Dogville, Colorado. Pop. 15

So I'd been putting off seeing Dogville cause I thought it was going to have me all fucked up about America and hypocrisy and violence. I saw it today and realized that I only thought it was going to mess me up because I believed the critics who believed Lars Von Trier when he claimed he knew what this, "his," movie was about.
Surely Von Trier made this film with a very specific message in mind. And, judging from the press, and parts of the film, that was a message about America's two-facedness. About our rhetoric of acceptance versus our acts of exclusion. Violence masked by selfish kindness, personal gain fronting as community need. In case you didn't quite understand that America is not just the land of plenty, but also the land of the poor and broken, that the dream, the myth is bogus, the closing credits play over photographs of just such poor and broken Americans.
But to me, the closing credits seemed really out of place. And that's because I could give a hoot about Von Trier's intended message. This film is only an allegory of America if you take his word that it is an allegory of America. You should not take his word for this. And then you should watch the movie.
I'm not saying it doesn't have anything to say about America. It doesn't, I think, have much to say that hasn't been said before. When we learned about the American Dream in high school, we also learned that it was a myth.
As a critique of America I think it fails, because the story, the place, the characters seem so particular, though they may have been intended as generalizations. Dogville, is not actually a very American place, even though it's intended to stand in as an everytown. Dogville is, however, a very interesting place, as is what happens there. Not as an allegory, just as a story.
I wish the critics had treated Von Trier like an author. Which is to say, that what he intended should have stopped mattering when he finished the film. After that, what the film means is something personal, for each of us to decide for ourselves. It is not something to be, that even can be, decided by the filmmaker.
That's not to say that what Von Trier intended isn't interesting, just that it's not the point. I am extremely curious to know how he understands Grace's transformation and how it fits into his allegorical scheme, but only because he interests me as a director and a person, not because I need him to tell me what I think and how I feel about her change of heart.
Had I seen the movie totally cold, I would not have been haunted by questions about America. I would, and I am, haunted by Grace and her transformation, by whether or not I believe or understand it, and whether or not I can forgive her for it, or if there is even anything to forgive. This film gave me something to think about. And though it's not what I thought it would be and it's probably not what Lars Von Trier wanted it to be, it's worthwhile all the same.