Dancer in the Dark (2000) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
763 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
Odd, bleak, but ultimately transfixing musical drama, pop singer Björk immerses herself completely in this tailor-made role.
gbrumburgh31 May 2001
The reviews were extremely black and white for this art-house film. People were either enthralled or bored to tears by the whole experience. There seemed to be no middle ground. Now, that's my kind of movie. Any picture that can reap awards (Cannes Film Festival) and get lambasted by the general public at the same time will always pique my interest. In respect, it was a rich, rewarding odyssey, much easier to get through than, let's say, even half of "8½."

My initial respect for the unique, uncompromising style of Danish director Lars von Trier goes back to his compelling work in "Zentropa" and "Breaking the Waves," both bleak, surrealistic studies of man vs. reality. His pieces usually center around some innocent, simple-minded, self-sacrificing soul who inevitably succumbs to the cruelties of life.

I found the central role of Selma (as played by the extraordinary Björk) to be very much the emotional equivalent of Emily Watson's touchingly childlike, near-sociopath Bess in "Breaking the Waves" -- blessed and cursed with a naive, soulful purity. Selma represents one of God's little quirks of nature. A bespectacled, pathetically infantile little ragamuffin completely out of touch, Selma has somehow survived like the runt of a litter would - through luck, will power, and the extreme kindness of those around her. An impoverished Czech-born emigré living in a small Northwestern U.S. industrial town during the mid-60s, this luckless creature manages to eek out a meager Airstream-like existence as a factory worker, despite the fact she is legally blind.

Selma is, amazingly enough, a mother. Seemingly ill-equipped to care for a child much less herself, she has nevertheless managed to provide for the 12-year-old boy, while nurturing the child as a young girl would her rag doll. The fairly adjusted boy suffers, however, from the same optic disease as the mother, while the crux of the story revolves around her attempts to save up money for his inevitable operation.

The fascination of "Dancer in the Dark" lies in Selma's musical world. With her eyesight failing, her ears become the only sense of joy, falling periodically into bouts of fantasy anytime she grabs onto a rhythm or beat (like machine sounds, train engines, etc.), wherein she becomes the star of her own working-class musical production. These compelling sequences become mere extensions of her real-life circumstances, i.e., the musical interludes at work will include the factory itself as a set piece and the other workers as her ensemble. A strange mix of Fellini neo-realism and Busby Berkeley illusion, these daydreams (sparked by Vincent Paterson's inventive choreography and von Trier's purposely puerile lyrics) become her only escape. Björk's odd musical talent and vocal style may be an acquired taste, but she is so mesmerizing here it becomes a non-issue. In addition, there are brief moments of levity as a hopelessly inept community theater production of "The Sound of Music" goes into rehearsals with the very awkward Selma playing Maria.

The subordinate cast is equally in tune. The wonderful, beguiling French star Catherine Deneuve downplays her ethereal beauty as Kathy, Selma's co-worker and trusted friend. And a strange, maternalistic friendship it is indeed, for this woman seems to have no other purpose in life than to be this girl's eyes and hands, looking out for her practically day and night. Peter ("Fargo") Stormare shies away from his ruthless killer image with this touching portrayal of a sensitive, almost pitiable boor who only has eyes for the ungainly Selma. David Morse is gripping as a seemingly compassionate but despairing policeman whose one desperate act involving neighbor Selma results in tragedy. Joel Grey has a brief, telling moment near the film's end as a faded musical star idolized by Selma.

As in his other featured works, von Trier's gritty, hand-held camera work may be dizzying to the point of distraction at first but its overall impact to the stark proceedings is unquestionable. Moreover, the grueling paces he puts his actresses through to achieve absolute truth borders on misogyny but the rewards are tenfold. As in the case of Emily Watson, Björk has never shined brighter as an artist.

A harrowing, refreshingly original piece of filmmaking that should be experienced by anybody who dares to be different.
178 out of 220 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Pure torture to watch, but I gave it an 8
preppy-310 October 2000
Why? Because it's a one of a kind movie. The acting is superb (especially Bjork), direction assured and the musical numbers are great. Still, it's the most depressing film I've ever seen. By the end of the film I was crying practically non-stop. It's so bleak I don't think I'll ever see it again, but it should be seen at least once by everybody. It shows misery and suffering full throttle. You'll either love it or loathe it (I'm somewhere in th middle), but you'll never see anything like it again and you won't forget it. Just bring lots of Kleenex.
29 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
An extraordinary, quietly exploding film - a fantasy and musical, it emanates with human spirits
ruby_fff20 October 2000
This is distinguishably different from the general Hollywood films or independent projects. It's not like anything done before. LARS VON TRIER, and BJORK, simply blow your mind away: such totality in delivery!

