For my next Von Trier, I had hoped to cover The Idiots, as it was one I remember hearing about years ago and it seems to be the most “Dogme 95” of all his films. However, it seems like it was never released in America, since I couldn’t find it in any format (or at least not any that would work over here). So, for now, I decided to skip ahead to his next film: Dancer in the Dark. This film is similar to Breaking the Waves in terms of its heavy, emotional storytelling and its cross between realistic and otherworldly, but it takes a different path with how it handles these elements. I’d say that I liked it about as much as Waves overall, though I do think it has an issue or two, and sadly, this is another case where the behind-the-scenes situation was unacceptable, which I’ll have to get into later. For now, though, we’ll get into the plot.
Set in the 60’s, the film follows Selma, a Czechoslovakian immigrant living in America. She works in a factory with her friend Kathy and lives in a trailer with her son in the backyard of Bill, a local policeman. She pays Bill rent for the location, but at the same time, she tries to save whatever money she can for her son Gene’s eye operation (he’s suffering from the same degenerative eye problem that she has). When she’s not at work, she rehearses in community theatre musicals, and also goes to the cinema to watch old Hollywood musicals. She’s a big fan of musicals, you see. In fact, she consistently falls into daydreams in which she’s singing big musical numbers while the rest of the world follows along with it. This, combined with her bad eyesight, doesn’t bode well for her future at a hectic factory. Jeff, a fellow factory worker, clearly has an interest in Selma and tries to pursue something more with her, but she lets him down gently every time, and instead seems to show interest in Bill. However, Bill tells her about how he and his wife Linda are in dire straits, money-wise. Apparently, Linda’s spending habits have put them in a tenuous situation, and he asks Selma for money, which of course she can’t give him, having barely enough for herself. Bill then asks Selma to kill him, as he’s apparently considered suicide but can’t do it himself, though she refuses this as well. Later, on a different night, Bill visits Selma in her trailer and the two have another discussion about this situation, one in which Selma tells Bill about her vision problems. Sadly, Bill takes advantage of this, and tricks her into thinking he’s left the trailer. He sees her pull out the tin of money for Gene, and a few days later, the next time Selma takes it out, all the money has magically disappeared. To add insult to injury, she had just beforehand broken a plate press at work because she wasn’t paying attention, leading to her being fired. She goes to Bill and Linda’s house to get the money back, but Linda thinks that Selma’s been trying to seduce Bill, since apparently Bill had told her that Selma “wants him for his money” or something. Selma manages to break away from Linda’s chastising and tries to take the money back from Bill. The two fight over the money, and Bill tries to shoot her, but Selma manages to force the gun to shoot Bill in the leg. Linda walks in to see Selma holding the gun and Bill tells Linda to call the police. Bill gives Selma an ultimatum: if she wants the money back, she’s going to have to kill him. Selma shoots Bill several times, but never enough to be fatal, so she has to resort to bashing his face in with a security deposit box. Selma enters a daze-like state, and imagines herself in another musical number, in which Bill comes back to life and everything goes back to normal. What happens to Selma after all this? I’ll leave you to see the rest, while I move on to my review.
