadas' Japon (Von Trier even dedicated Antichrist to him)...

Solaris (1972)                                                                             Antichrist (2009)

Antichrist isn't exactly a horror movie yet strangely enough its more "scary" than any recent actual horror movie I've seen in years. Besides Tarkovsky, Von Trier draws elements from classic horror films like The Exorcist and The Shining with quick flashes of demonic & horrific images across the screen (for years I've been saying more modern horror films could use more elements like this)...

Top: Images from The Exorcist, Bottom: Images from Antichrist (shout out to Matt Reddick for the two print screens)

Von Trier also subtly distorts the visuals from time to time with a kind of water drop effect on the screen. Additionally, Antichrist draws some similarities to films like Eraserhead & Lost Highway (Lynch) as well as Irreversible & Enter The Void (Noe) with its disorienting, droning & base-heavy soundtrack that just adds an extra level of eeriness (see video clips at the end of the blog)

So lets do a quick tally: unexpected flashes of demonic faces on a distorted screen combined with droning audio, evil talking animals, penises ejaculating blood and an amazingly intense performance (Charlotte Gainsbourg).

 It’s hard for me to actually rate this movie with something like a 4 outta 5 stars or a "good" or "bad". Antichrist feels more like an “experience” than just a movie. I don’t mean to sound so dramatic but that’s the best I can do when someone asks if this movie is good or not. In the film Willem Dafoe ("Him") and Charlotte Gainsbourg ("Her") play a married couple trying to get past the loss their son (he fell out of window). Things get complicated when Dafoe’s character tries to play double duty as the supportive husband AND psychiatrist to his wife who seems to be taking the loss much harder than him. So they go off to their cabin in the woods for some progressive new-age psychotherapy. But as the story unfolds Dafoe starts to discover some disturbing things about his wife and what she’s been up to behind his back. As it turns out she was getting in to the world of witchcraft (when she was supposed to be working on her masters). The longer they stay at the cabin, more and more strange occurrence happen - Talking animals, vicious hail storms and Gainsbourg's behavior becomes more and more violent to the point where she's practically possessed. These days people tend to site recent films like Blue Valentine or A Separation as an example of why marriage and relationships can be tough. But in my opinion Antichrist kinda takes the cake as far as stories about a marriage or relationships put to the ultimate test. What the hell was Lars trying to say with Antichrist? To this day I’m still not exactly sure but part of me thinks he might be trying to say something dark & disturbing about women as a whole. I know I may be reaching and some of you may not feel the same way but the final scene where we see Willem Dafoe walking through a sea of ghostly women on their way to the cabin along with the very powerful flashback scene where its implied that Gainsbourg could have done something to prevent the death of her son kinda gave me this strange feeling that Von Trier has a bone to pick with women or he doesn't trust them (and lets not forget the scene where Charlotte Gainsbourg takes a pair of scissors to her genitals). I'd love for any women that've seen Antichrist to chime in on my lil' theory. This movie will do nothing to shake the misogynist label that many people have tagged Von Trier with. Damn near all his films show a female character either; murdered, beaten, raped or all 3 (although in this movie its Willem Dafoe that gets this treatment minus the murder part).
Now there's a lot more to Antichrist than the possible implication that Lars has issues with women (which is a theory that I could be WAY off on). Antichrist is also about depression and how it can be crippling, especially when dealing with the loss of a child (in the first have of the film Gainsbourg pretty much blames herself for her sons death). Anyone who knows anything about Von Trier knows about his battles with depression, phobias and anxiety (something Gainsbourg's character battles with in the film). So while on one hand Gainsbourg's character could be seen as "evil", on the other hand Gainsbourg's character could be an extension of Von Trier himself. Religion also played a heavy part in Von Trier's upbringing (he was raised Jewish but eventually converted to Catholicism). Besides the obvious the title, Antichrist (along with many of his other films like Breaking The Waves) is filled with a ton of religious guilt and symbolism.
I recommend that this not be the last thing you watch before you go to sleep. It’s a good idea to have a “happy” movie on deck right after you’re finished watching this.

