Dancer: Ebert Review

Ebert's review calls Dancer in the Dark "... a bold, reckless gesture." Reckless makes it sound like it has no direction or purpose. But maybe it means that it's intended purpose is to wildly contradict the status quot. I think that's what the musical scenes do; they contradict anything the viewer expects.  I see why "It is valid to dislike it, but not fair to criticize it on the grounds of plausibility, because the movie has made a deliberate decision to be implausible: The plot is not a mistake but a choice." 
In this way, Dancer in the Dark is an outsider in it's own genre of American film. Naturally, viewers are going to dislike it because it is unconventional. But it is actually very conventional; it goes back to basics, by omitting flashy camera  tricks. The level of staging that it employs may come off as fake to some people, but I would argue that it makes it more real. We can see everything the camera does; the film doesn't hide behind any edits or enhancements. It's raw and believable because it is staged, because we see everything the director does.