Much like Waves, this is a heavy and emotional film. Selma’s situation goes from bad to worse to despairing, and you genuinely feel for her throughout it all. It doesn’t help that she’s living during the Cold War days, and with her being an immigrant from an Iron Curtain country, things aren’t going to be entirely easy on her. At the same time, though, she isn’t entirely faultless, as she is lying to her boss to do a dangerous job that could result in either her or others getting hurt because of her. I mean, it’s not just her eye problems, but also the fact that she constantly daydreams while working, and in that sort of high activity factory setting, those two factors are a recipe for disaster (thankfully, she only broke a machine). At the same time again, you understand that she has to work for the sake of her son, and in the situation and location that she’s in, she might not have that many options. I think this aspect helps to make the film more interesting: the characters feel like real, flawed people. Nobody in this film is entirely good or bad, and you can understand why they make the choices that they make, even if you don’t think they’re right. It’s the same with Bill: you can see that he’s in a tenuous situation with his money and has resorted to begging a woman that doesn’t have hardly any, but he also acts very manipulative towards said woman, pulling the “if you don’t help me, I’ll kill myself” card and basically forcing her to kill him, not to mention just flat-out stealing her money. Plus, Von Trier’s signature handheld camera and naturalistic dialogue greatly help to support this “real life” idea. Granted, it’s still a film, that sort of thing can only go so far when you’re still dealing with fiction, but it still works overall. On the note of Von Trier’s film-making, the coloration of the film is very well used. For most scenes in the film, the saturation is very muted, almost to the point of being gray, but more so just feeling like perpetual dreariness. This fits the day-to-day life for the characters, as while they are trying to make the best of the poor situations they’re dealing with, they can never escape the all-encompassing gloom and doom that hangs over their lives, to the point where most every attempt at normal interaction is tinged with an undercurrent of despair and frustration clawing to get out. There are some brighter spots in the film, though, and these come in the form of Selma’s musical fantasies. When Selma imagines these big song sequences in her head, the saturation gets brighter, everyone gets more upbeat and happier, and the frame-rate even jumps up a few notches. Here’s the thing, though: just because the film gets brighter, that doesn’t mean it’s the brightest it could be. Everything still has a certain level of dullness to it, it’s just not quite as bad as it was before, which I think illustrates how even if you can temporarily escape your problems through imagination, that doesn’t make them go away. They’re still there, lingering, waiting for the song to end so they can regain their dominance. It should be noted that Selma is played by Icelandic singer Bjork, who brings her signature ethereal art pop vibe to the songs. This element helps to keep the songs in the realm of dreams and fantasies, allowing us to slip into their fanciful state while never letting us forget that they’re all fake. It’s especially effective during the post-murder song, as it really helps to illustrate Selma’s denial phase and the underlying torment that she’s trying to avoid. You almost start to believe it with her, but you know in your mind and heart that you can’t let it fool you. Selma’s reached the point of no return, and you can only dread what’s coming. In general, I think the film accomplishes what it sets out to do very well. It’s definitely less hopeful in the end than Waves was, but I think that those willing to engage with the experience will come out of it overall having enjoyed it. However, now’s the point where I need to discuss what happened behind the scenes. Bjork has alleged that Von Trier was very inappropriate with her on-set, touching her unprofessionally, raging when she told him to stop, whispering what sort of things he’d “do to her,” and even saying how he was going to sneak into her room for their “private time” while his wife was sleeping. Von Trier and his producer denied all this, and even claimed that Bjork was more the problem than anything, since “she was a big star and had way more sway on the project than them.” She, of course, refutes this, saying that they’re only saying that because she wouldn’t acquiesce to Von Trier (as in, she was “being difficult”). It was also later found out that the company that Von Trier founded and his producer ran had a history of sexual harassment, so that certainly leans the case to one side, I’d say. Given all this, I can understand those that don’t want to engage with this film, or any of Von Trier’s work after this. I’ll admit, I feel kind of awkward covering his stuff after this, but there are at least one or two more works I wanted to cover, so I won’t blame you if you skip those entries. The same goes for any filmmaker who has done or was alleged to have done awful things. Well, this is getting heavier than the film itself, so I should probably wrap it up here.
If you’re still willing to engage with the film, I think you’ll find something very affecting. It manages to create a heavy yet emotional experience that you definitely won’t forget, though I certainly hope you won’t feel like you need to vomit afterwards (I didn’t, but from looking around at other opinions, quite a few people said that. It might just be hyperbole, but I guess I’d keep that in mind in case you’re not used to films like this). I’m going to try to hit Dogville next week, so get ready for another Von Trier weight-fest. Let’s see if it’s even heavier than the last one.