dancer in the dark

Dancer in the dark:

While I liked the story, and while I didn't find the acting terrible,
I did find the directing/editing awful! Did anyone else notice this?
I thought it really hurt the movie in a bad, bad way. What I mean, in
case you didn't notice it, is the many many times in the movie where the
editing would switch very noticeably while on one person. Like bjork would
be talking with her head facing left, then without switching the point of view
or who or what the focus was on, she would magically shapeshift
to facing forward with a different expression on her face mid-sentence and all, and
with a different inflection and tone of voice.
Otherwise, I liked it. Very sad film with a decent story.

I think the choreographed musical parts set themselves
away from the reality parts on their own just by being what they are.
The way they introduced those parts are what kept me watching.
The editing thing seemed more unintentional to me. It was probably
that they had several takes, and combined the good parts, but without
forethought that they might not be as consistent as they needed.
But by the time they edit it, it's too late, or they have to re-shoot.
I could be wrong, but that's what I thought every time I noticed it,
which was a lot.

Bjork's a bjerk for making me teary-eyed though.

After some discussion of this movie in a thread I started on a forum, I
encountered some people who liked this 'style' of directing. I was not aware
that it was a style until this, so I will continue with this in mind.
There are two fellas who direct and use this similar style as a rule. One is Jean-Luc Godard("breathless").
The other is our 'Dancer in the dark' director, Lars Von Trier, who admittedly uses
this "technique" of Godard's. I personally don't see it as a technique so much
as an oversight, or just lack of caring, just to finish up as fast as possible
to save time and money and hope it all syncs up OK in post (or editing, if you prefer).

And yes, I did bother to do some research for this one. Not much, but enough to
support my views.


I do not know who Godard is, and am not familiar with "breathless" or his patent style
of "jump-cutting". I was, however, feeling expeditious, so in an attempt at insight, I
looked him up. The following quotes may seem long, but some is very relevant to my plight.
I left the rest so as not to leave things out of context. What I found was this:

"...'À bout de souffle began in this way. I had written the first scene (Jean Seberg on the Champs Elysees) and for the rest I had a pile of notes for each scene. I said to myself, this is terrible, I stopped everything. Then I thought: in a single day... one should be able to complete about a dozen takes. Only instead of planning ahead I shall invent at the last minute!' (Godard in Milne, 172-3)

Breathless was instantly hailed as a truly revolutionary movie and the logical outcome of the French New Wave (Nouvelle Vague) rejection of what they called 'Le Cinema de Papa' (Dad's Cinema). The most patently radical Godardian style was the incessant use of the jump cut, a sudden temporal ellipsis even in the middle of a dialogue take. That's standard practice now but at the time it broke every dictate of the conventional filmmaking manual. In fact this technique was a little more accidental than political. The film, loosely (with a minimal and constantly changing shooting script) based on a 'crim on the run' storyline by François Truffaut, ended up as a rough cut of around two hours long – more the length of the despised blockbusters then and now. To be considered a commercial product the movie needed to lose about 30 minutes, so rather than cut out whole scenes or sequences, Godard elected to trim within the scene, creating the jagged cutting style still so beloved of action filmmakers."

So it seems I was also correct, but just don't like that style.
Kind of a 'git' er done and who cares if it looks choppy' frame o'
mind. That's fine, but don't call it a style. Still, thankfully, the writing, acting,
and the intriguing way they made a musical out of it kept me
watching, and I'd still watch it again.

Godard basically said "this sucks. i can do this faster and get more scenes
done in shorter time if i ignore my notes and chop it up later."

In that aspect, it is intentional on his part, but doesn't make me
wrong, or even very critical, assuming that Lars was in a similar mindset,
as it would seem.

I liked most of the style of the film. This editing thing I mentioned
was often, but not constant. Every scene didn't have it. It just looked
like dialogue was cut out sometimes from maybe a longer sequence
or several takes didn't sync up as well as maybe intended.
As for it being definitely on purpose, I don't know that for sure.

As for the Godard vs. Lars thing:
I was just using the Godard quote to say that his technique
is the result of pretty much what I said originally. He obviously
liked it if he would continue to do things that way, thus making it
his technique for the way he likes to do his films.
Back to Lars:
What I said later with regards to Godard and Lars was with the mindset of 'if Lars was intentionally
using Godard's style.' I don't know this because I don't know this
director, but he is mentioned and attributed for doing so.

I didn't think the songs themselves were all that great, but I loved
the way each of them was introduced with the sounds of machines,
and whatnot forming the music. I sometimes sing along to the washing
machine.

Sorry for prattling on and for any overstating. It is not intentional.
This review was edited from a longer set of several takes on a forum that
I took several parts out that I thought were less relevant or too long.

;)

-Sleeve-