User reviews

I have already several years ago decided that Lars von Trier's movies can neither be called good or bad, they are always different and thought provoking but most certainly also irritating and annoying. Manderlay is no exception.

Our heroin spots a dictator on the axis of evil, storms in with light sabers and an ever-optimistic smile, brushes away the dictator and her regime, and is proud of having brought freedom and democracy to yet another place (any similarities with other persons - living or dead - are fully intentional and of course debatable).

But how do you make democracy work when people have not learned it through practice and the collective memory of democracy's fallacies since the ancient Greek city states. How do you make people value their freedom and be responsible for their own fortune, when it is much more comfortable to blame someone else for their fate.

Von Trier brilliantly and ironically discusses these issues with surprising twists in the plot. But he will most definitely offend all kinds of Americans who will be too rash to judge this movie as anything between a misunderstanding and an insult of the American people of whatever color.

Bryce Dallas Howard (Grace) delivers a great performance.

To make a movie on an almost naked stage with imaginary doors etc. is very different from anything else and it actually could contribute to focus more on the actors performance (as on a theater stage). But I think that the hasty cutting of scenes and the annoyingly shaky hand-held camera actually diminish the actors chances of delivering a forceful performance. I don't mind the hand-held camera of the Dogma movies, but this is no Dogma movie. It has "artificial" music, sound effects, lightning, requisites, etc. So why bother to have a hand-held camera.

Manderlay is an excellent movie for anybody who enjoys being provoked or how wants to confirm her/his prejudice about von Trier as a weird director with tendencies to be proud-to-be-old-Europe.

Anti-American or not? This seems to be the most important question for many American viewers when deciding whether to like von Triers trilogy of films about America. Uninteresting as the discussion may be i must still say that i don't think it's anti-American, rather it just shows a very bleak view of humanity in general.

In my opinion Dogville was an amazing film. Even though it was artificial to the core with it's theatrical style i still felt it all the way to the bone. Seldom have i seen such an arty movie that still worked so well. Amazing actors, a story that is brutal and inhuman and an amazing ending. Doing a follow-up to such a movie is not easy, and yet von Trier has promised to make two. Today i saw Manderlay and the question is if it lived up to the expectations given by Dogville.

Right from the beginning Manderlay is at a disadvantage compared to Dogville. The theatrical style with it's stage-like setup and minimum of props has already been done and is not as unique as it was when Dogville was released. Also the lead actress Nicole Kidman is missing, replaced by the (at least to me) quite unknown Bryce Dallas Howard. Also James Caan as her father is replaced by Willem Dafoe. So how did they do? Willem Dafoe is in my opinion one of the most talented actors today in Hollywood and he does excellent here as usual, Bryce Dallas Howard on the other hand is rather pale as a replacement for Kidman. Don't get me wrong, Howard does a decent job of tackling the lead and she fits rather nicely in the movie. However she lacks the width and depth in her acting that Kidman has honed through the years and Howards version of Grace feels more shallow and a lot less haunted.

Otherwise the actors are, like in Dogville, the main attraction. One of von Triers main skills must definitely be bringing out the best in his actors. Everyone performs well despite the demanding format of the movie. The minimalist style demands it's actors to perform well at all times as there is no room for mistakes and nothing to cover them up.

Dogville is in my opinion a better movie than Manderlay. The story is more multi-layered, the actors (especially Kidman) are better and the moral points are presented in a much more powerful way. Yet Manderlay is undoubtedly also a good movie, as well as a good continuation of the story about Grace. If you enjoyed Dogville and accepted the format in which it was presented my guess is that you'll enjoy Manderlay. Part of the point of watching Dogville for me was that it was food for thought and Manderlay also gives you reason to think. So even though this was not as good as Dogville i'm still not disappointed.

I watched Manderlay in the run up to the Presidential Election. I was moved by it. The film is certainly topical with two weeks to go before we have the opportunity to possibly elect the first African-American President. I believe to do so would make statement to the people of the world that this experiment we're conducting with Freedom can work. What it has taken to get us to this point has been harrowing. This nation fought a Civil War, which helped to put an end to the institution of slavery. But there has been constant slippage (a polite word for the continued institutional racism) that led to the need for legislation to correct injustice. The Civil Rights era is now past and still racism continues. Blacks have had to continue to put their lives on the line to expand the Rights due them. We might now though witness the election of a black man as President. Racism will not end as a result of course but what a leap forward. It has taken the disaster of the past 8 years to get the country to the place where this is even possible. No W, no Obama.

Von Triers makes demanding films. I understand some people's aversion to his use of a sound-stage in both Manderlay and Dogville. It took me a bit of time in Dogville to adjust to the artifice. For me though, making the adjustment brought the issues and ideas he's dealing with to central focus in the film. No need for a real plantation in Manderlay. But the continuing enslavement does go on and it goes on in the film in the plantations of our mind. It goes on despite Grace's attempts to correct people's behaviors and beliefs and end the racism. We don't seem able to end it in this nation either.

Overall IMDb users have been much kinder to Manderlay than the critics have been. Many, perhaps a majority of the negative comments, take exception to the fact that Lars von Trier is a foreigner and worse yet a foreigner who has never set foot on American soil. That is not a problem for me. I have never been in Germany but I know that what happened in Germany and Europe in the 30's and 40's was wrong, was evil. My opinion as a non-German about the Holocaust and the war itself should not, cannot be discounted. It is probably more valuable for the German people to have a sense of what their actions created but am I not allowed to speak to those issues? Am I oversimplifying here? Perhaps.

I think, in some ways, von Trier's not being an American gives him some needed objectivity. I found the racial issues raised in Manderlay, to go to the heart of how racism works in this country. And right now in the United States of America we are witnessing a nation having to face it own demons concerning race once again. Many may not be able to vote for Barack Obama for no other reason that he is a Black Man. Many of those people will find another rationale for their vote.

I am glad I watched Manderlay at this time. It really does deal with some very crucial issues we as a nation have not always successfully faced. We have a chance to do something new but we need some clarity of vision about what we stand for as Free People. I feel Manderlay did a good job in helping clarify for me how we're all in this together. This was not an easy film for me to write about and I apologize for the political nature of what I have written.

I've only seen the film once, but I felt that the most consistent interpretation was strictly about arrogant imperialism. I found myself first seeing through a very direct lens of a slave narrative/American liberal white guilt. This is an easy interpretation that lives on the surface.

The film then transformed into a statement about the presumption that "we" can teach others how to govern when "they" may have a system that works better in their context. The system in Manderlay was not overseer/slave, the system was socialism/communism and each "slave," as Grace saw them, had his or her own specialized role. The inhabitants of Manderlay were free within their system, but Grace was so completely blinded by what her culture had taught her about "freedom" and "democracy" and the inferiority of all other ways of life. The democracy she implemented was a complete farce. Their society did not function when the arrogant outsider who thought she knew what was best for them began implementing her system with force. The most direct comparison is "operation iraqi freedom" and other US nation building exercises or sponsored coups.

I found many other characters to be representations of a global system of oppression. The card shark was an international lending institution like the World Bank or the IMF and the "prince" was a corrupt leader who sold out his people for a cut of the profits of the international business elites (like Marcos, Suharto, or seemingly countless others).

I was very pleased with Manderlay and thoroughly frustrated by simplistic the reviews I read of it. I feel that this film falls apart with a straightforward viewing. As a white guilt slave narrative the film is mediocre. As commentary on imperialism and an absolutely corrupt global system, the film is a wonderful composition. I can't wait for Wasington.

"Hey, we've decided to basically do Dogville again, with the same kind of staging and storyline."

"Cool, I loved Dogville."

"And it's going to be about a slave plantation and be a critique of white liberal paternalism."

"Sweet."

"Except we can't get Nicole Kidman again so we'll have Bryce Dallas Howard playing the main character instead."

"Well, that's a... pretty significant downgrade, but I guess it's not fatal."

"As the movie goes along we'll have her become a part of the community as they struggle through their first year of independence, dealing with lots of challenges. And they'll be all these times when she jumps to conclusions about something that seems evil and then later it seems necessary."

"That sounds like it could be pretty powerful, if a bit didactic."

"So in the end the natural conclusion is that she finds out that the slavery was actually beneficial for all of the blacks and actually instituted by them to keep everyone in a place that made them happy."

"...wait, what?"

"And the proud African caricature who's been in the film for the last two hours will turn out to be a drinking, gambling, lying 'pleasin' n*****' who needs to be whipped for his own good!"

"You know, this film is starting to sound pretty racist."

"We can't be racist! We're Europeans critiquing America!"

"Yeah, whatever. Well, you almost had me there."

Manderlay 9/10 Introducing this 'Part 2' of the von Trier American Trilogy, actor Danny Glover said, ¨The process of storytelling is an enormous responsibility and opportunity.¨ It is one that director Lars von Trier takes very seriously, constantly seeming to question his role and duty as an artist – and whether the duty is to the audience or to art itself.

Both with his Dogme movement films and now with later works such as Dancer in the Dark, Dogville and Manderlay, his answer seems to be firmly towards art as a worthy end in itself – or at least as a serious medium by which to raise (though not answer) questions of social conscience. He makes little or no concessions towards audiences who are not interested in what he has to say.

Manderlay a story about emancipation from slavery (and on a deeper level, of the more topical problems of introducing democracy), continues the Dogville tradition of using Brechtian acting and a semi-bare stage. The immediate dissociation this brings from any semblance of everyday reality, focuses our attention on the issues, in a similar way that Greek tragedy or grand opera is able to do – by insisting that ordinary details are secondary or even irrelevant to the main theme.

Grace (played by Bryce Dallas Howard, who takes over seamlessly from Dogville's Nicole Kidman) travels across America with her father and comes across an isolated town where slavery has not been abolished. With a pure heart, god intentions, and the power of her father's lawyer and henchmen behind her, Grace makes well-meaning but unfortunate, ill-informed attempts to put things right. She never stops to question the fact that she knows best, or whether her high moral values are appropriate or whether they will win the day. Not unexpectedly, there is much trouble in store for her.

Manderlay's high points are that it is deeply philosophical but at the same time highly coherent and accessible. It asks important and necessary questions about the nature of freedom and democracy. Such questions, and the discussion which this film makes possible, are urgently needed in the light of such unsolved dilemmas as Iraq, the philosophical basis for the removal of Saddam Hussein, the introduction of western-style democracy to countries like Iraq (or even Afghanistan). The broader practical problems (also tackled by Manderlay) of how to restore power to those who have been disenfranchised, whether by slavery, colonialism, dictatorships or market forces, is one that applies to many countries, irrespective of the morality involved.

The weakness of Manderlay is that the USA (and its internal and foreign policy) is an ideal example for any artist tackling such issues – as it's visibility provides a common focus throughout the world. Sensitive American citizens (and politicians) however will mistakenly see the film as simply anti-American (which is not too difficult) and avoid it. This means the people in power who most need to see it (as they need such fora to find answers) will probably avoid it.

But von Trier has discharged his duty as one of the most intelligent artists of our time. He has discarded sensational entertainment, using art as a tool to help us think outside the square – and his thinking is both profoundly stimulating and fully accessible to those with the patience and inclination. Does art need to tantalize our senses? If so we would miss out on some of the finest literature, the greatest plays, anything that did not provide immediate sensory satisfaction. Works such as Manderlay help to firmly position cinema as one of the great intellectual arenas of art – one that has the power to inform, enrich and enlighten.

If you still want your existentialism served up in black and white, von Trier is your man. The second in his 'American' trilogy is filmed on a soundstage completely void of scenery but creatively lit and the set, like the first film, is laid out like a blueprint on the floor, with 'wall' or 'tree' written at the respective points. Grace, the ill-used heroine of 'Dogville', moves to The South with her gangster father and his entourage, where she sees the plight of 'free' slaves and decides to interfere with the balance of power on the plantation; beginning with a regime change. Her efforts to introduce democracy are circumscribed by her prejudices and question-begging. As the enforced experiment progresses, each member of the plantation community is shown to be progressively the wrong shape for Grace's pigeon-holes and her assumption that life her was simply about the Oppressors and the Oppressed has to be cast out. She is probably changed too, although we will have to wait for Film No. 3 to see if her sexuality and socio-political attitudes have been affected. Manderlay does work on one level as a study of slavery but it also looks at definitions of freedom, the victim culture and the way tribes of the world define themselves by not being 'other'. And it also stands out as yet another probe at imperialism, not taking it for granted that democracy is per se A Good Thing. Joseph Heller covered similar ground in 'Take This Picture'. Is it time for that most excellent book to hit the big screen? As a film rather than a polemical venture, Manderlay is flawed: one of my fellow audience-members complained that the intellect but not the souls were explored, and that it was difficult to give a damn about any of them. That practically all the dialogue is post-synched places a gulf between us and the cast - the inevitable distancing, 'faked' effect would have been less obtrusive had the film been shot in real, noisy, streets, and with few close-ups, rather than the claustrophobic intimacy of this stagey set. Perhaps one day von Trier will recut, using the original dialogue. No doubt it will be of variable quality, but that would go well with the hand-held 'documentary' feel of the film. CLIFF HANLEY

Indeed one of this years best films. I have just returned from the cinema, and i'm still thinking about Manderlay. The story continues where Dogville ended. Grace and her father makes a short brake their travel, and discovers that a slave is getting punished near by in a plantation named Manderlay. Grace's father continues his travel and Grace stays in Manderlay to set the slaves free, as they should have been 70 years ago, when the slavery was made illegal. And of course this is not easy.

Manderlay isn't as shocking and far out as Dogville was. Not that it was a bad thing of course. But this is just a very much stronger film, because you get personally involved in the characters in a way that i don't think you did in Dogville. The only thing missing is a little bit of action. Nothing really happens. People just walk around and talk. The biggest scenes in the film has no direct influence on the following physical action and development in the story. well of course they does, but the development lies in the head of the characters. These developments are more interesting to analyze after you have seen the movie that during the movie. But instead of a lot of physical action we are given as i remember three truly terrifying and terrific scenes that are as strong as scenes in Dancer in the Dark and Breaking the Waves, and they does in my opinion make up for the lack of action.

Manderlay is also a lot stronger i it's message than Dogville was. Yes, the message is pointed against USA, but as in Dogville, it is so much more than just a criticism of that country... it's a criticism of the human kind. The reason for Lars von Trier to place the story in USA is that he likes to tease the big ones. He said that in an interview on TV not so long ago. He also said that the screenplay was written before the incidents in Iraq, so it's a coincidence that there are so many parallels between the events in Manderlay and in Iraq.

