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.