Lars Von Trier's Nymphomaniac (NSFW)

[vrailaine]

Nuh-uh.

Worth a revisit? I wasn't digging it at all, could've been cool in a theatre though.

[Noodle Lizard]

I have never seen a Lars von Trier film so let me tell you what I think about Lars von Trier films

[Noodle Lizard]

Worth a revisit? I wasn't digging it at all, could've been cool in a theatre though.

I liked it first time round, but yeah, give it another go.  For the cinematography and acting, if nothing else.   

[Wet Blanket]

There are a few criticisms that could be levelled at Lars, but I don't think it's fair to say he's relied on "plain shock factor" for any of his stuff.  Even 'The Idiots', which is all about shock factor in many ways.

He reminds me of a batfink Michael Haneke: a smarty pants who enjoys putting audiences through the wringer.

[Noodle Lizard]

He reminds me of a batfink Michael Haneke: a smarty pants who enjoys putting audiences through the wringer.

K.  I like smart films that put me through the wringer.

[billtheburger]

Antichrist is outstanding. It put me in a bad mood for a week.
I don't think I'll ever watch it again.

[Wet Blanket]

K.  I like smart films that put me through the wringer.

I don't necessarily think they're smart, just the work of a smarty-pants; his provocations are to no end, other than to provoke.

I like them as well, but they also get on my nerves to a certain extent.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Not really.  Even one of his most notoriously "shocking" films, 'antichrist', only has maybe 20-30 seconds of "shocking" scenes.  The rest is all atmosphere.  Same for 'Breaking The Waves' and 'Dogville'.  'Melancholia' could be U-rated save for some language and a pair of boobs in one bit. 

There are a few criticisms that could be levelled at Lars, but I don't think it's fair to say he's relied on "plain shock factor" for any of his stuff.  Even 'The Idiots', which is all about shock factor in many ways.

I don't so much mean shock factor as in "shocking scenes", rather the way he presents it. I remember starting Dogville up and thinking "wait, he's not done this whole film on this one bare bones stage set has he?". Two hours later I was ready to claw my own eyes out. There was no escapism, just a gruelling 2 hours which might as well have been an amdram performance at my local theatre. Dancer in the Dark works because every time the reality stuff gets to much you get these fantastic musical bits which contrast so well.

[checkoutgirl]

I have never seen a Lars von Trier film so let me tell you what I think about Lars von Trier films

I just think Von Trier is a weiner and he puts me off ever watching one of his films. I just look at his face and it puts me off, I think he's a provocateur and an asshole. His films could be brilliant for all I know, I have to admit that.

[Noodle Lizard]

I don't necessarily think they're smart, just the work of a smarty-pants; his provocations are to no end, other than to provoke.

I like them as well, but they also get on my nerves to a certain extent.

He generally makes interesting films, and is also one of the few working directors who actually comes up with and exclusively produces his own ideas.  Provocation isn't necessarily a bad thing, even just for the sake of it, but I don't think his films are even that provocative.  The press like to pretend they're more controversial than they actually are, and he plays up to that.  The fact that you get tits like Mark Kermode embarrassingly missing the point and complaining of how misogynistic something like 'Breaking The Waves' is is an amusing bonus, but not indicative of any calculated hackiness on Lars's part.  That kind of accusation is better saved for Tom Six or whoever made that 'Sprski film'.

I think his most "provocative" film was 'Dancer In The Dark', just in the sense that it was a bit heavy-handed and trying to tug on too many heartstrings too hard, but nobody cares because it didn't have any nudity in it.

I'm not a blind Lars von Trier apologist, I don't think he's made any really amazing films and I don't think any of them would be in my top 30, but I admire him as a director and think he's subjected to a lot of very lazy criticism, perhaps mostly by people who are paid to know better. 

[Noodle Lizard]

I don't so much mean shock factor as in "shocking scenes", rather the way he presents it. I remember starting Dogville up and thinking "wait, he's not done this whole film on this one bare bones stage set has he?". Two hours later I was ready to claw my own eyes out. There was no escapism, just a gruelling 2 hours which might as well have been an amdram performance at my local theatre. Dancer in the Dark works because every time the reality stuff gets to much you get these fantastic musical bits which contrast so well.

I don't like 'Dogville' much either, but I appreciate him trying something new (and some people do really like it).  It's no more "shock factory" than having 'Dancer In The Dark' be a musical, which is also an unusual stylistic decision.

[Retinend]

I'm with Wet Blanket/ El Unicornio, is Lars von Trier wise? Why put yourself through one of his deliberately unpleasant films when he's so out of touch with the world? Some unpleasantness can put truth into perspective, but what truth does Lars von Trier have to tell anyone? I'll accept he's a genius and can make extremely stylish films, but what sort of man is he? Does it matter?

[Sam]

There's so much stagnation and compromise in film today that any director at least trying to do their own thing is to be applauded.

[Smeraldina Rima]

I don't even think it's conditional but yeh.

[Retinend]

There's so much stagnation and compromise in film today that any director at least trying to do their own thing is to be applauded.

But is there any more wisdom in his films than a Michael Bay film?

[Chichester Cathedral]

I wonder what Shia LePork did. He must have done something. Something bad.

All that nonsense about how he's fed up with Hollywood and he just wants to do it for the art is bollocks. That's been his line for ages now. He doesn't sound convincing. I don't mean specifically this film, but his new career in general. You don't go from blockbuster leading man to "Yeah, I really want to do like, smaller independant films, yeah?" unless you've done something wrong. Well some people do (some of his co-stars for instance, by choice) but not this dozy twit.

I reckon he fucked up. Shagged a producer's wife. Got an executive's daughter in trouble. Was busted by the police in an illegal prostitute ring. Photographed shoving a gerbil up his arse. Something like that. Shia 2.0 is not his choice, he's been kicked out of the club.

[Sam]

But is there any more wisdom in his films than a Michael Bay film?

Wasn't what I was getting at but I suppose there's none in a Bay film, not much more in a Von Trier and less than what he thinks there is.

I'll accept he's a genius and can make extremely stylish films.

I wouldn't say he's a genius. I don't think there's a lot of depth to anything he's doing, but I admire the panache and bloodymindedness to the way he goes about it. He's a dickhead, but a fairly interesting dickhead in a crowd of boring dickheads.

This is top-notch criticism I'm doing here.

[Garam]

A hell of a lot more humanity than in Michael Bay's films.


I admit he seems a bit of a knob as a person but for christ's sake separate the artist from the art. His personality in public has nothing to do with his films.

The things you see as trying to be shocking in his films are your own hang-ups. I don't think he sees any of this as shocking, but just pushes that aspect because everyone else fixates on it so much and it helps promote his films. You're dismissing The Idiots as shock-for-the-sake of it just because it has onscreen fucking and missing out on everything else in the film. It's a brilliant comedy, really ahead of its time, almost like an absurdist Office, but better...

I just don't know how people can say he has no humanity or that he's a misogynist when he's made films like Breaking the Waves or Dancer in the Dark...these are some of the most moralistic films ever made, they're almost Capraesque.

Antichrist is the greatest horror film since The Shining. Taking aside everything else about it, the filmmaking on show is absolutely spectacular. And how many other filmmakers have changed their style with almost every film? How many filmmakers have invented new styles of film? He's an invigorating, exciting, experimental artist, playing with the form, embarrassing directors half his age for their lack of imagination in comparison. Dude's one of the few people you could genuinely call a pioneer. Pretty rare.

I don't mean to sound like a fanboy and I have problems with some of his films too but I just feel you're all really casually dismissing a film that has a good chance of being a total masterpiece (imo) just because of your own prejudices, because of what you assume to be his intention.

Is there a word for this? Wagnerism?

[Retinend]

Can you give some examples of bits in Dancer in the Dark or Breaking the Waves which resonated with you / gave you something to chew over, Garam? Haven't watched them.

[Garam]

I haven't seen them in years, but I guess that also works as my answer. They stick with you. It's an experience. They're really dripping with empathy, those movies. Make you think more about your relationships with people and how your actions have consequences for them. The use of music in both of them is incredible as well. You should probably watch them, then you can form an opinion.


I felt I should also say I watched The Idiots with a girl from Copenhagen once, and she was in hysterics. The whole movie. She told me about all the in-jokes about social structures in Denmark/Copenhagen...it's an out and out comedy. It's like how we can laugh at Mike Leigh movies but someone from another country might not get it.


edit: People who call Breaking the Waves/Dancer in the Dark misogynistic remind me of those who call Huckleberry Finn or Heart of Darkness racist. Same exact type of misreading, in me humble opinion.

[Mister Six]

I'm not as down on von Trier as Mark Kermode, but I do agree with him that von Trier is a self-publicist first and a filmmaker second, and that often his claims about why he made a film or what the film is about cannot be trusted.

[kitsofan34]

There's been some confusion about exactly what Lars von Trier is releasing under the title Nymphomaniac: How much or how little nudity and explicit sexuality it will contain; how long or how short it will be; how many different cuts have been made from the raw footage. Recent reports stated that von Trier's five-hour director's cut would be trimmed to two two-hour halves for release in Denmark, a fact confirmed by producer Louise Vesth in a new interview with Screen Daily.

In short: yes, there are two versions: the shorter four-hour cut and the complete 5.5 hour cut that "has more close-ups of genitals" (an extra 90 minutes of genitals?!?). The shorter version, which still contains "a lot of nudity and sex" according to Vesth, premières in Denmark on Christmas Day, and expands to other territories in the first quarter of 2014. Vesth claims a distribution plan for the longer version still hasn't been determined beyond the fact that it will appear "later in 2014."

Vesth also made it clear that von Trier is fine with the bifurcated distribution approach. "Lars told me he was happy that we could do it this way," she said. "For him it was very important that we have a long version for artistic reasons but he understands that we meet the wishes for distribution." Still, she did add that von Trier did not work on the edit of the four-hour cut, because "for him it was important not to be confused." I am glad one person in this situation is not confused.

http://thedissolve.com/news/1000-the-naked-truth-about-the-various-cuts-of-lars-von/

[Squink]

The uncut version should just feature men who are uncut.

[Johnny Townmouse]

I'm not as down on von Trier as Mark Kermode, but I do agree with him that von Trier is a self-publicist first and a filmmaker second, and that often his claims about why he made a film or what the film is about cannot be trusted.

I really think that is quite unfair, I think he has produced some incredible films over the years and I don't even count myself to be much of a devoted fan of his work. Apart from early films like Europa, the devastatingly beautiful Breaking the Waves, and the moral skewering of Dogville, I happen to think that Antichrist and Melancholia are rather compelling. For me he has become a truly interesting presence in contemporary film, and I think his work will endure long after he has gone.

Also, The Five Obstructions is my favourite film about filmmaking. It's hilarious!

[Mister Six]

I really think that is quite unfair, I think he has produced some incredible films over the years and I don't even count myself to be much of a devoted fan of his work. Apart from early films like Europa, the devastatingly beautiful Breaking the Waves, and the moral skewering of Dogville, I happen to think that Antichrist and Melancholia are rather compelling. For me he has become a truly interesting presence in contemporary film, and I think his work will endure long after he has gone.

I didn't mean to imply that he's not a good - even excellent - filmmaker,[nb]Though he's somewhat hit and miss for me, I do appreciate his mercurial nature and think he's made a lot of stuff that stands up on its own merits.[/nb] just that he has more fun selling the product than actually making it, and that he's very much playing a game with almost everything he does, even if he goes on to produce a lot of really interesting films in the process.

By contrast, someone like - and I'm just picking names out of a hat here - Terry Gilliam seems to be about making the film for its own sake, not as part of a wider performance.

EDIT: In writing this, I may be swinging myself over to the opinion that he's actually more of an artist than a 'publicist' as I'd originally stated. But an artist who's primary focus is himself, and whose end goal is his own personal pleasure, and who isn't really taking any of it seriously. Is there anything wrong with that? Not really, I suppose, but I can see why he's such a frustrating figure for Kermode.[nb]Especially as Kermode's sense of humour is permafucked.[/nb]

I've just talked myself into liking him quite a lot more. Hrm.

[Johnny Townmouse]

EDIT: In writing this, I may be swinging myself over to the opinion that he's actually more of an artist than a 'publicist' as I'd originally stated. But an artist who's primary focus is himself, and whose end goal is his own personal pleasure, and who isn't really taking any of it seriously.

Yes, that does make more sense and I see what you originally meant. He does stamp his persona over the after-life of the film in a way that many directors do not - and he has become increasingly preoccupied with publicising (in oblique terms) how his films reflect his own psyche, and specifically his depression.

[Noodle Lizard]

I've never found any of his "self-publicity" annoying, actually, nor was I outraged by that whole Cannes Nazi thing.  I understand why film critics and other "industry people" would dislike him, though, and this may be why perfectly worthy films like 'Melancholia' never get nominated for anything outside of festivals.

I love that his films are all for his own personal pleasure, that's probably the best thing about them and surely that's the best way to make any kind of art.   If other people like it, even better, but it's self-expression at the end of the day.  Or it should be, anyway, at least some of the time.  I don't think there's anything to suggest that he doesn't take filmmaking seriously, quite the opposite, he just doesn't seem to have much respect for everything that comes after it.

[Johnny Townmouse]

I would agree that in contemporary film "self-indulgence" is becoming an increasingly positive term.

[Noodle Lizard]

I would agree that in contemporary film "self-indulgence" is becoming an increasingly positive term.

Tarantino and Kevin fucking Smith aside, I can't even think of another well-known contemporary director who writes their own original stories off the top of my head.  And it's pushing it a bit to say that Tarantino is "original" in some regards.

[Johnny Townmouse]

Tarantino and Kevin fucking Smith aside, I can't even think of another well-known contemporary director who writes their own original stories off the top of my head.  And it's pushing it a bit to say that Tarantino is "original" in some regards.

Do you mean "...in Hollywood"?