It's gut wrenching - an absorbing tearjerker - but not sentimental. It is in strong doses. (NFE: it may not be for everyone.) The theatre audience was very quiet with occasional sniffing heard. The film may be a fantasy, yet there are subtle jabs at certain social norms and contains hints at how we treat life and lead life.

Bjork made it natural, innocent, and naively good. It is all Bjork matter: she is feeling all the joy and pain and daydreaming, saying all those words, singing all those songs, and dancing along to the music she so ingeniously composed. Lars von Trier once again wrote and delivered a 100% powerful film. He packs all kinds of emotions into 2 hrs. and 20 mins.: from the endearing friendship of two working women Kathy and Selma; to the faithful loving pursuit of Jeff for Selma; to the quiet exchanges of seemingly trusting souls of Bill and Selma; to Selma's son, Bill's wife, the crime, the court, the prison's loneliness within; the anguish pain of a determined mother; and the integrated mood changing musical numbers in-between. One scene of Bjork lying motionless with just one finger moving with quiet sobbing heard is powerful imagery.

Catherine Deneuve as Kathy is well at ease in her supporting role. She continues to exude her charm quietly. You can tell she thoroughly enjoys the company she's in at this production. Musical-wise, Deneuve is no stranger: besides "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg" 1964 - every word in the film was sung, I also remember Jacques Demy's "The Young Girls of Rochefort" 1967 - she danced and sang with her sister Francoise Dorleac, along with Gene Kelly, Michel Piccoli and George Chakiris.

David Morse as Bill (the policeman and neighbor) reminds me of what a memorable performance he delivered in Sean Penn's "The Crossing Guard" 1995 opposite Jack Nicholson and Robin Wright. 'tis great to see Joel Grey dancing again (hm, in the most improbable setting!)

For a 5' 4'' singer-songwriter from Iceland, Bjork is a giant impact in this quiet powerhouse of a film, "Dancer In the Dark." Lars von Trier's vision and confidence in Bjork truly paid off!
84 out of 116 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Most terifying film of I've ever seen.
Kdosda_Hegen26 July 2020
This film is brutal, it's not violent, but it's so intense, so sad, so depressing, that I could barely watch it. If you want to cry this film is a must watch. The storyline is fantastic, the cinematography is "cheap" and that makes it artistic. The music was fantastic, sad, creepy, meaningful and it wasn't out of random like in most musicals, here it made sense to exist.

It's one of the best musicals I've ever seen, it's one of the best dramas I've ever seen. It is one of the best films I've ever seen.
54 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pass the Popcorn review
PassPopcorn14 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
After seeing Melancholia and Antichrist, and after reading lots of stuff about Lars von Trier and his movies, I thought I understood what kind of director he is. When I started watching his filmography, I was expecting everything, really, because I know people who've seen a lot of his movies and they were always telling me that his films are good, but extremely tough to watch. Especially Dancer in the Dark, a friend of mine said. So when I started watching it, I found out I was unprepared.

Dancer in the Dark is a movie about Selma Jezkova (Björk), a factory worker from the '60s, who is slowly going blind. She has a genetic disease that she knows her 12-year old son will inherit, therefore she is saving up money so he can get an operation when he turns 13. She's extremely poor, she lives in a trailer she's renting from the town's policeman, Bill Houston (David Morse), who lives with his wife near Selma's trailer, and who is helping her with the money. Her only friends, Kathy (Catherine Deneuve) and Jeff (Peter Stormare) help her as well in her everyday-life routine. Everything starts to go downhill when the policeman doesn't have any more money to give her and, taking advantage of the fact that she's going completely blind, steals all the money that she saved up for her son's operation. That's when Selma starts to 'dance in the dark', both literally and metaphorically.

Dancer in the Dark is the third film in the so-called "Golden Heart trilogy" by Lars von Trier. I don't really know why the trilogy's called like that, but I can assume it's because the main character is a pure-hearted person, whose life gets destroyed by the people that surround him (in this case - her) and by the situations he finds himself in. At least, that's Selma's story. I think von Trier's goal here was to rip your heart out of your chest, squeeze it and make it explode. He took something so pure, innocent and beautiful as Selma, and made her suffer as much as he could. And all that you can do, as a viewer, is just watch the main character perish. I suffered along with the character, and it was really difficult to watch. I usually spontaneously empathise with the character, I try to experience what they're experiencing - and that surely didn't help. At the end of the movie, I was a train wreck, crying my eyes out. But maybe, the movie's problem is just in this.

The movie wasn't particularly well-received, especially by the critics, and I see why people don't like it. It's not a pleasant movie to watch; everything in it makes you feel uncomfortable, and especially mainstream audiences feel uncomfortable, since the movie is so unconventional. It's filmed by following almost all of the Dogme 95 rules: it uses hand-held digital cameras to create a documentary-style look, with no background music. I didn't mind those characteristics, I actually loved them. What I think we all really agree on is that the real eye-candy of the movie is Björk. Her performance was outworldly, something unique in the history of cinema. Many said that Björk was so convincing that she became the character herself - and I agree with them. That wasn't acting, as her co-star Catherine Deneuve said: that was feeling. And what's even better - Björk was able to use her main talent, music, in the movie as well: Selma is a great musical fan, and she would often daydream, creating musical numbers in her head. In the movie, we would see what Selma imagined. The colors would brighten (this time using static cameras to film), Selma would be singing along with whoever surrounded her, and everything would be cheerful. The result of the combination of Björk's phenomenal voice and incredible acting performance was astonishing.

But, as I was saying before, maybe the problem with the movie is that von Trier was using this 'destroying something beautiful' to get to the viewers. One could call it 'cheap storytelling', but isn't that the most effective way to get to someone's heart and then break it? Yes, it actually is. So, no, von Trier's masterplan here wasn't genius - he's just doing what he does best. But I don't really care. I don't think it's actually that easy to make someone feel such strong emotions. You've got to choose the right story, with the right characters (main and supporting), the right twists, the right directing, the right screenplay, the right tone and the right actors. Choosing Björk as the main character was a risk, since that was her first acting job. But her sweet, innocent appearance had an even greater effect on the whole movie experience, because it enhanced the beauty that was getting destroyed. I'm certain that the movie wouldn't have been this good without Björk's acting and music.

So, personally, I loved the movie. I'm all for the emotions, and this one struck me good. But I loved everything about it: its uniqueness in the way it's filmed and directed, the dark but sometimes cheerful tone, the characters and the actors, etc. The above mentioned problem that many had with the movie wasn't a problem for me at all. Maybe it was too raw and harsh, but Lars von Trier really got everything right, in my eyes. Some may call it tedious and overly-melodramatic, but I think it was all done on purpose. The initial slow pace created the right situations and the right tone, and the twists that happened later in the movie felt earned and right-timed. It all felt very real as well. When the final credits started running, and my tears started flowing like crazy, my first thought was "F**k you, Lars". But then, it turned into a "thank you", because, as a critic said, ultimately, it's a tribute to the power of cinema.
56 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A Movie To Break Your Heart
Outi23 August 2000
It feels awkward to attempt to put Dancer in the Dark into words. Von Trier's film is one of those movies that truly change the way we think about cinema and its possibilities, and for such a film, words do no justice. Dancer in the Dark centers around Selma (Björk), a factory worker, who loves her 10-year-old son above everything else in the world. Selma is a happy, innocent creature who enjoys musicals for "nothing bad ever happens in them". These elements (mother's love for her son, joyfulness of musicals versus the hardships of every day life) create a whole unlike anything ever seen on silver screen. Selma is rapidly losing her eye sight, but not her vision: she's the 'dancer in the dark' who is prepared to sacrifice herself to keep the light in her child's eyes. Very early on it becomes obvious that this story can't have a happy ending. However, once you've accepted it, you can put your mind at ease and see the film as it unfolds from Selma's point of view. And what a view it is! Björk gives a performance of a life time - this little woman with a huge voice is all emotion all the time without ever appearing overtly dramatic or cheaply sentimental. There's no weak link in the rest of the cast either, Peter Stormare as Jeff, Catherine Deneuve as Kathy and Siobhan Fallon as the prison guard to name but a few. The biggest star is still the director himself; von Trier demonstrates his talent in a superb fashion by both telling a simple story that will most likely break you heart and examining the ever-persistent ills of the life of the lower class of the American society. What about the film's musical character then? This is where von Trier triumphs the most by understanding the very essence of the whole genre - hope; hope that will live in our soul for ever if we'll only follow our heart.
212 out of 267 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Hardcore horror movie
bruntt4 September 2000
Warning: Spoilers
This is the most horrifying movie I've seen (gave it 10, though). I had the sensation that I was witnessing somebody die - and like Selma in the movie, I just begged for another musical-show to begin... I couldn't stand it. Everything is so tormenting and you just need that last (but not last!?) dance... Bjork is stunning as Selma, and the music she has composed blew me away. Even though this is perhaps the movie that has left the strongest impression with me ever, I don't know when I will be able watch it again.
259 out of 333 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Incredible, raw, brutal, beautiful
bgatespatch24 May 2021
Warning: Spoilers
It will take me a while to fully digest this film. It's been on my watch list a few years, having watched Antichrist, Melancholia and the Idiots.

