Dogville vs. Hollywood by Jake Horsley Review by: Adam Nayman Cinaste, Vol. 31, No.

4 (FALL 2006), pp. 94-95 Published by: Cineaste Publishers, Inc Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41690422 . Accessed: 05/11/2013 16:17
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cineaste Publishers, Inc is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Cinaste.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.26.133.136 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 16:17:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

effects than a presold In themajority rather ofbigsummer apparatus. hewrites, "isa movie special concept. in Batman. "Dogville," Burton's howLars vonTrier hasno choice but slower andmore deliberate theeffects callattention to themselvesabout tempo films, inBatman almost recalls a bygone era. howmuch wasspent on the tomake a movie like No matter how toletyouknow Dogville. I hard Taken as a whole, thebookprovides an film andto highlight their realism. While hemay tosell hecan't doit"He sees out, try ofBurton andhisfilmogra-do notwantto hold Burton as a kind ofeat-it-it's-good-for in-depth study up as being thedirector butwith down a gauntlet of a very ofview. immune tothelures ofbigmoney filmmak-you cinematic savant, phy, particular point hurling As a welcome gestureagainst classic ing,it does appearthat, "The evenin his most uncompromised artistry. joy ofsitting auteur he contends, ism,McMahandevotesan entire potentially profitable projects,Burton through "depends Dogville," - is inseparable - themisery tothecomposer Elfman and makes choices that thebroadest upon from and chapter Danny jeopardize in favor his contribution to thedirector's overall possible ofhisfilms ofa discomfort ofsitting acceptance through Dogville." Othercollaborators are dealtwith more andquixotic It'san optimistic butHorsley's style. personal style. reading, - and he does haveone - is writing more is lessattention to understand and explainthe talent briefly, though sadly Trying to actors and She of blockbusters is a with the sort of authoritative tone modern paid performance. groups phenomena breezily her discussions ofindividual films but McMahan that makes worthwhile enterprise, initially specious-seeming arguaccording pays In this to howthey fitintothelarger attention to thematerial circum- ments nice andeasy. godown regard, argument too little about pataphysical which Shesets he'svery similar to Pauline This is stances under aremade. Kael,whoalso filmmaking. they ofdif- up mainstream as straw supplied theauthor withan only-in-hisbecause herdiscussion critics unfortunate, newspaper ferent films isunbalanced. mento knock overinstead of referencingdreams blurb when sheraved about his1999 In herchapter A Cinema on nonpataphysical Bur- writers whohaveproduced morenuanced bookThe Blood Poets: ofSavagery. tonfilms, inparticular shespends little time on Ed readings of thefilms she discusses.Her Kaelpraised very Horsley's "slightly Wood(1994), writing indeed thatit is simply a research on contemporary films relies too stoned theauthor must sensibility"; late she spends the heavily on DVD extras andsecondary mate- be smoking when he asserts biopic. In comparison, something of the I in how Burrials. believe the book would have benefitthis new book that Matthew majority chapter Ryan Hoge's analyzing toncombined alloftheprevious versions of ed from interviews with States directors, produc- facileThe United ofLeland(2003) Planet intohisownversion. She ers,and technicians to geta wider viewof "attains thehighest Apes ofthe goalofart; byexpressing writes ofeachofthefilms the conditions it and economicpressures thebottomless individual, plotsummaries painofa single andspends a great dealoftime the underwhichthesefilmsare produced. easesthesadness ofthe world." That Hoge's analyzing in a film balancebetween little-seen receives itsownchapter power shifting apes and McMahan together many interesting brings in eachinstallment. humans Shenever also includes on D. W. andtakes a highly andcre- bookthat gets elements original passages to themost In thefinal and subversive ele- ativeapproach. even Griffith, and theentire Kubrick, analysis, Stanley interesting ofthese ments films: thefluidity ofthedivi- after aboutthemore wide- EasyRiders, Bullscrewspeaksto myreservations Raging sionbetween in Bur- reaching his and human claimsofthebook,sheprovides