The movie people have already been talking about for a straight year. I went in curious. The experience of the film is so much fun, something I was not expecting at all. I knew it would be provocative, disturbing, possibly annoying. But fun? I thought it was great, can’t wait for Volume II.
Went straight for Nymphomaniac. There’s nothing to be construed by that or the way its put. It’s Lars von Trier that’s of concern here. After AntiChrist, Melancholia, and now re Nymphomaniac – “despite the sometimes-grim tone and bleak color palate” I wonder, as I did of Ingmar Bergman long ago, wouldn’t a year in Italy or Spain do him good – ten years better still.
Thank the gods every day my formative years tuition consisted of sexed up nudist colony flicks. Missed I Am Curious (Yellow) thankfully – saw it but too late, sexual conventionality, i.e., sanguineness, had already set in. For the neophytes out there, I’d suggest Lucia y el sexo. (Spain, Dir. Julio Médem) – see what I mean re Spain or Italy – before venturing the dark side. Such matters are much too vital for the introduction to them being left to the Nordics.
George – but then if he had drenched himself in Mediterranean light, we wouldn’t have a film like Melancholia (my favorite of his so far). :)
I wish I had started off with sexed up nudist colony flicks, jeez!!
The best artists usually are not balanced! I like that LVT basically just puts it out there how messed up he is. It’s very human. Especially when it comes to something like sex – or depression – these gigantic topics, he approaches them very personally.
I’m not a fan of everything he has done. He sometimes annoys me. But I’m always interested to see what he’s thinking about or obsessing about.
I found Nymphomaniac to be, weirdly, a hoot. It’s quite funny. Uma is nuts. The diagrams and fly-fishing interruptions, and awful sex and bad accents – I thought it was great. It’s really ABOUT something – and it’s totally personal. Nobody else could have made it.
Can’t wait for Vol. II which I see this week!
Once you see it, lemme know what you think!
// … we wouldn’t have a film like Melancholia (my favorite of his so far) //
True, the silver lining in the dark clouds or something to that effect – and my favorite also – actually the only one I like. I’d mentioned on a previous post that I’d preferred it’s counter punch Tree Of Life but it’s only because of my preternaturally sunny disposition and overall happy-go-luckyness. But yes Melancholia was a tour de force – and I think it that because I never got the impression there was a whole lot of LVT was seeping into it. It seemed more an objective expression of something universally experienced at one time or another by nearly everyone – moments of despair. Even sunny dispositions are subject to it.
Yes, I remember our Tree of Life/Melancholia conversation!
Melancholia is a tour de force, you’re right – and I know what you mean – it felt different to me too from his others. The grand-ness of it, the formality of it – Obviously I have a vested interest in the topic itself, and I felt that movie “saw” depression from the inside in a way I have rarely found in film. I know that shit from the inside too and that movie really does depict what it feels like.
But I also just loved the LOOK of Melancholia, its structure, its feel. Unbelievable film.
Yes. If there is any loveliness to LVT it can be found in the cinematic visualization of the movie. Like being entranced with deserts, or moonscapes.
and the colors of that wedding reception – the golds and warm candlelight – contrasting with the cold blues in the second section.
And that Prologue of Tableaux. They still freak me out. In a good way.
had no interest til i read yer review! great piece.
Thanks, Bren!
BTW, I’d seen LVT’s The Boss Of It All a comedy – that’s right – a comedy. Even there, as I recall it – the edges were scorched dark.
Ha. Not surprising.
There are moments in Melancholia that were hilarious – John Hurt with the spoons … but Nymphomaniac borders on ridiculous, and I thought that was the best part of it. This whole scene about parallel parking, and an argument about whether or not the car can fit – with a huge diagram filling up the screen showing how it can be done.
And wait til you see Uma. Brilliant! I mean, it’s so awkward you want to crawl under the rug, but her performance is High Operatic Melodrama that ends up being sick and hilarious.
and let’s face it, a movie like this needs as much humor as it can get.
French movies about sex are sometimes so self-serious you want to tell everyone to just do some jello shots and chillax.
Oh so true. Jello shots for the French – love that. They have their moments though, though I’m not sure whether they’re intentional or not. I’m still trying to make up my mind on My Night At Maud’s and Jean-Louis’ dissertations on Pascal – and I’ve been at it for decades now.
Oh they definitely have their moments. And I love Catherine Breillat’s stuff (or – maybe love isn’t the right word). She tackles a lot of theories/concepts very dear to me – things I am also fascinated by. She’s very inventive.
Okay, now you’re starting to scare me.
Why? Breillat?
I know. She’s pretty scary. But I like her. I also like that she cast Rocco Siffreddi. Twice. In a real acting part.
In case, on the off chance, you don’t know who he is, be warned about Googling him. :)
A warning’s as good as a dare.
hahahaha I know. But he really warrants it.
I kinda love him.
Oh for crying out loud. Urolagnia! Salirophilia! God, I’m such a square.
He is inSANE.
Re: She’s pretty scary
The notion that there exist in some women, tucked hidden in crevices to which only they have access, lodestars for navigating ever deeper abysses of sexual salacity is frightening in a worrisome sort of way. And I’m not here alluding to kink – I can deal with that. It goes much deeper and darker than that.
This notion, perception, hypothesis, whatever, I believe engrosses women almost exclusively. Nothing comparable exists for men, as far as I’m aware. The deep abysses of sex, for men, can be found in their dimples. I don’t know that it’s an entirely effective juxtaposition of what I’m getting at but it’ll do – think Ms. Breillat and Zalman King. And there it is – all there is to it. I could be wrong; it’s happened before; but I don’t think so.
I think a lot of this stems from the fact that “boys are fancy on the outside, and girls are fancy on the inside” (thank you Mr. Rogers). We can’t see “ours”, boys can see “theirs”. We are a mystery unto ourselves. This is then complicated by the fact that cultures universally have organized themselves against that which cannot be seen/known – i.e.: women, who are the bearers of life and all that – but Shame is heaped upon women from the moment we are born and we pick it up by osmosis. Even if our parents aren’t shame-mongers. It’s in the language, it’s in the air. The Latin root for “pudenda” is “shame”. So, you know. You’re born into it.
Once you realize that, of course, you get to say “Eff off” to those cultural messages and hopefully you find support along the way in that – but obviously that isn’t always the case.
Shame is a huge motivator in fantasy – as is repression. If women are not supposed to have sexual feelings at all – or if they are only supposed to be let out when there is love/marriage – then you’re gonna get all kinds of crazy/darkness as a result. Our sexual body parts are named for the men who “discovered” them. This just flat out isn’t the case for men – or if it is, there isn’t the same cultural weight behind it.
Now, one can get too political with all of this and I certainly can go there. But I’ve worked hard on myself, and I’ve had some excellent boyfriends, and I am not ashamed of myself for being human.
And for loving Rocco Seffredi. hahahaha.
No, but seriously.
I know exactly what you are talking about – and I think LVT is interested in that, which is why he keeps re-visiting it in his films. He’s obsessed with it: “What is going ON with women??”
Of course he is tarred and feathered for this sometimes. I did not care for Breaking the Waves. I wasn’t crazy about Anti-Christ.
But what I do appreciate – ALWAYS – is a director who follows his own personal obsessions. In many ways, he is being more honest about sex than other more “salacious” directors. Because he’s trying to get at the root of it – and he seems to feel that women’s position is of paramount importance. How women see it. It will dictate all else that follows.
It can be totally obnoxious. But it’s never less than interesting.
I have no idea if any of that made sense!
and because I love the thought of hosting (most probably) the only comments section on the Internet to include both Rocco Siffredi and Mr. Rogers, in the same conversation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcKrIa65FUc
That link is not scary by the way. It’s a Mr. Rogers link, not a Rocco link. :)
// I have no idea if any of that made sense! //
re portions of the culture in general as it regards women’s sexuality:
As far as it’s possible, i.e., intellectually, I’m buying it all. As far as any empathicalism – it’s beyond me – how could I possibly?
Re LVT (and other male directors) and Breillat and obsessions as they apply themselves to women:
I don’t know. I can find most any dysfunction, disorder, deviation, anything outside the orthodox box, interesting, even compelling. I would deny no auteur any of his/her obsessions. From them a Melancholia might be forged. I would deny no director the opportunity to flesh out his demons in his films – Bergman? It’s just that – well I don’t know what it is – it is something though – perhaps the zeitgeist.
// It can be totally obnoxious. But it’s never less than interesting. //
Maybe that’s it. I think it can be less than interesting. Maybe it’s just how each of us responds to totally obnoxious.