I came across it on a list of films that you will only want to watch once.

I was absolutely captivated, horrified, entranced...

So many instances of Chekhov's gun, I wasn't sure they'd all be used but they were to devastating affect. My only criticism is the length of some of the musical numbers I wanted to be back into the brutal outside world, perhaps because I was dreading the inevitable sequence of tragedies and wanted them to be over.

I am not sure if I would watch this again. The emotions I experienced on this first watch will never be repeated.

Absolutely watch this film. Next in my watch list are Dogville and Breaking the Waves. Wish me luck!
9 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
My Cinematic Unemotional Streak- Broken!
wentzjw5513 October 2000
This is one of the best movies I have ever seen. I was not familiar with the director's previous work, but had picked up the soundtrack by Bjork and was intrigued.

Selma (incredibly portrayed by Bjork) makes the audience laugh and weep simutaneously just by following her heart. Every character is played flawlessly, and the cinemetography is innovative and dynamic. The musical numbers jump to life in a 'colorized' style, emphasizing the break from the dismal reality of Selma's painfully decaying life.

I will say only this. I hate crying at movies. Yet, as I was driving home, mad at the fact that I was still sobbing uncontrollably, I realized how much I loved this movie.
116 out of 160 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Possibly the most straightforwardly enjoyable Von Trier film
TheVictoriousV17 June 2020
Dancer in the Dark is the optimum anti-musical, juxtaposing the amateur aesthetic of the Dogme 95 movement against song numbers that are clearly color-corrected, shot with tripods, and otherwise more artificial than anything Dogme, centering around a sensational performance by Björk, as a Czechoslovakian immigrant who suffers for her altruism; a youthful innocence in the body of a tormented adult who enters the unrealistic world of movie musicals when she needs to flee. The music, naturally, is composed and sung almost entirely by her - and what music it is!

Though I have not yet seen all of them, Dancer in the Dark is very possibly the most genuinely good film from Danish provocateur Lars von Trier. While I admire or "appreciate" films like Antichrist and Melancholia for how they make me squirm and despair, it is easier to connect with the story and characters of Dancer in the Dark. Its unconventional choices in terms of style also make sense - mainly in regards to what I mentioned earlier about the overall "Dogme" look versus the production of the musical numbers - as opposed to those of Nymphomaniac, made at a point where Von Trier became too full of himself and did as he pleased.

My favorite creation of Von Trier's is his cult classic mini-series Riget (or The Kingdom for you non-Scandinavians), which is strange in ways more genuine than "I wish to be artsy and different". It is also the basis for Stephen King's decidedly less fascinating 2006 remake Kingdom Hospital, but these are all stories for another day.

Today's story is of Selma (Björk), a migrant in 1960's Washington State, who saves every penny she can of her income to pay for her son's operation, meant to rid him of the same illness that is presently turning her blind, a fact which she refuses to reveal. She lives on the property of an unhappy policeman (David Morse), is stalked by a local simpleton (Peter Stormare), and finds her only real friend within her colleague Kathy (Catherine Deneuve). Joel Grey also turns up as a fictionalized version of Oldrich Nový, one of Selma's idols, and what would a Von Trier film be without Udo Kier - the Murray to his Wes?

As her sight worsens, Selma pays more and more attention to the noises around her - the clatter-crash-thump of the machines she operates and the trains that pass - and discovers music, prompting her to envision song-and-dance sequences that, as mentioned, are shot, coordinated and colored quite differently than everything else (though still oddly framed at times, as with one number that was filmed on/around a moving train, on which several cameras were mounted and cut between in real-time, more or less). This is consistent with the Björk of the real world; finding all sorts of wonderful little details within the mundane.

When I recommend Von Trier's early work to friends, I often warn that his style takes some getting used to, and Dancer in the Dark will look unattractive to most. Another thing that possibly detracts would be Peter Stormare's singing voice during the Oscar-nominated "I've Seen It All", which was wisely replaced by that of Thom Yorke when Björk released her Selmasongs album. This was also the song that made Björk appear at the Oscars with that wonderful swan dress of hers, the most entertaining thing she's done since attempting to explain her TV.

All Peters aside, the music is hauntingly strange and flawlessly performed. After I finally watched the film, as I was advised to do by the Sardonicast crew in preparation for their next episode, it stayed on my mind for days to come and Selmasongs dominated my Spotify queue. Björk is often classified as avant-garde, experimental and electronic, hence it is surprising I haven't listened to the Icelandic treasure much yet.

Dancer in the Dark is outstandingly well-thought-out in just about every category; its song sequences make more sense than those of most musicals, the unconventional stylistic choices make more sense than those of many Von Trier films, and the songs are cleverly inspired by everyday noises. It's a devastating tale of a selfless person (hence its inclusion in the Golden Heart trilogy) and the world she retreats into until, perhaps, she learns it wasn't all hopeless.

Discussing Von Trier recently, I was told of how tiresome movies of misery and cruelty can be, especially when there is enough to go around in the real world. Dancer in the Dark is not cruel without purpose, arguably unlike the sulky Von Trier of today, and it does not end on an entirely pessimistic note. Even so, it might also make the case against the escapism you may find in a conventional, magical musical with a cheerful ending (not that every musical has this).

I like miserable movies, as they tend to be the most profound and challenging, but I like happy movies too, for surely obvious reasons. Dancer in the Dark, in a way, manages both.
12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Probably unlike any movie you have seen
bandw20 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
(Spoilers) I have seen several of von Trier's movies and have come to respect them, but I cannot say that I enjoy them. They surprise, frustrate, intrigue, irritate, and mystify me. None has been a mood enhancer. "Dancer in the Dark" is a case in point. I have seen several movies that make a case against the death penalty, but this one has been the most intense. The prolonged final scenes are painful to watch. The most depressing scene shows the audience slowly leaving after the execution.

Bjork plays Selma, a rather simpleminded young woman who is going blind and has a son who has inherited the condition. Through a sequence of unfortunate events, often implausible and exaggerated, Selma winds up on death row in Washington State in the United States. The movie could be set in almost any western country, except it had to be set in a place where the death penalty was legal, so the state of Washington in the United States was an appropriate choice. The fact that death by hanging was the preferred method of execution in Washington State at the time this movie was set (1964) I am sure excited von Trier's imagination in how he could make the execution as horrific as possible. I suspect that the decision to make Selma blind was to be able to accentuate the barbarity of the execution scene.

I came into this movie pretty much blind, so to speak, and was taken totally by surprise when the drama in Selma's factory was interrupted by a song and dance number. At odd moments the movie takes off into song and dance fantasy land; there are several musical numbers scattered throughout the movie. The scene that has Selma bursting into song on her way to the gallows has to be the most bizarre. The musical numbers are filmed in vibrant colors that contrast with the drab colors in the rest of the movie. The singing and dancing scenes are inventively choreographed.

I knew almost nothing about Bjork before seeing this movie, except that she is a singer. I was impressed by her performance, especially since this was her first. She was required to play some intense scenes that must have been emotionally draining for her--at least they were for me.

The use of hand-held cameras that von Trier so favors is ever-present, combined with rapid pans and zooming in and out. I understand the goals of these techniques--dynamism, more natural performances, attention focusing--but the effect on me is to make me dizzy.

I tend to want to discount von Trier, but I cannot deny his artistry. For example, the overture to "Dancer in the Dark" that has a slowly changing image accompanied by music, captured my imagination. Not sure that the overture has much to do with the rest of the movie, except maybe establish a mood.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Bjork gives performance deserving of Oscar.
bandunk26 March 2001
When I was driving to see this movie, I wondered how I was going to react to the film. Lars Von Trier had always been one of my favorite directors, but I was unsure if I was going to enjoy this film. After watching the film, I half to say that this was one of the best films I had ever seen. Lars von Trier used handheld cinematography perfectly and I was especially impressed by how he operated the camera himself. Also the way he used lighting and still cameras in the music sequences expressed the surreal daydreams of Selma.

Selma, played by Bjork, is a strong willed yet kind character who is hit by a series of bad events. Bjork plays this role so convincingly it is almost uncomfortable to watch. She doesnt act more than emote the character.

With Lars Von Trier directing and great acting, this is far and away the best film of the year. Its unfortunate that America didn't give the recognition the film deserved.
94 out of 138 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
DON'T BELIEVE THE CRITICS
kevin c9 October 2000
A superb piece of 2000 cinema, and a worth Cannes winner. Bjork is absolutely perfect as the vulnerable but sympathetic heroine. I won't spoil the plot, but you don't expect to end up where the film takes you. There didn't seem to be a dry eye in the house. The music is slightly spoilt by Lars Von Trier's lyrics, but Bjork puts some life into the tunes. This has had an appalling critical response in the U.K. It put me off going for 2/3 weeks. I do feel that Bjork can arouse resentment in people. Perhaps the establishment (French, Walker, Norman etc) needs to go, and be replaced by some fresh blood.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Standing up for those that HATE this film
Jaymay8 August 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But with a movie like DANCER IN THE DARK, it's very easy to get the sense that those who didn't like it are simple-minded sour-pusses with artistic tunnel vision.

Plus, most people who hated it don't take the time to write a comment. Why waste another second of your life on this dreck?

I'd like to congratulate everyone who has the guts to trash this film. It is not entertaining. It is founded on characters who make ridiculous decisions to facilitate melodramatic story points. It plays to the weaknesses of every one of its participants.

Some of the comments can be paraphrased like this: "I like a film that causes such intense reactions, good and bad." If a film isn't good, why in the world would we indulge the amateur auteurs who created it? This means Lars Von Trier will be encouraged to make MORE horrible films!

Being forced to watch Bjork act is like being forced to listen to Anna Nicole Smith play the saxaphone. Why can't we let people who were trained to act do their job? Bjork vacillates between a caricature of her weird childish stage persona and a poster-child for OverActing 101 (especially the prison scenes).

Selma, as a character, is by turns stubborn, stupid, unreasonable and selfish. Not a very good candidate for a martyr. David Morse's Bill, the antagonist, goes from benevolent protector to psychopath on the thinnest of motivations. Peter Stormare practically drools to show how stupid he is when he is wooing Bjork. It's a condescending repulsive love story.

Part of me wants to not submit this comment, because in the end, the film isn't worth this much thought. But if everyone thought this way, the comments would be overwhelmingly positive. And I can't believe that that is representative of the audience reaction to this film.

Unless you have a high tolerance for arthouse highbrow crap, don't see this movie. It's a waste of your time.

1/10.
170 out of 349 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A film so perfect it hurts to watch.
Pseudo-geordie boy10 November 2000
This is quite possibly the most moving film I've seen, it ensnares you within the first minute, or Bjork does with her interpretation of the sound of music, which is both hilarious and introduces one of the main themes: the magic of musicals. Not one of my favourite genres (but everyone loves The Sound Of Music, right?) but Lars Von Trier makes you re-evaluate your perception with a gentle loving pastiche of the way for no reason people and things in musicals spontaneously erupt into song, made more credible in this film by implicating a reason for it: Bjork's character is going blind so she hears music in the slightest thing and she, in her mind, sees how moves should be choreographed with the music she hears, reminiscent of her own ‘It's Oh So Quiet' music video. And the best thing about this film is the way Bjork charms you with her portrayal of the nicest person in the world, she will do anything for you if she could. She is essentially an innocent and though this is her weakness you can't help but love her all the more: a sparkling performance from a unique singer in real life.

However from this don't assume that this is a light happy film as there is a dark tragic side also, and this side is full of injustice, agony- and I mean agony-, sorrow- like you'd not believe-, and an intense emotional pull as I've ever felt in a cinema before, and it's this half that propels it from being just a great film to becoming one of the greatest. Its greatness is in telling a simple story of a woman trying to stop her own genetic sight disorder afflicting her son, by working every hour to afford the operation, working heavy machinery despite essentially being virtually blind, its greatness is its ability to inflict upon you the gift of feeling every conceivable emotion you posses and you do, you really do experience so much during this film. But I'll not say too much as my enjoyment of this film increased due to, for a change, not second guessing what would happen but to just let it be, I would say to passively watch but there's nothing passive about this film. It really moves you. It makes you feel alive.

This film should be seen alone, in the quiet when you are all by yourself, but more importantly than that it should be seen: this is more than mere movie this is art this is real this is the greatest film I have ever seen: even better than Casablanca, and Shadowlands, and The Piano.
163 out of 211 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A "Musical" like no other before it...
izauze9 October 2000
Gene Kelly's musicals may never have tempted a tear, but this film sure did. This is the most creative and powerful film I've seen this year. I just got back so it will take a while to absorb where it fits in the hierarchy of great movies, but it is one of the few 10's I have ever given on IMDB. I went in knowing nothing other then that Bjork was the lead and that it was a Cannes favorite, I and was rewarded greatly. I am not closed minded, but I thought I would never again find a musical that so wrapped you up in the emotional core of the piece, such as the musicals that I enjoyed in my youth. Its style is experimental enough that I would be surprised if it got a Best Film Oscar nod, but never would I be surprised for any honors bestowed on Bjork, who torturingly WAS Selma for those two painful hours. She is a goddess.
78 out of 121 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
I've fallen in love.
drewmcleod923 December 2012
This felt so real. When I watch films these days, I am always watching them with a critical eye for technicality or acting. This film brought me into it's world, the magical world of bjork. Even the musical parts drew me in, because they were so oddly out of place.