Horsley's eclecticism andgenerosity; that primate ton's andtheirrelevance oftheideaof insight intoBurton's oeuvre andchallenges analysis is farmoreinteresting thanthe Apes intheface at ofartistic and readers witha serious esthetic of movieitself thathis attempt quality inspiration reading suggests inEd Wood. mainstream film- caon-shuffling bea shade toovigorous. contemporary Hollywood passion may - Rahul Burton isboth thestrength andweakness making. downintoa series of Hamid The bookbreaks of ofthebook.On theone hand,McMahan a loose selected essays tracing chronology The doesmake a convincing films andfilmmakers. that American patamajor argument is an interesting at physics wayoflooking yearsbefore1970 are accordedroughly vs. Burton's ofthe films. Burton's and Dogville while thebearded tyros originality eighty pages, NewHollywood indie weaken her overall andhipster vision, however, unique pioneers about big Hollywoodblock- Hollywood atgreater oftheearly arediscussed argument Eighties in heft busters. TheBatman films andquality: Theessays maybe theonly by length. vary Jake London: Marion Horsley. Boyars. Burton films that fall intothiscatewhen muscuis stronger solidly Horsley discussing in the States United (Distributed The most andBrian influential lardirectors likeSamPeckinpah gory. aspectof these 2005. Books). 352pp. films thepointofviewof making byConsortium less superficially DePalma thansubtler, (from $17.95. Paperback: wasthat Forevery were basedon a assertive artists. blockbusters) whiplash-inducthey andwere Palme marketed Lars von Trier's Dogville(2003) is, ingsnapjudgment (GusVan Sant's presold product heavily itswinking to minimal- d'orbeforethe filmsappeared. Burtonwas despite as (2003)isdismissed aspirations winning Elephant of "miserably films for neither ofthese To ism,one of themostexpansive lifeless" and "boring responsible aspects. beyond Itsdesignedly theuse of a known flash of comic-book recent there's an equally years. grueling, ruefullybelief'), compare startling account ofa wayward mobprincess insight, character or sitcom to Burton's as when asserts multiple funny Horsley eloquently whosuffers at the thatClintEastwood's allusions from lies in his Universal Studios (NicoleKidman) prettily ranging strength - the"artofunravofvenalsmall-town monsters before measured horror to Mario Bava,to German hands nonchalance films, in a climactic them obliterated fit of eling," istantamount tomissing the having as hecalls it.(Horsley's Expressionism, championing hasbeeninterpreted as: ofEastwood The thin avenging-angel isoneinstance where hedeparts fury pointof Burton's filmmaking. salvo and a religious from andrecognizable in today's an Anti-American causes characters his heroine but his other Kael, plots pet a formal and a genre DePalma,Jonathan blockbusters exist because these movies are parable; Demme,and David provocation - indicate a misogynist screed and a satire of Lynch, madeto be legible a to a large internationalparody; to citemerely the"D's" sliceofThornton certain audience with He levelsof education same;a pitch-blackened keep-it-in-the-family loyalty.) varying immodest andlanguage skills anda hugearray theexecrable andinexofcul- Wilderand a rudely about proposal writes astutely 'em all and let God sort 'em tural of filmmakers Burton's references and orable trend distinctive ("kill out") backgrounds. young ofJonathan Swift. aremuch one or twofilms that morespecific, deal- worthy who,after commentary delivering TheMexico-based critic has setthem with themilieu inwhich arerecruited to hegrew from thefield, Jake Horsley ing up and apart hisownidea:in his newbookDogville vs. the a very kind offilm where their are fandom. particular gifts Hollywood big leagues he interprets vonTrier's film as wasted While Burton's use ofspecial effects call Hollywood, ballyhoos. propping up mega-budget forthegrim attention to themselves, do so in a way an allegory is LeeTamahori (Once process bywhich Hissaddest exemplar they maverick artists areentrapped and Were that their as in Beetle- would-be whom heeulogizes as a Warriors, 1994) highlights unreality, "former artist." wasrecruited," (1996),and even absorbed "[Tamahori] bythebigbad studio filmmaking juice(1988),MarsAttacks 94 CINEASTE, Fall2006

This content downloaded from 200.26.133.136 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 16:17:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