Lars von Trier is in my opinion one of the biggest directors of our time. It takes a courage, that i see in no other directors than him, to make a film like this. Manderlay is one of the bravest movies i have seen.

The always provocative Trier strikes again with his second installation of the "Opportunities in America" trilogy initially beginning with Dogville. Those familiar with the Danish director's work and were happy with the style Dogville provided will feel like, despite the changed cast, the sequel has hardly changed a beat since we last left off with Grace and the gang leaving their first location upon introducing the current scenario. Those unaware of the film's unique approach however need be warned: sadly the entire style and substance of this movie is about as "anti-American" as it gets, which I say in sarcasm (despite Trier's obvious contempt) for two main reasons...

For one, on the surface, this movie will offend many people that are even willing to sit through it, yet unwilling to acknowledge the contradictions so beautifully and simply rendered in all of their painful and embarrassing fallouts in this American history lesson via detached, elitist, artistic outsider into the mechanics of slavery. It is this concept of ownership and freedom via the examination of our slave days that really flies in the face of anyone who opts for political correctness and will unwittingly alienate Americans that have certain patriotic blinders on, and justly validate much of what Von Trier is criticizing about us people in the first place, which would be a shame since despite his supreme gift for trying to upset his audience, he really does more good then harm in any of his endeavors thematically, albeit in the most sobering of ways.

For two, the stark minimalism throughout the movie is just too much for most crowds to handle. How this strange little trilogy is being filmed is on one entire black and mostly blank sound stage, with nary a visual clue in sight. Picture going to see a play that did not have any background or any real color at all with just minimal chalk outlines where locations lie, (minus the actual locations themselves-yes they pantomime opening doors!) and you will have a pretty good conceptualization of the production values involved here..None. It is, I'm sure a much debated issue that to me still weighs more in favor of "cmon man, that's bull!", this whole minimalist play to movie vibe. Often I suppose it is justified that the minimalism helps take away distractions, and focuses the extremities of the situations but it always seemed like a contradiction to film this way, I mean why not just do the damn show if that is what it was? At first the idea really grabbed me and I tried to justify it's intent with the slightly more engaging and consistent Dogville, but I guess after I saw Manderlay and realized he's shooting the entire fascinating, sure to be legendary trilogy of American critique this way- as told only by someone so utterly detached from the American experience that his sketches of mentalities elicit equal parts disgust and revelation, I became a little more jaded about the whole thing.

Despite this complete contradiction of a studio film, Manderlay, as any movie scripted by this provocateur, gets by completely fine strictly on it's fascinating script, and should appeal to anyone with half a brain in search of compelling material, but sadly will not. American ranting aside, the film does have it's blemishes, especially when compared to Dogville. For one, the plot and supporting cast are not as consistent and solid throughout, and as much as I love Bryce and felt that she delivered a heartfelt, arresting performance, she really did not have what it takes to etch out the subtle graces of Grace, that Kidman effortlessly pulled off in the first part. Ideally I would like to see a combination of Kidman's subtlety, and Howard's forcefulness to bring out this character's full hue.

Well, you've been warned about not watching unless you are open to appreciating ideas more then actions and items... now go do what is right and truly debate what this movie has to offer with someone you appreciate having an insightful conversation with.

Von Trier's Brechtian Gamble On Manderlay This time "liberal" is a dirty word By Jayson Harsin

"The movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society . . . America must be born again!" — Martin Luther King Jr. 1967

"Dear (American) liberals, You're Idiots! Love, Lars."

In a nutshell, that is the message of Manderlay, controversial Danish filmmaker Lars Von Trier's latest effort. Yet Manderlay is a complicated film that will produce multiple interpretations. Some will walk away calling it racist and anti-American. Others will find it a condemnation of Bush's war in Iraq. Yet, as I say, it is mostly a critique of American liberal politics. A condemnation of conservative racial politics is its point of departure. The film's complicated style and extreme plot produce intentional uneasiness.

Von Trier has cited German playwright Bertolt Brecht (right) as an artistic inspiration; yet one may wonder if he is reinventing the Brechtian wheel, one that Brecht himself admitted did not turn for others as he had wished.

[...]

On one level, the film is set in 1930s Alabama, on a plantation called Manderlay, where 70 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, slavery is apparently still being practiced. Continuing the narrative of Dogville, Grace (now Bryce Howard), after touring with her gangster father (now Willem Dafoe) and his thugs since her departure from Dogville, stumbles upon Manderlay with her father's entourage. She is alerted to the anachronistic existence of slavery by a slave who asks her for help. Her father asserts that this is a "local matter," echoing a common Southern response to Federal intervention in race problems that was often coded through "states' rights." It specifically recalls the language of Martin Luther King's powerful "Letter from Birmingham Jail," in which he responded to Southern clergymen who had accused him of, among other things, being a meddling outsider.

White liberal American intellectuals will no doubt have a hard time resisting identification with the white do-gooder Grace, who, like the North, the Federal government, and the social worker, believes that race relations at Manderlay are in moral terms not a local matter. "We have a moral obligation," Grace says to her father, as she persuades him to loan her gangster firepower to oversee her reform initiative.

