Rating: 16/20 (both parts)
Plot: Joe, the titular sexual dependent, recounts her sordid life to an old guy who enjoys reading.
Trollish Lars von Trier, the self-dubbed "best director in the world," is trying to raise the hairs on the backs of your necks, get your ire up more than getting anything else up, and there are times when that annoys me and times when it feels brilliant. He did it with a hilarious Nazi reference at a film festival, and he's doing it by showing us what it looks like when Shooby LeBoof has sexual intercourse. Part-poem, part-(over my head)-intellectualism, and part-pornography, Nymphomaniac probably does exactly everything that von Trier set out to do, and it does it in a succinct 4+ hours filled with relentless sexual imagery. As the two-part third part of a "Depression Trilogy," this is the one that seems most Trierish, possibly what he'd consider a magnum opus, but I'm not nearly smart enough to figure out how it ties in with either Antichrist or Melancholia. I'm assuming they're all personal statements of some kind, and with that in mind, I guess this one makes the most sense thematically of the three. There's a duality here with Gainsbourg's nymphomaniac and Skarsgard's asexual intellectual which just has to represent some kind of dueling polarities of an artist, right?
There are two narratives here that almost clash--Joe's mostly-chronological exploits and a story about how an old virgin is hearing about those exploits and interjecting by dropping knowledge about fly fishing, Bach, Edgar Allan Poe, the histories of the Eastern Church and Western Church, and mathematics. The former, as I said, is relentless and mostly humorless. Joe's story gradually grows darker and darker as she moves from her sexual awakenings and games on a train to consequences with her child, S&M, and criminal exploits. Joe's played by an impressive Stacy Martin when she's in her late teens to early 30's and by Charlotte Gainsbourg in most of volume 2's flashbacks or when she's talking to Skarsgard. The two actresses is an obvious choice because of the difference in age (Gainsbourg's got the type of face that can pass for 50 while there's no way you'd buy that about Martin no matter how much you Winona Ryderize her), but it works thematically, too. With Martin's Joe, there's a devious innocence, a fluffy apathy, and a childlike reckless abandon. With young Joe, there aren't really consequences even when Uma Thurman's character is all up in her grill trying to create consequences. With Gainsbourg's Joe, a little more guilt comes through. The laissez faire mentality is still there, but the character's lost a lot of the control (if not all of it) and the darkness in the Volume 2 chapters at least fooled me into thinking that there was regret and guilt. I don't know exactly what von Trier's trying to say about himself as an artist here and don't want to guess for fear of being completely wrong. And I just wrote that Volume 2 is darker than Volume 1, but I'm not sure that it is much darker. In the first, you've got a lot more about the relationship young Joe has with her father as they explore various trees, but the final moments with Christian Slater (only somewhat distracting as Joe's father) aren't exactly lighthearted. You've got the scene with Uma Thurman who is so angry here that she is almost unrecognizable. And you've got a scene that you'd have to describe as rape although since it ends with a shot of a young woman enjoying a bag of candy, its impact is lessened. In Volume 2, there's some blood, a gun, an argument between two well-endowed men, whippings. Maybe Volume 2 is just more superficially dark, and maybe you actually feel a little bit for the protagonist so that her moods affects the overall mood. Both parts have enough graphic sex to push this out of R-rated range, and you definitely don't want to watch it with your five-year-old child no matter how much of a Willem Dafoe fan she happens to be.
There are lots of shots of junk including a rather impressive penis montage, and there are all sorts of shots of simulated sex and actual penetration, but none of this--and I repeat, none of this--is the least bit arousing. The direction is too cold, detached, matter-of-fact, and the onslaught of sexual imagery is more likely to depress the viewer than turn anybody on. You wonder why von Trier went with sex here. My guess is that he thought he could get a bigger response than he would have been able to with violence or anything else that people generally respond to. I'd also guess that he's having a little fun with the hypocrisies of movie audiences. At one point, Skarsgard's character asks Joe, "Are you making fun of me?" I sort of wondered the same thing a few times as I watched this.
I do think there's a humor in this that a lot of people might be too distracted to recognize. I didn't laugh out loud at any point, but I did think a lot of this was very funny. I'd even describe it as a dark comedy. Just the idea of Skarsgard intellectualizing this sex addict's tell-all, pointing out those parallelisms to fly fishing or whatever, is funny, isn't it? The details of the masturbation jigsaw puzzle, the random and unlikely-to-be-true tidbit about how all the foreskins cut off in history would reach to Mars and back (right after the aforementioned penis montage), an episode in a restaurant involving a lot of spoons, and stock footage of quacking ducks after Skarsgard's "One hardly dare imagine the quacking duck" following Joe's description of the "silent duck" in a story. It feels like a little bit of slapstick in an otherwise dark story, one with an author who cynically philosophizes ("Love is just lust with jealousy added") and makes some of the most absurd intellectual connections while being just as much of a pretentious knob as he makes himself out to be with all his other work.
He might be a pretentious knob, but von Trier's films always look so good. This, like the other two movies in the trilogy, is filled with great imagery, and the music choices--also pretentious, except for a weird Rammstein song and maybe the Talking Heads track--often perfectly compliment the visuals. The acting is often very good, too. I still don't really know what to make of Charlotte Gainsbourg, but I really liked Stacy Martin. Especially her butt! I thought Shooby LeBoof was really good despite a sketchy accent, and Uma Thurman was electric during the short time she was on screen. And Skarsgard! Man, I could listen to that voice for hours. Just listen to the low rumble of his voice as he says "spontaneous orgasm" or feel his barely-contained excitement over "mathematical crap."
So what's this thing really about? There's a barely perceptible tension between Gainsbourg and Skarsgard as her story goes. She becomes frustrated with his digressions and even makes fun of one of them at one point ("That's your weakest digression yet.") while he appears to lose his objectivity and becomes almost agitated a couple times. And then, something happens at the end that almost seems like the punchline of a 4-hour joke. At that length, this seems a little indulgent, its pretensions might be unsettling, and a lot of what seems like loose ends are frustrating. But I really like how this one challenges, balls first (sometimes literally) and fearless. It's certainly not for everybody, but there's a reward for those willing to give it a chance. And that reward is not an erection unless statements about conflicting halves of an artistic soul get you going.
At least that's what I think this is about.
7 comments:
I told Audrey that I was going to go comment on this, and she said, "Really!?! I don't I want it publicly known that you watched that..."
So, basically, it was a journey. The opening is almost a full minute of blacked-out static. It gives the feeling of being born -- that first hint of sexuality. But before I get too far ahead of myself, I gotta give it to the sound guy! I mean, that opening had us listening to the surroundings of the world in that alley. It was a great sensory introduction into that world. Oh, and lest I forget about the sounds of sex. All of that slapping, and squishing, and spanking, and sucking, and slurping, and other disgustingly invigorating onomatopoeias. I seriously wonder if the sound engineer was sitting there watching all of the footage and thinking, "What the fuck am I gonna get to make THAT sound?"
I'll also start by saying that I'm sure there was a ton of stuff that went over my head. I don't know if I have the stamina or gumption to rematch these so soon, and I'll just leave my ignorance to all of this alone. For starters, the heavy metal song lyrics during the credits. Also, some of Seligman's digressions were a little esoteric. Finally, the connections to the director's other films.
But, let me begin with anchor of this narrative: the conversation between Joe and Seligman. I thought it was cool posing a nymph and an A-sexual with each other. Predictable, maybe, but almost necessary for reasons Seligman explains. It really does make him the perfect person to hear the tale of the nymphomaniac. This part of the movie had a great conversational tone. The two misanthropes relating to each other felt natural, not forced. Great script, too. Seligman's dialogue (when it wasn't on a "I-don't-know-what-the-fuck-he's-talking-about path) was doing exactly what I was doing in my head: relating to Joe's character and making connections. Some of his lines were brilliant and though-provoking:
"Why would you take the most unsympathetic aspect of religion such as the concept of sin, and let it live outside of religion?"
"Love is blind." "No, it's worse. Love distorts things."
Some of his shit, like I said, was beyond me. 3+5 Fibonacci sequence (thank you "DaVinci Code"). But all in all, I liked Seligman's iconography. His digressions helped the pacing and were welcomed bits of parallelisms.
The characters were all well done. The supporting cast surprised me at how much they all added to the scenes. I didn't get too annoyed with Shiloh LaDouche. His accent did seem a little sketchy, but not too distracting. Uma Thurman's part was pretty amazing. Hilarious and heartbreaking. She gave a wonderful swing of emotions. I see where you thought the humor was in stuff like this. I almost lost my hard-on when Christian Slater was dying. The leads were magnificent. Stacy Martin's Joe was underestimatingly restrained and low-key. She was comfortable in that difficult character, and was in complete control as an actress. Gainsbourg had two parts to her portion of Joe. The first was her struggling to handle her illness as an adult, and the second was her getting control in her career, and calmly relating to Seligman. Skarsgard is always powerful in whatever role he takes on. He's got charisma and authority even when he's playing a wimp like Seligman.
