criterionforum.org

Little surprise, but Melancholia is getting a blu-ray release by Artificial Eye on January the 23rd.

That's pretty much how it went down with Antichrist, though this time there's no Criterion to wait for.

Nazi comments instigate police investigation

LvT's statement:

Today at 2 pm I was questioned by the Police of North Zealand in connection with charges made by the prosecution of Grasse in France from August 2011 regarding a possible violation of prohibition in French law against justification of war crimes. The investigation covers comments made during the press conference in Cannes in May 2011. Due to these serious accusations I have realized that I do not possess the skills to express myself unequivocally and I have therefore decided from this day forth to refrain from all public statements and interviews.

Lars von Trier
Avedøre, 5. October 2011

Nothing wrote:Hmm... Hoberman has a unique take:

Hoberman wrote:the first five minutes of Melancholia are more innovative, accomplished, and visionary than anything in The Tree of Life

I couldn't agree more. And Melancholia has far more humanity in it than the rather sterile Tree of Life (a film I still rather liked).

Tree of Life doesn't even deserve to be discussed in the same sentence as Melancholia. Shit, did I just... shit.

Via Cargo interview in english.

Dissing another film doesn't make Melancholia look better. Thought people would know better than that.. (for the record, I happened to like Tree of Life quite a lot more than Melancholia though the latter was one of the happier experiences I've had with Lars' films).

Just as Antichrist was Gainsbourg's film, Melancholia is Dunst's, and something has gone very wrong indeed if she doesn't receive some year-end awards recognition. The first proper half of the film detailing the wedding is marvelous, with Dunst's restrained yet vibrant self-destruction contrasting beautifully with the world-wide destruction that immediately preceded it. Von Trier cheekily conjures up as wide-scale a plot device as possible and then retreats into this little story that, as stated, gives something rather unexpected to an End of the World tale: Peace, however empty.

Excellent observation. I am no fan of Dunst, to put it mildly, but she is astonishing in this film. Literally perfect. Having seen it twice, I don't recall a single moment when her facial expressions/reactions were "wrong" or "off". I love Charlotte in everything but this is not one of her best perfs. And I think it is incontrovertible that the cosmic element "fits" this movie far better than the cosmic element of ToL.

mfunk9786 wrote:Tree of Life doesn't even deserve to be discussed in the same sentence as Melancholia. Shit, did I just... shit.

Thats a pretty "douchie" post.

Your fedora might be on little too tight....I'm just saying...

It may just be me, but am I alone in thinking that LVT has officially become a Tarkovsky sycophant? Not that its a bad thing, but...

Hunters in the Snow, really?

Hasn't he always been though or at least as long as all of his living heroes shunned him?

membrillo wrote:

mfunk9786 wrote:Tree of Life doesn't even deserve to be discussed in the same sentence as Melancholia. Shit, did I just... shit.

Thats a pretty "douchie" post.

Your fedora might be on little too tight....I'm just saying...

I'm actually pretty unsure as to what you're just saying.

mfunk9786 wrote:[quote=""membrillo""]

mfunk9786 wrote:Tree of Life doesn't even deserve to be discussed in the same sentence as Melancholia. Shit, did I just... shit.

Thats a pretty "douchie" post.

Your fedora might be on little too tight....I'm just saying...

I'm actually pretty unsure as to what you're just saying.[/quote]

Sure you are.

knives wrote:Hasn't he always been though or at least as long as all of his living heroes shunned him?

True, but this just reeked of Tarkovsky. More so than anything else he has done. (sans the dedication)

For anyone debating whether or not to watch this on demand vs. in a theater, I would say it's crucial to see it on a 5.1 sound system with a good subwoofer, so if you don't have one at home, I'd wait.

The cumulative impact of this film had me in tears by the end, which is very rare for me. That pretty much says it all really.

I would also add, if you don't have a projector at home, its best to wait for the theatre. If anything, for the first sequence alone.

[quote=""membrillo""]

knives wrote:Hasn't he always been though or at least as long as all of his living heroes shunned him?

True, but this just reeked of Tarkovsky. More so than anything else he has done. (sans the dedication)[/quote]
Honestly, von Trier has been a Tarkovsky acolyte since 1980 at least - just look at his early shorts and first feature. It's just that the Dogme and Dogville stuff has seen him consciously resist that heritage and fight against the 'perfect image' aspirations of such films as Europa. Which is what makes him an interesting director even when you might feel that individual films don't entirely work: he's continually pulling 'Five Obstructions' pranks on himself.

swo17 wrote:For anyone debating whether or not to watch this on demand vs. in a theater, I would say it's crucial to see it on a 5.1 sound system with a good subwoofer, so if you don't have one at home, I'd wait.

Even with that caveat, I'd have to say that no home theatre system I've ever encountered could deliver that final scene the way it was delivered in the cinema when I saw it. It was like a physical impact on the entire audience, and not in a gentle way. I've honestly never felt that sensation in any other movie (though I was probably in the optimal position in the auditorium, to be fair).

Spoiler

We got a sonic shockwave that pushed the skin on our faces back, like we were being catapulted forward at high speed. I didn't know the sound system in that cinema had that kind of grunt.

I came to the unfortunate realization watching Tree of Life recently at my local arthouse theater that my own home theater either equals or exceeds it, especially in the sound department.

The use of sound and music is indeed amazing. As to the ending:

Spoiler

It's not just those ultra-deep sounds in themselves, but also the way they are mixed. The rumble starts right in the centre, and then, after the 'end of the world', when the screen goes slowly black, the rumble is slowly dying down but the sounds now come from all sides, engulfing you into its sonic 'blackness'. A fantastic sonic experience beautifully mirroring what has happened on screen.

After that I was only a tiny little bit annoyed that after the appropriately silent main credits for actors and director were over, the music started again for the rest of the credits. It would have been better in my view to have the whole credit sequence entirely silent, with the audience sitting in the dark and quiet for five minutes, probably in awe of what they have just seen.

And yes, I have to admit that the whole film was mindblowing for me. There are of course references pointed out already by others: Tarkovsky and Bergman are obvious, I'd throw in "Marienbad" as well, but I found "Melancholia" an entirely original work, deeply touching and impressive on many levels. Trier's depiction of depression is as believable as it can be, and I particularly liked how the greater 'control' of the situation of Dunst's character is only one of degree, not a total reversal of the former characters and their relationships.

As to the comparison with "The Tree of Life", I find it quite pertinent, given that both films make use of 'cosmic' imagery. But whereas Mallick spends 40 minutes to show us his admittedly great 'birth of the universe' images (and then delivers a film that goes nowhere), Trier's apocalyptic version with its five minutes is much more condensed and much more effective. Given the use of the "Tristan and Isolde" soundtrack, it's hard not to read the 'overture' of the film as, crudely put, some kind of fatal 'lovemaking' (what Wagner called "Liebestod") of the planets. They're shown as getting closer, drifting apart again, sometimes of the same size, then different, until finally one planet 'swallows' the other. One could also argue that Justine is somehow 'in love' with her own melancholia, as it at least allows her to temporarily get out of the constraints that this terrifying wedding party puts her in (I found those people at the party more frightening than that whole Melancholia planet, actually).

And obviously I don't need to praise the visuals of the film in general, not just its opening. It's quite simply overwhelmingly beautiful, with images that I suspect will stay in my head for quite a while.

Tommaso wrote:As to the ending:

Spoiler

It's not just those ultra-deep sounds in themselves, but also the way they are mixed. The rumble starts right in the centre, and then, after the 'end of the world', when the screen goes slowly black, the rumble is slowly dying down but the sounds now come from all sides, engulfing you into its sonic 'blackness'. A fantastic sonic experience beautifully mirroring what has happened on screen.

After that I was only a tiny little bit annoyed that after the appropriately silent main credits for actors and director were over, the music started again for the rest of the credits. It would have been better in my view to have the whole credit sequence entirely silent, with the audience sitting in the dark and quiet for five minutes, probably in awe of what they have just seen.

Spoiler

It really feels like the planet has proceeded on its path straight through the screen and on through the audience, and yeah, it just bowls you over.

And I had the exact same feeling about there being music over the end credits, though this is a pretty minor quibble.

I loved Tree of Life and I think comparisons between the two films are apt, but if they were colliding planets, ToL would be Earth and Melancholia would be, um, a much bigger planet against which Earth doesn't stand a chance (let's say, I dunno, Jupiter). One film is kind of an ode to faith, the other an ode to despair, and without placing a value judgment on either concept, the latter is I suppose just more interesting to watch a film about.

The biggest difference to me is how both directors used overt visual aesthetics-- von Trier gets his flight of fancy out of the way in a succinct prologue and then proceeds to use beautiful cinematography to enhance his film's narrative. At all times the aesthetic choices bolster and serve the narrative and the characters' forward thrust-- and note how despite being narratively coherent, there is much room for von Trier to impose invention and novelty in its structure and execution. Malick however, seemingly incapable of producing a coherent narrative, uses ostentatious aesthetic choices as the sole thrust of his film. Honestly, it's difficult to take Tree of Life seriously after reading the very clever quip, I believe from someone here, which called it a two and a half hour perfume commercial, which is so dead-on as to render any further analysis unnecessary!

domino harvey wrote: Honestly, it's difficult to take Tree of Life seriously after reading the very clever quip, I believe from someone here, which called it a two and a half hour perfume commercial, which is so dead-on as to render any further analysis unnecessary!

It was me who called it a 2 and half hour life insurance commercial if that's what you were referring to. Needless to say at the time of the initial bed-wetting frenzy with which it was greeted I was symbolically tarred and feathered and ridden out of the forum on a rail.

Heh, that's pretty good too, maybe I misremembered