That Saturday afternoon was a
torture. I mean, in a good way: the kind of torture you enjoy only for the
first time because you know it will be too painful to have it the second time.
But who in the world enjoy being tortured? That afternoon I was watching Lars
von Trier’s DANCER IN THE DARK, an irritating but frank story of how we areactually living in hell; we are just pretending that we’re not.
NOTE: some parts of this review
may contain clues about the story of the film. Although I don’t consider them a
spoiler, you who prefer knowing very little about the film before watching it
are suggested to read this review only after watching it.
This is a story of Selma Jezkova
(Bjork), a Czekoslovakian mom of her only son Gene (Vladica Kostic). She’s an
immigrant worker living in USA. She and Gene live in a trailer on the property
of a childless married couple, Bill (David Morse) and Linda (Cara Seymour), and
to them she pay rent. Selma’s best friend at work is Kathy (Catherine Deneuve),
and Jeff (Peter Stormare) always waits for Selma to give her a ride home (which
she always refuses).
Selma wears a pair of very thick
glasses because she is shortsighted. She is getting blind. She knows that her
shortsightedness is inherited and she knows she passes the disease to Gene. She
doesn’t want her son to get blind like her so she saves all the money she gets
from work to pay the operation cost. But it eventually won’t go that easy.
Selma struggles all day and night working for a few pennies, while in the mean
time she goes to see musicals in cinemas and dances for a musical play in a
local acting club because she loves dancing and musicals.
Now you can laugh on how cheap,
or even fake, the premise of DANCER IN THE DARK is. Like, really? Is this
saddenning, full-of-drama story something that might really happened on
someone’s life, somewhere around this world? Did the writer-director only make
up the story just to get our emotion mixed up? I mean, one is not simply
destined to have a series of terrible things like this, right? I imagined after
watching it you would throw a statement like, “Well, that was a fictional story.
It was only a film, and a film is what it actually is.”
You know what? I don’t care. I
think I just couldn’t put my logic to handle the film’s premise because it’s
simply not meant to be handled by my logic. Lars von Trier is playing with
melancholy, and that’s the only thing that he wants. He wants us to raise a big
sympathy for the leading character and from that, he wants us to question about
our life. DANCER IN THE DARK wants us to dance, even cheerfully, in the
darkness of this life.
And that’s where all the musical
numbers coming from. Selma’s imaginations are as wild and as vivid as all the
desperations she had in her entire life. As she dances, her life gets balanced.
She escapes from her reality although she herself never really admits that her
life is as dreadful as how we view it. Bjork’s amazing performance is the key to
show innocence that reflects her living her life as what it is. It’s not that she
is sorry about her own life; she actually admits that *that* is what life actually
is. All these figurative melodramas could be viewed as a form of nihilism:
there is no happiness, there is only struggles and desperation.
That’s why I warned you, although
it sounds exaggerating, you shouldn’t watch this movie when you feel like your
life sucks. You might turn to be a nihilist. In one emotionally exhausting
scene in the middle part, I couldn’t help myself but throw my sights away from
the screen. Then I went outside my room to seek some fresh air, just to
neutralize the mind-fuckingly bold negativity and cynicism the film tried to
penetrate into my mind. As the film ended, I swore to myself I would never
re-watch it any where in the future.
Why so? It’s intriguing how the
director’s view influences the viewers to agree with his belief. I don’t know
if the case would be similar if you come to watch the movie in a more stable
emotional condition, but I would guarantee that you won’t see Lars von Trier
the same way again. The songs might not be the kind of songs you would hum
after the movie ends, but all the surrealistic musical numbers are gonna be
well-lingered deep in your soul.
The only thumb-down, if I were to
seek it to the very deep part of the film, is on how the film totally exhibits
our logic and senses to come out and be the judges. DANCER IN THE DARK is an offense
to our emotion, and while your defense is weak, DANCER IN THE DARK will torture
you inside. Some viewers can’t simply be offended that way; some prefer to
include even the smallest piece of their logic to get served by the movie. And
when they really do, all the nihilism foundation would be easily diminished to
the ground. So even if you feel like you’re gonna be desperate because of the
film (or because of the way I write this review), I won’t guarantee that you will
really do.
But when you see it using a pair
of different glasses, you probably would agree with me that this is such a
dangerous work of art that simply cannot be consumed by all kinds of viewers.
There is an unwritten precaution before watching the film. Lars von Trier’s
amazingly controversial, if not speculative, DANCER IN THE DARK—like I said in
the first paragraph—is telling you that your happiness is a daydream: you are
living in hell and you don’t need eyes to see that you are.
▲ Bold negativity that lingers, Bjork spectacular performance, surrealism touch in musical numbers
▼ Only a little space for logic to get served
DANCER IN THE DARK | COUNTRY USA YEAR 2000 RATING Rated R for some violence RUNTIME 140 min GENRE Crime, Drama, Musical CAST Bjork, Catherine Deneuve, David Morse, Cara Seymour, Peter Stormare WRITER Lars von Trier DIRECTOR Lars von Trier MORE INFO
No comments:
Post a Comment