First, sorry for the error in posting. I did not mean to fill up boxes with cinema chat.
But since Simon did respond LOL . . .
Simon writes:
> Calling von Trier a gloomy realist seems to me to rest
on a non sequitur: people think realists are gloomy;
von Trier is gloomy; von Trier must be a realist.
Billy Wilder and George Cukor were great realists and anything but gloomy.
> After the 'goldheart' trilogy (Breaking the Waves,
Idioterne and Dancer in the Dark) concentrating on the
sacrifice of women, one might have thought he'd find a
new subject.
Wilder, Antonioni, Mankiewicz, Bergman, Imamura, Mizoguchi, Ozu, Dreyer, Fassbinder, Sirk, Hitchcock concentrated on women (sacrificial and otherwise) for their most of their careers. Why does a filmmaker need a new subject if he can still say things with the one he is exploring? I think this contemporary fetish for the new can hurt creative expression. Henry Hathaway was very eclectic in the topics he addressed in his films, but the question is how many are worthy of intense study today?
> As 90 percent of British 'observational' comedians would
say: "What's that all about?" As a critique of America it's
impossibly weak.
What it is all about is a queer critique of America. I think Von Trier is continuing in the tradition of Fassbinder by making movies about contemporary issues through use of standard movie conventions. What is a new twist is that a heterosexual filmmaker is carrying out a queer aesthetic. Admittedly, this aesthetic is not to everyone's taste, but I believe it is a powerful tool.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister