I was really anticipating Manderlay because I loved Dogville. Well, Howard doesn't disapoint in the lead role but the rest of the movie is mediocre. B-

When the hell did this come out?

I'm kinda dissapointed that the movie is getting heavily mixed reviews. Which is to be expected. But ...I also have a hard time imagining Howard exceeding or even matchin Kidman's terrific performance in Dogville.

It's still one of my most anticipated films cause I have yet to see a Lars von Trier film I don't like (but I've only seen the big 3). Hope it gets a release in the U.S. soon.

You know, Dancer in the Dark is one of the greatest films of the last 10 years.

But don't see The Five Obstructions whatever you do

the five obstructions was well intentioned and actually kinda interesting, but i dunno. forgetable to say the least.

the short film, "The Perfect Human," on which the challenge was based, was great tho.

dogville, on the other hand, is one of the most memorable films i've ever seen. so yeah, i cant wait either....

I loved it, actually.

It doesn't have the literary flow nor the stark, dramatic tone of Dogville, but to me, Von Trier's use of the soundstage actually seemed just as novel here as it did the first time. He seems to have a firmer grasp on the utilization of the soundstage, in fact: Whereas in Dogville its presence was somewhat integral to the story (rendering it a bit pretentious), here the story would be interesting soundstage or no.

As in Dogville, the female performance of the woman put through hell is key, and I think Bryce Dallas Howard (quickly becoming one of my favorite actresses) is just as good as Nicole Kidman was. Her performance and character are somewhat anachronistic (unlike Kidman's, which never had this problem), but she elicits way more emotion than I remember feeling in Dogville. Howard is vulnerable, commanding, and slightly evil; I think it's the best female performance I've seen so far this year.

Fans of Dogville should definitely check this one out.

A-

This will contain heavy spoilers:

Manderlay is not a history lesson on slavery. The whole thing is a metaphor and to an extent a clever intellectual trap. A condemnation of the Bush administration, of Trier's view of racism in America, Trier's view of the American mindset and of the trappings of Liberalism.

There is little at play here but stereotypes, the complications of "real people" would be too much for Lars von Trier to explore in his yet unfinished trilogy USA - The Land of Opportunity. It should be noted that my opinion on Trier (who has produced one of my favorite films) has always been more anti-American than an honest expose of American culture. He has an agenda, which is not necessarily wrong to have, but viewer be wary.

Grace, the "do gooder" (we saw how that worked out in Dogivlle) arrives at a still slave operated plantation in Alabama called Manderlay in the 1930s - yes it's explained why slavery is still going on. When Mam (Lauren Becall) dies, Grace, maybe like a George Bush caricature, defeats her brand of slavery by giving the slaves a newer friendlier "government". When it turns out that the newly freed blacks don't want to do anything, she finds ways to impose a form of "imperialism" on them.

Grace feels her white guilt, and openly expresses it as such. In these films, the Grace character is the epitome of the phrase "kill them with kindness", but Trier quickly shows her hypocracy in hiding the book, stopping acts of revenge, and basically treating the population like children.

But just when Trier how skewered whites to an extreme degree, the tables are turned when we realize that Grace was being totally manipulated by the blacks who were basically imposing slavery on themselves because the "rule" of Mam was far more preferable than to actually take responsibility for their lives.

That the film poses these rather dramatic questions isn't really the problem as much as John Hurts extremely heavy handed narration delivers the final blow to any outside-the-box thinking that may exist. Timothy's question of "Why are you so mad? You made us." had me rolling my eyes with the sheer ridiculousness of it all.

My reaction to Manderlay is similar to my reaction to Crash, in that it paints a far too easy picture on the situation. It is brainy, but it is lazy, and its agenda is on display for the audience to pick it apart. It is difficult to garner any sort of agreement with your audience when at a base level they disagree with your assessment of the situation. Of course, for many it will strike a passionate chord, and for others it will be too difficult. I find myself questioning the metaphor and what the movie says about them rather than my own feelings on the subject, which like everything are complicated and not always one sided.

This is similar to how I felt about Dogville, but Dogville is much less specific to the United States and is much less pointed. Dogville has a lot less truth than Manderlay, as Manderlay does ask difficult questions but it also has deeper pitfalls.

Technically the movie is shorter, so it's a bit more bearable, but Bryce Howard can't hold a candle to the brilliant Kidman performance in Dogville, and there is not as much for the supporting cast beyond Glover to do in Manderlay.

So in the end, it's an incredibly frustrating thing to behold and I can only wonder what he is going to do in Washington (the third film) to top what he's done here. Going after the US government is much easier than approaching racism and imperialism.

Lower marks than Dogville technically. It just wasn't as good or surprising.

I agree with andaroo on some comments, it was an incredibly frustrating film on all levels. In some ways it had a lot more potential then it realized. To me, it started out with the slavery but somehow in the middle it got lost with its more philosophical pandering and then the last thirty minutes or so became a very heavy-handed critique of America's post-slavery humanitarianism (or lack thereof).

I was especially dissapointed with the post-film photograph-laced credits as they really did not fit with the rest of the film. They were powerful in their own right, yes, but they didn't fit into the context of the film.

I guess, in some ways if the film hadn't been focused on America, and instead followed more of the critique in how the slaves just desired to not blame themselves, it would have worked better. Or, maybe if it had followed through with its heavy handed political commentary, albeit it would have to be a bit more focused, it could have worked. Instead, it sort of gets muddled by trying to address both issues. Dogville worked much better as an examination of human tendacies, and I expected the same from Manderlay, which is why I would have preferred the government specific context to be left out.

As far as the cast, I agree it isn't very notable except for Glover and Howard. Glover was good, but he has certainly delivered other, better performances in the past. Howard was spectacular, comparing her to Kidman though is difficult as they are such vastly different actresses. I think Kidman showed more maturity in her role, but then again compare the screen credits and age and that isn't hard to understand.

The sound stage this time around worked well, as others have said it wasn't as integral to the film as it was in Dogville but it still worked well. I think the stylism of the film worked well with the content, which kept the focus on the dialogue and the points Van Trier was trying to make rather then on visual spectacal.

I'm still interested in Washington, but I don't have as much expectation for it as I did for Manderlay after seeing Dogville.

I'd give the film a B though overall, a far cry from the A I gave to Dogville.