ABOUT DOGVILLE
Lars von Trier
Two things inspired me to write Dogville. First of all, I went
to Cannes with Dancer in the Dark and I was criticized by some
American journalists for making a film about the USA without ever
having been there. This provoked me because, as far as I can
recall, they never went to Casablanca when they made
Casablanca. I thought that was unfair so I decided then and
there that I would make more films that take place in America.
That was one thing.
Then I was listening to Pirate Jenny, the song by Bertolt Brecht
and Kurt Weill from The Threepenny Opera. Its a very powerful
song and it has a revenge theme that I liked very much.
The film needed to be set in an isolated place because Pirate
Jenny takes place in an isolated town. I decided that Dogville
would be in the Rocky Mountains because if you have never been
there, that sounds fantastic. What mountains arent rocky? Does
that mean these ones are particularly rocky? It sounds like a
name you might invent for a fairytale. And I decided that it would
take place during the Depression because I thought that would
provide the right atmosphere.
The old, black and white US government photographs taken during
the Depression were certainly inspiring, but I never entertained
the idea of making the film in black and white. Its another way
of putting a filter between you and the audience, another way of
stylizing. If youre making a film where you go strange in one
direction (you only have outlines of houses on the floor, for
instance) then everything else should be normal. If you put too
many layers on, it takes the audience further and further away
from the film. Its important not to do too many things at the
same time or you scare people away. I work a bit like you do in a
lab, I experiment. When youre making an experiment, its
important not to change more than one factor at a time.
Ive been told that Americans might be reminded of Our Town and
someone gave me the Wilder play to read while we were filming. I
dont think, however, that there are any similarities in the
story. This isnt to say that I wasnt inspired by anything, of
course I was. I was inspired, for example, by some of the
televised plays I saw in the seventies, and in particular, by the
Royal Shakespeare Company production of Nicholas Nickleby. It
was extremely stylized, with audience participation and all these
very seventies things, but when you see it today, it still works
very well. In general, I was inspired by the fact that I miss
theater on television. It was very popular when I was young.
Theyd take a piece from the theater and put it in other
surroundings or it was very abstract sometimes. Im not so crazy
about theater in the theater but on television or on film, its
really something you want to see.
I was also inspired to a degree by Bertolt Brecht and his kind of
very simple, pared-down theater. My theory is that you forget
very quickly that there are no houses or whatever. This makes you
invent the town for yourself but more importantly, it makes you
zoom in on the people. The houses are not there so you cant be
distracted by them and the audience doesnt miss them after a time
because of this agreement you have with them that they will never
arrive.
What do I say to those who say its not cinema? I say they might
be right. But of course I wouldnt say that its anti-cinema
either. At the beginning of my career, I made very filmic
films. The problem is that now, it has become too easy all you
have to do is buy a computer and you have filmic. You have armies
rampaging over mountains, you have dragons. You just push a
button. I think it was okay to be filmic when, for instance,
Kubrick had to wait two months for the light on the mountain
behind Barry Lyndon when he was riding towards us. I think that
was great. But if you only have to wait two seconds and then some
kid with a computer fills it in Its another art form, Im sure,
but Im not interested. I dont see armies going over mountains,
I only see some youngster with a computer saying, Lets do this a
little more tastefully, lets put some shadows in, lets bleach
the colours out a little. Its extremely well done and it
doesnt move me at all. It feels like manipulation to a degree
that I dont want to be manipulated.
Maybe its because Im older now. When I was younger, I probably
would have thought all this computer-generated stuff was
fantastic. Now that Im older, I have to be stubborn. Thats why
I started going back to the old virtues and the old values. If
youre stubborn enough, then anything can have its own aesthetic.
Theres a limit to how nice a film should look. If it looks too
nice, I throw up. I actually see it a little bit like watching a
magician. When a magician does little things. with coins for
instance, youre completely fascinated. But when he moves the
Eiffel Tower then you say, So what?
Dogville takes place in America but its only America as seen
from my point of view. I havent restricted myself in the sense
that I said, Now I have to research this and this and this.
Its not a scientific film and its not a historical film. Its
an emotional film. Yes, its about the United States but its
also about any small town anywhere in the world.
I wrote the script in Danish but I asked the English translator to
try to keep the Danish language in somehow, not to make it too
perfect. Thats my Kafka thing, I suppose Id like to keep this
foreign eye. Id be interested, for example, to see a film about
Denmark by someone who had never been there. A Japanese person,
for instance, or an American. This person would then be a mirror
of what Denmark stood for without ever actually having been
there. In my American films, I mirror what information comes to
me and my feelings about that information. Of course, it isnt the
truth because Ive never been there (although I must say, I am
better informed about the USA than the people who made
Casablanca were about Casablanca). Obviously, a Japanese person
making a film about Denmark wouldnt have the same kind of
information at his fingertips that I have because 90of what you
see on Danish television is American productions, but then hed
have to do some research and that, for me, would make it an
interesting film.