Something that really stuck out to me was the dips into religious lore. I thought it added so much more depth. The connection of sex to religion is not a new idea, but it's rarely touched upon in most nonfiction. Especially the stuff about the Easter Church vs the Western Church. The Western Church's concentration on and devotion to Jesus is an explanation of its messages of pain, sacrifice, and poverty. This is a direct parallelism to Joe's nymphomaniac.
Another philosophical part in the movies was the stuff about pedophelia. I could see a lot of people not taking this part for what it should be. It is a commentary on people's sexuality and the problems that sexuality can cause in the realm of social norms. The idea of being born with a sexuality and that being a part of your identity is undeniable. It's only recently that society is choosing to face these sexualities (at least identify them and categorize them). Her empathy for the pedophile is brutally honest.
Let me try to talk about the story. I don't think I can cover everything because it was just too vast to remember without being asked about specific parts. There were portions where I thought that the narrative was getting too far removed from reality, but either Seligman brought it back, or a few key moments in the story brought it back. One key moment was Joe having a baby. The kid was a frightful addition to the story...tragic, truly tragic. But it gave a reason for Joe to have to find time for her addiction. It also gave true drama to her situation. boyfriends come and go, people fall in and out of love, but walking away from a child is definite. I also like when Joe's employer demands her to go to therapy. Should Joe have been so flippant, calloused, resentful, defensive? She connected with her childhood, and saw that this illness made her what she is. But did she forget about how it destroyed her adulthood? I'm sure there are more key moments that I'm leaving out...let me know if there's anything I'm missing for sure.
I don't understand the ending. Why did Seligman have to do what he did? I guess she decides to give up sex and he decides to give in? The hunter becomes the hunted? That ending seemed like a cute joke, a crowd pleaser. It betrayed all that came before it. It was the opposite of psychological. It was the antithesis of intelligent and meaningful. It should have ended with her going to sleep. I actually thought Seligman was going to tell her that he was an angel of some kind. That's why he was so knowledgeable and A-sexual. That's why he was conveniently her savior. That's why she was about to change her ways. I anticipated a much smarter ending.
In the end, I keep trying to explain to Audrey that this movie has some cinematic merit. It's more that just a dirty movie. Sure, it tries to elicit shocks with its closeups of genitals and unflinching, violent sexuality, but the shock is part of the tone. I get it: there's peepees and vaginies and boobs and butts. But there really is meaning in it all. I'm not the smartest movie-goer, but I saw the underbelly of ideology. I'm not the most cultured cinemaniac, but I get the art; I appreciate the statements being made.
All in all, it was some pretty fucked up shit. 15/20
I'm a little surprised that you liked it as much as you did. I think when you dared me to watch it, I sort of figured that you didn't like it much.
Sound! I almost mentioned that and had it in my notes. I watched this on my laptop with headphones, so the sounds were as in my face (or ears) as the visuals.
von Trier's movies always make me feel a little dumb because I don't completely grasp where he's coming from. And he's not really afraid of alienating his audience, either in very obvious ways--like having Shooby LeBoof in his movie--or by just being over most people's heads.
I would definitely recommend Idioterne. It's not like anything you've ever seen before.
Good point about pedophilia in this movie. Superficially, it just seems like something the director just wants to shove in our faces to further shock us, but there definitely is a point to it and I would assume a psychological truth to that idea that people are born with all perversions or however they put it in the movie.
The ending is problematic, for sure. For me, it further convinced me that the characters were metaphors, but I'm not really all that confident in that reading of the film. Would you have ended it with Seligman closing the door? What's it mean that Seligman actually gave her instructions on how to use the gun and, essentially, kill him?
One thing I forgot to mention: My favorite shot in the movie might be the one where she finds her soul tree or whatever the hell Christian Slater was talking about. That was a powerful scene visually even though I'm not sure I fully understood what it was trying to say. The tree seemed broken in two parts and also like it was reaching for something. It also probably looked a little vaginal, I guess.
If you want some even-more-fucked-up-shit, try Antichrist. I didn't end up liking it as much as I thought I did right after watching it, and this isn't a real recommendation. It's very difficult. Idioterne, on the other hand, is a real recommendation if you can find it.
this was almost the perfect movie. i wonder how the directors cut differs from the shorter. i would hope he cut all of the christian slater(he tries so hard) and uma thurman stuff. they were both distractingly medicore.
i would say it was definately a conversation in 2 parts about the nature of art. one between lars and lars(like you said) and also between lars and us the viewer. the opening 5 minutes was so beautiful. i also liked the soul tree scene. her tree seemed to be a wretched hand reaching to a god not reaching back. the acting by gainsborg and the young joe was top notch and i really liked practically a newcomer mia goth.
Was wondering when you'd get around to seeing this!
Post a Comment