Alright, So Lars Von Trier Just Isn’t For Me
Perhaps I’m a “bad critic” for saying this, as his films are meant to be appreciated by the types of people who can psychoanalyze them at cocktail parties, but Lars Von Trier just isn’t my kind of director.
After Antichrist scarred my senses beyond all repair with a number of scenes I don’t want to even think about, much less list, I decided to give his latest film, Melancholia, a shot. There were no scenes that left my retinas scarred, but I found very little redeeming about the film at all.
The problem with Von Trier is that his films are way, way too metaphorical. They’re the kind that immediately after you watch them, unless you’re in Mensa you’re going to have to go on a bunch of forums and read about what the movies “really meant.”
I gathered that Melancholia is some deep study of depression, but past that, I’m still trying to sort out which character represented what and all that. Her father is God? Kiefer Sutherland is atheism? I don’t even know.
But what do they REPRESENT?
The problem is that these films are so wrapped up in symbolism, that they just fundamentally don’t work as movies outside of that symbolism. This film is split into two parts, one being Kirsten Dunst being incredibly depressed during her wedding reception after marrying Alexander Skarsgard. The second half occurs months later when a planet named Melancholia that’s entered our solar system is set to pass by the earth (that doesn’t just happen) and probably not destroy it. Well hopefully not. Well it does.
I’m guessing the planet itself IS depression, as the fairly obvious name would suggest. At one point, it circles around the earth and drifts away, but just when you think it’s gone, it turns around to charge at the earth once more, this time obliterating it. The physics are of course nonsense, but I suppose it’s like how people might feel they’re free of depression, but then it can return and destroy you completely.
Von Trier’s films are visually quite impressive, and I appreciate his scores as well, but simply put, his movies are in no way enjoyable to watch. They’re labored with so much metaphor and pretention they can simply be unbearable.
There are a fair amount of Kirsten Dunst boobs to be seen however.
I think there’s probably a pretty big divide between Von Trier apologists and those that feel the way I do. I’ll be accused of just “not getting it” (which I openly admit to most of the time) or not appreciating “art.” Prose and good lighting will only take you so far though, and Von Trier is too wrapped up in his abstract ideas to remember anything like plot coherence.
If you love Von Trier, that’s fine, you’re allowed to. It’s just that on this second go-round with his films, if he’s not trying to shock me into submission, he’s boring me. And if you can make the end of the world this unspeakably dull, you’re just not really my kind of director.
I don’t like him too. I think that he is pretentious artist douche-bag who has weird fetish for stylized depression.
But hey, that’s just my opinion.
In his defense, Dogville was interesting
He’s depressed and repressed and instead of trying to constructively work through his own neuroses he over-intellectualizes, glamorizes, and wallows in them like an alcoholic wallowing in his own soiled, alcohol-soaked sheets.
I feel the same way about David Lynch. I’ve tried to like his films but I just can’t.
I agree with @Reginald about David lLynch, which is weird because Dune is one of my favorite movies of all time. He can keep his Eraserhead, though
I’m half that way about Paul Thomas Anderson.
I thought “Magnolia” was pretentious crap, and “There Will Be Blood” is VERY mediocre.
But “Boogie Nights” and “Hard Eight” are great, and “Punch Drunk Love” is fantastic.
I tried this after Antichrist, because I really wanted to wash the taste of that film out of my mouth. This film, though the cinematography was quite lovely, was an exercise in tedium.
Lars Von Trier’s films aren’t always to my liking, but I’ve gotta hand it to the guy: I never know quite what to expect when going into one of his movies. He has a unique and gorgeous visual style – the high-frame-rate shots in Antichrist were stunning and wonderfully composed – but without fail, his films always make me feel sad, depressed, or like the director reached into my chest and crushed a small piece of my soul.
I was surprised that I enjoyed Melancholia as much as I did – the pretentious film student in me couldn’t get enough of his vague philosophical ponderences on the nature of hopelessness – but I don’t think I’ll be watching it again for a long time, even in spite of Kirsten Dunst’s boobs.
I think that Von Trier is as close as we’ll get to a modern day Jean-Luc Goddard. Now, I don’t like Goddard films at all and find them just as boring and pretentious as many find Von Trier. But I have the utmost respect for these filmmakers for going against the norm, trying out things that no other filmmakers are trying, and above all, surprising me.
And for the record, if you don’t “get” Von Trier’s work, that doesn’t mean anything. I’m not sure he even gets it or wants there to be a solid, hidden meaning to any of it. I think that he just delights in creating these movies that have hints at a deeper meaning without necessarily having one. His films do make great conversation starters, though. I enjoyed the beers I had with my friends after seeing Melancholia way more than the movie because we just had a lot of fun trying to puzzle out the message…or if there even was one.
You just don’t get it, the whole movie was a metaphor for showing off Kirsten Dunst’s boobs. All you have to do is fast forward certain sections of the movie and it will all make sense.
On a serious note, her boobs being stars of the film is the only reason I ever heard about it, but it did look like a bunch of pretentious mumbo jumbo that I probably wouldn’t have been interested in.
I am a huge Von Trier fan and you pretty much summed up my feelings about Melancholia. I think that a movie can stand on aesthetic alone, (that’s what arthouse cinema is) but Melancholia did not do that. If you want plot coherence, try his tv series/incredibly long film Riget (or The Kingdom). One of the best horror comedies ever.
P.s: Apparently the Earth represents her mother or some shit.
He’s David Lynch, but minus the avant-garde, and in place of that, he presents a lot of bleak, depressing and misogynistic views in film.
Love his work. Makes me uncomfortable yet i can converse forever about his work. Instead, i choose not to here.
The man is a film prankster. Genius.
I’m glad there’s still directors out there that place importance on things other than their effects budget.
You have to elaborate on “importance on things” because I have a strong feeling that what you mean is self-indulgence in “grander things”, especially in contemporary days, is just as equal (read: mindless … oh the irony) when compared to those concentrating on their effects budget.
Art (the academic one and the pop one being the ones that divide us in this article) is there to be apreciated. No piece will be universally loved or hated. Art is there to be what it is and for us to apreciate it and decide if we like it or not. I saw Melancholia last week (here in Peru piracy is quite developed) and thou I undertand most of it (I’m a Semiotics professor, my business is to understand this kind of things) I did not liked it. Loved Elephant and Dancer in the dark (I always wanted to see someone killing Bjork) but Melancholia is not a great masterpiece. Above average but not great.
Also, are we sure we understand half of pop culture art? Wanna rewatch Jaws as sociopolitical statement?
>>I’m a Semiotics professor, my business is to understand this kind of things)
Oh dear.
>>Wanna rewatch Jaws as sociopolitical statement?
You can, in that way. But sometimes a tree is just a tree and other interpretations, though maybe interesting, is just a deviation of the original intent, therefore just making all deviations – besides the original – meaningless.
I really liked this movie. I’ve always been that depressed type, so i really sympathized with Dunst character. The French actress also impressed me. I didn’t take anything as symbolism, I just straight out watched it. I think it’s more of a character study, than anything else. It was nice to see how so many different people reacted to the same event. The ending was just epic. One of the few movies I’ve enjoyed this year.
Guy, I am a member of Mensa. I don’t like Lars Von Trier movies either. Don’t lump us smart people together with the liking of self indulgent BS.
Yes, I would say most of his fans would probably fall about 10-15 points below the thresh-hold for mensa. You know… smart enough to see deeper meanings in self-indulgent pretentiousness, but dumb enough to think they actually mean something beyond self-indulgent pretentiousness.
I agree, for the most part.
I believe if you ask Von trier it’s a straight forward story about two sisters dealing with depression and the end of the world. No more no less. If there is something else, it’s up to each viewer to find and appreciate it.
Good art can not be solved in one viewing. Good art is never supposed to be solved at all. Good art will give you something new to discover about the work or the meaning each time you see it. The artist gives you the tools or the framework for you to dive into and use it as you please.
If one believes that the father represents “God”, then good for you, but it certainly doesnt mean that that was the directors only intention for that character. The intention was for you to be “able” to see the father as “God”.
Melancholia is enough straight forward to be viewed without any symbolism or metaphors at all. But if you’re into that stuff Melancholia is rich with opportunities.
Take his movie earlier movie Manderlay. Some thinks it’s about slavery others believe it’s about the Iraq war and western politics yet others believes it’s about a woman wanting to help some people. A movie like that you can watch many times and get something different from it each time. That is good art.
Also, his movies are very aesthetic which, imo, is alfa and omega in art. As a famous director which name I can’t remember once said. “The perfect movie is the one without dialogue and plot”.
Sorry for the rambling and my relative bad english 😉