>Well, the film clearly isn't intended as realism
No, I suppose the anti-Americanism is there to be purely provocative (it doesn't come out of any recognizable or legitimate source of complaint that I can see--mostly I think from hearsay, secondhand). Which is why I enjoyed it as it is, hanging there, a piece of masturbation really, with no real connection to reality (not exactly a bad thing: I like masturbatory pieces as much as any--maybe more than most).
The Brechtian mode, presumably. Brecht did it with labeled objects and idealized, unparticularized locatons, props, characters, something Von Triers tries to do here. Then he adds the jump-cut editing, which isn't really called for--we already have the Brecht devices, we're already alienated.
The editing style seems more of a fallback to his previous style from Breaking the Waves onwards, a sort of default style. It's a nice way of evoking verite cinema that isn't really verite cinema, but when doing what is essentially a theater piece, well, I don't think it makes sense.
As for the camera style--some critic called "fluid" but it's more woozy than anything, swish pans when they aren't really called for, more calling attention to itself than trying to create a point of view. Actually I prefer Thomas Vinterberg's handling of the camera in The Celebration (tho I thought that was also conceptually and psychologically a fraud--maybe my favorite Doggie Style filmmakers aren't really Dogme filmmakers, the Dardannes brothers, Belgians who just make their movies, and don't do fancy ironic publicity campaigns while making them).