So much average

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

"The Idiots" is an absolutely interesting film to watch, not because of its obedience of the so called Dogme 95 manifesto but because it raises a lot of questions and challenges us with its not so much hidden political agenda to rethink the authenticity of our predefined social and moral codes. This is a study of how we choose to explore our inner idiots and external social tensions that follow these choices.The film follows a group of young people living together and impersonating mentally retarded people as an attempt to find their inner idiots and thus achieving true happiness, they do so in public places and when they're home and around each other and there are moments that they do actually seem genuinely happy but new circumstances appear that confronts them and us as viewers to serious questions about the morality of their acts and weather they deserve happiness under these terms or not. "The Idiots" is really about something. It introduces characters that we get to know and it has them ask bold questions and make an effort to find out the answers, even if there turns out to be none. What Von Trier does not only in "The idiots" but in some of his other films as well is to create these well thought, harmonious sets in the first half of the film only to dismantle and fall them apart in the second half where reality shows up and hidden brutal layers of their respective worlds can't help to leak in. The movie starts as what we think is a satire of bourgeoisie and middle class values by a group of bohemians but it goes on to being a satire of both groups, although it shows more compassion towards the latter, no matter how unconventional their methods are to reach some sort of peace and happiness. Everything falls apart only when they try to apply to their group the same despicable middle class principles that they were escaping from in the first place, by trying to assign winners and losers, who is a good spasser and who is not, who is more serious about this and who isn't, basically by asking all the wrong questions. On the other hand, this is only Stoffer's and maybe partly Axel's part of the story and his point of view and his take on this experience, he is the one hating the bourgeoisie, we don't really hear about the other's motivations until nearly the end of the film. The artist is there because he thinks it will help him become a better artist, the doctor is there to experiment, Josephine is using as a substitute to her medications, other's might be just playing around and Karen as it turns out by hiding out in the idiots world is trying to cope with the harsh reality of her life, the loss of her child. I think this lack of consensus is crucial towards understanding this film and characters and their final separation. The film can also be viewed as a social critic on the society's hypocratic behavior towards the mentally retarded, well maybe not in a traditional sense. The idiots are always taken care of and never disrespected by the people. Denmark is a state that takes care of everyone and this is visible through the entire movie but there's one thing that is hard to ignore and that is this sense of awkwardness and discomfort and embarrassment that they cause for the normal society anywhere they go, even there are is someone coming and offering them money to move to somewhere else, the couple who come to buy the house is obviously distraught and wants to get out of the situation as fast as possible, so is everybody else, the only person that they encounter and shows them love and compassion and not just pity is Karen who goes with them and joins them.

At first sight the film is plain idiotic. But there must be a second sight. The second sight is the manifesto behind the film I say the manifesto but certainly not the project because it has no objective OR destination whatsoever.The manifesto first:I swear to submit to the following set of rules drawn up and confirmed by DOGMA 95: 1- Shooting must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found). 2- The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is being shot.) 3- The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. 4- The film must be in color. Special lighting is not acceptable. (If there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera.) 5- Optical work and filters are forbidden. 6- The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.) 7- Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to say that the film takes place here and now.) 8- Genre movies are not acceptable. 9- The film format must be Academy 35 mm. 10- The director must not be credited. 11- Furthermore I swear as a director to refrain from personal taste! I am no longer an artist. I swear to refrain from creating a "work", as I regard the instant as more important than the whole. 12- My supreme goal is to force the truth out of my characters and settings. I swear to do so by all the means available and at the cost of any good taste and any aesthetic considerations. Thus I make my VOW OF CHASTITY. Copenhagen, Monday 13 March 1995 On behalf of DOGMA 95 Lars von Trier Thomas VinterbergThe concept of Chastity seems to imply all they refuse is for them nothing but a rape. They are raped by the camera, the director-dom, the actor-dom, etc. In other words they dream about making films without any cinema technology. They thus reduce their films to a mirage inside a delusion. And yet here is one film they made.The film is an absolute illustration of these principles. It describes a voluntary community, if not a commune of some sort, of people systematically called, in the English subtitles since the film is in Danish, idiots, retards and other nice terms of this type. All the actors are acting their own parts, their own reality, their own truth. The retards in the film are retards in society. Does this bring any truth?These people who are going to a restaurant and acting their mental and behavioral handicap against the personnel and the customers in order to be kicked out, after eating of course, without paying does not reveal anything true or truthful since these people are playing what they are to gain an advantage. This is thus a big lie and nothing but racket. In fact it reveals that the only decent people are more or less the innocent witnesses who actually accept the disturbance with patience or even accept to help the differently-abled persons with some empathy and care, like two tattooed bikers who actually take one of them who had been "entrusted" to them by his "educator" to the toilet and help him urinate without any fishiness. Of course the fact that it is filmed is the proof it is all a lie. Too bad for Lars von Trier: we know there is a camera filming the scene that has probably been rehearsed several times.The only moment when we may think something slightly enlightening is provided is at the end when an officially normal woman who is under a strong post-traumatic stress syndrome due to the death of her infant tries to go back to her husband and family. She is accepted, including the real handicapped woman who accompanies her, and yet she is unable to cope and she plays retard with catastrophic consequences. When we know she had escaped into that commune on the day before the funeral of her own child, we can measure how deep her Trauma was but that has little to do with mental handicap.This Dogma thing seems to me to be extremely over-rated.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

At the close of Cannes 2011; Lars Von Trier's reputation as one of the most gifted yet controversial film makers around was firmly intact hitting new levels of outrageousness; however, it wasn't the first time he has managed to get the crowd at arguably the world's most prestigious film festival talking. In 1998 The Idiots aka Dogme #2 made its debut causing mass controversy; mass criticism; and mass discussion. Naturally for a film which caused such a stir it's an unusual watch. It's a strange sensation to be made to feel uncomfortable yet totally engrossed in a film and stranger still, feeling guilty for enjoying it. The term "guilty pleasure" is usually used to hide embarrassment e.g. captain of the school sports team loves a chick flick; yet here the term really is applicable.Credit to the cast who participated largely unaware of what the script would demand of them. We are introduced to Karen (Bodil Jørgensen, playing the films and our conscience) who is then caught up in an anti- middle class gang who spend their time in public 'spassing' out; in other words, pretending to be disabled (PC alarm bells ringing from the off then) in order to release their inner "idiots". Rule three of Dogme 95; a hand-held camera, works particularly well; from the off we are thrown right into the heart of the group, we might as well be made to feel as if we are documenting it.The film certainly makes an interesting comment on how social behaviour can restrict us and, for lack of a better word, the "licence" given to those struggling with mental illnesses to behave more outlandishly. The character's main release is to pose as those without social confinements in public; however the gang eventually do away with only doing it in view of the public eye; is it a hobby or an addiction? Certainly different members of the group enter into it with different motifs and levels of seriousness.The Dogme 95 movement on the whole polarised audiences so to say that The Idiots; one of the most famous of all Dogme films, will not be to everyone's tastes is an understatement. The actual subject matter will be off putting to some; a topic such as this being played for laughs in certain parts makes for uncomfortable viewing; even more so due to the fact that it is funny. The film also asks the question of how disabled citizens are treated by society; nearly fifteen years on and it isn't hard to imagine people still being perturbed at the thought of allowing mentally disabled yet completely harmless people to walk around their garden. Throughout the film Von Trier gives us uncomfortable laughs; mocks the middle class attitude to the disabled; and manages to throw in a shockingly graphic orgy. All of this building up to a real emotional sucker punch of a climax. It isn't until the closing scenes that the film stops trying to provoke the audience's brain and instead aims straight for the heart. If nothing else, The Idiots will get you talking; as if Von Trier would have it any other way. 8/10

It's easy to confuse the adjectives "controversial" and "thought-provoking". The difference is that the former is a concept manufactured by the media and the latter is the raison d'etre of film-makers like Lars von Trier. Ostensibly this is a film about a group of people pretending to have cerebral palsy. But obviously that's not what it's really about; and I think that only those without the inclination to seek one of many possible meanings would label it "controversial" on this basis. It's classic knee-jerk.The Idiots is a challenging indictment of middle-class hypocrisies and an enthralling deconstruction of the bohemian ideal.Early in the film the question keeps being asked: Why is what we're doing wrong? "Because you're poking fun." But who really comes out of the narrative looking idiotic? The stuttering patio-owner, fearful of a potential insurance claim? Josephine's father, who tears his weeping daughter away from her friends? Rarely it's The Idiots themselves, whose motivations are subtly sketched out as Stoffer's commune collapses around him.Stoffer himself is "anti-middle-class", suggesting he's simply afraid of growing up. There's the doctor, constantly writing notes, who may be treating the whole affair as some kind of social experiment. There's the marketing man, using the commune as an escape from the superficiality of his truly idiotic occupation. And there's Karen, our silent observer, whose own reasons for falling in love with The Idiots comes to flatten us in the final reel. This leads to a gripe: certain characters remain nothing MORE than sketches. I would have liked to see von Trier eschew some of the social confrontation scenes in favour of further narrative episodes.Some scenes - such as the door-to-door Christmas decoration sale, or the house-buyers' tour - may come across as crass and cruel, but they're fascinating insofar as they present the hypocrisies that lie in the heart of us all.Perhaps the impact of The Idiots' public "spassing" is softened somewhat in these post-Borat/Bruno days. But von Trier is a trickier customer than Baron Cohen. As such, we laugh aloud, but we're never quite sure of who we're laughing - or, indeed, if we should be laughing at all. Watch this, and then watch how all other films seem quaint by comparison.