Review of Dogville
Posted by:: HdMrs. Salacia the Overseer
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 23:42:38 -0600
--------
Needs more spazzing.
Posted by:: "krustymadfaker"
Date: 1 Mar 2005 22:18:20 -0800
--------
>>>>Needs more spazzing.>>>>
I see clearly about how this
is a review about Nenslo.
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little
longer."
-Henry Kissinger
Because the arm of this conspiratorial government-within-
the-government is evil incarnate! They -it- will stop at nothing! They
stole half of Nebraska!" - Sam Devereaux in The Road to Omaha (by
Robert Ludlum)
Posted by:: "iDRMRSR"
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:52:05 -0500
--------
Prabob! Another Lars von Trier fan, or should I say just a viewer.
Clearly you were referring to Idioten when you requested more spazzing?
In any case, I thought Dogville was a better movie, by comparison. Right up
until Stellan dangled his unit, at least.
The whole crowd cheered at the ending, incidentally. Like most of Lars
stuff, you have to wade through a lot of muck and suspend all your disbelief
right up to the ending, which is almost always a big payoff.
[*]
-----
Posted by:: HdMrs. Salacia the Overseer
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:30:02 -0600
--------
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:52:05 -0500, "iDRMRSR"
wrote:
>Prabob! Another Lars von Trier fan, or should I say just a viewer.
>
>Clearly you were referring to Idioten when you requested more spazzing?
>
>In any case, I thought Dogville was a better movie, by comparison. Right up
>until Stellan dangled his unit, at least.
>
>The whole crowd cheered at the ending, incidentally. Like most of Lars
>stuff, you have to wade through a lot of muck and suspend all your disbelief
>right up to the ending, which is almost always a big payoff.
>
>[*]
>-----
>
This is true. It got better at the end, but the beginning was dull and
grueling and could have used much more spazzing.
Posted by:: Zapanaz
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 11:22:40 -0800
--------
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:30:02 -0600, HdMrs. Salacia the Overseer
wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:52:05 -0500, "iDRMRSR"
> wrote:
>
>>Prabob! Another Lars von Trier fan, or should I say just a viewer.
>>
>>Clearly you were referring to Idioten when you requested more spazzing?
>>
>>In any case, I thought Dogville was a better movie, by comparison. Right up
>>until Stellan dangled his unit, at least.
>>
>>The whole crowd cheered at the ending, incidentally. Like most of Lars
>>stuff, you have to wade through a lot of muck and suspend all your disbelief
>>right up to the ending, which is almost always a big payoff.
>>
>>[*]
>>-----
>>
>This is true. It got better at the end, but the beginning was dull and
>grueling and could have used much more spazzing.
did anybody else notice that none of the buildings had walls? was
this a budget thing?
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Most rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who
can't talk for people who can't read.
-- Frank Zappa
Posted by:: "End x Art"
Date: 2 Mar 2005 15:53:25 -0800
--------
<
this a budget thing? >>
Yehaw, little peculiar, that. Is that film supposed to be about
voyeurism or something. Hand held camera, see through walls, town
watching her every move. I dunno. Could've used more spazzing at any
rate.
Posted by:: "iDRMRSR"
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 19:24:17 -0500
--------
>><
this a budget thing? >>
Yehaw, little peculiar, that. Is that film supposed to be about
voyeurism or something. Hand held camera, see through walls, town
watching her every move. I dunno. Could've used more spazzing at any
rate.
<<
Dang, nobody gets the whole "less is more" thing, do they? Check out Dogme
'95 sometime:
http://www.dogme95.dk/
But to summarize it in one word: AAAAaaaacting! Or possibly DDDDirecting!
[*]
-----
Posted by:: "End x Art"
Date: 2 Mar 2005 18:46:04 -0800
--------
>
> Dang, nobody gets the whole "less is more" thing, do they? Check out
Dogme
> '95 sometime:
>
> http://www.dogme95.dk/
>
> But to summarize it in one word: AAAAaaaacting! Or possibly
DDDDirecting!
>
> [*]
> -----
Yes. That sums it up. It was an 'avante garde' and therefore,
self-conscious film. The acting was first rate and the directing was
OK if he was directing the actors...but what's the word I'm looking
for..really er, consistent which got kind of boring. Maybe he should
have done a little more directing in the editing chamber then I would
have stayed awake. Until the story really kicked in. Shakey hand held
camera with manual focus close ups? Come on. What is he a luddite?
