Tom = von Trier
Write whatever you like.
shareHow so?
share
MovieChat Forums > Dogville (2004) Discussion > Tom = von Trier
No, I'm pretty sure Tom doesn't represent von Trier/the filmmaker. The Narrator, who stands apart from the story and describes the action from a more or less omniscient point of view, might conceivably = von Trier. Tom, in spite of his attempts to be objective and analyze the situation, is very much part of the town and the story, and is deluded and in the wrong himself, to the very end. The filmmaker shows us how wrong he is, and is therefore a person apart from and beyond Tom himself.
Tell me the truth. Are we still in the game?
Tom was the most evil character in the film. He introduced her, made her work and let her get raped. Tom was the charlatan, he never really truly wanted to help her at all; she was his inspiration, his subject and used her as much as everyone else; made clear at the end when he chooses for the town so easily with *beep* reasoning.
shareIt could be argued he was the most evil, even though he was superficially the most kind and enlightened. He was a specific kind of evil character, who can rationalize his way around anything through his philosophy, and ends up doing wrong while maintaining the most elevated thoughts.
Tell me the truth. Are we still in the game?
Yes, I agree Tom represents von Trier, or his type at least, in the story or in the world. The pseudointellectual who thinks he's better than everyone else but isn't really. It's some interesting self analysis if we're right.
Tom, in spite of his attempts to be objective and analyze the situation, is very much part of the town and the story, and is deluded and in the wrong himself, to the very end
Exactly, and that can very well be meant to represent von Trier. Failing in his attempts to be above what he himself criticizes. Rationalizing his own way around it, like everyone else. share
I am not sure if the OP was joking, but in truth when von Trier made the film, he was in fact doing precisely what Tom had been doing. Their similarities were perhaps greater than what the director himself had realized.
Tom in the film regarded himself as morally superior to the rest of the people in Dogville. He was the self-appointed moral and spiritual leader, and set himself the task of moral "rearmament" or betterment of the town through speaking at regular meetings. He wanted to write a book to "analyze" the population of Dogville, and intended to use the town's experiences - especially their treatment of the new stranger - "to illustrate". Wasn't the director/scriptwriter, in making this film, doing exactly the same thing? Wasn't he using the story as an illustration to send a certain message to the viewer, and in passing judgment on the characters also inevitably passing on his own set of values?
Of course Tom failed miserably. He attempted to analyze the town but failed to look at himself. He was deluding himself and also Grace by pretending to be her friend and protector but actually had desires for her just like the other men. He regarded himself as the moral center of the town but ultimately turned out to be evil. He took advantage of Grace and used her and finally betrayed her to the gang, but in every step was able to rationalize and justify himself - like any pseudointellectual and hypocrite would do. Whether von Trier had similar failings in making this film I leave it to the other posters to judge.
I certainly got a sense that Tom was a cypher for Von Trier. One of the great things about the film is how Von Trier includes himself amongst the chess pieces he’s moving around, it doesn’t feel like he’s preaching and telling a morality tale from a position of superiority.
I like how Tom was very aware of the illusions and hypocrisies of the townsfolk, and thought he was above them, but put to the test he was just as much a dog as the others.