Lars Von Trier

[sarahelockhart]

Von Trier is a fairly neurotic guy who seems compelled to place females in this position. It doesn't suggest hatred of women to me. He's certainly much more complex than a simple analysis gives him credit for.

Breaking the Waves was the first Von Trier film I saw, and I did feel, based on that, that he was into cinematic humiliation of his female leads. However, after having seen most of films, I think he subjects his main character to a form of degradation, whether male or female. zentropa, 5 obstructions and the latest one have male leads that are so "tested."

I think The Idiots is probably my favorite film of his, primarily because of the connotations it has towards being an artist. Though the latest one Boss of it All does as well.

[Borat Pri Hagafen]

Watched 'Epidemic' tonight, from 1987.


Some interesting ideas and a couple cool scenes, but can't say I enjoyed it a heck of a lot.

[surfer]

I love that movie, and I loved the resulting shorts. However, I am particularly fascinated by process, and the idea of formal constraints, and I found these to be fascinating exercises in artistic imagination and cinematic houdini-ism. I thought the chemistry between Von Trier and Leth was compelling. Also, my copy did include the original The Perfect Human. One the my favorite movies from the 00s, but certainly not for everyone.

[sarahelockhart]

De Fem benspænd, "5 Obstructions", 2003

... Honestly didn't see the attraction - could some of you out there who raved about this movie care to explain why you like it? The concept behind the film - forcing an artist to revisit / recreate his/her work subject to unforeseen constrictions - is cute, but you know what I think about concepts.. I didn't enjoy any of the results, except perhaps the Cuban obstruction. ...

I think as far as conceptual exercises go, The Boss of it All was better, in that the content tied in more interestingly with the concept, but who knows, maybe I just preferred it because it was a comedy, and for a weird reason the main character reminded me of Damon Smith.

[leroysghost]

from the (surprisingly?) estimable William Bennett (http://williambennett.blogspot.com/sear ... ore+discos):

Antichrist (**)
Lars Von Trier's homage to Tarkovsky, disappointingly, is a failure; Gainsbourg is hopelessly out of her depth as an actress, where even LVT is incapable of provoking her into anything more than to some amateurishly mechanical histrionics, meanwhile Defoe desperately vogues at the directors in the audience to once again take his arthouse credentials seriously; the film's Stalker/Mirror flourishes come across as third-rate David Lynch, and the arty sound design and fancy visual filters seem forced, thus incongruent; and don't get me started on the cheeseball religious symbology and references in the dialogues; this is the first film in Von Trier's illustrious career that I've reacted disfavourably towards, and I can only think that his otherwise likeable arrogance got the better of him in the belief that he could operate outside his usual domain of cinematic expertise and excellence

i may not always agree with the things that Mr.Bennett praises, but he always seem rather spot on in his dislikes so this is depressing me already

anyone else seen this one yet?

[Dan Warburton]

No, and not in a great hurry to do so (don't care much for the two leading actors). Might go to see the new Tarantino instead when it comes out on Wednesday.
Is that quote from WB's blog? Can you put a link? He says some quite interesting things at times. More interesting that the music he makes, anyway.

[leroysghost]

More interesting that the music he makes, anyway.

put up your dukes!

[adamcooley]

Makes really interesting films. Can't say I enjoy watching most of 'em though.

[slightlyoffkilter]

i once hired Dogville to watch with married friends who took opposing views on its ending so seriously i thought the ensuing months of bitter argument revealing new perceived character flaws to each other each day i thought i'd be cited in the divorce papers for bringing the film to their attention in the first place.

[franz bieberkopf]

i wrote a big thing on Antichrist only to have my computer crash on me.
had the chance to see it last saturday, in a packed theatre (film festival) with my ladyfriend at 11 in the morning (a great time, obviously).

as i might've even mentioned earlier in this thread... it was another one of those Von Trier experiences that you were happy to have once... and never again. (although that's a bit of an exaggeration in this case)
definitely revisiting his knack for expressionist aesthetics... really for the first time in what, 15 odd years? easy to forget that he has a talent for this stuff. that said, i say, along the lines of what WB was saying, that the aesthetic, did seem a bit dated at times. there is indeed a lot of filter work and slow motion that would be out of place in say... a debeers diamond commercial from a decade ago. it's feels more in conversation with hollywood visual style (which isn't bad these days, just simplistic and very very late to the game) than it does with anything that blows my mind these days.

that said, there were certain points in the film where the aforementioned strategies were deployed to amazing effect. there is a slow motion sequence that almost becomes photographic (in pace), Dafoe's character is leading Gainsbourg through a guided meditation that is definitely jaw dropping. maybe one of the most thrilling moments for me in the 24 films' worth of festival i've seen.

maybe i appreciate the pacing of the first two thirds precisely because the last third is so brutal--and thus it's unfair to begrudge the closing proceedings... but man, it is pretty brutally explicit, and i'm not so sure it was necessary. and just generally the movie runs off the rails a bit... i guess it's supposed to (following the dialectical narrative VeeTee seems to be sketching out)?

had a long conversation with my lady afterwards about whether or not the film was all about the weakness of women... which i think is kind of a facile reading, tbh, but i know i didn't do much of a job convincing her otherwise... and when you begin to lay out some of the events on paper (uncoloured by any previous knowledge of feller's work), it's not so hard to see how some people would come to that conclusion... so yea, woman hate: still very much on the table...

generally i think the movie demands more loyalty to what it's up to than it really earns from its audience... hard not to snicker when 'chaos reigns' came up--you'll know it when you see it... and you should see it once for sure... why not? the man's still a for better or worse important voice in contemporary film...

[leroysghost]

Lars von Trier - Antichrist (2009)

yup, it's bad, like Dear Wendy without anyone else to hide behind. actually, it isn't even as bad as Wendy, it is just supremely uninteresting (which may or may not be worse...). Trier takes a Trierfilm and just glosses the crap out it, because after making a career out of ascetics the only way to make a truly ugly reverse is to make everything glossy to the point of oversaturation.

the Tarkovsky homage bits don't even look much like Tarkovsky (there may be a couple of glasses filled with water outside at one point but that's pretty much it). instead the effects really do remind one of a de beers diamond commercial (spot on assessment there franz). Trier has already done Tarkovsky much more effectively elsewhere anyway (the great opening to The Kingdom for example).

with regards to the sex and violence, it really isn't anything anyone hasn't seen before, and even when it is (don't think i've ever seen anyone ejaculate blood before) it is presented so glossily and detached that it fails to resonate in any way whatsoever.

the plot and dialog are stilted and obvious (even when something is obvious, it doesn't mean you have to present it as such and make any revelation totally devoid of interest), Defoe is dull and Gainsbourg is weak (note to aspiring actresses: clit snips garner awards!).

i went in thinking that this movie would suck while secretly hoping that my lowered expectations would allow me to enjoy the proceedings. what i wasn't prepared for was such a vacuous and sedating experience. i'd be taken aback if i weren't so numb.

LVT 1989-2009: Lars Trier is dead, long live von Trier

...very nice poster though:

[Ttai]

I have this one idea that I like very much. Maybe some day I'll make a movie out of it... About a man who sets his wife on fire only because she doesn't tell the truth, because she lies. Lies aren't very important issues, you see? He loves her very much, and she loves him. She is a wonderful woman, they love each other, and they have a wonderful relationship. But she makes things up. She goes out and when she comes back, he asks: Where have you been? She answers: "I was visiting a friend."
But he knows that she wasn't at her friend's house, she was some place else, let's say in the movie theatre. He doesn't understand why she lies. I think she doesn't realise it either. Maybe because of some self-preservation instinct. He struggles with her, but cannot convince her not to lie. In the end he ties her to a tree and sets her on fire, like Joan of Arc.

I kept thinking about this bit from an interview with Tarkovsky while watching Antichrist, then the ending approached and Dafoe burned Gainsbourg, then the dedication text came up.

I don't know what to make of this film.

Here's an interesting Roger Ebert review of it: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/05 ... ichri.html

[leroysghost]

hard not to snicker when 'chaos reigns' came up

this is the moment the film abruptly transitions into a horror film and Trier starts trowing horror cliches at you. this is meant to be a little bit of a joke i think, i just found it to be so ineffective that it didn't even get a snicker out of me.

Here's an interesting Roger Ebert review of it: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/05 ... ichri.html

ugh! this is what i was talking about. critics are just using this as one giant circle jerk (Scott D?!? are you fucking serious). i am so sick of reading reviews where someone claims that it is a dark look into Tiers mind and that the things that happen in the film are so unbearably shocking (they should all start wearing fucking t-shirts saying "I Survived Antichrist") and prattling on about Bosch. i find it pretty funny how in almost every Ebert review i read there is at least one factual inaccuracy about the film he is reviewing (there are no talking dogs or bluebirds in Antichrist). i am almost convinced that he doesn't pay attention and either leaves or starts writing his article long before the film is over.

[Ttai]

In this 18 minute audio interview, Von Trier explains the "chaos reigns" bit (among other things): http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/audio/20 ... antichrist

[leroysghost]

haha, "the fox demanded a line".
thanks for this ttai

[moesgaard]

I there,

Just wanted to drop some lines about the weird LVT. Haven't seen his last, and won't go, since everything he's been doing since breaking the waves onwards really annoys me (not sure what to think of the idiots, maybe i'll have another viewing one of these days). The main problem for me is the judeo-christian morals behind every movie (the sacrifice, the suffering, holy Mary thing), which gets pretty weird when mixed with his mysoginy.
But i think he's one great manipulator though (which is why i hate it, i don't like to manipulated like a puppet). This really breaks through in Epidemic (in the first three movies in fact), as it puts to light all his project as a filmmaker:manipulation, hypnosis, dark humour. I really enjoy his first three movies (the E trilogy: Epidemic, the Element of crime, Europa) because there is no moral thinking in them, they are just narrative experiments, and they allow LVT to shine on a narrative level as well as on the esthetic level. They represent a very rich period of experiment from which he'll sadly go to make lesson-giving, tiresome demonstrative movies. One can really wonder what happened to the guy...

Last but not least, i wanted to share my favourite thing this guy did, since noone mentionned it earlier: His TV Series, The Kingdom. To say it quickly, it can be described as a weird mixture between twin peaks, ER and X-files....yes, it sounds uncanny!
The series were left unfinished, unfortunately, but i really encourage everyone to watch this amazing show (available on dvd). It is totally crazy, full of humour, scary at times, crazy for sure all along. unfortunately, the series was first compiled as a 5 hour movie for GB and the US. It's only been released fully on dvd last year, and as a result, it is not dubbed, only subtitled. i hope some of you will give this a try, one of my favourite TV series ever!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kingdo ... iniseries)

[franz bieberkopf]

the five obstructions is worth seeing some time, even if you hate his steezo, moe. perhaps because it's not really his film (but it kind of is)... definitely interesting from a narratological perspective.

[moesgaard]

Thanks for the tip, i'll definitely check it out. Seems there's a lot to discuss on this one, at list from what i read.

Cheers

[adamcooley]

Five Obstructions is my fav! I also love Epidemic...