But King was African-American and Grace is white. Should that matter? It matters in terms of Von Trier's audience (mostly American art cinema liberals and European intellectuals). It also matters for the history of white social and policy reactions to "the race problem," liberal and conservative responses, from segregation to integration, welfare to workfare, white flight to affirmative action. Grace's color is extremely significant. Resonances with Faulkner's Intruder in the Dust and Absalom, Absalom can also be found in the simplicity of the white liberal Northerner's analysis and solution to race problems. In this sense, Von Trier's provocative film is perhaps above all else an indictment of American liberalism (or liberal individualism), domestically and globally. All of these aspects should be considered through the lens of his Brechtian alienation techniques. Otherwise, this turns out to be one of the most ignominiously racist films since Birth of a Nation.

First, domestically: the historical debate about freedmen and resistance to them is important. While one could go back further, the contradictions of the modern liberal-race problem invoked by Von Trier date from the end of the Civil War. From 1865-1867, white southerners made very little effort to welcome African-Americans into a reborn American society (symbolized by the historically altered Constitution). The Ku Klux Klan together with the Black Codes terrorized African-Americans physically and deprived them of education and the legal franchise. While some American historians have noted the important changes of freedmen and -women marrying; establishing households, schools, and churches; owning 20 percent more land during the Reconstruction years — others emphasize that even so, the country did not solve the problem of race. And the South in particular, in terms of land reforms, enfranchisement, and education, was not ready to change of its own accord. Many African-Americans exercised agency and made valiant efforts to become self-sufficient, yet they faced no little opposition from the planter class and some poor whites (even though evidence exists of some alliances between African-Americans and poor whites).

While Von Trier's film does little to emphasize the efforts made by African-Americans to exercise their freedom in the ways I've noted, it is virtuosic at portraying the structures many faced when they set foot off the plantation (symbolized by a shortlived character who, venturing off the plantation, waits for a sympathetic woman, a white reformer like Grace, but finds bloodthirsty white men instead). The role of a traveling salesman huckster also portrays the white mediation of emancipation through debt peonage and sharecropping. The failure of Reconstruction with the Compromise of 1877 brought a more precarious period of civil and economic life to African-Americans in the South.

And yet Manderlay makes claims to a historical context in the 1930s. Here von Trier's dramatic vehicle of slavery existing in the 1930s is again more metaphorical than realist. The point is that while the furniture of racism was rearranged, it was still the same racist edifice. In addition, the role of an African-American leader is played by Wilhelm (Danny Glover), a house slave entrusted with knowledge of the entire Manderlay plantation rules and governance. Echoing views of nineteenth-century African-American leader Booker T. Washington, Wilhelm's analysis is that under the conditions at Manderlay, his people will meet a better life by consenting to the old social structures. The fact that armed gangsters must enforce the redistribution of social roles on one piece of property, which disappears when they disappear, is not a little reminiscent of Reconstruction military occupation of the South and its aftermath. To read on, see the full review at http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/51/manderlay.htm

I was so enchanted by Dogville when I saw it for the first time a couple of days ago, that I could barely control my emotions when I found out there existed a sequel. I went as far as upgrading my DVD in order to make sure nothing stood in the way of the refined delight I was expecting to feel. Yet, the movie turned out to be so incomparably worse than Dogville, or Dancer in the Dark for that matter, that my disappointment was huge.

Still, I believe I wouldn't have rated the movie that low (4) if it hadn't been for the concluding series of images. It somehow made me feel that all those accusing Lars von Trier of some sort of sick and distorted hatred towards the States might not be too wrong.

After being blown away by the cinematic masterpiece that was "Dogville", I eagerly anticipated the follow up. The anticipation however was thwarted. Firstly Nicole Kidman and James Caan did not reprise their roles. I am not sure as to the reasons why, maybe they had busy schedules, maybe they were too scared to commit to another Lars picture? There was also no media buzz around "Manderlay" which was disconcerting as it seemed that nobody thought it worth a mention (despite being nominated at Cannes). Secondly, it's arrival in the UK came with a whimper. In it's first week it only showed at no more than four cinemas in London. By it's second week, only one. I also have not heard about screenings outside the city. However I managed to find a screening and was about to enjoy what everybody else seemed to be missing out on. This was not to be. Firstly Bryce Dallas Howard can not act. She played Grace as an ignorant, arrogant and self-righteous spoilt brat. Now these were the criticisms of her character in "Dogville", yet Nicole Kidman made her into a sympathetic American heroine. Bryce was not this. To add insult to injury, the script was so corny and over-sentimental it seemed just as well that Nicole didn't have to speak such crap. The use of actors from "Dogville" (Jeremy Davies, Chloë Sevigny and Lauren Bacall) in different roles was an excellent idea, however they just weren't used enough. It felt like they had just been borrowed from their break during the filming of "Dogville". The whole film feels like it was filmed alongside "Dogville". The spark, the effort and the originality is lacking from "Manderlay". It's a terrible shame as this film has all the makings of a great story. The performances from the slaves are outstanding considering their acting backgrounds (Blossom from "Eastenders", Aunty Pearl from "Family Affairs" and Llewella Gideon from "The Real McCoy") as they manage to hold their own alongside Danny Glover. however the film focused on Grace's plight and not theirs. That was the central mistake of the film. For by the time the film ends, what should have been shocking and heartbreaking (and even offensive) becomes about Grace's own plight. The film ends with a nasty taste in the mouth but not as bitter as the one in "Dogville". What should have affected me deeply left me scrambling for the exit in time to catch the last train home. It is therefore no surprise that the final part of the trilogy "Wasington" was announced as on hold as of 10 February 2006. Whether this will remain so is uncertain as it seems Lars' great idea has extinguished. In my opinion, start something new. "Dogville" was a masterpiece, that is enough.

I won't disclose anything about the film. I liked it very it much, albeit slightly less than the first film, probably because, well, the first was very fresh and innovative in the way it presented this "theatrical" world and partly because of the shocking and raw power of the story of "Dogville". In "Manderlay" we also meet with hypocrisy and cruelty, but the movie moves on a different level than "Dogville". It is clearly more philosophical-political, it carries a more visible political agenda. It also relies upon dialogue more than "Dogville" did and of course the symbolism and allegory of the first film are present here, as well. Still, the movie is a masterpiece, in the same way "Dogville" was. Of course, someone can think otherwise (not to mention those people that will accuse Trier of being "Anti-American"), but having a different opinion about it is okay and acceptable. Personally, I can't wait to see how the trilogy is going to conclude.

First thing's first, he shouldn't have repeated the style of Dogville. It worked there, yes, but it isn't something that was going to work twice. It weakens this film quite a bit, because it all feels like a been-there-done-that. I'm not 100% sure what von Trier's point is supposed to be, but the film seems to be trying at both a commentary on American racial attitudes as well as an allegory of the Iraq War. The latter part mostly works, although even it has some flaws. Grace (played now by Bryce Dallas Howard), unlike the United States, doesn't have to use force to free the slaves of Manderlay. There is no collateral damage, and it's hard to dislike Grace for wanting to help these people. However, it does make a good point that helping these people form their own society has its own dangers. When all they've ever known is servitude and cruelty, how are they going to treat their fellow man? That argument may be condescending to the Iraqis, but I have to admit I agree. As far as the racial themes go, Lars von Trier, a man, I don't have to remind you, who has never even set foot in America, has no idea what he is talking about. Well, I suppose some idea. I mean, everybody reads. But the American racial situation is far more complex than he understands, and the film, with regards to this theme, echoes the kind of jackassery of Neil Young's "Southern Man". It's not surprising that von Trier's indictment of American society doesn't work; it didn't work in Dogville, either. He even ends this film exactly the same way, with David Bowie's "Young American" playing over a montage of supposedly damning photos. The final photo is of a black man cleaning off the statue of Abraham Lincoln in the Lincoln Memorial. The irony of just how non-damning that image is is lost on Lars von Trier.

A person may not have to see "Dogville" before they get to this film-- but it helps. Von Trier takes his time getting where he is going, laying tracks in plenty of directions, and if you are not familiar with his style and don't know that it will all end with a colossal crunch, you may feel bored or confused. Fear not, though-- this movie's climax and finish depend wholly on the build-up, and when they happen they are shattering. In a shorter movie with less nuance and fewer ideas presented, it would just be exploitation.

Critics who say that Lars von Trier is just grinding an axe and that his views on America are unwelcome and inaccurate are missing the larger point. So far the two movies of his new trilogy seem to be seething with questions, not preaching answers. The spectrum of perspectives and philosophies presented make these movies themselves as experimental as the moral quests of Tom in "Dogville" and Grace in "Manderlay". We get to share initial outrage, labor for a solution, and then despair in how easily it all falls apart once human weakness and natural disaster are factored in.

Adjusting to the change of casting takes a few moments, but then it just fits right in with the theatrical nature of these movies. Anyone who has seen a play performed with different casts knows that the two productions are weird cousins, and this can make actors shine in their individual gifts. I would have loved to see Nicole Kidman devour this role, but Howard's youth and vulnerability really add to the tenuous nature of her power over Manderlay and its dark secrets.

I think it's lucky that von Trier is not an American. If an American director showed these images of oppression and slavery, he'd be reviled even moreso, especially if he were white. Americans demand "sensitivity" from movies about real issues, and violence and humiliation are really only safe subjects in horror films and art cinema. Sometimes it takes an outsider to show you what you look like to the world and remind you of the work you have left to do. This movie feels distinctly American in its woe and in it's heartsickness at good deeds gone not unpunished. Isn't change impossible? Haven't we given it our best shot already? "Manderlay" agrees with us-- but urges us to keep trying.

