Manderlay

In 1933, after leaving Dogville, while traveling with her father (Willem Dafoe) and his gangsters to the south of USA, Grace Margaret Mulligan (Bryce Dallas Howard) sees a slave ready to be punished in a property called Manderlay. The slavery had been abolished seventy years ago, and Grace becomes revolted with the attitude of the owners of Manderlay, keeping slaves in their cotton fields and following predetermined despicable rules called "Mam's Law". Grace decides to stay with some gangsters in Manderlay and give notions of democracy to the slaves and to the white family. When harvest time comes, Grace sees the social and economical reality of Manderlay.

"Manderley" is the second part of Lars von Trier trilogy initiated with the awesome "Dogville" and following the same aesthetic of theatrical scenarios. I was impressed with the magnificent performance of the gorgeous actress Bryce Dallas Howard that I know only from her minor participation in "Book of Love" and her lead role in "The Village". The screenplay of "Manderlay" is great, with the narrative being very well conducted by John Hurt, and in spite of having no action and being developed in a low pace, the plot is interesting until the very last scene. I did not understand the point of Lars von Trier in the end, since Grace defends the democratic principles inclusive with the suffrage, but Wilhelm tells her that "she sent the guns away too soon". Therefore, does Mr. von Trier believe that guns are necessary to establish democracy? Or is he making an analogy to the present situation in Iraq, showing that democracy can not be reached by the use of force? Another point is the social and economical situation of the poor former slaves, free only in laws but without condition to survive seventy years after the abolishment of slavery. The same happened in Brazil and I believe in the countries that used slave labor, therefore the wounds exposed in Manderlay are universal, and not only an American issue. The kind of assistance that Grace gives to the former slaves is full of good intentions and does not resolve their situation, since she has never reached the root of their problem. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Manderlay"

I've only seen the film once, but I felt that the most consistent interpretation was strictly about arrogant imperialism. I found myself first seeing through a very direct lens of a slave narrative/American liberal white guilt. This is an easy interpretation that lives on the surface.

The film then transformed into a statement about the presumption that "we" can teach others how to govern when "they" may have a system that works better in their context. The system in Manderlay was not overseer/slave, the system was socialism/communism and each "slave," as Grace saw them, had his or her own specialized role. The inhabitants of Manderlay were free within their system, but Grace was so completely blinded by what her culture had taught her about "freedom" and "democracy" and the inferiority of all other ways of life. The democracy she implemented was a complete farce. Their society did not function when the arrogant outsider who thought she knew what was best for them began implementing her system with force. The most direct comparison is "operation iraqi freedom" and other US nation building exercises or sponsored coups.

I found many other characters to be representations of a global system of oppression. The card shark was an international lending institution like the World Bank or the IMF and the "prince" was a corrupt leader who sold out his people for a cut of the profits of the international business elites (like Marcos, Suharto, or seemingly countless others).

I was very pleased with Manderlay and thoroughly frustrated by simplistic the reviews I read of it. I feel that this film falls apart with a straightforward viewing. As a white guilt slave narrative the film is mediocre. As commentary on imperialism and an absolutely corrupt global system, the film is a wonderful composition. I can't wait for Wasington.

A person may not have to see "Dogville" before they get to this film-- but it helps. Von Trier takes his time getting where he is going, laying tracks in plenty of directions, and if you are not familiar with his style and don't know that it will all end with a colossal crunch, you may feel bored or confused. Fear not, though-- this movie's climax and finish depend wholly on the build-up, and when they happen they are shattering. In a shorter movie with less nuance and fewer ideas presented, it would just be exploitation.

Critics who say that Lars von Trier is just grinding an axe and that his views on America are unwelcome and inaccurate are missing the larger point. So far the two movies of his new trilogy seem to be seething with questions, not preaching answers. The spectrum of perspectives and philosophies presented make these movies themselves as experimental as the moral quests of Tom in "Dogville" and Grace in "Manderlay". We get to share initial outrage, labor for a solution, and then despair in how easily it all falls apart once human weakness and natural disaster are factored in.