"Anyone can make a film with today's technology" Blah blach blah blah.
If he set about to make a voyeuristic film that deconstructs dramatic
cinema filmmaking as nothing more than recorded plays then he got what
he set out to do. Too bad the play wasn't more interesting.
I FELL ASLEEP!
That presentation could have been produced for the stage and we'd have
had a very similar experience without being at the mercy of tunnel
vision of the camera lens in this case.
and I didn't like the music, neither.
Posted by:: Zapanaz
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:21:13 -0800
--------
On 2 Mar 2005 18:46:04 -0800, "End x Art"
wrote:
>
>>
>> Dang, nobody gets the whole "less is more" thing, do they? Check out
>Dogme
>> '95 sometime:
>>
>> http://www.dogme95.dk/
>>
>> But to summarize it in one word: AAAAaaaacting! Or possibly
>DDDDirecting!
>>
>> [*]
>> -----
>
>Yes. That sums it up. It was an 'avante garde' and therefore,
>self-conscious film. The acting was first rate and the directing was
>OK if he was directing the actors...but what's the word I'm looking
>for..really er, consistent which got kind of boring. Maybe he should
>have done a little more directing in the editing chamber then I would
>have stayed awake. Until the story really kicked in. Shakey hand held
>camera with manual focus close ups? Come on. What is he a luddite?
>"Anyone can make a film with today's technology" Blah blach blah blah.
>
>If he set about to make a voyeuristic film that deconstructs dramatic
>cinema filmmaking as nothing more than recorded plays then he got what
>he set out to do. Too bad the play wasn't more interesting.
>
>I FELL ASLEEP!
>That presentation could have been produced for the stage and we'd have
>had a very similar experience without being at the mercy of tunnel
>vision of the camera lens in this case.
>
>and I didn't like the music, neither.
YOU ARE SO RIGHT! Plus, what just TOTALLY KILLED me, it's like NOBODY
WOULD NOTICE that none of the buildings had walls? So, it's NEVER
RAINED before in this town? DUH. Sooner or later it would just rain
and -somebody- would be like "HEY THERE ARE NO WALLS"
Or somebody would TAKE A SHOWER OR GO TO THE BATHROOM AND THE WHOLE
TOWN IS LIKE LOOKING AT THEM. And nobody is going to say "HEY THERE
ARE NO WALLS"?
although OK granted this is set in the 30's, I'm not 100% sure they
had invented walls yet.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
"To live outside the law, you must be honest."
Bob Dylan said that.
Posted by:: HdMrs. Salacia the Overseer
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:57:24 -0600
--------
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:21:13 -0800, Zapanaz
wrote:
>On 2 Mar 2005 18:46:04 -0800, "End x Art"
>wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> Dang, nobody gets the whole "less is more" thing, do they? Check out
>>Dogme
>>> '95 sometime:
>>>
>>> http://www.dogme95.dk/
>>>
>>> But to summarize it in one word: AAAAaaaacting! Or possibly
>>DDDDirecting!
>>>
>>> [*]
>>> -----
>>
>>Yes. That sums it up. It was an 'avante garde' and therefore,
>>self-conscious film. The acting was first rate and the directing was
>>OK if he was directing the actors...but what's the word I'm looking
>>for..really er, consistent which got kind of boring. Maybe he should
>>have done a little more directing in the editing chamber then I would
>>have stayed awake. Until the story really kicked in. Shakey hand held
>>camera with manual focus close ups? Come on. What is he a luddite?
>>"Anyone can make a film with today's technology" Blah blach blah blah.
>>
>>If he set about to make a voyeuristic film that deconstructs dramatic
>>cinema filmmaking as nothing more than recorded plays then he got what
>>he set out to do. Too bad the play wasn't more interesting.
>>
>>I FELL ASLEEP!
>>That presentation could have been produced for the stage and we'd have
>>had a very similar experience without being at the mercy of tunnel
>>vision of the camera lens in this case.
>>
>>and I didn't like the music, neither.
