The Idea Of Other In Albert Camus’ Novel Stranger And Lars Von Trier’s Movie Dogville

Abstract

This essay about the film Dogville of Lars Von Trier is going to introduce through this film, the idea to be a “stranger” nowadays. How can it be appreciated in the content table, first I would contextualize the film of Dogville by explaining it and showing the most relevant data that surrounds the film. Then through an analysis of the film, this is going to be better explained in order to be compared with the Albert Camus work of The Stranger. Dogville presents a dystopic vision of human morality and more concrete, the moral and practices that happen in a simple village in the United States of America. For this reason and because in the lecture classes we had compared the moral of Albert Camus and Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, I included this author to have another vision and go more deeply with what these three authors wanted to express about the traditional values.

The context of the film

Dogville is not a current movie. It is the first film of the trilogy “USA – Land of opportunities”. It is divided into 9 episodes and a prologue. The scenario is presented withdrawn houses without walls, a narrator who sees and knows everything, and a town full of people that is not what it seems to be; the reflective intention and typical social analysis of the filmographic work is livelier than ever in the work of Lars Von Trier.

The film is located in an imaginary town with limited resources. Their neighbourhood has a series of customs and their lives are under the appearance of a fictional reality. One day during the great depression years, a fugitive persecuted by mobsters arrives looking for shelter to hide from them and the town decides to help her in return for her services.

The social phenomenon of immigration

In general, the phenomenon of immigration that is the fact that someone goes from their natal country to another is usually a phenomenon motivated for economic or war reasons. The country of destination usually offers better socio-economic conditions, more possibilities to find a good job and its safer.

Therefore, immigration is born due to hope on the part of the emigrants, who become immigrants when they reach the new country, to have a better life for them and their children in the country they emigrate.

This hope, however, is often truncated by the blow reality. In general, the country they go to; or does not want them because they can hardly offer a life that is worthy to their own inhabitants, or if they want them, is only for interest to carry out the most degrading tasks that someone must do but nobody wants.

We can see clear parallelism between this situation and the situation that Lars Von Trier presents with Grace and the people of Dogville. When Grace arrives at the village waiting for the help of some neighbourhood and the allow to start a new life there, the locals are distrustful, test her, order her the tasks they do not want to do but they would like someone to do and, despite having passed the two test weeks and having done diligently her mandatory tasks, the inhabitants continue to be distrustful with her and continue treating her as a second-class citizen.

Motivations of the director Lars Von Trier

The director’s intention with the story of Dogville is trying to understand human nature and morality beyond good and bad, kindness and evil. Trier makes a rigorous analysis of human behaviour and ideas of morality, ethics and justice, making us even doubt our idea of ​​what is morality. This is a complex character that goes beyond the typical director of Hollywood, but I think that the best way to understand Trier is through the following statement he made during a press conference on one of his latest Works when asked about his approach to Judaism, and for which he was accused of anti-Semitic and apology of Nazism: ‘I understand Hitler, although I understand that he did the wrong things, of course. I’m just saying that I understand man, it’s not what we would call a good guy, but I sympathize a little with him.’ Lars von Trier apologizes for his words about Hitler, El País, May 18, 2011.

Lars Von Trier uses the cinema to explain stories which whom people, can reflect and do a social analysis. Such as we can find in this whole trilogy film.

To begin, regarding the initial structure of Dogville, we can appreciate that the film signs the typical structure of a “Disney” film. With an initial presentation mark by an omniscient narrator, a middle and an end. Probably, the director had the intention to understand that this history was a story or a fable and that as all fables, there is a reflexive moral behind.

As well as the film is played, in the first term, the scene is probably the most impacting feature. Trier presents us a minimalist setting, without walls, ground neither plants, without more decoration than the indispensable. Also, strictly limited at the village extension. It doesn’t show any landscape, nor sky, nor sun neither moon. To indicate the public the hours of the day, Trier only magnifies and diminish the brightness of the stage. This presentation probably responds to a wish for the director’s part to avoiding unnecessary distractions with the scene and its decoration. Designed to keep the spectator focused on the story and taking part in it. Showing us Dogville and his inhabitants, without any superficial distractions. Completely nude.

During the course of the film, we can identify the two main characters, which are Tom and Grace. The masculine protagonist Tom is a youthful dweller of the village who has a natural ability for the oratory. The female protagonist Grace, is a young woman who arrives in Dogville unknown why, being chased by a mobster’s group, is helped in the first term by Tom who pities her. During her stay on Dogville, Grace act as a moral observer of the injustices committed by the inhabitants of the town, judging them from their principles and trying to get inside their skin and excuse them, but without fighting or offering resistance.

The storyteller, the voice-over we hear at all times but we never see, plays a key role in the history of Dogville. Basically, this voice places us in history while preparing us for future events and makes us understand that not everything is as it seems. For example, he often uses sarcasm and irony to narrate the facts, instead of explaining them as they happen. It also makes us understand from the outset that this story is a fable, in the style of Disney movies and popular stories, with a moral reflection on the back.

Initially, the inhabitants of Dogville do not seem to need anything from Grace. It’s simple people, with simple needs that are already covered before reaching Grace. What can she do that they do not already have? It is then when Tom finds out that, instead of doing things they need, Grace could do things that the inhabitants of Dogville do not need but would like them to do it. This is how the silent desires and luxuries of the inhabitants turn into new needs, needs that newcomer Grace will have to replace if she wants to be able to remain in the town, becoming almost a slave, because, where Grace will go if she decides to deny the works?

During the first weeks of Grace in the village, the situation is almost idyllic, utopian we could say. The inhabitants add to their efforts and almost accept it as one more. This situation, however, changes when the director introduces a new variable to history: a higher authority. A police officer hangs a search and place a poster of Grace in the middle of the town. Suddenly, the inhabitants of Dogville begin to become more distrustful towards who from the first moment has been kind, honest and willing to help in everything that is needed. The reason is being a foreigner, although, in the last few weeks, it was no longer really so foreign. Thus, the inhabitants find the perfect excuse to start demanding more and more Grace, reducing their already humble salary and increasing their working hours, justifying the ‘danger’ that implied the fact ‘ to help her’.

Initially, the inhabitants of Dogville present themselves as ordinary people, with lives and current problems, but we quickly begin to understand that what we first thought about them was just the appearance they tried to convey to others. So, they do not take long to show how they really are.

The first humiliations are subtle: to make it work more hours, to blackmail him, not to allow him to cross the town on the shortest path because she is not from the town… But these small humiliations go on even more until they reach the culmination of malice and injustice: one by one and at various moments of the film, all the male inhabitants of the town violate Grace. Tired of the mistreatment of the town, when she tries to escape with the confidence of the only member of the town who seems kind to him, he cheats, rape her and returns her to the town, where they put a chain on her neck like a dog ‘for her good’. In addition, the first to violate her is John, who is discovered by his wife. He responds lying, saying that Grace seduced him, causing that the wife decides to avenge Grace breaking one by one the only things that still joined Grace to the people, the result of their effort and their stoic resistance to the injustices to which it has been subjected: the figurines of porcelain.

When his father, who ultimately turns out to be the gangster who chased her, offers him ‘punish’ the inhabitants of Dogville for his acts. Despite the terrible humiliations, violations and ill-received by them, Grace’s initial reaction is to reject the idea strongly. Believing that if they did all this is because of the situation in which they were, for having been taken away by their primitive instincts simply because they are human, and she does not think that they should be punished for that but forgive and try to understand. To this initial response, his father accuses her of arrogant.

After this initial refusal, his father offers her to think about it, and that’s when Grace has a revelation: it is true that the inhabitants of Dogville cannot avoid being as they are, but neither they do anything to change. Grace realizes that if she were in their situation, she would feel bad and be punished by herself, but the inhabitants of Dogville do not, they do not change or have remorse. It is then that Grace decides that the only morally correct thing that she can do is to destroy the town and kill their inhabitants, every one of them. Tom, in particular, the most cowardly, manipulative and twisted of them, she kills him personally, ending with this fact the fable of Dogville.

