Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

[knives]

Don't forget ovulating. Everyone forgets that one it seems.

[mfunk9786]

The Sad Hitler Pagebreak of the Year goes to...

[knives]

I have no clue why, but this film has me grinning from ear to ear. I left the theater with the rain worse than it had been when I entered and all the same I turned into Gene Kelly as my poor knee will tell you. There's something so simple and serene about this movie that makes death seem at least as good a deal as life. Things are more complex than that for certain, but von Trier makes living through the apocalypse (unlike a certain other character in the film) look like the ultimate optimistic view. In general I'm not a fan of the man's work, but this is at least the best thing he's done since Riget, but maybe even Madea. So put me down (despite being a fan of both) as finding this to be the better Tarkovsky knock off of the year.

[Zot!]

Thought this was excellent.

Spoiler

Something I found really interesting is the most likely unintentional similarity between this story and the Finnish children's book "Comet In Moominland" from 1946 which is well know in Scandanavia (and was recently adapted as a animated film). The book revolves around characters who travel to an observatory after witnessing a comet approaching earth, to find out what the scientists think. In an inversion of the plot, the scientists tell them that a collision is inevitable. However the characters continue to stay upbeat and are convinced that when they get home, their parents will know how to deal with it. On their return home, they all enter a cave, to wait out the event, but instead, the comet passes by the earth, leaving all unharmed.

[zedz]

The film is about depression, and the difference in world view between a character like Justine and a character like Claire. And their worlds colliding. FIN

Oh God, I hope not. What an appallingly reductive reading of the film.

[domino harvey]

The film's really about the Male Gaze, duh

[knives]

I thought it was about proving that John Hurt literally is the best?

[Brian C]

Yeah, Hurt's so good.

[Jeff]

I'm still unsure of what Von Trier's argument is then, or if there is one to be made about either "world". It seems like such a prominent premise to mold a film around that there may be something more being said that I'm still not catching.

The film is about depression, and the difference in world view between a character like Justine and a character like Claire. And their worlds colliding. FIN

Oh God, I hope not. What an appallingly reductive reading of the film.

I suppose this could be considered a little reductive as well, but for me, it's largely about how Lars/Justine is coming to see his nihilistic/pessimistic/"depressed" worldview as being not a hindrance, but an effective weapon against the fate that he feels is an inevitable part of humanity.

The following is, I'm sure, stating the obvious, but that's all I'm good at: Justine is unable to cope with the bourgeois wedding party, the fake happiness of her guests, and the idea of becoming part of that world through marriage. I think von Trier probably views his place in the world similarly. In Justine's story, the more conventionally well-adjusted Claire is the stable, calming force. In Claire's story, when shit gets real, the roles are reversed. Justine's view of the meaninglessness of everything and her certainty of her ultimate aloneness in the universe renders her impervious to the impending doom. For von Trier, only those who care about the emptiness of the world and participating in conventional societal roles can truly be destroyed.

[hearthesilence]

Yeah, Hurt's so good.

He's here all night, ladies and gentlemen!

[hollyharry]

I viewed the film as being basically a satire on the absurdity and pointlessness of ritual for the first half that morphs into a meditation on the necessity of some of these empty rituals.

*Some vague spoilers ahead*

At the end, it shows emotional growth on the part of Justine, in that her final action is an indulgence in a ritual that she, and we, know is futile, all to help ease the fear of someone she loves. In a weird way, I think the movie is kind of a coming of age film.

[Fierias]

*Some vague spoilers ahead*
At the end, it shows emotional growth on the part of Justine, in that her final action is an indulgence in a ritual that she, and we, know is futile, all to help ease the fear of someone she loves. In a weird way, I think the movie is kind of a coming of age film.

I still think she's rejecting ritual at the end, though (rather than partaking in Claire's proposal that they go out with candles and a glass of wine, she plays along in a silly make-believe game). She still rejects bourgeois ritual, in a way refusing to come of age.

[hollyharry]

*Some vague spoilers ahead*
At the end, it shows emotional growth on the part of Justine, in that her final action is an indulgence in a ritual that she, and we, know is futile, all to help ease the fear of someone she loves. In a weird way, I think the movie is kind of a coming of age film.

I still think she's rejecting ritual at the end, though (rather than partaking in Claire's proposal that they go out with candles and a glass of wine, she plays along in a silly make-believe game). She still rejects bourgeois ritual, in a way refusing to come of age.

But she recognizes the necessity of it in one instance in comforting her nephew.

[knives]

I think the point he was making is that it may be a ritual, but it's not one that hurts or binds you in the way those cultural accepting ones do. It's a ritual you make for yourself rather than have imposed on you.

[mfunk9786]

Even with vague spoilers, it's wise to use spoilertags. Just FYI.

[Murdoch]

Watched this at a USC screening last night and was severely disappointed. I found the structure to be muddled and lacking a cohesive second act. The first act, as long as it is, was oftentimes engaging (when I wasn't distracted by its similarities to The Celebration) and enjoyable, but unfortunately I couldn't get into the rest. I didn't get the metaphor or meaning of the asteroid either, and I'm not sure whether or not I should blame myself for a lack of effort. This is especially disheartening because I've always been a big fan of Lars Von Trier and have appreciated the fact that I "understood" his intentions and themes more precisely than most other modern day auteurs' works.

Some indelible shots, however. Lots of beautiful images are sticking with me from it.

This basically sums up what I thought. After reading this thread I thought it would be perfect for me, as Justine holds a worldview similar to my own. However, outside of the ravishing opening, I thought the film was circling around some greater meaning that I never picked up on. The disconnect between the two chapters made them feel like two halves of different, unfinished movies which attempt to draw their meaning from each other but never achieve a material connection. I'll hopefully see this again and find something more to grasp on to, but as of now it left me underwhelmed.

[knives]

Is the AE going to be region free?

[domino harvey]

Jens Lekman's song about Kirsten Dunst filming Melancholia

[Jazzkammer]

I went to see Melancholia with a couple friends at a multiplex theatre it came to in my city last week, and here are my brief thoughts on the film:

Admittedly, it did seem like a longer movie than it actually was (I was sure I had just watched a 2 1/2 + hour movie until I checked the running time), and some of the scenes in the first part of the movie (Justine's wedding) seem superfluous in retrospect, but I can't deny that the whole thing was paced and edited suitably. Compared to his last film Antichrist, with its brisk pacing and taut structure, Melancholia is a leisurely paced, sprawling slow-burner. No, probably not all of the scenes from Justine's wedding are essential, but they effectively serve the purpose of setting the chilling mood that slowly sinks in throughout the movie, ultimately culminating in the cathartic final sequence.

Melancholia also strikes me as Lars Von Trier's most mature, restrained work - which also sets in stark contrast to the over-the-top psycho-drama and shock scenes of its antecedent Antichrist. Nor does Melancholia resort to manipulating emotions from the audience, at least not in the overt ways that Dancer in the Dark and Breaking the Waves do. This may be a misgiving, but I firmly believe Lars Von Trier is a director that will keep getting better with age, especially if Melancholia is any indication.

The theatre was unsurprisingly about 1/3 full, and the two gluttonous women sitting in front of me seemed like they had resorted to checking Melancholia out only because Twilight or whatever else they had intended on seeing had sold out. Not only was the one woman talking on her cell for the first ten minutes of the film, but at the end of the the first part of Melancholia, she said to her friend, "No wonder the theatre is only half full!" Twenty minutes later they promptly walked out (when things were just beginning to get riveting!)

[wattsup32]

I finally got to see it, though it was at very shabby theatre. From the description of other posts here, it seems I missed out on great sound mixing because of the poor sound system in the theatre.

I had a very difficult time following the chronology in the film. I'm not sure if that was a failing on my part or if it was VT's intention. At some point I began to believe that the two parts in the film would have been running parallel and concurrently if they ran in real time. That lead me to believe that the first part of the film was Justine's version or perception of reality in that timeline and the second part was Claire's perception.

Is this possible? Or, is it a complete misreading?

The ebbs and flows of the emotional state of Justine lines up well if the two parts were played simultaneously. And, some lines of repeated dialogue would also line up accordingly.

[knives]

I think you are over thinking things just a tad. The film, at least as presented, is basically chronological with the opening scene essentially being a summary of the film with the wedding sequence being the real start of the picture and the Justine sequence taking place a few months later.

[mfunk9786]

Knives, I think you mean the Claire sequence. And watts - not to be harsh in my analysis, but I think that is indeed a complete misreading. Your comments about Justine's emotional state don't really even match - she's happy at the outset of her wedding and has all sorts of bipolar issues throughout swinging from one extreme to another. Her depression is really flared up towards the end of the wedding; whereas in the second sequence, she is at [most likely] her lowest point ever at the beginning of the sequence, and is excited by the prospect of everyone's death approaching and, as a result, becomes happier as that becomes more of a reality.

[knives]

Right, I've never been good with character names.

[wattsup32]

Knives, I think you mean the Claire sequence. And watts - not to be harsh in my analysis, but I think that is indeed a complete misreading. Your comments about Justine's emotional state don't really even match - she's happy at the outset of her wedding and has all sorts of bipolar issues throughout swinging from one extreme to another. Her depression is really flared up towards the end of the wedding; whereas in the second sequence, she is at [most likely] her lowest point ever at the beginning of the sequence, and is excited by the prospect of everyone's death approaching and, as a result, becomes happier as that becomes more of a reality.

I don't doubt that it is a misreading. Misreading though it likely is, I am confident in my memory of Justine's emotional swells. For instance:

Spoiler

If the two parts were running concurrently, her emotional outburst at Stellan Skarsgaard occurs when her emotional outburst at Claire occurs (The terrace and a glass of wine scene). Each is followed closely by the line from Claire, "I hate you so much sometimes."

Also, the euphoria Justine is experiencing in the beginning of part 1 is rooted in frustration with the limo ride. The despair in the beginning of part two coincides with her cab ride. And, there are, as you state, many swings mixed in.

If my theory were correct, and we seem to be in agreement that it isn't, then the difference in what those emotions look like could easily be accounted for by the different perspectives. Since my original reading is likely wrong, it doesn't really matter. Even if my original reading is incorrect, I do think my assessment of Justine's emotional graph in the two parts has some merit. Though, I doubt it adds anything to anyone's reading of the film.

[swo17]

I think the second part clearly follows the first chronologically, but I'm sure there are several parallels between the two halves such as the ones you have astutely pointed out.