Returning to Denver from Dogville, Grace and her father find that their absence has allowed rival gangsters to increase in power and force them out. Beating a humiliating retreat, they and their small army of hoods head across the states to find a new place to call theirs. On the road they happen across a place called Manderlay where a slave asks for help to avoid a beating about to take place. Shocked by the existence of slavery almost 70 years after it had been abolished, Grace intervenes and uses her father's muscle to liberate the slaves and force the white owners into submission, denying their "contracts" and encouraging the freed slaves to embrace freedom. This is not an easy road to go down though, and Grace finds the introduction of concepts of freedom and democracy into their lives to be a challenge to implement.
Dogville was my favourite film of the year when it came out. It was not perfect but it forced me to think and was done in an intelligent and interesting way and I found it rewarding despite its flaws. So I was looking forward to Manderlay. Knowing the subject I can understand why this second film in the trilogy is even more prone to being solely seen as "anti-American" and also why so many Afro-American actors refraining from auditioning for the film. The focus here is slavery and Grace's good intentions this time helping to bring about fairness and democracy and the problems with just doing this regardless of best intentions. It is a clever story that provides much of interest and, totally intentionally or not, more and more works as an allegory for efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan to introduce democracy by force if necessary. Of course by picking this subject Von Trier hasn't really helped himself because of course it was going to be taken at face value and of course some viewers were going to throw their hands up and refuse to watch it with shouts of racism. Some may even think that the film suggests that the end of slavery was a bad thing.
And this is a weakness of the film because at some points it seems that this is the message it is trying to send particularly the ending that sees the democracy fails and everyone basically agrees that the old ways were best. These points may have been made from the scenario in hand but it is not well done and asks a lot without having much backing for making it. However stepping out of the specific race issue and seeing it as a general comment is perhaps easier as it does take the heat out of the situation and prevents the audience stressing over the finger being pointed at individuals because it isn't. The film challenges a society that makes a sweeping change but does little to ease it or plan for it. The end credits show us what it means as we see an America split along racial lines in the present and a history of hate and fear on both sides much like the change Grace makes, with little planning for how to best do it. A reference to the World Trade Centre also suggests that this is far from an issue of just slavery but of the wider point regarding making changes for "good" with little understanding of the consequences. In Iraq few weep over the removal of Saddam but many weep and many die over how it was done and how badly it has all gone wrong with everyone seeking a way out of the mess and almost let them sink into the old system with a slightly new brand.
As director, Von Trier repeats the style of the first film in the empty set. It is an effect that doesn't work as well this time partly because it was done before and partly because it is not as relevant to the story as it was thematically in Dogville. He does get good performances from his cast even if not as good as before. Howard is OK but not as good as Kidman. Her Grace is perhaps too young and too simplistic but she does enough to make it work reasonably well. Glover deserves credit for taking the role while Dafoe turns in a cameo at most (as do Bacall, Sevingy and Ivanek). The black cast included a lot of Brits such as Croll, Hammond, Gideon and Sosanya. They all do well but this film is less an actor's film than Dogville. In the latter it was more about the characters and their hearts, thus gave more for the cast to work with. Here it is the situation and the wider theme and thus the cast are left with slightly blockier characters and fewer chances to shine even if most are good.
Like my experience with Dogville, I found the more thought I gave to Manderlay and the more I explored the points and themes in my own time the more rewarding I found it. So it is here, if you want to get worked up about the very specific subject it is lecturing on (and it is easy to do so) then go for it you will be right to do so because the film is meant as a challenge, did you expect it to be about everyone else? This is its strength and it is very strong in this area and as such it is worth seeing and if it annoys or angers you, please don't assume it is therefore rubbish, rather rejoice that a film has drawn a reaction and not just slipped over your brain as yet another piece of mindless entertainment.
Dogville was my favourite film of the year when it came out. It was not perfect but it forced me to think and was done in an intelligent and interesting way and I found it rewarding despite its flaws. So I was looking forward to Manderlay. Knowing the subject I can understand why this second film in the trilogy is even more prone to being solely seen as "anti-American" and also why so many Afro-American actors refraining from auditioning for the film. The focus here is slavery and Grace's good intentions this time helping to bring about fairness and democracy and the problems with just doing this regardless of best intentions. It is a clever story that provides much of interest and, totally intentionally or not, more and more works as an allegory for efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan to introduce democracy by force if necessary. Of course by picking this subject Von Trier hasn't really helped himself because of course it was going to be taken at face value and of course some viewers were going to throw their hands up and refuse to watch it with shouts of racism. Some may even think that the film suggests that the end of slavery was a bad thing.
And this is a weakness of the film because at some points it seems that this is the message it is trying to send particularly the ending that sees the democracy fails and everyone basically agrees that the old ways were best. These points may have been made from the scenario in hand but it is not well done and asks a lot without having much backing for making it. However stepping out of the specific race issue and seeing it as a general comment is perhaps easier as it does take the heat out of the situation and prevents the audience stressing over the finger being pointed at individuals because it isn't. The film challenges a society that makes a sweeping change but does little to ease it or plan for it. The end credits show us what it means as we see an America split along racial lines in the present and a history of hate and fear on both sides much like the change Grace makes, with little planning for how to best do it. A reference to the World Trade Centre also suggests that this is far from an issue of just slavery but of the wider point regarding making changes for "good" with little understanding of the consequences. In Iraq few weep over the removal of Saddam but many weep and many die over how it was done and how badly it has all gone wrong with everyone seeking a way out of the mess and almost let them sink into the old system with a slightly new brand.
As director, Von Trier repeats the style of the first film in the empty set. It is an effect that doesn't work as well this time partly because it was done before and partly because it is not as relevant to the story as it was thematically in Dogville. He does get good performances from his cast even if not as good as before. Howard is OK but not as good as Kidman. Her Grace is perhaps too young and too simplistic but she does enough to make it work reasonably well. Glover deserves credit for taking the role while Dafoe turns in a cameo at most (as do Bacall, Sevingy and Ivanek). The black cast included a lot of Brits such as Croll, Hammond, Gideon and Sosanya. They all do well but this film is less an actor's film than Dogville. In the latter it was more about the characters and their hearts, thus gave more for the cast to work with. Here it is the situation and the wider theme and thus the cast are left with slightly blockier characters and fewer chances to shine even if most are good.
Like my experience with Dogville, I found the more thought I gave to Manderlay and the more I explored the points and themes in my own time the more rewarding I found it. So it is here, if you want to get worked up about the very specific subject it is lecturing on (and it is easy to do so) then go for it you will be right to do so because the film is meant as a challenge, did you expect it to be about everyone else? This is its strength and it is very strong in this area and as such it is worth seeing and if it annoys or angers you, please don't assume it is therefore rubbish, rather rejoice that a film has drawn a reaction and not just slipped over your brain as yet another piece of mindless entertainment.