Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Gray
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.
|
What Denby gets at - and, again this isn't his full review - is that many of the metaphors and symbolism used in Dogville were inaccurate, inappropriate or obtuse. I don't think Denby has ever sat through a movie and taken the topical story at face value. I'm quite sure that he would love more art house cinema but not at any price. He faulted Lars for simply not really understanding his topic, which one can sympathize with for the reason SKMDC stated: he's never been to the States (although I don't think that automatically condemns him).
Denby is not a mainstream critic by any stretch; in fact his cinematic preferences lean towards experimental and fresh thought. He is not easily pleased - that's why I like him. HE didn't like this movie because he saw nothing new or insightful; he saw no skillful direction. And on and on.
Typically, I agree with what he has to say, but not always. I'll have to see for myself with Dogville.
