![]() London and New York: Wallflower Press, 2007.ĭ’Angelo, Mike. The Cinema of Lars von Trier: Authenticity and Artifice. Urbana, Chicago, Springfield: University of Illinois Press, 2010.īainbridge, Caroline. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.īadley, Linda. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. To enjoy Dancer in the Dark is to know how not to watch it as a cinematic work but to feel it as work only or as a process that does not look forward to an end, or as something that never dies except by the very death of the subject in other words, as something resembling the subject’s libido in its insistent survival as a vital substance, as a force of nature that, essentially, has neither eyes to see nor image to be seen. ![]() Selma, however, destabilizes the viewer’s position not only by her blind eyes, which are supposed to look and do not see, yet seem to see beyond simple looking, but also by her droning voice, which literally makes von Trier’s film hardly anything but a celebration of the idea of the survival of the song-that most primitive art-even in the midst of the most philosophically oriented postmodern politicized cinema of technical prowess mixed with deliberate stylistic playfulness. Dancer in the Dark can be thought of as von Trier’s extreme example of deploying the Lacanian objet a in the field of the visible as the blind heroine herself is the occasional deployment of the gaze. She is also that impossible female character who is, in many ways, un-cinematic. ![]() The heroine, Selma, is not just a blind sacrificial mother who is suffering passively and rejecting one man’s love unrealistically. Chapter 4 looks at Dancer in the Dark as a near-perfect conspiracy against the act of film watching itself.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |