By James Bowman on 2.2.06 @ 12:02AM
Imagine a community in the Deep South of the 1930s where slavery never ended...
The key moment of Lars von Trier's Manderlay comes
after the narrative is finished and we hear David Bowie's "Young
Americans" over the closing credits, which are also accompanied by
a montage of scenes from America's turbulent racial history. You
can guess what kinds of things: Klan meetings, lynchings, Martin
Luther King in his coffin, poor people looking miserable amidst
indescribable squalor. The odd thing is that this stuff has only
the most tenuous connection with the more than two hours of film
that has preceded it. The sudden leap into a multimedia slideshow
of anti-American agitprop, while not unexpected from this
writer-director, is quite jarring in the context of the
deliberately non-visual and literary quality of the film
itself.
A sort of sequel to the author's Dogville but with
Bryce Dallas Howard succeeding Nicole Kidman in the role of Grace,
it is made in a similar style. Divided into "chapters," the basic
story is written in the now-artificial language of a 19th century
novel, and is read in a voiceover, third person narration by John
Hurt at his syrupiest. The actors perform, often in mime, on a bare
sound-stage with a minimum of props. Buildings and other features
of the landscape are outlined in chalk on the floor but otherwise
absent.
The idea of refusing to distract us with anything too visual or
cinematic seems to be to accentuate the thoughtfulness of the
philosophical meditation on power and oppression that is the film's
real -- or at least its earlier -- point. It's hard to tell if this
comically awkward Marxian jump from explaining the world to
changing it in the film's final passage was intended by von Trier
as a satirical comment on the heavy thinking that had gone before,
a postmodern raspberry blown in his own face, but that is the
effect it had on me. Not that the heavy thinking was all that
interesting to begin with. But, unlike the rah rah lefty,
down-with-racist-America conclusion, at least it deserved to be
taken seriously.
The basic idea of the film is that Grace, the sheltered daughter
of a gangster (William Dafoe), comes upon a community somewhere in
the deep South in the 1930s where slavery never ended. The slaves,
led by the immensely dignified house servant, Wilhelm (Danny
Glover), continue to plant and pick the cotton for aged matriarch
Ma'am (Lauren Bacall) just as if they had never heard of the
Emancipation Proclamation. Innocent young Grace naturally assumes
that all she has to do is tell them they are free and they will
leave the plantation and put in their claims for the 40 acres and
mule to which they are supposedly entitled by law. Gangster Daddy
is skeptical, however. He reminds her of the time when she opened
the door of her little canary's cage and later found the creature
frozen to death outside her window.
The canary's name was Tweety.
The slaves on Ma'am's plantation are meant to be seen as
similarly unprepared for freedom. But Grace insists that "It's our
abuse has made them what they are." Once Ma'am has died, she
determines in defiance of her father's warnings to play the
benevolent white liberal and teach the poor black folks how to be
free. Of course each liberal thought and sentiment is rigorously
examined for any trace of patronizing superiority, but the
situation is rife with it, however good Grace's intentions. In the
end the slaves vote -- as she has taught them to do -- but they
vote unanimously for her to become the new Ma'am. This is a bare
outline of the narrative arc which is filled in by Mr. Hurt's
exaggeratedly plummy narration.
There are only a couple of genuinely dramatic moments that rise
above the schematic presentation of the rest. One is when an old
woman, Wilma (Mona Hammond), is convicted of stealing food from a
sick child in a time of hardship, so causing her death. Grace
pleads for Wilma's life, but the slaves demand that she be executed
for killing the child. Are they free to decide these things for
themselves, as Grace has told them they are, or is liberal clemency
to be imposed on their wishes from above? The other is when Grace
falls for Timothy (Isaach De Bankole), the glamorous young rebel
among the slaves, at least as she sees him. At first she represses
her own desires, but at a crucial moment she succumbs to a forceful
(and explicitly recorded) moment of sexual domination in the course
of which she is forced to keep a handkerchief over her face.
This amounts to an allusion to the feminist account of male
power and oppression which we expect to cut across the racial
narrative of same, but it is not followed up. Instead the point
seems to be that Grace, in spite of her liberal good intentions,
will eventually and quite naturally fall into the role of the new
Ma'am. Within the terms of von Trier's political treatise, this
sort of makes sense, though its remoteness from the real world --
underscored by the author himself with his bare and schematic sets
and the stilted language of his voiceover storytelling -- makes it
necessary for the viewer to have an already well-developed
ideological consciousness in order to swallow it. The reader will
not be surprised to learn that I have not such a consciousness and
did not swallow it. The interesting thing is that the weird and
strident ending suggests that, at some level, von Trier is finding
it a little difficult to swallow as well.
James Bowman is a resident scholar at the Ethics and
Public Policy Center, media essayist for the New
Criterion, and The American Spectator's movie
critic.
topics:
Law