>
>YOU ARE SO RIGHT! Plus, what just TOTALLY KILLED me, it's like NOBODY
>WOULD NOTICE that none of the buildings had walls? So, it's NEVER
>RAINED before in this town? DUH. Sooner or later it would just rain
>and -somebody- would be like "HEY THERE ARE NO WALLS"
>
>Or somebody would TAKE A SHOWER OR GO TO THE BATHROOM AND THE WHOLE
>TOWN IS LIKE LOOKING AT THEM. And nobody is going to say "HEY THERE
>ARE NO WALLS"?
>
>although OK granted this is set in the 30's, I'm not 100% sure they
>had invented walls yet.
Yeah! And the Emperor's got no clothes on!
Aaaargh. I'm feelin' a might piratey.
Where's me rum?
Posted by:: Zapanaz
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:54:46 -0800
--------
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:57:24 -0600, HdMrs. Salacia the Overseer
wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:21:13 -0800, Zapanaz
> wrote:
>
>>On 2 Mar 2005 18:46:04 -0800, "End x Art"
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dang, nobody gets the whole "less is more" thing, do they? Check out
>>>Dogme
>>>> '95 sometime:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dogme95.dk/
>>>>
>>>> But to summarize it in one word: AAAAaaaacting! Or possibly
>>>DDDDirecting!
>>>>
>>>> [*]
>>>> -----
>>>
>>>Yes. That sums it up. It was an 'avante garde' and therefore,
>>>self-conscious film. The acting was first rate and the directing was
>>>OK if he was directing the actors...but what's the word I'm looking
>>>for..really er, consistent which got kind of boring. Maybe he should
>>>have done a little more directing in the editing chamber then I would
>>>have stayed awake. Until the story really kicked in. Shakey hand held
>>>camera with manual focus close ups? Come on. What is he a luddite?
>>>"Anyone can make a film with today's technology" Blah blach blah blah.
>>>
>>>If he set about to make a voyeuristic film that deconstructs dramatic
>>>cinema filmmaking as nothing more than recorded plays then he got what
>>>he set out to do. Too bad the play wasn't more interesting.
>>>
>>>I FELL ASLEEP!
>>>That presentation could have been produced for the stage and we'd have
>>>had a very similar experience without being at the mercy of tunnel
>>>vision of the camera lens in this case.
>>>
>>>and I didn't like the music, neither.
>>
>>YOU ARE SO RIGHT! Plus, what just TOTALLY KILLED me, it's like NOBODY
>>WOULD NOTICE that none of the buildings had walls? So, it's NEVER
>>RAINED before in this town? DUH. Sooner or later it would just rain
>>and -somebody- would be like "HEY THERE ARE NO WALLS"
>>
>>Or somebody would TAKE A SHOWER OR GO TO THE BATHROOM AND THE WHOLE
>>TOWN IS LIKE LOOKING AT THEM. And nobody is going to say "HEY THERE
>>ARE NO WALLS"?
>>
>>although OK granted this is set in the 30's, I'm not 100% sure they
>>had invented walls yet.
>
>Yeah! And the Emperor's got no clothes on!
>
>Aaaargh. I'm feelin' a might piratey.
>
>Where's me rum?
MORE EMPEROR PRON!
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
"It is the doom of men that they forget"
Posted by:: "iDRMRSR"
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 02:36:25 -0500
--------
Sigh. Nobody gets IT.
Instead of CGI car crashes and green screen stunts and huge explosions, you
get hand held grainy video and no sets and you have to USE YOUR IMAGINATION
to supply the missing walls and stuff. And you have to sit still for an
amazingly long extra hour than the usual Hollywood fillum. In other words,
you have to put some of yourself into it.
But I forget we all pay the COTSG to tell us what to think, hence I can see
the problem with this particular film.
I guess what *I* imagined when I saw this flick musta been one FUCKLOAD of a
lot BETTER than what you guys didn't imagine.
OK, so I'm saying it really IS a case of Emperor's Clothes. That's all
right, Trier is not an emperor, he's just trying to produce a work of
FICTION. So I imagined a nice Armani suit, is all I'm saying.
Hitchcock made a mess of flicks where he led you on because he knew what you
would imagine would be worse and scarier than anything he could actually
SHOW. Dogville was just an extreme extension of the same principle.
Didja notice all the actors respected the walls and doors that weren't there
just like as if they WERE there?
So I'm sitting here hoping Trier will come out with Battle for Dogville,
Return to Dogville, Escape from Dogville, Conquest of Dogville, Memories of
Dogville, Dogville 2036, and Dogville vs. Mechagodzilla, Children of
Dogville, the CSI:DOGVILLE TV series, and the new Matt Groenig animated
series, The Dogvillians, and SpongeBob in Dogville.
