I can't guarantee anyone will like Dogville, but I certainly found it anything but boring. I was riveted to the screen for the full three hours (was it really that long?). That said, unless I'm watching a paint-by-numbers blockbuster I do not generally get bored even if I dislike a film: my mind is always racing through "slow" parts trying to make sense of what I'm watching and questioning every production decision such as the use of a wide-angle lens or the lighting. I reject the unthinking idea that "slow" means boring: should we skip through the slow movements of Mozart's string quartets too? If you are bored by Mozart's slow movements or every character- or plot-driven film you see, then it is you who is boring, not the music or film.
Regarding David Denby's comments, the film could only be "obtuse" (or "naïve", as another reviewer whose name I forget described it) if you completely ignore the metaphor behind every word and action. If you try to take a film like Dogville at face-value of course it will seem simplistic!
Let me just say I'm also disgusted that every film that doesn't tread a well-beaten path gets branded pretentious or pompous by the mainstream critics. These guys should be tearing down that pointless barrier and getting people who wouldn't consider themselves "arty" into the arthouse cinemas. What does pompous even mean in this context? It seems to simply mean "different" (in that it aims at making the viewer THINK) which is not a crime! Pompous is the last thing that came to my mind while watching this film and I'm sick of critics who instinctively react like that every time a film worth seeing comes out.
|