I've seen people complaining about Bjork's acting... I honestly haven't felt this emotional over an actors performance in years. And I've seen hundreds of movies this year alone. She made me fall in love, She was innocent, destroyed by the greed of human nature. Honestly, All technical problems aside. I mean the grain was awful, It looks like it was shot with a mini dv camera, and Von trier probably should have hired a camera operator.

This was easily one of my top 10 films I've seen this year.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Experimental, jarring, beautiful
pray4mojo8 October 2000
Dancer in the Dark haunted me. This film was an amazing view into the human mind as well as a tragic story of hopeless hope, betrayal by others, and still remaining true to yourself. Bjork produces an inspirational performance, of which one would never think she is not primarily an actress. Some of her moments in this film bring you to tears with their absolute honesty. The ensemble cast are a godsend as well. Peter Stormare, Catherine Denevue, and David Morse in particular. Morse, playing the most varied and difficult character, succeeds with apparent ease. The only complaint I had of the film is that it was slightly drawn out and slow paced. However, it is still spiked with moments of surprise that knock you so hard, you are pulled back in immediately. With an incredible closeness to these people, Dancer in the Dark will make you think and stretch your emotions to the limit.
56 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
It destroyed me.
briefexistance10 December 2014
Saddest movie i've ever seen. I almost never cry in films, but this one made me feel so.. empty. I connected with Björk's character and i empathized as never before. Their songs are so wonderful and perfect to the film, comparing her naïve and romantic personality, to the sad, cruel and sorrowful reality. The contrast is so intense...

The last scene is so damn sad. There wasn't necessary to sacrifice the most heartbreaking and beautiful character i've ever seen, this shows there's no limit to the love of a mother. I seriously don't have enough words to describe how this film made me feel, it's not easy found a masterpiece like this, instead of a lot of FX, explosions and butts who their only objective is selling, this movie is... pure emotions. Humanity.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
This is not a movie
hoff137 September 2000
Why discuss the plot of a movie, which is not a movie anyway. Dancer in the Dark is sheer emotion, and the movie can be described in one word: Björk.

If you can stand seeing a person being tormented for more than two hours, you might not shed a tear. I was surprised to find that it was true, what Deneuvre had said, that Björk doesn't play Selma. She is Selma.

Both Björk and her tormenter von Trier deserves all the credit they can get for showing, there is still new ground to break in cinema.

If you want to see a movie, choose something else. If you want art, this is it.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The kind of raw film you search for
data_over_dogma8 September 2020
This film was brilliant. Realistic acting like this is only possible through the incredibly charged conflicts onset. The reason why this movie captures such a tragic element is due to the torture it was to get everyone to work together. Only comparable to the raw emotions of movies like The Shining and other classics that required an almost unethical amount of stress to create. Warning that this movie is emotionally disturbing in a violent sort of way which may not be tolerable by some viewers.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Some horrible elements, but still a powerful experience
blott2319-119 March 2021
I was annoyed from minute one of Dancer in the Dark. The visuals are total garbage, as though they were shot with a VHS camera in the 1980s. Even when things like this are done with some justifiable intent, it irritates me. Not only that, but the picture moved so much that I thought I might need motion-sickness pills. This handheld camerawork always bothers me, and I hate when the film is moving even in static shots when people are sitting down. It takes me out of the movie and reminds me that some guy with the shakes is holding a camera pointing at actors, rather than allowing me to get lost in the story. Then there's the music. I assure you, I'm a sucker for a good musical, and I wish this was one. I simply don't like Björk's sound, and therefore the musical numbers that take place in her fantasy sequences are horribly limited in their impact because of the strange breathy etherealness of her singing. She was so awkward that I could not figure out why anyone would give her a lead role in a musical, even one for a rinky-dink community theater company.

