Lars von Trier is one of my new favorites in the cinematic world. I could have simply said that he is one of my favorite directors but Lars, if I may use the familiar address, is far more than that: he is also a writer, an innovator, a visionary, a satirist, a comic, a man in limbo between darkness and light, among other things. Apparently he is also a father and a husband (a few times over) but I know nothing of Lars in either context, which is just as well - celebrities tend to expose their family lives to all manner of voyeuristic impulses from the public. So it is refreshing to not be able to learn such details about Lars, though I am hardly immune to such impulses myself and therefore, I do wonder.

My experience with the films of Lars von Trier began, ignorant of who the director was, with Dancer in the Dark and I thought it was a beautiful film (it made me cry) and a bit odd but to be honest I attributed its avant-garde nature more to Bjork's influence than to the director's. That is, until I had seen a few more of his films.

In fact, the real moment of realization was the second film of his that I watched, The Five Obstructions. I had no idea this was the same director at the time, it was a random Film Movement selection from the local library. I tend to have a great deal of trust in the movies that Film Movement has in their collection. And this one is just another reason why that is the case. It also happens to be one of the best ways to get inside Lars' head and understand who he is as a person, and as a director. It does seem as if this is one of the main goals of the movie, given the structure of it.

And, this past summer, a friend and I spent a couple of weeks devouring von Trier's singular creations. Epidemic, Dogville (the first of the U.S.A. trilogy), Dear Wendy (he wrote this but his friend directed it), and I've yet to actually finish Medea.
Epidemic is a funny film, and I was shocked to learn that it was slammed by the critics. When I say that it is funny, I mean that quite literally. It's meant to be a horror film perhaps but it is also quite clearly meant to amuse in a satirical fashion.

Dogville is the first of the USA trilogy. It isn't an easy film to watch. First you must get used to the set - though if you have been indoctrinated into the World of Lars von Trier, this isn't that difficult. Then there is the creepy Pleasantvillesque nature of the little town wherein the events of the film take place. Maybe a 1/3rd of the way in, the creepiness gives birth to unrelenting in-your-face horror. I have to give some serious praise to Nicole Kidman for her starring role in this film. I am sure it must have been very hard to play that role, and to act with von Trier as director - in fact, I think she's said as much. But they pulled it off beautifully. I don't think I breathed properly while watching, I was on the edge of my seat through the whole latter two-thirds of the film. I have yet to see Manderlay (will do so soon), the second of this series, and will be very much upset if he cannot pull himself out of the slump he is in now and finish this trilogy before the upcoming elections in the U.S. - not that I expect the voting public to pay much attention to his work but you never know... Because this series is called the USA trilogy, it is undeniable what the purpose of Dogville is, and what the message is. Furthermore, the song at the end of the movie clarifies any doubts. But the message(s) implicit are also universally applicable. The violence of oppression and the violence of denial and silent acquiescence are some of the most obvious and central themes explored in this film.

Thanks to Lars, I have learned something of the auteur theory of film criticism, and so far I agree that Lars exemplifies this concept: his films reflect his own personal creative vision. Indeed, he has taken steps to protect this by creating his own film company as well as developing the Dogme95 Collective/movement with its "Vow of Chastity", a set of guidelines of filmmaking (which even he has not followed precisely except for perhaps Idiots though the reprimands have yet to be written, and I have not seen it to comment).

I don't think you can participate in the creative process of someone like Lars without learning something about who they are as a person. And given what I've learned, I believe this is part of the purity that is at the core of the Dogme95 philosophy.

Lars' past, that much that I have read about, is clearly a strong influence on his work and his person but can we not say this of anyone? It is true, however, that some influences are more obvious, more clear-cut, than others.

It seems to me that Lars has insecurities, again just as we all do, that he copes with as some do, through a kind of righteous arrogance that pervades everything that he does. Watch any of his interviews, any of The Five Obstructions, or the Dogme interviews, and you are hit with this arrogance. But I cannot fault the man for it - as he is completely honest about it, or so it seems. Arrogance without honesty is just arrogance meant to only elevate yourself above others. Arrogance for the sake of superiority alone. With honesty and a clear vision, arrogance can simply be a tool that one like Lars uses to bring his vision to the light of day so that it might be seen by others and, presumably, have an impact on society. And anyway, with a smile like his, and the beauty of his films, can you really blame the guy?

Like Epidemic, I fear that Lars has infected me with his vision and I will never be the same. But again, if we understand the principles of overdetermination, we know that this can be said of anyone and anything that we come in contact with. So, knowing that it is an illusion, I will say that Lars' influence on me (particularly in terms of my own creativity) feels more powerful than some others.