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 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.

Anti-American or not? This seems to be the most important question for many American viewers when deciding whether to like von Triers trilogy of films about America. Uninteresting as the discussion may be i must still say that i don't think it's anti-American, rather it just shows a very bleak view of humanity in general.

In my opinion Dogville was an amazing film. Even though it was artificial to the core with it's theatrical style i still felt it all the way to the bone. Seldom have i seen such an arty movie that still worked so well. Amazing actors, a story that is brutal and inhuman and an amazing ending. Doing a follow-up to such a movie is not easy, and yet von Trier has promised to make two. Today i saw Manderlay and the question is if it lived up to the expectations given by Dogville.

Right from the beginning Manderlay is at a disadvantage compared to Dogville. The theatrical style with it's stage-like setup and minimum of props has already been done and is not as unique as it was when Dogville was released. Also the lead actress Nicole Kidman is missing, replaced by the (at least to me) quite unknown Bryce Dallas Howard. Also James Caan as her father is replaced by Willem Dafoe. So how did they do? Willem Dafoe is in my opinion one of the most talented actors today in Hollywood and he does excellent here as usual, Bryce Dallas Howard on the other hand is rather pale as a replacement for Kidman. Don't get me wrong, Howard does a decent job of tackling the lead and she fits rather nicely in the movie. However she lacks the width and depth in her acting that Kidman has honed through the years and Howards version of Grace feels more shallow and a lot less haunted.

Otherwise the actors are, like in Dogville, the main attraction. One of von Triers main skills must definitely be bringing out the best in his actors. Everyone performs well despite the demanding format of the movie. The minimalist style demands it's actors to perform well at all times as there is no room for mistakes and nothing to cover them up.

Dogville is in my opinion a better movie than Manderlay. The story is more multi-layered, the actors (especially Kidman) are better and the moral points are presented in a much more powerful way. Yet Manderlay is undoubtedly also a good movie, as well as a good continuation of the story about Grace. If you enjoyed Dogville and accepted the format in which it was presented my guess is that you'll enjoy Manderlay. Part of the point of watching Dogville for me was that it was food for thought and Manderlay also gives you reason to think. So even though this was not as good as Dogville i'm still not disappointed.

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.

I won't disclose anything about the film. I liked it very it much, albeit slightly less than the first film, probably because, well, the first was very fresh and innovative in the way it presented this "theatrical" world and partly because of the shocking and raw power of the story of "Dogville". In "Manderlay" we also meet with hypocrisy and cruelty, but the movie moves on a different level than "Dogville". It is clearly more philosophical-political, it carries a more visible political agenda. It also relies upon dialogue more than "Dogville" did and of course the symbolism and allegory of the first film are present here, as well. Still, the movie is a masterpiece, in the same way "Dogville" was. Of course, someone can think otherwise (not to mention those people that will accuse Trier of being "Anti-American"), but having a different opinion about it is okay and acceptable. Personally, I can't wait to see how the trilogy is going to conclude.