Adjusting to the change of casting takes a few moments, but then it just fits right in with the theatrical nature of these movies. Anyone who has seen a play performed with different casts knows that the two productions are weird cousins, and this can make actors shine in their individual gifts. I would have loved to see Nicole Kidman devour this role, but Howard's youth and vulnerability really add to the tenuous nature of her power over Manderlay and its dark secrets.

I think it's lucky that von Trier is not an American. If an American director showed these images of oppression and slavery, he'd be reviled even moreso, especially if he were white. Americans demand "sensitivity" from movies about real issues, and violence and humiliation are really only safe subjects in horror films and art cinema. Sometimes it takes an outsider to show you what you look like to the world and remind you of the work you have left to do. This movie feels distinctly American in its woe and in it's heartsickness at good deeds gone not unpunished. Isn't change impossible? Haven't we given it our best shot already? "Manderlay" agrees with us-- but urges us to keep trying.

I watched Manderlay in the run up to the Presidential Election. I was moved by it. The film is certainly topical with two weeks to go before we have the opportunity to possibly elect the first African-American President. I believe to do so would make statement to the people of the world that this experiment we're conducting with Freedom can work. What it has taken to get us to this point has been harrowing. This nation fought a Civil War, which helped to put an end to the institution of slavery. But there has been constant slippage (a polite word for the continued institutional racism) that led to the need for legislation to correct injustice. The Civil Rights era is now past and still racism continues. Blacks have had to continue to put their lives on the line to expand the Rights due them. We might now though witness the election of a black man as President. Racism will not end as a result of course but what a leap forward. It has taken the disaster of the past 8 years to get the country to the place where this is even possible. No W, no Obama.

Von Triers makes demanding films. I understand some people's aversion to his use of a sound-stage in both Manderlay and Dogville. It took me a bit of time in Dogville to adjust to the artifice. For me though, making the adjustment brought the issues and ideas he's dealing with to central focus in the film. No need for a real plantation in Manderlay. But the continuing enslavement does go on and it goes on in the film in the plantations of our mind. It goes on despite Grace's attempts to correct people's behaviors and beliefs and end the racism. We don't seem able to end it in this nation either.

Overall IMDb users have been much kinder to Manderlay than the critics have been. Many, perhaps a majority of the negative comments, take exception to the fact that Lars von Trier is a foreigner and worse yet a foreigner who has never set foot on American soil. That is not a problem for me. I have never been in Germany but I know that what happened in Germany and Europe in the 30's and 40's was wrong, was evil. My opinion as a non-German about the Holocaust and the war itself should not, cannot be discounted. It is probably more valuable for the German people to have a sense of what their actions created but am I not allowed to speak to those issues? Am I oversimplifying here? Perhaps.

I think, in some ways, von Trier's not being an American gives him some needed objectivity. I found the racial issues raised in Manderlay, to go to the heart of how racism works in this country. And right now in the United States of America we are witnessing a nation having to face it own demons concerning race once again. Many may not be able to vote for Barack Obama for no other reason that he is a Black Man. Many of those people will find another rationale for their vote.

I am glad I watched Manderlay at this time. It really does deal with some very crucial issues we as a nation have not always successfully faced. We have a chance to do something new but we need some clarity of vision about what we stand for as Free People. I feel Manderlay did a good job in helping clarify for me how we're all in this together. This was not an easy film for me to write about and I apologize for the political nature of what I have written.

Von Trier's Brechtian Gamble On Manderlay This time "liberal" is a dirty word By Jayson Harsin

"The movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society . . . America must be born again!" — Martin Luther King Jr. 1967

"Dear (American) liberals, You're Idiots! Love, Lars."

In a nutshell, that is the message of Manderlay, controversial Danish filmmaker Lars Von Trier's latest effort. Yet Manderlay is a complicated film that will produce multiple interpretations. Some will walk away calling it racist and anti-American. Others will find it a condemnation of Bush's war in Iraq. Yet, as I say, it is mostly a critique of American liberal politics. A condemnation of conservative racial politics is its point of departure. The film's complicated style and extreme plot produce intentional uneasiness.

