To
be honest, I had my doubts when I went to see this film. After all
the buzz, I more or less expected a provocative, pretentious,
incomprehensible porno film. I thought Nymphomaniac would be a
shallow artistic excuse to show lots of explicit sex in an attempt to
shock the audience and create controversy.
Well, I was wrong.
Is it provocative? In some ways, yes. I think choosing nymphomania as a subject for a film is already some sort of provocation. And there are some scenes that might be considered tasteless or mildly shocking. But if I would have to describe the film in one word, I wouldn't use 'provocative'. Instead, I would use 'imaginative'.
Because that is what this film is: imaginative. It's so full of ideas, full of creativity and full of cinematographic exuberance that it's hard not be impressed. The nice thing is that Lars Von Trier never takes himself too seriously. In a way, it's a pity that the film is about sex. So much attention is being given to the number of penises shown and the number of vagina close-ups that it overshadows everything else, including the creative way the film is made.
Well, I was wrong.
Is it provocative? In some ways, yes. I think choosing nymphomania as a subject for a film is already some sort of provocation. And there are some scenes that might be considered tasteless or mildly shocking. But if I would have to describe the film in one word, I wouldn't use 'provocative'. Instead, I would use 'imaginative'.
Because that is what this film is: imaginative. It's so full of ideas, full of creativity and full of cinematographic exuberance that it's hard not be impressed. The nice thing is that Lars Von Trier never takes himself too seriously. In a way, it's a pity that the film is about sex. So much attention is being given to the number of penises shown and the number of vagina close-ups that it overshadows everything else, including the creative way the film is made.
Lars
Von Trier has crafted an absolutely epic story filled with beauty,
humour and heartbreak – but it's his writing that is most
impressive. Von Trier's dialogue is so simple, yet so beautiful. The
dialogue between Joe and Seligman is remarkable. The words are
literally coming off the page. As good as the acting is, it's hard
not to be impressive when you're given this material. His script is
dense. He's created this world that is unlike no other. It doesn't
have an actual set city – everyone speaks with a different accent
(whether that is intentional or not I don't know) - but it definitely
has a universe. You're immersed in this universe for four hours and
you never want to leave.
The
story is told very cleverly. It's told in chapters and it really has
this 'epic' feel about it. Like we're being told a fairy tale, albeit
an X-rated fairy tale. It's a nice juxtaposition that gives the film
depth. Von Trier visualises this to aplomb. One
wonderful example of this creative approach is the final chapter,
where Joe sees a similarity between her complicated love life and
Seligman's favourite piece of polyphonic organ music. She compares
her lovers to the three different melodic tunes in the music. The way
Von Triers visualizes this, with the screen split in three to show
cross cuttings of the organ and the lovers, is original and funny at
the same time. Throughout the film we get ugly, pointless inserts
(nature shots, animals, choir boys etc.) that are derived from
low-quality, low-resolution video material. This is a fantastic
technique used by Von Trier because it gives us a break from the
bleak drama. They're funny, refreshing and well used.
His
visualisation is helped by some superb performances. Obviously,
Charlotte Gainsborough, newcomer Stacy Martin and Stellan SkarsgÄrd
will receive most of the plaudits – but there are some fantastic
performances hidden beneath. Uma Thurman, who is in the film for one
scene, brings the film it's funniest moments. She is absolutely
brilliant. I haven't seen her this good for a long, long time. Also,
Jamie Bell plays a fantastic sadist. (Who would have thought?! Billy
bloody Elliot!)
The
film is split into two parts in Kill Bill style. Although this was
not Von Trier's choice, it's handled very well. The two parts are
distinct and the both carry a different style and tone. The first
part has a lighter tone and plays out as a tongue-in-cheek caper
while the second is darker and grittier. Both work very well and
oddly, despite the change in tones, they lead into each other very
well. However, the transformation from 'young Joe' to 'older Joe'
feels very weird. It felt rigid and hampered the flow of the film.
The same can be said of other characters that were recast, it feels
very odd. It was an odd decision considering the age difference isn't
particularly that big. Despite this, the film never feels too long,
which, considering its length, is very impressive.
It's
funny and brilliant, its dark and thrilling and its poetic at the
same time. If you're a fan of Von Trier you won't be disappointed and
equally, if you're not I think it's an accessible film. This film is
not about sex. Its about loneliness between sensations, about being
alone among people who suffer from lack of attachment. Its about life
that struggles with death by facing death, to the ultimate boundary
of pleasure.
No comments:
Post a Comment