I like the movie because it confuses me morally. Critics of von Trier say that it is more than a little strange that his longsuffering characters, the ones who demonstrate sacrifice, are always women. What is his ultimate point about sacrifice? Is it integrally related to women?
The counter-point of musical comedy and merciless realism seems to raise the question of what role fantasy plays in our ethical lives. Sometimes it might be necessary to make sense and comfort; other times it distorts and clouds. I haven't yet decided what (if anything) the director says about how you tell the difference when it REALLY, REALLY counts.
Also, did Selma truly do what was best for her son? I mean, maybe sight was an unbearable loss to her, but what if her son truly valued her presence in his life more? Doesn't that mean that Selma, though full of good intentions, sacrificed herself AND hurt her son based on her own values, while never considering his in any serious way? As a parent, I guess you have to make those decisions some times, but this case seems so extreme -- which leads me ...
Is Selma supposed to be an innocent? Simple? Or a heroically determined idealist? Does the audience's sympathy include admiration? I think von Trier purposefully complicates this question, forcing the audience to agree to almost all these to different degrees. That blurring, that complication, is very important, but I think it is useless unless we as viewers actually do try to sort out our reactions, rather than being permanently overwhelmed by the horror of the situation.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-30 04:12 pm (UTC)The counter-point of musical comedy and merciless realism seems to raise the question of what role fantasy plays in our ethical lives. Sometimes it might be necessary to make sense and comfort; other times it distorts and clouds. I haven't yet decided what (if anything) the director says about how you tell the difference when it REALLY, REALLY counts.
Also, did Selma truly do what was best for her son? I mean, maybe sight was an unbearable loss to her, but what if her son truly valued her presence in his life more? Doesn't that mean that Selma, though full of good intentions, sacrificed herself AND hurt her son based on her own values, while never considering his in any serious way? As a parent, I guess you have to make those decisions some times, but this case seems so extreme -- which leads me ...
Is Selma supposed to be an innocent? Simple? Or a heroically determined idealist? Does the audience's sympathy include admiration? I think von Trier purposefully complicates this question, forcing the audience to agree to almost all these to different degrees. That blurring, that complication, is very important, but I think it is useless unless we as viewers actually do try to sort out our reactions, rather than being permanently overwhelmed by the horror of the situation.
But ... :) ... I, as of yet, have not. :)