In addition to the countless American programmes on Danish
television, there is also a lot of news because America is the
biggest power in the world. Theres a lot of criticism, too. In
my youth, we had some big demonstrations against the World Bank
and the Vietnam War and we all turned out to throw rocks at
embassies. Well, at one embassy But I dont throw rocks
anymore. Now I just tease.
I learned when I was very small that if you are strong, you also
have to be just and good, and thats not something you see in
America at all. I like the individual Americans I know very much,
but this is more of an image of a country I do not know but that I
have a feeling about. I dont think that Americans are more evil
than others but then again, I dont see them as less evil than the
bandit states Mr Bush has been talking so much about. I think
that people are more or less the same everywhere. What can I say
about America? Power corrupts. And thats a fact. Then again,
since they are so powerful, its okay to tease because I cant
harm America, right?
The idea behind Graces treatment at the hands of the townspeople
was that if you present yourself to others as a gift, then that is
dangerous. The power that this gives people over the individual
corrupts them. If you give yourself away, it will never work.
You have to have some limits. I think that the people of Dogville
were okay until Grace came along, just as Im sure that America
would a beautiful, beautiful country if there were nothing there
but millionaires playing golf. It would be a wonderful, peaceful
society but thats not how it is, as far as Im told. There are
unfortunately a lot of losers there, too.
When you invent characters you take somebody you know and put them
in new situations. So the people of Dogville are all Danes,
theyre actually real people. You then take yourself - your own
character - and you split it up between the two or three people
who more or less carry the story (in this case, Tom and Grace). I
can defend all of the characters in the film but Grace and Tom are
the ones who portray me to some degree.
Does this mean that I see myself in Tom? Oh, yes. Very often
people start off with very good intentions, especially artists,
but then they themselves become more and more important and their
cause recedes into the background. Sometimes, they lose sight of
it completely. So Id say that Tom, to a certain extent, is a
self-portrait. Its not very nice and its not very flattering
but I suppose it comes close to the truth. He tries so hard and he
never gets the girlHes the only one who doesnt get the girl
And Grace is not a heroine by any means. Shes a human being with
the best intentions but shes still a human being. I suppose I
can understand that people might interpret some of what I do as
martyring women but I would say that these characters are not so
much females as they are a part of me. Its very interesting to
work with women. They do my character well. I think that they
portray me in a good way and I can relate to them.
I know that some people think that I dont like women but
obviously thats not true its men I have problems with. Its
like the problem you have if youre a deer. The old buck with the
long antlers has all the females gathered around him and he has a
hell of a job keeping the youngsters away. They all try to piss
up against him, just a little bit, you know, to make their mark.
For some reason, in my little environment, everyone is allowed to
piss on me. Which is fine, of course, but its tiringIm looking
around all the time, saying, Okay, who did that!? as another
youngster comes to piss on my back. And thats my problem with
men. The women dont do that. Then again, if you can handle the
constant pissing, you can have wonderful relationships with other
males.
Nicole said that she wanted to work with me and I wrote the part
of Grace for her or rather, for the image I had of her. I found
out that shes a very, very good actor. It was interesting to
take someone who had mostly done these colder characters and to
let her do something else. And of course its intriguing to take
a Hollywood film star and put her in a film like this. It might
give us a different audience than we otherwise would have had, so
long as they are not scared away by the fact that theres nothing
but a black floor with actors on it
Im best with actors when they trust me and sometimes this trust
is hard to get. Im not sure why I need it. Maybe its because I
dont trust myself? Nicole gave me her trust immediately which I
thought was great. Paul Bettany did, too, but of course because
hes a man, it was a little harder to get thereHe is very good.
I suppose there is a temptation to continue to work with the
people you already know you can trust but it is also fun to work
with new people.
I always wanted to work with Ben Gazzara. He was a hero for me
because of The Killing of a Chinese Bookie among other films.
Lauren Bacall was actually suggested by the casting director, she
really was chosen for her abilities and not because shes Lauren
Bacall. James Caan is, of course, a wonderful actor and yes, I
suppose there is a gangster thing attached to him from The
Godfather but mainly, hes a very good actor.
Dogville is, above all, a film and as a film, Im satisfied with
the form and the content and the acting. I know its not hip-hop,
but Im quite proud that Im not, in my mind, as old as I feel.
|