That being said at some point the film-making and bad singing started to fade away, and I was getting unexpectedly invested in the plot. Björk plays such a lovable and innocent character, that you want to see her succeed, and cringe when anything bad happens to her. In fact, because horrible things do start to happen, I found Dancer in the Dark to be a rare experience. This movie goes on the short list of films that I found emotionally powerful and utterly compelling, but that I never want to watch again. There is a cathartic quality in a movie that can elicit a good cry out of me, but these weren't refreshing tears. I was angry and upset with the events of this movie, it took me to dark places that I don't enjoy. Yet that kind of powerful emotional experience assured me that the movie did a great job of telling its story despite the flaws that I found in the presentation. Dancer in the Dark is not a fun movie, and it's not something I could see myself recommending to most people, but it is a great story that sucks you in, and therefore I don't regret watching it at all.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Sad, but good....
MarieGabrielle18 March 2011
I admit I had to watch this a few times, the music is intriguing and ethereal, but the story seems on a parallel universe of strange, then scary, then a form of horror. But also a story of hope, which is to say, its confusing.

Basically Selma is a Czech immigrant who wants to find a life for herself, she has a secret in that her disease causes her to become at first near-sighted and myopic, she then is nearly blind.

She does not live a pretty life, works in a factory but finds that the machines are rhythmic, and as she also enjoys old musicals from the 40's and 50's this is her form of escape. This is the better part of the story, her spirit and how she endeavors to survive.

I am not a major fan of Bjork but I do like her voice and she is very affecting here, I think I had seen a very odd documentary about her made early in her career.

Am wondering what she is doing lately, as this film is well-acted and she portrays the sad and eventually discarded Selma, in a very convincing yet not trite manner. Good performances also with David Morse, Cara Seymour, Peter Stormare and the always beautiful Catherine Deneuve. 9/10.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A DISHONEST AND MANIPULATORY MOVIE
Milhouse Van Houten26 November 2000
With "Dancer in the Dark" Lars von Trier confirms his tendency to cheat the audience by involving it in a cruel game. In this case the game consists in doing everything to make the viewer identify him/herself in Selma's character; so He shows her as the most harmless, excessively generous and implausibly naïve person in the world: a sort of a child-woman who hides her money in a cookies-box, someone which is impossible not to have sympathy for. Then He subjects Selma to a contrived series of physical and psychological tortures which, because of the identification process between character and viewer, is inflicted to the audience too. This way the director achieves his only aim: have the viewers crying after taking them on the verge of a nervous breakdown. One of the negative notes of this movie is the balance of characters: after "Breaking the Waves" Lars von Trier has been accused of misogyny and knowing that also The Dancer could be liable of the same remark, because of the very similar childish, tormented female main character, He surrounded Selma with a series of male characters who are almost all nasty and negative and He interspersed the script, especially toward the finale, with a lot of references to sorority and female bonding. For these reasons I invite IMDb commentators who claimed this film as a masterpiece to reconsider their judgment and think about it with more detachment: in fact the director's seemingly succeeded attempt was to talk only to viewer's heart cutting out the brain. Finally two requests: don't take The Dancer as film against death penalty and the American way of life because those issues here are merely functional to the heroine's martyrdom; but above all don't ever compare Lars von Trier to C.T. Dreyer: They don't have anything in common but the fact that They're both Danes and The Dancer resembles more to Arthur Hiller's "Love Story" than to "The Passion of Joan of Arc". I give it 6/10 just for its technical merits and the indubitable effectiveness.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Insulting melodrama threaded out by the stupidity of main character
dalbrect21 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Seriously, a 7.8 on IMDb? My wife and I got roped into this from a fairly interesting summary: A woman losing her sight turns her reality into musical numbers as her life spins out of control. Little did we know that every single awful thing that happens to her is because of her own stupidity.

Actually, I can't blame the character - I think she was losing her mind along with her sight (it's the only explanation for her moronic behavior) - but I sure as heck blame the director. NO ONE acts like this Bjork character. Covering up for the guy who stole your kids eye surgery money because he made you promise not to tell anyone about his money problems? Even when you are on trial for his murder? Even when he begged you to kill him because he's a scum who steals from a blind woman? PREPOSTEROUS. I would've made the leap of illogic if she would've sprouting wings and flew into the air. But this? Come on!

This has to be one of the most insulting movies to the intelligence of film audiences everywhere. All that was lacking from the forced emotional suffering of this character was having her dog get run over by a car because she forgot to put on the hand-brake or something. There was no dog but I really don't know why the director didn't throw that cheap-shot in as well. Something to do with Animal Cruelty laws in Europe or something? It's the only explanation.

Blech, I just had to vent something about this awful film but I refuse to go deeper. I think a quick scan of some other comments will provide you with a body of evidence to avoid this one. The one star reviews are the only legitimate entertainment you'll get out of this disaster.
60 out of 117 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed