Starring Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg
Directed by Lars von Trier
Directed by Lars von Trier
This film has been quite the hot topic, getting booed at Cannes this past summer, and is becoming quite well known for its graphic nature. Having seen it now, I am either too dumb to understand this movie or too intelligent to take its bullshit. I'm gonna go with the latter because I'm pretty certain I understand what was being said and simply think that it's ridiculous.
The film starts with an absolutely beautifully shot black and white "Prologue". As classical operatic music plays, we see a man (Defoe) and a woman (Gainsbourg) having sex (complete with what appears to be actual sex onscreen) while their toddler-aged son makes his way out of his crib, only to climb onto a windowsill and fall several stories to his death out an open window. During this opening five minutes, I was struck by how truly exquisite this flick looked -- just stunning in the way it was filmed. While the film continued to look nice, the story just fell apart after this Prologue.
As the film progresses, the Wife (we don't learn names of the characters) experiences terrible grief over her son's death, feeling responsible for failing to keep him safe. The Husband is a therapist and He tries to help his Wife through her troubles by having her face her fears. Through some convoluted and ridiculous psychological mumbo-jumbo dialog, He learns the She is most afraid of Nature and their "vacation home" in the forests which they call Eden. He decides that the best therapy is to take her to Eden, but upon their arrival, She begins to spiral out of control.
Maybe as a story this would be fine (maybe...), but director Lars von Trier throws in so many moments of symbolism -- a talking fox, a baby bird being eaten by ants, the Wife literally becoming one with Nature -- that it just becomes too difficult to keep up with what he's trying to say. Part of me does think that as some have said that this is von Trier's complete dismissal of the female gender, depicting that they are nothing but a weight to hold men back from life (this "weight" metaphor takes on quite a literal meaning at the end of the film). As She studies the abuse of women over time, She slowly turns into this devilish über-bitch who only wants to abuse men.
The other part of me thinks that's all a crock.
This is the thing, though...I may have disliked many things about this movie, but I wasn't the least bit bored by it. And I'm certainly still thinking about it many hours later. The cinematography by Timothy Dod Mantle is gorgeous. The black-and-white scenes that bookend the film are stunning and the rest of the film looks great, too. And Willem Defoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg both make the best of the difficult roles they were given (unfortunately Defoe is given some stupid lines to spout in the first 45 minutes that no one would be able to make sound "normal").
So, despite the fact that I bashed the movie at the beginning, I'm certainly happy that I watched it and I would recommend it to those who are interested in film because it's certainly unlike anything you will have ever seen.
Pretentious? Certainly.
Good? I'm not sure...
The film starts with an absolutely beautifully shot black and white "Prologue". As classical operatic music plays, we see a man (Defoe) and a woman (Gainsbourg) having sex (complete with what appears to be actual sex onscreen) while their toddler-aged son makes his way out of his crib, only to climb onto a windowsill and fall several stories to his death out an open window. During this opening five minutes, I was struck by how truly exquisite this flick looked -- just stunning in the way it was filmed. While the film continued to look nice, the story just fell apart after this Prologue.
As the film progresses, the Wife (we don't learn names of the characters) experiences terrible grief over her son's death, feeling responsible for failing to keep him safe. The Husband is a therapist and He tries to help his Wife through her troubles by having her face her fears. Through some convoluted and ridiculous psychological mumbo-jumbo dialog, He learns the She is most afraid of Nature and their "vacation home" in the forests which they call Eden. He decides that the best therapy is to take her to Eden, but upon their arrival, She begins to spiral out of control.
Maybe as a story this would be fine (maybe...), but director Lars von Trier throws in so many moments of symbolism -- a talking fox, a baby bird being eaten by ants, the Wife literally becoming one with Nature -- that it just becomes too difficult to keep up with what he's trying to say. Part of me does think that as some have said that this is von Trier's complete dismissal of the female gender, depicting that they are nothing but a weight to hold men back from life (this "weight" metaphor takes on quite a literal meaning at the end of the film). As She studies the abuse of women over time, She slowly turns into this devilish über-bitch who only wants to abuse men.
The other part of me thinks that's all a crock.
This is the thing, though...I may have disliked many things about this movie, but I wasn't the least bit bored by it. And I'm certainly still thinking about it many hours later. The cinematography by Timothy Dod Mantle is gorgeous. The black-and-white scenes that bookend the film are stunning and the rest of the film looks great, too. And Willem Defoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg both make the best of the difficult roles they were given (unfortunately Defoe is given some stupid lines to spout in the first 45 minutes that no one would be able to make sound "normal").
So, despite the fact that I bashed the movie at the beginning, I'm certainly happy that I watched it and I would recommend it to those who are interested in film because it's certainly unlike anything you will have ever seen.
Pretentious? Certainly.
Good? I'm not sure...
The RyMickey Rating: C
haha well done sir. i'm glad you had the delapears to watch this.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what "delapears" means, but I'm guessing it has something to do with "testicular fortitude." With the exception of the two scenes at the end that are well known and documented, it wasn't all that shocking. (Although admittedly, the scene with the weight made me very uncomfortable.)
ReplyDeletegood assumption. i really wish i watched this without knowing the "big scenes" my head would of exploded scanners style.
ReplyDeleteAnd therein lies the problem, Eric. Unless you were among the first to see this at Cannes, there's no way you DON'T know about the "big scenes."
ReplyDeleteThis isn't a mainstream film and the only reason this little movie got any buzz is because of the "big scenes."
So there's definitely a Catch-22 situation going on there.
I agree wholeheartedly that had I not known the "big scenes" were coming, I'm not sure how I would've handled it.
I can't say this was a good film based off of the cinematography. I doubt it will get recognized come oscar time. it was just an empty "art-house" flick with a badass fox.
ReplyDeleteand i was referring to the cinematography getting oscar talk not anything else.
ReplyDeleteI can't say it's a "good" film either, but I wasn't the least bit bored by it and I'm still thinking about it a day later, so I can't necessarily join you in saying that it's "empty." So, with that in mind, I feel like I need to give it a 2.5 which, in my standing, means that I'd recommend it to "certain people."
ReplyDeleteIn fact, part of me wants to watch it again, attempting to pick up on the crazy symbolism that von Trier brought to the table. I realize that in the first paragraph of my review, I'm essentially trashing it, and I still feel that way about it, too...Mixed emotions here on this one.
I also liked Defoe and Gainsbourg, but I will agree that the only thing I'd even consider for Oscar nominations would be cinematography which I thought was pretty damn good...it won't be nominated, though, for anything...
Also, Eric, on a side note, thanks for posting...
ReplyDeleteI won't hold anything you say against you even if it's horribly wrong...
Were you...
ReplyDeleteWere you tired of me being the only one who posts :(
I would never tire of your posts, Justin...
ReplyDeleteWhere would I get to read lines like "I would've creamed myself" if not from you? ;)