For its sheer audacity, for its intimidating acting and pseudo-disaster, Lars von Trier’s Dancer in the Dark must be one of his most senseless films ever. It also must be the most shallow and manipulative. Every little thing about it is senseless. The fake naivety and improbability of its plot, and the mysterious little bonehead grin on the face of the victim heroine. The victim heroine is played by Bjork who is a squeaking, chirruping diva.
Selma, who is a poor Czech migrant assembly line worker in a residential community of America. She rations each penny to raise her blind child without the help of anyone else. Sometimes she wanders off into fantasy land and sings musicals she likes. Every time she does this it just so happens that people start to sing with her. Björk’s job expects her to be relatively visually impaired too, wearing a couple of coke-bottle focal points that make her eyes look much more minor and piggier than normal. The director tries to make us feel bad for this whimsical charcter throughout the whole movie.
The acting doesn’t get much better either. I truly do not think it does. This film is one of a kind in a sense that it tries to get so much out of the audience. This film relies heavily on the audience filling in the wholes and making sense of the movie instead of being self supportive and logical.
All things considered, nobody’s questioning the rough assurance with which Dogme’s very own PT Barnum conveys his unusual ignitable ambush on our feelings. Be that as it may, his story seems to have been copied from a 12-year-early’s English homework. Poor Selma is going visually impaired! Her poor child Gene is going visually impaired also! Also, she’s doing without and setting aside cash in a tin box for Gene’s “activity”. Without a doubt this is stolen from her by an evil policeman. Standing up to him and recovering her cash prompts savagery and catastrophe. Waiting for capital punishment, Selma discovers that a legal advisor can get her off. she can’t acknowledge his assistance since his expense happens to be proportionate to the cash she hasfor Gene’s medical procedure. So the plot does not confront the most superficial assessment. There is the easygoing murkiness about the idea of this eye issue and the fundamental therapeutic “task”. There is no talk whatever of the dad of Selma’s child.
This film is unrealistic and silly. I relies too much on the audience. This is a great movie if you want to be unnecessarily sad and depressed for no reason. I do not recommend watching this film.
Winchell's Film Column 
I have to politely disagree with this film relying solely on the audience. I think that it, in fact, the film leads the audience through each emotion and even with a simple plot line the use of color and sound allows the audience to be captivated by emotion. Although for most of the film the perception is depressing there are scenes of happiness. When she’s rehearsing or watching her son ride a bike we are led to feel joy. Now, with that said, these are moments that make the ending even harder to bare. I personally come to admire her work ethic and love for her son but in the end her efforts seem pointless because she won’t be able to witness her son’s new future.
LikeLike
Alec, I definitely see your point of view and frustrations about the film. However, I also disagree with you on the acting claim. All things considered, I genuinely believe that Trier incorporated the silliness of acting and the continuous dancing and jumping around done by Selma from scene to scene is designed to communicate two different worlds. The world that Selma is, unfortunately, living in, blind and financially poor, but also a world where Selma felt at peace and relieved from all the stresses of the world. For instance, have you ever found yourself daydreaming in class, while the professor is talking? That disconnection that you have allows you to reevaluate your life and clearly think about the situation at hand. I think he did an outstanding job.
LikeLike
I have to disagree with your claim saying that the film is pointless because although the film does have some scenes that could have been resolved if the truth was spoken, it does bring meaning to the vibe of the film. For instance, if Selma would have just told the judge the truth about the murder, the film would have had a different tone and ending. The film would have not been as sad nor emotional if Selma would have told the truth, so saying that the film has no meaning would be a false accusation. The willingness of Selma to give her life so her son can see provides the film with enough emotional vibe in the film. All the other emotional scenes are use add-ons to set the plot.
LikeLike
This film absolutely left an irritating inclination toward its finish. The general vibe of the film put on a show of being discouraging and dull yet perhaps it was proposed for us to feel what Björk, or Selma, was feeling consistently. I seen that amid the melodic scenes, the vibe is more brilliant because of the difference in shading. The grass is greener, and the temperament is more joyful and kind of thoughtless. This state of mind change could be to enable us to see how Selma’s inclination changes when she isn’t centered around her visual perception or an amazing fate and her child’s life.
LikeLike