criterionforum.org

Just a reminder: This is coming on in less than 24 hours!

mfunk9786 wrote:If you have a good enough home theater setup, this'll be showing on HDNet Movies on November 9th at 7:30 PM EST. That means 720p video and 5.1 surround sound, which is pretty damn good, considering. Fire up those DVRs!

Yay - Rex Reed hated this!

Metacritic wrote:New York Observer
Rex Reed
Nov 8, 2011
0/100
Melancholia is his latest pile of undiluted drivel, nauseatingly filmed by a wonky hand-held camera and featuring a crazy, mismatched ensemble headed by Kirsten Dunst, who won an acting award in Cannes last year for looking totally catatonic.

Whenever Rex Reed hates something and/or Ed Gonzalez gives it a "look at me!" middling review, it's a good sign for the high quality level of a film.

Melancholia is so good Rex Reed should have been completely apoplectic, sweating, spitting and shaking with anger.

Sadly, in NYC this appears to be only playing at the horrific Angelika. Hope people in other cities have better venue choices.

Definitely my Number 1 film for 2011.

If Angelika wasn't such a rip ($13 plus $1.50 if bought online), I'd be more tolerant of it. To be fair, the staff is really accommodating, but the place itself isn't, like the way it's set up to get you to leave after a film's over. (It's pretty ridiculous when you have to ask a staff member to let you walk through the entrance just so you can get some coffee, sit at a table and wait out a storm instead of huddling in that cold, basement-like corridor.)

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.

Even the six-year-old boy in the film understood that it was a planet headed towards Earth, not an asteroid.

You don't have to troll every thread James Mills posts in, do you?

It's now his thread?

No. Why on earth would you ask that question? I was simply referring to the condescending tone of your previous post, with reference to countless similar posts you've made on this forum earlier, most of them aimed at the same forum member.

I am calling out the fact that he didn't even try to understand the film, use countless resources (including posts on this thread) to understand the film, or articulate himself regarding what he disliked about the film. In other words: A new James Mills thread-hijack has begun. Might as well have fun before he full-on plummets into what was once an informed and spirited discussion of Melancholia.

Makes a change from an mfunk9786 'thread-hijack'. :-"

Okay.

mfunk9786 wrote:I am calling out the fact that he didn't even try to understand the film, use countless resources (including posts on this thread) to understand the film, or articulate himself regarding what he disliked about the film. In other words: A new James Mills thread-hijack has begun. Might as well have fun before he full-on plummets into what was once an informed and spirited discussion of Melancholia.

Yeah, I got lazy with this one and gave up midway on trying to extract any deeper meaning from it. I admitted this in my post, though I still don't know if I agree that this is entirely my fault. Should a viewer have to resort to Criterion Forum threads for feeling something beyond the interpreted text of the screen? Maybe they should, in which case I failed in both giving up during the film and after the film.

Hopefully you won't flame me for not being more resourceful with the search button, but may I ask how you interpreted it? Is the difference between the object being an asteroid and a planet significant? I wasn't thinking when I wrote that, so I guess I thought the label of the object was more arbitrary in comparison to the metaphor or symbolism that it stood for. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on both, but you need not respond if your aim is rebuke rather than dialogue.

James Mills wrote:Should a viewer have to resort to Criterion Forum threads for feeling something beyond the interpreted text of the screen?

No, but it's sort of a courtesy if you're going to come to the Criterion Forum thread - especially a active and detailed thread like this one - to comment on it.

I don't want to seem like I'm building myself up as a great contributor at this site, but as a general rule, if I'm not interested enough to read what others here are saying, I'm better off keeping my comments to myself. Just because nobody cares if I didn't feel like paying attention. This isn't my personal blog, you know?

Brian C wrote:

James Mills wrote:Should a viewer have to resort to Criterion Forum threads for feeling something beyond the interpreted text of the screen?

No, but it's sort of a courtesy if you're going to come to the Criterion Forum thread - especially a active and detailed thread like this one - to comment on it.

I don't want to seem like I'm building myself up as a great contributor at this site, but as a general rule, if I'm not interested enough to read what others here are saying, I'm better off keeping my comments to myself. Just because nobody cares if I didn't feel like paying attention. This isn't my personal blog, you know?

That question was in regards to the film and its filmmaker, not our forum. I agree that if we're to engage in a conversation about the film on the forum, a certain reciprocity between those discussing the film should be shared (ie reading each other's posts, at the very least). I didn't read most of the thread before seeing the film because I didn't want to enter it with any presumptions, and I guess my post was simply to represent my unbiased reactions to the film before inspecting it any further.

Unbiased because you didn't pay attention to the film?

Brian C wrote:No, but it's sort of a courtesy if you're going to come to the Criterion Forum thread - especially a active and detailed thread like this one - to comment on it.

This is a fair point, but this board is filled to overflowing with posts basically identical to the one from James that mfunk took exception to. He was giving a first impression, and even openly admitted he didn't feel he understood the central metaphor of the film, so he was clearly inviting discussion. I'm not sure why this post deserved to be singled out as being useless, apart from the fact that it was in opposition to the forum consensus on this picture and, more importantly, it was made by James Mills. Last year when James expressed unpopular viewpoints on a number of films, he did so in much greater detail, yet still got called out for "look-at-me" contrarianism and thread hijacking.

The metaphor about the asteroid or whatevs

It is significant when you extend the metaphor from planet to world (people refer to the planet earth as the world) two worlds colliding. It doesn't work with asteroid.

edit: The worlds colliding are Claires and Justines if that wasn't clear and

Spoiler

Their worlds become one in the final scene

Alan Smithee wrote:It is significant when you extend the metaphor from planet to world (people refer to the planet earth as the world) two worlds colliding. It doesn't work with asteroid.

edit: The worlds colliding are Claires and Justines if that wasn't clear and

Spoiler

Their worlds become one in the final scene

Thanks for clearing that up. 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.

I think maybe you're looking to say in words what some people see the film as saying very poetically through the language of film. When you sum up what this film is saying in words it can sound trite. It doesn't have the greatest view of humanity but still shows you many beautiful things that a human created (Von Trier, the actors). I think it also has a clever little political message of this rich man in his insulated castle who keeps saying the world isn't going to end and that's just a bunch of hogwash and then he proceeds to take the cowards way out when it becomes apparent this is indeed happening.

But if nothing else, as everyone here has pointed out I think Justine is a great character and Kirsten Dunst plays her perfectly.

Beyond that it's very funny. My favorite scene being the tossing of the Bouquet.

I don't think the film needs to SAY SOMETHING to be good. It says a lot, it just doesn't say "The world is fucked because of A and I think it should be unfucked by B" because those movies are terrible.

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

That too. Also what I said. And some other stuff.

It's about bean counting, too