Before I begin, I would like to note that Lars Von Trier is one of my favorite writer/directors in the history of movies. Breaking the Waves, Dancer in the Dark, and Dogville are wonderful movies. Each one is unique in film style and the stories have a gripping downward spiral. Lars Von Trier knows how to make actors seem like people. The people in his films are not actors, but they are real people living real lives. He even made Bjork seem believable.

Now, Manderlay picks up the moment Dogville ends, with different people playing the same characters. It is also the same kind of studio set as Dogville. This time, however, Lars uses his space a little better. Bryce Dallas Howard, unfortunately, plays Grace in this film, and she seems to be reading her lines and "acting." It is difficult to remove the fact that she is the stand-in for Nicole Kidman who chose not to play this role again.

The story line is not as gripping as Von Trier's other films. I watched this movie, it held my interest, and it had some nice twists, so I gave it a *7*. But, Lars Von Trier disappointed me. I want to think about his movies afterward. I want to feel what the characters feel. I want to cry as Dancer in the Dark and Breaking the Waves warranted. Manderlay is just a good exercise in film...an exercise that has been done before.

In 1933, after leaving Dogville, while traveling with her father (Willem Dafoe) and his gangsters to the south of USA, Grace Margaret Mulligan (Bryce Dallas Howard) sees a slave ready to be punished in a property called Manderlay. The slavery had been abolished seventy years ago, and Grace becomes revolted with the attitude of the owners of Manderlay, keeping slaves in their cotton fields and following predetermined despicable rules called "Mam's Law". Grace decides to stay with some gangsters in Manderlay and give notions of democracy to the slaves and to the white family. When harvest time comes, Grace sees the social and economical reality of Manderlay.

"Manderley" is the second part of Lars von Trier trilogy initiated with the awesome "Dogville" and following the same aesthetic of theatrical scenarios. I was impressed with the magnificent performance of the gorgeous actress Bryce Dallas Howard that I know only from her minor participation in "Book of Love" and her lead role in "The Village". The screenplay of "Manderlay" is great, with the narrative being very well conducted by John Hurt, and in spite of having no action and being developed in a low pace, the plot is interesting until the very last scene. I did not understand the point of Lars von Trier in the end, since Grace defends the democratic principles inclusive with the suffrage, but Wilhelm tells her that "she sent the guns away too soon". Therefore, does Mr. von Trier believe that guns are necessary to establish democracy? Or is he making an analogy to the present situation in Iraq, showing that democracy can not be reached by the use of force? Another point is the social and economical situation of the poor former slaves, free only in laws but without condition to survive seventy years after the abolishment of slavery. The same happened in Brazil and I believe in the countries that used slave labor, therefore the wounds exposed in Manderlay are universal, and not only an American issue. The kind of assistance that Grace gives to the former slaves is full of good intentions and does not resolve their situation, since she has never reached the root of their problem. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Manderlay"

Danish director Lars Von Trier continues his Deep South adventure with this fable about race, power, isolation and freedom.

Like 2003's Dogville, there is something refreshingly literal about Von Trier's screenplay. That's not to say it lacks subtext - it is abundant - but at times its political convictions are presented like a series of political soundbites. While the blank theatre-style set is perhaps not used as effectively as it was in Dogville, the technique again adds weight to the bluntness of the key polemics.

Von Trier's magic is in tackling weighty subject matter in a very watchable way. Dancer In The Dark, for example, probably his most powerful deconstruction of the American Dream, showed us a new twist on the classical Hollywood musical; and without patronising its heritage it made a pertinent political point. Like that masterpiece, Manderlay demands the audience leave their expectations at the door whilst offering a reasonably straightforward narrative containing some satisfying plot twists and a surprising amount of dark humour. It may be less genre-specific than Dancer In The Dark, but like all this ex-Dogme director's latter films, it is accessible, neat and tight, and fleet of foot.

Von Trier presents yet another spiky woman-in-peril. Bryce Dallas Howard takes over from Nicole Kidman as the idealistic Grace. She turns out to be the ideal choice, too - there's a broadness to the shoulders and a steeliness to the eyes of this stronger, wiser heroine. Those who have Von Trier marked down as a misogynist will be pleased (or possibly disappointed) to hear that this troubled heroine is his most powerful and least set-upon to date. John Hurt, Chloe Sevigny, Jeremy Davies, Udo Kier, Lauren Bacall and Von Trier regular Jean-Marc Barr all return for another round of selfless bit parts.

Those concerned with the idea of watching a movie without a set shouldn't worry - it's practically unnoticeable after a time, thanks largely to the quality and intensity of the drama. This is classy, intelligent film-making from a talented and consistent auteur.