Albert Camus

Albert Camus was a French philosopher, author and journalist activist. His views contributed to the philosophy known as absurdism. He was born on November 7, 1913, in Dréan (Algeria), in the province of Constantine, in a rather humble family. After his father’s death in war, his mother and her two children moved to Algiers. The mother worked in a factory, and then as a domestic worker. Camus was thus in contact with the humblest French social class of the Algerian capital and even with the Arab sub-proletariat. He attended high school thanks to the efforts of his elementary school teacher, Louis Germain, who, impressed by his intelligence, helped him to win a scholarship. Years later, he dedicated Speech of Sweden (Nobel Prize in Literature, 1957) to Germain. During high school, he got tuberculosis but continued his studies. He began writing for several literary journals and adhered to the anti-Franco movement founded by Romain Rolland and Henri Barbusse. He kept studying and graduated, but the scholarships he had were not enough and he took different jobs, including an employee in a shipping company and in a meteorological institute. In 1934 he enrolled in the Communist Party but abandoned it after the agreements between French Prime Minister Pierre Laval and Stalin. The exact date remains uncertain, but the basis of his renunciation was the communist attitude towards Arabs and French colonialism after this agreement. He wrote Caligula, his first theatrical work, and began working for a liberal left-wing newspaper, “Alger républicain”, directed by Pascal Pia. For Camus, journalism became a forum for conducting his battle for humanity; he followed the political affairs and defended Arabs, which earned him the criticism of the French authorities in Algeria. In 1939 his fight against the exploitation of the Arabs became stronger. In each article, he denounced the situation in which the Arabs lived in France and, at the same time, the conditions created by the French colonialist policy in Algeria. Camus decided to leave Algeria and travel to Paris. In May 1940 he finished writing The Stranger, but he had to flee to Clermont and then to Lyon because of the German invasion. In 1939 his fight against the exploitation of the Arabs became stronger. In each article, he denounced the situation in which the Arabs lived in France and, at the same time, the conditions created by the French colonialist policy in Algeria.

The idea of “other” and being a stranger in A.Camus The Stranger book. Compared with Dogville.

The idea of “other” in A.Camus, I am going to take it especially from his book: The Stranger. The book specially fit in this essay because it also reflects the author’s own experience about feeling and living in the France society the exclusion of his natal country.

The stranger was published during the German occupation. The story develops in Algiers and its suburbs. The book summaries the worries of a generation that grew between two wars. The first part of the story symbolizes the destroying part with the daily banality that consumes existence and an absurd gesture of revolt. The second part is the conscious one, with the process that Meursault (the protagonist) comes to get out of the world.

The first comparison we could establish between the two works is that Meursault is a Frenchman from Algeria, the result of the encounter between two cultures. On the other hand, Grace enters the town as a fugitive who desperate is searching for a place to live peacefully in exchange for manual work.

In both works, the protagonists suffer from a change during the stories. In The Stranger, Until the process, he is well inserted into his existence. When the process starts, he begins to feel extraneous and thus extraneous to external reality. In Dogville, Grace when arrives at the town takes the role of being someone to take care and to give work to. When the dangerous increase for having her inside the town, she converts in a slave who does not have any word to say about the work she receives and the inhabitants start to treat her as something who have less power than them (an object).

Also in both works, is not that the protagonists feel like as strangers, is that the society is making Meursault and Grace stranger because they do not “respect” the rules of the game, in other words, the established traditional morality that the society has in the stories. The great aspect is that both society morals that are implicit in the stories are a real representation that wanted to make both authors in a critic way.

To finish with the comparisons of the two works, The Stranger of A.Camus, focus more the aim to make the reader reflection about the existence and the feelings that feel the protagonist as a stranger. On the other hand, Dogville of Lars Von Trier, focus more on the goal to make the reader reflect that morality is a controversial concept and how the relative conception of it can result in different actions.

The vision of morality according to Nietzsche

Nietzsche undertook a profound critique of Western religion, culture, philosophy and morale. This criticism focused primarily on reflecting on the effects of the secularization of the illustration in traditional Christian society, a reflection that is reflected in his strong expression, ‘God is dead.’

In his work, The Genealogy of Morality (1887), Nietzsche addresses the critique of the current morality based on the study of the origin of moral prejudices. One of its fundamental arguments was that the traditional values, represented essentially by Christianity, had lost their power in the lives of people. He was convinced that traditional values ​​represented a ‘slave morality’, a morality created by weak and resentful people that fostered behaviours such as submission and conformism. Resentment is the one who created the moral values ​​of the West and is responsible for the emergence of an enemy civilization of life and a mediocre man.

Nietzsche affirmed the need to create new values ​​that had to replace the traditional ones, to arrive at the day in which one could live ‘beyond good and evil’, and his discussion of this possibility evolved to configure his portrait of the man to come, the ‘Superman’ (übermensch in German), an idea that would later influence transhumanism and justify Nazism.

In Dogville, we can appreciate this pessimistic view of Nietzsche’s moral and human nature. Throughout the work we see the moral principles of Grace, who considers that the inhabitants of Dogville cannot avoid being as they are and always tries to stick to their skin and apologize their behaviours, turn it into a slave , in a submissive and conformist person who only when he goes beyond his moral limitations, can become the proprietor of his destiny, a superwomen, in the style of Nietzsche’s ‘Superman’, and commit perhaps unpleasant acts but necessary that she might have previously considered immoral. Thus, Trier reflects on the overcoming of good and bad concepts, of going beyond good and evil.

Dystopias as social criticism

Dystopic visions, like Dogville itself, are models that are born of a possible changed present or future, exaggerating negative consequences of some aspects of the society. Thus, in this work, Trier strongly criticizes traditional morality, the idea of ​​distinguishing between good and bad and the false belief that we can all and want to become good. The inhabitants of Dogville not only commit injustices, but they also do nothing to stop being produced, in order to improve as people. At the same time, the moral principles of Grace prevent her from protesting or fighting against these behaviours, she tries to understand them, excusing them, believing they are not bad at all and that they are simply human, instinctive by nature, becoming the slave of her morality, in a submissive and conformist person. Until she reveals her moral and takes justice by her hand. Thus, with this dystopian vision, Lars Von Trier shows exaggeratedly the consequences of this submission to prevailing morals, and the need to go beyond good and evil.

References

  1. YouTube. (2019). Dogville 2003 DVDrip. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrPMEb8St-Q [Accessed 10 Mar. 2019].
  2. Cannes, G. (2019). Lars von Trier pide perdón por sus palabras sobre Hitler. [online] EL PAÍS. Available at: https://elpais.com/cultura/2011/05/18/actualidad/1305669607_850215.html [Accessed 10 Mar. 2019].
  3. Filosofia.net. (2019). Friedrich Nietzsche. [online] Available at: http://www.filosofia.net/materiales/filosofos/nietzsche/pensa.htm [Accessed 10 Mar. 2019].
  4. Mindies. (2019). Hablamos sobre Dogville, de Lars Von Trier | Mindies. [online] Available at: http://www.mindies.es/pelicula/hablamos-sobre-dogville-de-lars-von-trier/ [Accessed 10 Mar. 2019].
  5. Lanacion.com.ar. (2019). Von Trier, experimento y provocación. [online] Available at: https://www.lanacion.com.ar/532113-von-trier-experimento-y-provocacion [Accessed 10 Mar. 2019].
  6. Biografiasyvidas.com. (2019). Biografia de Friedrich Nietzsche. [online] Available at: https://www.biografiasyvidas.com/biografia/n/nietzsche.htm [Accessed 10 Mar. 2019].
  7. Ritondale, Elena. (2018). Culture: Albert Camus.

The Stranger and Waiting for Godot: Similarities and Differences

“The Stranger” written by Albert Camus is a story revolving around Monsieur Meursault, an indifferent man with a peculiar way of viewing life. “Waiting for Godot” written by Samuel Beckett is a play revolving around two characters, Vladimir and Estragon. Like “The Stranger”, these two characters are unordinary, living life in an abnormal way. This essay will be exploring how these books intertwine with each other through the similarities they share; however, they also contrast from each other due to their differences. The first similarity that these two books share is their fearlessness towards the concept of death. “ESTRAGON: Let’s hang ourselves immediately!” (Beckett, 9). This quote appears in the conversation while the two main characters are waiting for Godot. From this quote, it is clear that Vladimir and Estragon view death very lightly.

If it was possible, they would kill themselves without hesitation. “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know.” (Camus, 3). This quote from “The Stranger” appears after Meursault receives a telegram about his mother’s death. This quote indicates that Meursault does not think too heavily about his mother’s death as he does not clearly remember when his mother died. In addition, the way he talks about her with a monotone voice shows that he expresses no emotion. Although his mother died, he does not show any grief towards her passing. The second similarity that I will introduce is that the major characters in both pieces of literature have no meaning in life. Although Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for Godot, their life can be interpreted as meaningless as they just wait for Godot, doing nothing else with their lives.

They cannot leave the tree anytime soon. Days pass as they wait for someone who never appears. They are repeating the same exact routines every day without a single change from the previous day. Similarly, Meursault also does not convey meaning in life. “I said that people never change their lives, that in any case one life was as good as another and that I wasn’t dissatisfied with mine here at all.” (Camus, 41). From this quote, it is clear that he believes that one life is just as good as another since he believes that life does not have a logical meaning to it. Therefore, he does not try to do things to make his life more special or make it different from others. He does not have a clear goal in life. The only thing he defines as being inevitable in life is death. None of the major characters have any uniqueness in their life, living very plainly and simply. The final similarity that I will be introducing is that both pieces of literature show ways of passing time. They both consider life as meaningless.

The major characters do not have a clear goal in life. However, they both have their own ways of passing time. “After lunch I was a little bored and I wandered around the apartment…A little later, just for something to do, I picked up an old newspaper and read it.” (Camus, 21). From this quote, it is clear that Meursault has his own ways of killing time. Furthermore, besides reading newspapers, he passes his time by having a sexual relationship with Marie, smoking, and drinking with Raymond. Similarly, in “Waiting for Godot”, Vladimir and Estragon pass their time by calling each other names. Their conversations consist of sudden random bursts of information. They even played a game where they would call each other names. “ESTRAGON: Let’s hang ourselves immediately!” (Beckett, 9).

In addition, to pass time Estragon suggests hanging themselves, signifying that they are willing to do anything to pass the time. The first difference that will be explored is the way the characters in the two books express their emotions. Meursault barely expresses himself, disliking social interactions. “And when I woke up, I was slumped against a soldier who smiled at me and asked if I’d been traveling long. I said “Yes,” just so I wouldn’t have to say anything else.” (Camus, 4). From this quote, it is clear that he minimizes his responses to others in order to keep his thoughts to himself. On the other hand, the two characters, Vladimir and Estragon, are full of emotion, interacting with each other by expressing their feelings to each other. “ESTRAGON I had a dream. VLADIMIR Don’t tell me! ESTRAGON I dreamt that – VLADIMRIR DON’T TELL ME!” (Beckett, 8). This quote shows that they use strong ways of expressing their emotions for further communication.

Meursault isolates himself, while Vladimir and Estragon live through each other’s existence. The second difference I will be introducing is each of the main characters’ desire towards God. In “Waiting for Godot”, Godot represents God. Vladimir and Estragon continue to wait for him, although he does not seem to appear. “ESTRAGON Let’s go. VLADIMIR We can’t. ESTRAGON Why not? VLADIMIR We’re waiting for Godot.” (Beckett, 6). From this quote, it is clear that although Estragon is willing to leave, Vladimir always stops him. As time had passed, waiting for Godot became a mandatory task for Vladimir and Estragon. No matter whether he will arrive soon or not, they kept on worshiping and respecting him. On the other hand, although the Chaplain tells Meursault to turn to God before his death sentence, he rejects what he says. He concludes that life is meaningless, and in every life, death is inevitable. It does not matter whether he believes in God or not as death is unavoidable. By not believing in God, he was able to define his own meaning in life.

The final difference between these two books is the concept of time. In “Waiting for Godot”, time is non-linear as the structure of time is not clear in the play. In addition, all of the events that occur are repetitive. “VLADIMIR I’ve seen you before, haven’t I? BOY I don’t know, Sir. VLADIMIR You don’t know me? BOY No Sir. VLADIMIR It wasn’t you came yesterday? BOY No Sir.” (Beckett, 41). From this quote, it is clear that some characters in the play have more memory than the others on previous days. Vladimir remembers the boy; however, the boy does not remember meeting Vladimir and Estragon. The same day is being repeated over and over, and time is an unknown factor in this book. In “The Stranger”, time is linear throughout the book. Time passes exactly like how time passes in our world. Meursault wakes up in the morning, and he sleeps at night.

Each day for Meursault is different from the day before. In conclusion, both of these books convey messages that are not easy to figure out, but rather hidden under the words and emotions of the characters. These two books completely pulled me in, making me wonder what was going to happen at the end. “The Stranger” especially opened my eyes in terms of a whole new concept of life and death. For Meursault, life was the question, and death was his answer. As he had said, “As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gently indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself-so like a brother, really-I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again. For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate.” (Camus, 122-123).

Critical Overview of Camus’ The Stranger

Daoud’s hero has a manifest horror of the absurd; he wants to replace a narrative that relates the absurdity of the human condition with a meta-report that revolts against this absurdity. However, as Sartre says: ‘The stranger is a leaf of his life. And since the most absurd life must be the most sterile life, his novel wants to be magnificently sterile. Art is an unnecessary generosity’. However, Daoud’s book is a narrative that explains and is clear. In fact, The Stranger of Camus is a novel that renounces the logic of the story and its linearity. It is deliberately intended to be ambiguous, by reporting the facts as they are, i. e. raw and without any intelligible relationship. Sartre said in this regard: ‘The novel remained rather ambiguous: how should one understand this character, who, after his mother’s death, ‘took baths, began an irregular affair and would laugh at a comedy film’, who killed an Arab ‘because of the sun’ and who, on the eve of his capital execution, affirming that he ‘had been and still was happy’, wanted many spectators around the scaffold to ‘welcome him with cries of hatred’? Some said: ‘He’s a fool, poor guy’; others better inspired: ‘He’s an innocent man’.

Meursault’s life is a series of unrelated actions that can impose meaning. But Meursault’s reader, counter-investigation, is ready to understand the crime of Haroun and his mother and forgive them, even if this abject act draws its legitimacy from a fiction, from a discursive universe.

Indeed, it is Camus’ book that failed to mention his brother’s name that is absurd and not the world of Haroun. In The Stranger: the word ‘Arabian’ is revealed twenty-five times. This is inconceivable, unacceptable, and unfair to Haroun. It is an error that must be corrected to put an end to Meursault’s ambiguity and dissolve the absurd in a plot of another story that will take care to substitute the causal order for the chronological order in order to put an end to the contingency of the real world and finally to give meaning to the succession of actions and events over time.

Outside the universe of The Stranger, Haroun is a stranger. Daoud introduced it into the history of this book only to put an end to absurdity. Because Daoud knows the end of the history of the stranger and that of Haroun, that is, the last event; he succumbed to the ease of teleological vision to write his story. It is not by chance that he chose to tell the story of Haroun starting at the end. He says: “this is not a normal story”. It is a story taken from the end and that goes back to the beginning’. Finally, Daoud’s narrator is lost between two worlds, his own and the one created by the narrator of The Stranger.