Let's face it, I'm hooked on this newvoe s'enema crap.
That's because at this point in my life, anything that is the least bit
entertaining helps me BLOT OUT THE HIDEOUS, UNBEARABLE BOREDOM OF MY
MISERABLE EXISTENCE FOR A FEW PRECIOUS MINUTES.
[*]
-----
Posted by:: Artemia Salina
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 03:23:25 -0500
--------
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 02:36:25 -0500, iDRMRSR wrote:
> Didja notice all the actors respected the walls and doors that weren't there
> just like as if they WERE there?
> Dogville vs. Mechagodzilla,
Speaking of imagination, I just imagined an hour of Godzilla swinging
his fists and flailing his tail around in a non-existent Tokyo; just
a flat barren tract of land. The mayor of Tokyo, the Emergency Management
Officer, the Commander of the Army, and some precocious little kid who
understands that Godzilla is "both a good man and a bad man," even if
the grown-ups don't, could do all of their lines seated in chairs in a
dentist's office waiting room instead of the Emergency Command Center
with the windows overlooking the carnage. Boy that would be exciting to
watch.
--
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
0:-) Artemia Salina (-:0
0:-) Surrounded by Angels (-:0
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
Posted by:: HellPope Huey
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:35:46 GMT
--------
In article <4OOdnf04p6_kI7vfRVn-rg@giganews.com>,
"iDRMRSR" wrote:
> I guess what *I* imagined when I saw this flick musta been one FUCKLOAD of a
> lot BETTER than what you guys didn't imagine.
>> OK, so I'm saying it really IS a case of Emperor's Clothes. That's
all right, Trier is not an emperor, he's just trying to produce a work
of FICTION. So I imagined a nice Armani suit, is all I'm saying.
Makes you wonder what STANG ALMIGHTY is wearing RIGHT NOW, doesn't it?
> That's because at this point in my life, anything that is the least bit
> entertaining helps me BLOT OUT THE HIDEOUS, UNBEARABLE BOREDOM OF MY
> MISERABLE EXISTENCE FOR A FEW PRECIOUS MINUTES.
Welcome to Usenet; here's your copy of FuckBob.exe. Just hit Return for
a fresh shellacing with a suspicious, thick brown liquid. Might be ale,
might be EEYYUNNGHHHHH!!!!!
--
HellPope Huey
Chord Junkie, Popanalia, PresBobtyrian
"How could they screw up 'Riverdance'?"
"I dunno, a bag of marbles?"
- "Nikki"
Whoever is most impertinent has the best chance.
- Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Posted by:: Zapanaz
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 07:30:53 -0800
--------
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 02:36:25 -0500, "iDRMRSR"
wrote:
>Sigh. Nobody gets IT.
>
>Instead of CGI car crashes and green screen stunts and huge explosions, you
>get hand held grainy video and no sets and you have to USE YOUR IMAGINATION
>to supply the missing walls and stuff. And you have to sit still for an
>amazingly long extra hour than the usual Hollywood fillum. In other words,
>you have to put some of yourself into it.
ook
So I am supposed to pretend -I- am a wall?
>That's because at this point in my life, anything that is the least bit
>entertaining helps me BLOT OUT THE HIDEOUS, UNBEARABLE BOREDOM OF MY
>MISERABLE EXISTENCE FOR A FEW PRECIOUS MINUTES.
ook
Well that makes sense.
But if they are going to have pretend walls, which we are supposed to
pretend are there, why couldn't they instead have used REAL walls, and
had Nicole Kidman dress in pretend clothes?
If we are going to blot out miserable existences, I would like to do
so pornographically, please, thank you. I don't think -all- of my
Nicole Kidman masturbatory fantasies should have to come from that
dancing movie.
>
>[*]
>-----
>
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
I always say I'd much rather be around someone who comes right out and
admits he's a hateful intolerant son of a bitch than someone who's
always calling people down for not coming up to their noble standards
while pretending it's for everybody's benefit.
- nenslo
Posted by:: König Prüße, GfbAEV
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 11:41:11 GMT
--------
HdMrs. Salacia the Overseer wrote:
>Needs more spazzing.
Well, then I'm your man!
"Hey, laaaaaady!"