Von Trier has cited German playwright Bertolt Brecht (right) as an artistic inspiration; yet one may wonder if he is reinventing the Brechtian wheel, one that Brecht himself admitted did not turn for others as he had wished.

[...]

On one level, the film is set in 1930s Alabama, on a plantation called Manderlay, where 70 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, slavery is apparently still being practiced. Continuing the narrative of Dogville, Grace (now Bryce Howard), after touring with her gangster father (now Willem Dafoe) and his thugs since her departure from Dogville, stumbles upon Manderlay with her father's entourage. She is alerted to the anachronistic existence of slavery by a slave who asks her for help. Her father asserts that this is a "local matter," echoing a common Southern response to Federal intervention in race problems that was often coded through "states' rights." It specifically recalls the language of Martin Luther King's powerful "Letter from Birmingham Jail," in which he responded to Southern clergymen who had accused him of, among other things, being a meddling outsider.

White liberal American intellectuals will no doubt have a hard time resisting identification with the white do-gooder Grace, who, like the North, the Federal government, and the social worker, believes that race relations at Manderlay are in moral terms not a local matter. "We have a moral obligation," Grace says to her father, as she persuades him to loan her gangster firepower to oversee her reform initiative.

But King was African-American and Grace is white. Should that matter? It matters in terms of Von Trier's audience (mostly American art cinema liberals and European intellectuals). It also matters for the history of white social and policy reactions to "the race problem," liberal and conservative responses, from segregation to integration, welfare to workfare, white flight to affirmative action. Grace's color is extremely significant. Resonances with Faulkner's Intruder in the Dust and Absalom, Absalom can also be found in the simplicity of the white liberal Northerner's analysis and solution to race problems. In this sense, Von Trier's provocative film is perhaps above all else an indictment of American liberalism (or liberal individualism), domestically and globally. All of these aspects should be considered through the lens of his Brechtian alienation techniques. Otherwise, this turns out to be one of the most ignominiously racist films since Birth of a Nation.

First, domestically: the historical debate about freedmen and resistance to them is important. While one could go back further, the contradictions of the modern liberal-race problem invoked by Von Trier date from the end of the Civil War. From 1865-1867, white southerners made very little effort to welcome African-Americans into a reborn American society (symbolized by the historically altered Constitution). The Ku Klux Klan together with the Black Codes terrorized African-Americans physically and deprived them of education and the legal franchise. While some American historians have noted the important changes of freedmen and -women marrying; establishing households, schools, and churches; owning 20 percent more land during the Reconstruction years — others emphasize that even so, the country did not solve the problem of race. And the South in particular, in terms of land reforms, enfranchisement, and education, was not ready to change of its own accord. Many African-Americans exercised agency and made valiant efforts to become self-sufficient, yet they faced no little opposition from the planter class and some poor whites (even though evidence exists of some alliances between African-Americans and poor whites).

While Von Trier's film does little to emphasize the efforts made by African-Americans to exercise their freedom in the ways I've noted, it is virtuosic at portraying the structures many faced when they set foot off the plantation (symbolized by a shortlived character who, venturing off the plantation, waits for a sympathetic woman, a white reformer like Grace, but finds bloodthirsty white men instead). The role of a traveling salesman huckster also portrays the white mediation of emancipation through debt peonage and sharecropping. The failure of Reconstruction with the Compromise of 1877 brought a more precarious period of civil and economic life to African-Americans in the South.

And yet Manderlay makes claims to a historical context in the 1930s. Here von Trier's dramatic vehicle of slavery existing in the 1930s is again more metaphorical than realist. The point is that while the furniture of racism was rearranged, it was still the same racist edifice. In addition, the role of an African-American leader is played by Wilhelm (Danny Glover), a house slave entrusted with knowledge of the entire Manderlay plantation rules and governance. Echoing views of nineteenth-century African-American leader Booker T. Washington, Wilhelm's analysis is that under the conditions at Manderlay, his people will meet a better life by consenting to the old social structures. The fact that armed gangsters must enforce the redistribution of social roles on one piece of property, which disappears when they disappear, is not a little reminiscent of Reconstruction military occupation of the South and its aftermath. To read on, see the full review at http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/51/manderlay.htm