DOGVILLE: MISUNDERSTOOD MASTERPIECE

Dogville never stood a chance. Lars Von Trier, a director who's mouth gets him in to more trouble than Spike Lee's, essentially made Dogville (as well as its sequel; Manderlay) as a response to people who criticized the ending of Dancer In The Dark. Critics, movie-goers and even other filmmakers thought Lars Von Trier was too critical and unfair in his judgment of America (a country he's never stepped foot in) and he had no right to portray the American judicial system the way he did in the courtroom scene in Dancer In The Dark. The Lars Von Trier/Dogville naysayers DO kinda have a point. It’s hard to listen to someone be SO critical of a country they've never been too but at the same time America is the kinda country where you don’t necessarily need to physically be there to see how screwed up it can be. In response to Dancer In The Dark's critics, Von Trier pretty much just went; "Oh Yeah?! How 'bout I make another movie that’s even more critical of America?" And he did in the form of Dogville - A comment on the immigration system in the United States. According to Von Trier the film was about the messed up immigration system in his home country of Denmark. But anyone who's seen Dogville and knows anything about the immigration system in America as well as Lars Von Trier's history with American critics, he clearly made Dogville about...America. So Dogville was doomed from the start. Not only was it directed by a filmmaker that a lot of people don’t really care for on a personal level, it was also filmed on a giant stage-like set (almost like a play). So not only was the film prejudged before it was released but it also didn’t look like you're traditional movie. It’s like Lars was just trying to make things difficult for himself. Upon its initial release most critics ranging from Ebert to Rex Reed had declared the movie as everything from "bad" to "awful". But I honestly think Dogville is a great film and had the same EXACT movie been directed by anyone NOT Lars Von Trier it woulda got more praise. In my opinion Dogville's biggest (and really only) flaw was its leading lady (Nicole Kidman). I know its cliché to bash an A-list actress who’s essentially working out of her comfort zone (aka working with an "art house" director like Lars Von Trier) but she didn’t deliver. Her performance was a little too weak and "airy" (if that makes any sense) when it should have been a little stronger (she was great in some scenes but overall it was a letdown). Personally, I think an actress like Naomi Watts or even Jennifer Jason Leigh woulda done a better job. But still, the role of Grace must've been very tough to do as it involved many scenes of rape and she also had to act with a big chain tied around her neck in the last 45 minutes of the movie. But as a lot of us know, most people consider Dogville's biggest flaw the its theater-like setting. When this came out some people didn't know what to think of it...

The town of Dogville...

But in my opinion this was just Lars trying to strip things down and go "minimal" instead of using a ton of money on sets to recreate the 1930's. Dogville was Lars Von Trier's first time working with more "known"/"Hollywood" names like Kidman, James Caan, Ben Gazzara and Lauren Bacall (alongside his regular cast of regulars like Udo Kier and Stellan Saarsgard). Outside of Dogville's handheld cinematography, the look of the movie is pretty different from anything else in Lars' filmography. But Dogville still features many key Von Trier elements from it being told in chapters to his signature shots...

Lars Von Trier signature aerial shot. Clockwise - Melancholia (2011), The Element Of Crime (1984), Dogville (2003), Medea (1988)

Dogville is the story of "Grace" (Kidman) - the strong yet vulnerable daughter of a gangster/kingpin (Caan) who's had enough of her father's criminal life and decides to run away to live somewhere else. She ends up taking refuge in the town of Dogville: a small backwoods podunk town in anywhere USA. When the town discovers her they're reluctant to take her in due to the baggage and trouble she may bring with her (her father's henchmen as well as the police are both looking for her). But thanks to one of the townspeople: "Tom" (played by Paul Bettany) he convinces the people of Dogville to take Grace in as one of their own (they supply her with a home, job and even work out a system to hide her from the police whenever they come around looking for her). Grace and Tom even fall in love at one point. At first the people of Dogville seem nice but once they discover there's a reward for turning Grace in to the authorities they're dark side comes out and they slowly exploit her (without actually calling it exploiting, of course) in exchange for them not turning her in for the reward money (the men in the town use her for sex, she gets paid less money for her work around town, and everyone just starts to treat her like shit). Eventually Grace's father comes to her "rescue" in what’s probably one of Von Trier's greatest endings. As I stated in the pink smoke's 100 greatest cinematic deaths, by the end of the movie you grow to absolutely hate the people of Dogville. The final 10-15 minutes are just amazing. And say what you want about Lars but the conversation between Grace and her Father on the subject of arrogance is one of the best moments on film from the last decade and it’s also the last memorable thing James Caan has done. This scene really sums up a big part of what Dogville is about, and its a great scene that shows off Grace's character...

Besides James Caan's short appearance at the end, Paul Bettany ("Tom") gives the standout performance in my opinion. The character of Tom is the epitome of a snake. He's a sneaky, weak, manipulative person. By the start of the film he comes off as a trustworthy person, but by the end you're kinda glad he got what came to him. Standout scenes (besides the finale) include "Vera" (played by Patricia Clarkson) getting what she thinks is revenge on Grace as well as the spanking scene. You honestly don’t have to be a Lars Von Trier fan to enjoy Dogville. If you have the ability to disassociate Lars' presence from the film you'll see it’s great and really underrated.

THE BOSS OF IT ALL: LARS VON TRIER'S OFFICE SPACE

Trust me, this film won't be worth a moment's reflection. It's a comedy, and harmless as such. No preaching or swaying of opinion. Just a cozy time - Lars Von Trier's opening narration

Before the credits rolled on Lars Von Trier's office comedy; The Boss Of It All, I kinda wrote it off as silly - A struggling theater actor is hired to pretend to be the CEO of a struggling IT company that’s about to be secretly bought out. I REALLY wanted to like this but I just couldn't. Then a few months later I actually bought the DVD knowing how disappointed I was when I first saw it but I thought it might grow on me (and with all due respect, my movie collection is very director-oriented and I like to buy complete filmographies of directors I like. so gimme a break). Well...it didn’t. I actually ended up liking it even less. But in the last year or so it’s finally grown on me. The thing is, I was expecting something BIG. My favorite aspect about Lars Von Trier's cinema is what seems to piss most people off - he's a provocateur, a button pusher and somewhat of a prankster (something I've said before on here). This might be the one Von Trier film that wasn’t heavy and/or depressing (Melancholia & Breaking The Waves), didn’t have some kinda unexpected or fucked up ending (Dancer In The Dark & The Idiots), unsettling moments that either annoyed me or stayed with me long after the movie was over (Antichrist & Manderlay) or feel like a big inside joke (Epidemic). Putting aside the method Von Trier used to shoot this (automated cameras that moved on their own at random) The Boss Of It All is a pretty straight forward comedy. When it comes to Lars I usually brace myself for something fucked up or heavy. It’s like I had my guard up while watching The Boss Of It All and by the time it was over I was like; "...is that it?" So I guess the only person I have to blame for the films letdown is myself for expecting something I shouldn’t have in the first place. Additionally, when you look at the film that came before (Manderlay) and after (Antichrist), The Boss Of It All was like a little break for Lars. This comedy was sandwiched between two of Von Trier's heaviest and most controversial films. While Manderlay pissed off both black people AND white people, Antichrist made some movie goers feel violated to the point where Lars was practically getting in to arguments with film critics at press conferences.
Four years after the films release, The Boss Of It All has become one of those movies where you go "oh yeah, Lars Von Trier DID direct that, didn’t he?"

In The Boss Of It All we follow "Ravn" - An employee at a Danish IT firm. To his co-workers he's just a dopey sap who takes orders from the mysterious company CEO that no one has ever met (supposedly this absentee CEO lives in America and only corresponds with Ravn). But In reality Ravn is actually the CEO of the company and everyone’s boss yet no one knows. He's too much of a wimp to give orders to people directly and doesn’t want the pressure of being "the big boss" so he made up the fictitious CEO that lives overseas as a way to run the company without being seen as the authority figure. But now that he's about to sell the company (behind his co-workers backs) this mysterious CEO has to make a physical appearance in order to sign some documents (the Iceland-based company that’s purchasing the IT firm is very demanding and will only deal with the CEO in person). Ravn now realizes he's in too deep and in order to keep his lie going he hires a pretentious, struggling stage actor ("Kristoffer" - played by Jens Albinus from Von Trier's 90's comedy; The Idiots) to pretend to be the CEO. Naturally things get outta hand, word gets out that the company is being sold and Kristoffer (who knows nothing about IT) starts to take his pretend role a little too seriously. By the end of the film we're left with an abrupt ending that'll have you scratching your head like; “huh?” But whether you like Von Trier or not there's quite a few scenes in this movie that are really funny (dry, but still funny)

The Danish Humor I've been exposed to on film so far (Italian For Beginners, Mifune, The Idiots, etc) is interesting. It’s not exactly "dark". Its just...different. It’s a mixture of wacky scenarios revolving around typically unfunny things like suicide, depression (Italian For Beginners), the loss of a child (The Idiots), religion (Adams Apple & Italian For Beginners), mental & physical disabilities (Mifune & The Idiots). The Boss Of It All is no exception. Even Danish films that are technically dramas about incest (The Celebration) have quite a few funny moments.
At first glance The Boss Of It All stands out the most among all of Von Trier's work but the more you watch it the more you see that it has elements of Dogma (no score, natural lighting, low budget), features some of his regular actors (Jean Marc Barr and Jens Albinus) and Von Trier's cameo at the beginning and end of the film are reminiscent of his appearances in Kingdom. If you can get past the fact that this is just a silly office comedy Von Trier probably made as a form of light entertainment for himself to mentally prepare for Antichrist, you'll enjoy this (its like Lars knew the next few years of his life would be consumed with heavy cinema in the form of Antichrist and Melancholia so he wanted to make a quick silly movie before he got depressed again). But if you're expecting something groundbreaking and thought provoking you're only setting yourself up for disappointment. If you're a fan of Tristram Shandy, The Office and dry humor, there's an even greater chance you'll enjoy this.

THE CINEMA OF NICOLAS WINDING REFN PART 2: VALHALLA RISING & BRONSON

I'm not a fan of the 'Pusher' movies and we already discussed 'Fear X' last year, so lets take a look at Nicolas Winding Refn's other pre-Drive work (consider this a revision/re-write of the reviews I did for the old FLUD site as well as a companion to last year's "The Cinema Of Nicolas Winding Refn"). Although I do think 'Drive' is the best thing he's done so far, he still has other interesting work out there for you guys to explore. I recently revisited 'Valhalla Rising' (a movie that I thought was just "ok" when I first saw it) & 'Bronson' (a movie I was disappointed by) to see how they hold up against 'Drive'.

I’m just so sick of talking about ‘Drive.’ You’re always happy with the success. But I’ve talked about this movie extensively for more than a year, so that’s it. I don’t know what else I can add at this point - Nicolas Winding Refn

Years before Nicolas Winding Refn had Ryan Gosling and Albert Brooks stomping and stabbing people at the drop of a hat in 'Drive' (a movie I love and talk about very much here on PINNLAND EMPIRE and will continue to do so in this blog entry), he had already created some really violent and interesting characters as well as some of the most brutally violent scenes on film in the last couple of years. Between "One-Eye" (the main character in 'Valhalla Rising') and Charlie Bronson ('Bronson') you could actually find elements of "The Driver" (Gosling) in both of those earlier characters. One-Eye and The Driver barely speak (One-Eye doesn't speak at all actually), both have a kind of compassion for children and all three characters (Bronson, One-Eye and The Driver) have an uncontrollable violent side. Refn makes up the kinda characters that'll have you wondering who'd win in a fight if they squared off against each other.


VALHALLA RISING

After watching this twice in less than a week I've come to the conclusion that it falls into the "misunderstood masterpiece" category. 'Valhalla Rising' comes off like a collaborative piece between Andrei Tarkovsky, Werner Herzog and Terrance Malick after they got together and watched 'Apocolypse Now' and a bunch of old UFC tapes, under the influence of hallucinatory drugs with their minds set on making a violent yet trippy & ambient film. It stars Mads Mikkelsen (on of Refn's regular actors) as “One-Eye”: A Norse prisoner/slave in 1000 A.D. who’s forced to fight other prisoners to the death for the enjoyment of their captors. His ruthless fighting ability has not only left him undefeated but it slowly builds him a reputation through out the land. Finally after breaking free from his captors early on in the movie he joins up with a group of religious crusaders set on claiming whatever land they see in the name of god (we later come to find out that this land they plan to claim is already occupied by a certain type of NATIVE people). Outside of the Herzog/Tarkovsky influence, Refn was also clearly influenced by everyone from Francis Ford Coppola to Ridley Scott. Obviously the idea of a group of warriors on a doomed crusade is going to draw comparison to other stuff like 'Apocolypse Now' and Herzog's 'Aguirre The Wrath Of God'. The structure of 'Valhalla Rising' even draws inspiration from fellow danish director; Lars Von Trier as the film is told in chapters (something Von Trier is known for in almost everything he's done since 'Breaking The Waves'). The soundtrack, reminiscent to Brion Eno's score for 'Fear X', is extremely unsettling and really does a great job at setting the mood. The one-on-one fight scenes are realistically brutal and entertaining (one scene in particular shows One-Eye almost decapitating another fighter with a chain) but there's not as much of those scenes as you would think. The trailer for 'Valhalla Rising' IS somewhat misleading. The fight scenes between the other slaves really only take place in the first quarter of the film while the rest of the story focuses on the crusade One-Eye goes on with the christian soldiers until they meet their demise in the end. But all the violent scenes from the first part of the film are what stand out the most. In my opinion Nicolas Refn has a talent and maturity for showing violence on screen that other directors don't...

VIOLENCE IN VALHALLA RISING:

 The older I get the more I can see how directors like Tarrantino or Takashi Miike (sorry, not a fan) approach violence in their films like immature boys. Its as if they sit at home, do/or drink a bunch of coke (depending what kinda "coke" we're talking about), writing a script and saying out loud to themselves: "Oh Yeah! This guy's throat is gonna get slit open and then blood is gonna go everywhere, then a bunch of people get shot with machine guns! Its gonna be CRAZY!". But somehow Refn's approach to violence and how he shows blood & guts doesn't seem to bother me at all (same thing applies to directors like Gaspar Noe or David Cronenberg). I know this is going to sound kinda pretentious, but there's beauty in the way he shows people getting their faces smashed in, throats stabbed or necks snapped (hope that didn't sound too morbid). I guess a lot of it has to do with the almost indescribable atmosphere that surrounds the violence he shows on film thanks to the dark lighting, industrial/Brian Eno-esque score, minimal dialogue and cinematography. The "look" of 'Valhalla Rising' is just haunting...

THE HAUNTING ATMOSPHERE OF VALHALLA RISING: 

With Valhalla the specific atmosphere comes from all the shots of the sky (reminiscent of Michael Mann's sky shots in Miami Vice and Ali), the fog, clouds, mountains and the Scottish landscapes where the film was shot. Subconsciously you're reminded of everything from Malick's 'The New World' (especially with the presence of the Native Americans at the end of the film) to the opening shot in 'The Shining' (Jack Nicholson driving through the foggy hills on his way to the overlook hotel). Its nice to know that a young-ish director that's commonly associated with the independent/art-house scene isn't afraid to make a film like 'Valhalla Rising'. I almost get the sense that Refn felt this could compete with studio films in the vein of  '300' or 'Gladiator' but on a smaller scale. Some may be turned off by the middle part of Valhalla as it does dabble in religious symbolism and becomes VERY dreamlike. Its an acquired taste but if you're a fan of the film's influences that I mentioned earlier (Tarkovsky, Herzog, Von Trier, etc) chances are you'll enjoy this.
And on a side note, I'm at the point where I'll watch just about anything with Mads Mikkelsen in it...

BRONSON

'Bronson' is a film I'm still conflicted about. I guess its not as disappointing as I use to think it was but its still over-hyped. One of those movies that falls in to the 'Fight Club' category where you cant just simply "like" it. You have to think its the greatest thing ever. 'Bronson' tells the story of real life celebrity criminal; Charlie Bronson (not to be confused with the actor). The movie takes us from his birth to the present day where Bronson is still a prisoner. Through out the movie we follow his violent history from the bank robbery that landed him in jail for the first time, to his stint at a mental hospital for the criminally insane, to his brief release from prison where he became a bare knuckle fighter and then right back to prison. 'Bronson' was dubbed by some critics as; “A Clockwork Orange for the 21st century”. At first glance i could see why someone would make a statement like that. The narration in 'Bronson' IS reminiscent of clockwork, both Charlie and Alex have a charmingly evil personality and Refn is also clearly influenced by the Stanley Kubrick “glare” shot. But a comparison to 'A Clockwork Orange' is pushing it. 'Bronson' isn't as explosive and action packed as it was made out to be by critics. It also plays in to that cliche crazy British tough guy stuff that we've already seen Ray Winstone, Tim Roth and Gary Oldman play back in the 80's. We get it already, British guys are tough. Stop trying so hard to prove it in movies. But people love angry, violent, bald headed white guy characters so I can see the appeal that 'Bronson' has to some. Valid points have been made about the film by credible people but I cant fully get in to it. If you’re a fan of British gangster/tough guy movies (the krays, football factory, the firm, etc) chances are you’ll like 'Bronson'. And even with all of my criticisms I still own this on DVD for some reason and feel the need to watch it from time to time yet I don't fully understand why. There's a lot of unexplained elements and indescribable feelings that come along with Nicolas Refn's work. I can write about all of his films and tell you why I like his work and blah blah blah, but there's always that element I cant fully explain or convey through words. Like 'Valhalla Rising', Refn does a great job of creating a tense, violent and aggressive vibe almost like you're inside Bronson's somewhat deranged mind or trapped in a prison cell with him...

ANGER, VIOLENCE & AGGRESSION IN BRONSON:

My biggest beef with 'Bronson' has to do with the fact that like I have a problem praising shitty human beings or calling them "cool" (and lets not kid ourselves, part of this movie's purpose was to make him seem cool). I guess its kinda harsh to call the man a shitty human being...or is it?? I get the feeling that so many people have had the wool pulled over their eyes about who Charlie Bronson is (which is strange because all the information is right there in front of us). Its not like Refn leaves out his criminal history and his childish nature to just start trouble and act crazy for the hell of it. Refn throws in all those interludes and comical moments that make Bronson out to be this funny, charming, awesome guy (like Eric Bana's performances as real life Australian tough guy; "Chopper"). Once again, maybe it comes with age and my growing intolerance for the kinda violence and characters in films by Tarrantino or a lot of modern Japanese directors in the same vein as Takashi Miike. I know Charlie Bronson is a cult figure among people in the UK but he's a still a violent bully with no real reason to be the way he is (in the film he even states how he came from a normal family and had a good home life).  Now this does kinda contradict many other movie characters and performances that I'm a fan of but at the same time those characters are fictional. Charlie Bronson is a real person. Tom Hardy's lead performance makes things even more conflicted because no matter how much I don't like the subject or praising non-fictional bad people, he really did transform in to Charlie Bronson. And not just physically. I'm talking about everything from his manner of speech to his actual face. The Tom Hardy in 'Bronson' is a completely different person than the Tom Hardy we see in 'Inception' or anything else he's been in. Hardy's charming performance is also what clouds who Bronson really is to the viewer. 'Bronson' is filled with plenty of images of his big childish grin which is one of the reasons that makes him so likable to some people...

Also this film not only brought Tom Hardy to international fame, but it quickly became a new-age cult hit and got Nicolas Refn more exposure. He went from being nearly bankrupt (thanks to 'Fear X') and having to make two more 'Pusher' films that he really didn't wanna do, to becoming a minor crossover director with 'Bronson'. Had 'Bronson' not been made then he may not have had the opportunity to make 'Drive'. I'm happy that a director like Nicolas Refn with his kinda style is slowly making the transition in to the mainstream. In my opinion his work isn't meant to be seen on small art house screens like the film forum or cinema village (no offense). I guess you could look at Valhalla and Bronson as his early attempts at "mainstream" movie making which eventually turned in to a success with 'Drive'. I don't love 'Bronson' but I respect it.