ckolchak

since this is a New Line title, i'm sure the a/v quality is above average as well as the extras (if its not though, please say it).
however i hesitate to pick this up after reading a few different reviews that mention the annoying use of the handheld camera-
this may seem like a minor point, but this 'visual style' really rubs me the wrong way- how much does this film use it, ,and is the movie as pretentious as i've read?

Hendrik

"...the annoying use of the handheld camera..."

...is part of the 'DOGME 95' canon...

http://www.tvropa.com/tvropa1.2/film/dogme95/index.htm

Suggestion: why not rent the movie and see what it's all about?...

. . . . . .

Grimfarrow

Dancer in the Dark isn't a Dogme film.

Hendrik

...sure it is! ...parts of it anyway!... the DOGME 95 'rules' are not hewn in stone, you know! (personally, I happen to think they're a big joke)... afaik every director (whether Danish, American, French, or whatever) that did follow these 'rules' to the letter did so once only... any movies they made after their initial 'true' DOGME 95 film may have used certain elements of those 'rules', but certainly not all of them...

. . . . . .

Geoff H

I didn't find the camerawork distracting at all.

As for the movie itself, I thought it was truly excellent. Only problem, though, was that I also found it completely depressing, and it's unlikely I'll ever want to watch it again.

Jeraden

I watched this a while ago and don't really remember anything out of the ordinary with the camera work - which means if it was handheld it wasn't to the point of being distracting at all. As for the rewatchability of it, you won't want to view it again soon after watching it, but its been about 9 months for me and I'd be interested in seeing it again.

Tony Block

Way up!

cheers,
Tony Block

Hendrik

...what happened to your thumbs?...

. . . . . .

Tony Block

Roger's got 'em!

cheers, Tony Block

Snake Plissken

This was one of the very best films of 2000. Even if you watch it then never want to ever again, it must be seen.

Laertes

Like most people here, I do not recall the camera work being particularly annoying. (If this makes any difference, I rented this on VHS, before I had bought a DVD player).

Bjork is really good and believable.

Unfortunately, I almost turned it off halfway through. Without getting into any spoilers, there's a part, somewhere in the middle of the film, where Bjork is having a fight with someone, and it was agonizing to watch. It just felt pornographic to me, like we were watching some woman suffer to no real end.

I could see that it was a well-made movie, but at the end of it, I couldn't understand why we watched this woman suffer for 2+ hours. There seemed to be no point. I'm not sure what Lars Von Trier was trying to say. People are mean? I don't know. Frankly, I felt guilty for watching it. Unless he was trying to make us complicit in her suffering by watching it, I don't really get it.

This is like those 20's and 30's melodramas (which I've read about and never seen) where a female protagonist just takes a beating for the whole film, only "Dancer in the Dark" seems to increase the suffering tenfold.

I don't regret seeing it, but I could have lived without it too.

renaldow

I enjoyed it, but then I like Von Trier's movies, and I like Bjork. It is a depressing movie, but it was still a good movie.

If you don't like Von Trier's style of filmmaking, you probably won't enjoy this movie. If you don't enjoy Bjork's singing, you probably won't like this movie.

CitizenKaneRBud

Grimfarrow

While it's true that every Dogme 95 director has "cheated" one way or another, Dancer in the Dark isn't an official sanctioned Dogme film. Heck, with the 100+ cameras used in the dance sequences, you already are far, far away form being a Dogme film.

Every Dogme film has a number next to it. Festen is Dogme95 #1, and Idioterne is #2.

Dnacer in the Dark isn't within the canon.

Dave Appleby

You should definitely put some effort forth and rent this title. You're unsure, that's clear. To pick it up having never seen it is probably not the way to go.

That said, I feel like something stirred in me and it changed the way I look at film ever since. To tell you why would spoil it, but it's an emotional experience you won't soon forget. Some people resent the emotional overtones, and call it melodrama, but being a fan of Bjork, I'm certain it'll stay with me for years to come.

Richard Malloy

Great film (my favorite from 2000), and a damn fine DVD from New Line. Very highly recommended.

(Be sure to check out Vincent Paterson's commentary. While both are very good, I think Vincent's is the most revealing. Good docs on the filming, too.)

The Bus

Confusing, weird, desperate, sad, depressing, extremely frustrating. I loved it but would never want to see it again.

There's just something I have against characters that put themselves in stupid positions. It reminds me of the memoirs of anyone who had a drunken Irish dad and grew up in Brooklyn/Queens/Dublin/London in the 20s/30s/40s -- comes home, loses his job, yells at the mom, etc. It's just endless, and it's frustrating.

I was a really really big fan of You Can Count on Me (which bears little resemblance to Dancer in the Dark except it is about a single mother) because although it documents these depressing lows, there's moments where everything seems OK again... I don't necessarily need happy endings, but I think it's much more difficult to make a film that throws you between emotions rather than just shoving the same one through you for two hours.

One could compare it to Requiem, but at least with Requiem you feel as if there's some overall force you're cheering for, you actually can't wait to see how it gets worse -- of course Aronovsky's frenetic camera work makes it go down smoother.

I would not want to see Dancer in the Dark again but would recommend it.

Richard Malloy

I, on the other hand, can watch it over and over (and do!).

SaintMax

This was also my favorite movie of 2000.

The video and audio are superb - better than the film print I saw, and there's some nice extras: a couple pieces on making the film and two commentaries.

However, it does use handheld camerawork. But as a bonus, in Lars von Trier's commentary, he tells you how to watch it without throwing up! If that isn't a considerate filmmaker, I don't know what is...

Josh Z

If you don't like hand-held camera work, you will not like this movie. It uses extensive shaky and just plain ugly photography. I'm sure it will look better on video than it did on theater screens (where it was practically unwatchable), but this is the type of movie that looks deliberately ugly and rubs it in your face that there is supposed to be some sort of deeper meaning behind that.

Dancer in the Dark is a love-it-or-hate-it movie in many respects. It has some very strong defenders, but I hate it, personally. The story is contrived and manipulative. The characters make stupid, illogical decisions at key moments because the movie needs them to in order to advance the plot. I find this dishonest and despicable. This is really a shame, because Bjork gives a truly extraordinary performance and her songs in the film are captivating. I'd buy the soundtrack album before I'd ever watch the movie again.

renaldow

I'm not quite sure what that means, but parts of the movie look 'deliberately ugly' to give a high contrast for the fantasy scenes which do not use washed out colors, hand held camera work, or have a 'deliberately ugly' feel to them. I think if you're looking for deeper meaning beyond that, you've rubbed your own face in it.

saoirse

This movie is excellent. It is depressing, but it's worth it.

I will watch this again. I will also force my friends to watch this with me, so they can experience it.