I was expecting something very inferior to Dogville, which is, but i forgot that it did not need to be as good to be great. Again, one or another person (many of them not very bright) will say that it's only anti-American crap, but, again, it's more, way more than that: a brutal critic to the idealism which recognizes no national barriers and can be applied to any ideology, without any exception that i know; Communism/Socialism and Christianism specially comes to my mind; Grace could be seen as the socialist leader who brings the Marxism and releases the workers (the slaves) from oppression of the bourgeoisie (Mam and her family), or the priest with the word of God to the savages (again the slaves), and punishing the sinners (Mam and her family one more time). The weak point is that aesthetically is not close to be as interesting as his previous film, and i think that Trier knew it and so the style is not so important here. Bryce Dallas Howard delivers a great performance, and does not try to imitate Nicole Kidman, but create her own vision of the character, like they were 2 sides of the same person. In my opinion, this one is only edged by Dogville in Von Trier's career.

The third effort by Lars Von Trier to explore the dark underbelly of the Unites States (after Dancer in the Dark and Dogville; a fourth effort is reportedly in the making) is politically confused, quite ludicrous, and it sometimes veer into very dangerous territory for a "progressive" intellectual like Von Trier. Yet, it is nevertheless a well performed and very intellectually stimulating movie. Deliberately stagy, Dogville is set in 1933, where slavery persists (!) in a farm called Manderlay in Alabama. After founding about Manderlay, our heroine Grace (Dallas Bryce Howard, the daughter of Ron Howard, in a very risky role) decides to stay in Manderlay for a few months in order to give notions of democracy to the slaves and to the former white owners. Unfortunately, things go wrong because the blacks have been conditioned to servitude and the whites intend to keep them that way. The movie at times endorses a crude Stalinist view of America, and at other times reach the seeming (and astonishing) conclusion that African Americans are unable to govern themselves. Yet for all its flaws and contradictions, this is very much a movie that deserves to bee seen by those with an open mind.

I found this pretty good, despite still finding a lot of things about the 'USA' trilogy ill-conceived both aesthetically and ideologically. I definitely liked this a lot more than "Dogville" though. I thought that Bryce Dallas Howard did a hell of a better job than Nicole Kidman did, for one thing, and overall I thought the performances were all generally better and less stilted, even though the dialogue is still odd and clunky in parts. I also thought the story was a bit more creative and less recycled than it was in "Dogville", although Von Trier still seems to have a perverse fascination with degrading his female characters. I have no problem with a rape scene in and of itself, but after what, five films now of women getting mistreated with no redemption it seems a little unsettling and frankly a bit immature of Von Trier to keep doing it, especially when he has never even portrayed a male/female relationship that is at all positive in any way (well, maybe the beginning of "Breaking the Waves"?). Besides that, I also think there are a great deal of major flaws with Von Trier's entire approach to this trilogy. Although the sound stage gimmick (yes, I do think it's a gimmick) was less distracting here than in "Dogville" (keeping the background dark a lot of the time helped), I still get the overwhelming feeling of watching what is essentially a human puppet show. The film is not really about actual people, but vessels which Von Trier uses to act out a parable. I've said it before, but stories that are purely allegorical like this one bug me. Of course, Von Trier's films have almost always been this way, but at least in the Golden Hearts trilogy the didacticness was hidden by the real-world, cinema-verite presentation. Because "Mandarlay" has much better, less theatrical acting than "Dogville" did it bothers me much less, but I still found myself actively thinking that the film would be more engaging and in general just better if it had been filmed in real locations. It retrospect it's remarkable that I even found the film as engaging as I did. There is really no reason for the sound stage gimmick. As far as I'm concerned, the use of sound-effects in the film (such as the sound of opening a door when there is none) is just as much empty cleverness as any film can be. Von Trier is just being "different" for the sake of it with stuff like that. It's a good thing that I found the acting as compelling as I did. Particularly from Bryce Dallas Howard. In truth I think Von Trier basically owes the entire watchibility of his indulgent project to her, and ironically he probably treated her as he has all his female leads, which is to say, badly. Although I also found the story to be an improvement over "Dogville", it's not like Von Trier's writing is really getting any better. After seeing "Dear Wendy" his weaknesses in "Manderlay" in this respect seem all the more obvious. In general I dislike such expositional voice-overs (after getting used to Malick, David Gordon Green, and Wong-Kar Wai it's hard to accept anything less poetic), and Von Trier's are certainly no exception. I'm a big believer in the "show, not tell" philosophy. Also, I thought the story sort of fell apart towards the end. The climatic "twist" and denouement didn't really carry as much weight as they were so obviously supposed to. They felt a bit like the climax of "Oldboy" but without the genius twistedness. I felt sort of like yelling "It's a cookbook!" at one point (a "Twilight Zone" reference, in case you missed that). It just gets more and more heavy-handed until it just becomes ridiculous. As much as I generally enjoy his films (including this one), it's becoming a bit absurd that Von Trier feels like he can make such direct attacks at America without even visiting the place. I mean, look, I'm certainly no patriot, but the attitude he expresses through the film contains so much certainty that he should at least make an attempt to know what he's talking about. Really, what does a guy who lives in Denmark know about race relations in the United States? Do they even have black people in Denmark? With that thought in my mind as I watched the final moments of the film, the pure egotism of Lars Von Trier became apparent.