One of the strange, unexpected benefits of the content-crippling Production Code stringently censored Hollywood films from the 1930s to the 1960s was that it forced intelligent artists to work under harsh constrictions which in many cases produced uniquely creative and subversive films that, with total freedom, would not be nearly as great.  Lars von Trier’s Dogma philosophy, no matter how much touted as a move to cinematic realism, is really another form of the Production Code-laying down strict rules in the hope that it will force directors to think more creatively.  If film audiences were never sure if they were suppose to take Dogma seriously, von Trier’s new film, co-directed with documentary filmmaker Jørgen Leth, offers an amusing interpretation, being incredbly playful, self-aware and silly about the whole idea of artistic restraint.  That is not to say The Five Obstructions is simply a comedic condemnation of Dogma, indeed the opposite is often the case, and the quasi-documentary/quasi-fictional film makes a strong point towards the need for rules and regulations to inspire filmmakers.

Nearly forty years ago Leth made a short film called The Perfect Human, a film that von Trier claims to have seen 20 times and love thoroughly.  In a cinematic experiment the directors have decided to have Leth remake the film five times, each time using rules that von Trier comes up with.  At first von Trier’s rules seem spontaneous-Leth mentions smoking Havana cigars and von Trier responds that the first obstruction (as each film is called) has to be shot in Cuba-but as Leth turns in each new version of The Perfect Human von Trier responds to the material to come up with new rules.  The result is a dynamically evolving creation process whose constraints range from technical (“no edit should be longer than 12 frames”) to ethical (Leth has to go to the most “miserable” location on Earth but completely avoid depicting the horrible surroundings).

After von Trier and Leth have a chat in Denmark discussing the next obstruction Leth sets out to go film it and his process is marginally captured in a documentary fashion, following him as he goes around the world and capturing his occasional ruminations on the nature and process of von Trier’s obstructions.  Though the film shows the original 1967 short in its entirely the directors make the curious decision to cut it up, splicing pieces of it in between segments of the documentary footage of Leth remaking the film and his conversations with von Trier.  The result is that while the audience sees each obstruction in their complete form we never get to see the original inspiration from beginning to end.  Unable to comprehend the original we are forced to look at it through Leth’s interpretations-The Five Obstructions is at its most playful, or perhaps cynical, when in its depiction of cinematic creation Leth's new films often depict scenes yet to be shown from the original inspiration!

Within The Five Obstructions' several thematic layers-artistic contraints, reinvention, cinema as self-help, cinematic creation-von Trier gives himself an amusing portrait, that of a caviar eating, champagne drinking sadistic controller.  No doubt playing off the idea in the critical press of him being a brutal misogynist, von Trier treats (or claims to treat, one is never sure how much of the documentary footage is play acting) this experiment as cinematic therapy for his friend Jørgen Leth.  He takes the role of psychoanalyst, trying to find weaknesses in Leth’s technique and method and then exploiting them to strip away the confidence of his friend.  Von Trier wants to leave Leth “marked,” have him come back from an obstruction changed in some way, push him and challenge him to re-explore himself.  Yet the documentary footage of the creation of each obstruction and the conversations between Leth and Von Trier reveal little about each person and other than the odd remark or amusing comment (Leth compares this experiment with Faust’s story, inadvertently implying von Trier is the devil) the "doc" footage serves more as an film essay-like introduction for thematic ideas explored between (re)creation and envisioning the (re)creation.

With von Trier forcing Leth to make a film following his instructions, but Leth actually interpreting and using those instructions his own way provides a discursive investigation in where cinematic end products spring from. In the second obstruction for example Leth “loosely interprets” an instruction and von Trier gets angry at the result, declaring that for the next obstruction Leth either has to remake the last one or have complete and total freedom. The later is a prospect Leth finds tellingly more difficult than working with obstructions.  The resulting film is stylishly attractive but bears little resemblance to the other remakes and one begs to ask whether Leth needs von Triers input and structure to provide a great work.  (It also begs questions about the original production conditions for The Pefect Human.) The last obstruction, which unfortunately seems pre-planned unlike the evolving obstructions prior to it, is directed by von Trier, who gives director credit to Leth, and has Leth read a script about himself written by von Trier.  Auteurship is questioned, dismissed, reintroduced, and mocked. The whole enterpriseis so playful, so frivolous and offhand that The Five Obstructions can be taken as a great joke, but dismissing it as such would ignore the thoughtful, provoking discourse on cinematic creation.  An added bonus is a hilarious, self-mocking portrayal of von Trier.  If only the documentary sections went more into von Trier’s reactions to each remake and likewise the portion following Leth's trips and filmmaking went more the way of the sadist’s psyche-exploration or illustrating how each obstruction pushed and/or changed Leth.  Perhaps that The Five Obstructions does not show this is indicative of von Trier’s goofy failure.  Or perhaps this failure at true epiphany is yet another intelligently sarcastic move on the part of von Trier, who would love to mock as much as honor the seriousness of artistic creation. Either way the resulting film is a fascinating look into filmmaking, and one that is more wry, more subversive, and more odd than any other portrait of the creative process.