I saw Lars Von Trier's Nymphomaniac.
Provoked? Good. Because that is something Von Trier does even better than make films. And he is very good at making films.
Few modern filmmakers seem to treasure their relationship to provocation as Lars Von Trier. He seems to welcome every critic who doesn't/ can't/ won't "get" his movies as part of the discussion that his movies provoke. It seems Nymphomaniac has engendered a predictable range of reactions – outrage looming large above them. But Von Trier is ahead of the knee-jerk outrage.
He doesn't mean to provoke merely to peddle predictable soft porn. There is a further level of outrage to experience within the sexual tales told by Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg) to the seemingly sexless Seligman (Stellan Skarsgard), as each tale gets broken down into metaphor by the latter to the frustration of the former. Telling the tales of her sexual misadventures, Joe seeks to prove to Seligman how awful a person she is, but Seligman happily makes the effort to frame her amorality within metaphors from the worlds of politics, music and even fishing, all in an effort to re-humanize her story, after a fashion.
In this way, Von Trier circumvents expectations unless you know your Von Trier – he seems to revel in developing characters in impossible situations that test the limits of their hearts and their faith – even questioning the existence of "hearts" and "faith" given the often corrosive realities of human existence. Even more "outrageous" is how often he does this with a demonstrable sense of humor.
In Nymphomaniac and I want you to be shocked by this there are naked people. Mostly when having sex. Yup. People have sex in a movie called Nymphomaniac.
At times in the film, it seems that Von Trier is shoving the realities of the "sexual revolution" of the mid-20th century right in our faces, for its' good (empowerment) and bad (see Spider-Man's line about what comes with "Great Power" – hint: it's not as fun).
You could try boiling down his cinematic statement to simple misogyny, but, as with the heroines of Melancholia or Dogville or any number of Von Trier vehicles, he respects Joe too much to have her disintegrate on camera for no reason. Joe's sexual acts are justified in their moments (Von Trier (via Skarsgard's Seligman) even questions how a scornful society would feel about her actions were they performed by a man).
Joe insists she is not after redemption in Seligman's eyes, but continues to tell her tales. There is a conflicted motivation in the telling of her tales that I believe Von Trier meant to mirror the conflicting motivations of any audience going to see it.
Want to come see this movie to see Stacy Martin (as the young Joe) and Charlotte Gainsbourg get naked? Yup, that's there, but you'll also have to see them confronted by a family Joe's actions helped destroy (Uma Thurman plays the jilted wife and mother) or confronting racism in the context of sexuality (as the adult Joe seeks to proposition two African men with whom she wants, essentially, a non-verbal tryst).
Want to see the lusty Joe confronted with an actual "romantic" relationship? Done, but she dotes on the perfunctory Jerome (played for much of the film by an oddly accented Shia LaBoeuf), who is a sexually disconnected mess, try as he might. He is beneath her, judging her sexuality while struggling to embrace and envelop it, to no avail. She seems drawn to him over and over, in a disconnected, puzzling way at times.
Looking for an excuse for Joe's extreme behavior in a damaged upbringing? Also done, but the damage is a damage perhaps not unfamiliar to many in the audience – no abuse in the form of horrific beatings or being locked away in a cellar dungeon, or as a "Flower in the Attic". Nope, just an emotionally unavailable mom (Connie Nielsen) caught up in games of solitaire and a dad (Christian Slater) with which she bonds over their mutual love of the forest. (Sadly, we also witness with some grim detail her ordeal as she watches her father dying in a hospital room) Now if Von Trier is so interested in subverting and dodging expectations, throwing up notable bits of ugly with seductive beauty (including some typically beautiful cinematography by Manuel Alberto Claro (who shot the GORGEOUS Melancholia for Von Trier)), why engage those expectations of titillation or romantic escapism or even emotional connection at all? Well if nothing I've said sells you, consider this: The film adaptation of Fifty Shades of Grey is set to hit theaters and do big things (presumably, based on the book). Its' casting has been scrutinized and promoted vigorously.
The fix is in for this "erotic romance" novel to be a big hit. Its' young heroine enters a relationship with a powerful businessman who is very into BDSM. Apparently (according to the Wikipedia entry), she eventually "escapes" from that relationship by novels' end, but (SPOILER ALERT) the film is the first in a (you guessed it) trilogy.
In Nymphomaniac, Joe willingly enters a BDSM arrangement with K (Jamie Bell), an arrangement which ends as soon as actual sex enters the picture, and which has immediately destructive consequences in Joe's life.
Yes, Von Trier is rubbing your noses in the conflicted mess of sexuality as it has manifested through the history of cinema, confronting you with a story with sex at its' center, and messy, confusing, wild emotions all around.
People will probably be more comfortable watching Fifty Shades. And that's what Von Trier is concerned about (even as he embraces the contradictions): the commoditizing of sexuality; the reduction of its' reality into a glossed over stereotype.
That's a stereotype that Von Trier dares to exploit and explode at the same time. There will be no Nymphomaniac Volume Three.
Provoked? Good. Because that is something Von Trier does even better than make films. And he is very good at making films.
Few modern filmmakers seem to treasure their relationship to provocation as Lars Von Trier. He seems to welcome every critic who doesn't/ can't/ won't "get" his movies as part of the discussion that his movies provoke. It seems Nymphomaniac has engendered a predictable range of reactions – outrage looming large above them. But Von Trier is ahead of the knee-jerk outrage.
He doesn't mean to provoke merely to peddle predictable soft porn. There is a further level of outrage to experience within the sexual tales told by Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg) to the seemingly sexless Seligman (Stellan Skarsgard), as each tale gets broken down into metaphor by the latter to the frustration of the former. Telling the tales of her sexual misadventures, Joe seeks to prove to Seligman how awful a person she is, but Seligman happily makes the effort to frame her amorality within metaphors from the worlds of politics, music and even fishing, all in an effort to re-humanize her story, after a fashion.
In this way, Von Trier circumvents expectations unless you know your Von Trier – he seems to revel in developing characters in impossible situations that test the limits of their hearts and their faith – even questioning the existence of "hearts" and "faith" given the often corrosive realities of human existence. Even more "outrageous" is how often he does this with a demonstrable sense of humor.
In Nymphomaniac and I want you to be shocked by this there are naked people. Mostly when having sex. Yup. People have sex in a movie called Nymphomaniac.
At times in the film, it seems that Von Trier is shoving the realities of the "sexual revolution" of the mid-20th century right in our faces, for its' good (empowerment) and bad (see Spider-Man's line about what comes with "Great Power" – hint: it's not as fun).
You could try boiling down his cinematic statement to simple misogyny, but, as with the heroines of Melancholia or Dogville or any number of Von Trier vehicles, he respects Joe too much to have her disintegrate on camera for no reason. Joe's sexual acts are justified in their moments (Von Trier (via Skarsgard's Seligman) even questions how a scornful society would feel about her actions were they performed by a man).
Joe insists she is not after redemption in Seligman's eyes, but continues to tell her tales. There is a conflicted motivation in the telling of her tales that I believe Von Trier meant to mirror the conflicting motivations of any audience going to see it.
Want to come see this movie to see Stacy Martin (as the young Joe) and Charlotte Gainsbourg get naked? Yup, that's there, but you'll also have to see them confronted by a family Joe's actions helped destroy (Uma Thurman plays the jilted wife and mother) or confronting racism in the context of sexuality (as the adult Joe seeks to proposition two African men with whom she wants, essentially, a non-verbal tryst).
Want to see the lusty Joe confronted with an actual "romantic" relationship? Done, but she dotes on the perfunctory Jerome (played for much of the film by an oddly accented Shia LaBoeuf), who is a sexually disconnected mess, try as he might. He is beneath her, judging her sexuality while struggling to embrace and envelop it, to no avail. She seems drawn to him over and over, in a disconnected, puzzling way at times.
Looking for an excuse for Joe's extreme behavior in a damaged upbringing? Also done, but the damage is a damage perhaps not unfamiliar to many in the audience – no abuse in the form of horrific beatings or being locked away in a cellar dungeon, or as a "Flower in the Attic". Nope, just an emotionally unavailable mom (Connie Nielsen) caught up in games of solitaire and a dad (Christian Slater) with which she bonds over their mutual love of the forest. (Sadly, we also witness with some grim detail her ordeal as she watches her father dying in a hospital room) Now if Von Trier is so interested in subverting and dodging expectations, throwing up notable bits of ugly with seductive beauty (including some typically beautiful cinematography by Manuel Alberto Claro (who shot the GORGEOUS Melancholia for Von Trier)), why engage those expectations of titillation or romantic escapism or even emotional connection at all? Well if nothing I've said sells you, consider this: The film adaptation of Fifty Shades of Grey is set to hit theaters and do big things (presumably, based on the book). Its' casting has been scrutinized and promoted vigorously.
The fix is in for this "erotic romance" novel to be a big hit. Its' young heroine enters a relationship with a powerful businessman who is very into BDSM. Apparently (according to the Wikipedia entry), she eventually "escapes" from that relationship by novels' end, but (SPOILER ALERT) the film is the first in a (you guessed it) trilogy.
In Nymphomaniac, Joe willingly enters a BDSM arrangement with K (Jamie Bell), an arrangement which ends as soon as actual sex enters the picture, and which has immediately destructive consequences in Joe's life.
Yes, Von Trier is rubbing your noses in the conflicted mess of sexuality as it has manifested through the history of cinema, confronting you with a story with sex at its' center, and messy, confusing, wild emotions all around.
People will probably be more comfortable watching Fifty Shades. And that's what Von Trier is concerned about (even as he embraces the contradictions): the commoditizing of sexuality; the reduction of its' reality into a glossed over stereotype.
That's a stereotype that Von Trier dares to exploit and explode at the same time. There will be no Nymphomaniac Volume Three.
Tell Your Friends