"tomake writes with coldprecision, Horsley oneway buries its a Bondmovie, Hollywood dead." recently So Good Brain Hurt/i Book/S Jour in LikeKael,Horsley believes sincerely ofAmerican cinema hisbook the potential Danish auteur as feature an embittered may mandate itshero, butitsHollywood-baiting ofthedirectors discussed that most ensures a token mention ofGodard) work (besides Yetifyoucomonthis sideoftheAtlantic. Motvs.Hollywood to James pareDogville tram's publishedThe Sundance recently - a dully accountof the Kids galumphing traverses a American indierevolution that as Horsley's book lotofthesameground between and andthedifference crusading relief. Motcomesintosharp cheerleading whohaswritten a London-based critic tram, and the booksaboutthe Coen brothers of Memento, is in such obvious * making iBIIIIBIIIIBIW I tothereputations andethos ofDavid thrall and Alexander Fincher, Jonze, Spike Payne, "Pizza of Wes Andersonthe so-called Knights" within LosAngeles, outsider talents working - that to he rarely bothers the studio system his admiring behind-the-scenes interrupt . ''-mtn0]iib Tbt*pat*j*ki with ofdissent. even a whisper 4w intrigues Mottram's bookis a brisk read, mostly hisfilm-by-film areso onbecause analyses -.v; -, , . * > . v* /ntRIn ; - , , ---h wHwrff the-surface W#" ?" . * V so) . (and,to be fair, successfully M||m : thatyou findyourself absently turning -p-< / theeverimpatiently inventorying pages, last listof"visionaries" (ifyour burgeoning Il Whin'il fiiiiit name is Anderson, a genius) waiting you're without a prechewed for reputasomebody 0ti j >1 Pp l-glMaMiF Vw to pop up. Horsley, tion TMWCTlIyL y iy ^ meanwhile, spikes td tnoM^tg fetts with a few inaddihistext unusual suspects: tion to theaforementioned Matthew Ryan about at somelength Hge,he expounds Gordon actor-director Keith ,H (Mother Night, theDead) prefacing his remarks Waking with an observation aboutPaulineKael's Alexandra andjesseUmer, editors Juhau to '' perverse, credibility-threatening fidelity beloved that iseither an intelcertain F Is for Phony figures orelse ofinfluence Fake andTruth's ligent acknowledgement Documentary Undoing '' instance of obliviousness. a.pause-giving erf the Thefirst sustained mockumentay. critique Gordon Either he makes thecase:that way, MI101GJI o. UmKfSnl l~ coritrioytorsi MSevt^nOCn^ is doomed instincts byhisnoncommercial Matenintente^ Cfwtt W.Bkx*,MjHBuftyel, Ktll Craig High!; a worthy filmmaker to be a cult figure, F.RekM^arr, Alisa Eve Robert Lefeow, Oshi, GryorioC1lBKtN| whose fate is to be ignored men Nizafi bymoney Shaked, jane critics. andpropped upbyhonconformist Mdenct wtaiM? Sota, topitti+WSk " vs.Hollywood works better as a r' Dogville "Y*": . prosethanas a grabbag of vividcritical ' focused aboutthenefarious argument ways EvtCheniwky inwhich artists oftheir Muse.It aredivested with a calltoarms that islessthan ends perIrxorporattons - - something A (br Mki ofCmNM B@dy " suasive about ' "writing personal ^ - buteven 'tffl" Il ii'lInnftS III' inlightning" ifthebook histories fhaJMtk ob and , RQotpNjkifi Tfestncf tMtiMBQn %&m httt&a* Irtteht doesn't convince that ultimately picking up mSiai>d^i^n^^^B^L will a camera andpointing it at something I$ydh#rm asBtorxte AoudtofB^a 'ferm> images itwill isa student (what yield emancipation yield demands film), Horsley's style engagement. for a writer whochampions DePalFittingly - whom ma heproudly claims makes "superior entertainments" rather than"enduring - what ofart" works Horsley saysis almost incidental to thewayhe says it.Dogville vs. 773-702-7000 of MinnesotaPress www.upress.umn.edu in lightning, H University notbe written Hollywood may butitisdefinitely -Adam Nayman striking.Fall2006 95 CINEASTE,

This content downloaded from 200.26.133.136 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 16:17:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions