criterionforum.org

I don't have the time or patience to figure out what is going on with this thread, but I just wanted to chime in and say that this was an excellent film, and that it clarified my thinking -- good and bad -- about von Trier's prior work.

Tom Hagen wrote:I don't have the time or patience to figure out what is going on with this thread, but I just wanted to chime in and say that this was an excellent film, and that it clarified my thinking -- good and bad -- about von Trier's prior work.

Agreed on the clarifying his previous work. Senses of cinema had a short piece on it and a little rundown of his female centric films that I think is worth quoting:

Spoiler

Lars von Trier has a bent for sacrificing his protagonists (mostly women), and for him, more is not less. In his Breaking the Waves (1996), the Christ-like Bess (Emily Watson) inaugurates the series of self-sacrifices: goodness is her sin, and it leads her to discard her life to prostitution rather than save the life of her husband, like Dancer in the Dark‘s (2000) Selm (Björk) who sacrifices herself for her son. The next stage would be Dogville (2003), whose Grace (Nicole Kidman) is in many respects their successor, offers herself up to an entire village, though by the story’s end she pulls herself together like some postmodern Cinderella to take revenge – with an automatic weapon – on the community that has taken her in and exploited her. Then comes Antichrist (2009), where the woman is no longer Christ-like, or indeed even good, but instead brings to life human nature’s most destructive tendencies, offering up her son for the sake of her own orgasms.
Now Mr von Trier has become such a gourmand of sacrifice that he can only be satisfied by the immolation of the entire world.

In this context I definitely wonder what's next. Let's face it, with his assertions that he's making a porno we're all pretty curious.

Spoiler warning on the quote would be nice.

Sorry knives, thought most of those spoilers were like darth vader being someone who shall not be nameds father by now for most of our set. Fixed.

I suppose it's what I get for putting off Dogville for so long.

knives wrote:I suppose it's what I get for putting off Dogville for so long.

I actually had Dogville spoiled for me relatively early on, so I know how much that sucks. It doesn't ruin so much, since it's always neat to see the character development in his films. That being said, it must be the most commonly spoiled arthouse film. All of von Trier's films get spoiled a lot, actually. I think that's why von Trier "spoiled" the end of Melancholia in the opening sequence....

I had same thoughts as Zot! while watching "Melancholia", there is a huge amount of similarity to the "Comet In Moominland"... Perhaps, it's been Von Trier's inspiration?
My reading of the film is

Spoiler

somewhat more straightforward, based on Von Trier's own words at the time of filming "Melancholia" that he's working on a science fiction project and also based on inconsistencies between first sequence (that many seem to take literally as a summation of what happened at the end) and what actually happens in the second act. As a "science fiction" the film allows for more than one fantastical element. I take as such perceived Justine's ability to see the future, making her Cassandra-like figure in the film . The film structure is strictly linear, the first sequence is actually her vision that motivates her bizarre behavior at her wedding and subsequent self-destruction. It incorporates the glimpses of actual future events, albeit distorted by her psyche, as well as manifestation of her frustration with her life (sleepwalking in wedding dress with seaweed-like things clinging to her legs). The observation of strange star early in the film confirms to her that the vision was of real future. In light of this knowledge she tries to play along for a time but soon falls apart. She comes to terms with all of it by the time the rest of the characters only start to grasp the situation. Through Justine Trier speaks of his own view of humanity and place of life in the universe, he believes his prophesy will never be heard. He is Justine.

Interesting reading, and maybe that's indeed what Von Trier intended. I still feel like I don't quite get him on the whole, having loved this one after having misgivings about more or less everything else I'd seen of his (Element of Crime, Breaking the Waves, Kingdom 1, and Dancer, though I like the latter in some ways). I need to see more and reassess.
Back to your reading, I'd personally find it much harder to relate to the film if Justine is to be seen as a clairvoyant. She isn't a Cassandra in the sense of someone with a mission to try and warn others of an impending disaster, though in a case like this there'd be little point to that. I took her statement to Claire, "I see things," in a more general personal way, expressing a philosophical inclination, rather than foretelling any events.

Gregory, thank you for your comment!

Spoiler

I agree that Justine is not acting like Cassandra in the time sequence shown in the film. This interpretation did not occur to me until after the viewing. The strongest clue was in the dialog with her sister about uniqueness of life in the universe, where Justine stressed several times with absolute certainty her "knowledge" of the subject. Also, in the beginning Claire warned her "not to do what she always does", and she did not seem to refer to embarrassing behavior Justine had displayed already. Von Trier paints as ambiguous picture as possible, of course, I just thought my interpretation ties up all loose ends nicely:) In addition, it gives better justification to Justine's behavior, which helped me to relate to her character, otherwise too annoying.
If you accept my theory, Von Triers own self-destructive behavior at Cannes makes much more sense, mirroring the film events.

National Society of Film Critics names "Melancholia" best picture of the yeat; Kirsten Dunst gets best actress nod. Maybe (just maybe) this will give Academy voters enough cover to at leat nominate "Melancholia" and Dunst for some Oscar love.

I surprised myself by really, really liking this. I usually loathe von Trier but I didn't really "feel" him here - at no point while watching could I picture him masturbating and cackling to himself in the editing suite - which is good. It is true that the story is built on the most blatant of thematic premises and the symbols are hamfisted, but I think here they are earnest enough to achieve a sort of purity. And even if the metaphors themselves are obvious (Melancholia = melancholia?!?! omg!) I think there is a real grace to the wedding sequences which lay depression bare in their depiction of Justine's destruction of her friends, self and private world before the physical world itself is destroyed. Of course the acting is the treat here and probably the key to making this work for me - Kirsten Dunst's portrayal of depression is so rigorous that one is able to ignore some of the risible dialogue she has to recite, and she manages to avoid abetting von Trier's misogyny by quite clearly making this role a personal one for herself. Gainsbourg's rawness in the second half, while less 'deep', is equally present and vivid. It's a great double act.

So, typically awful dialogue, a messy structure but (apart from the prologue, which I didn't like at all) surprisingly toned-down when it comes to pomp compared to LVT's past efforts, and quite affecting.

Saw this last night at last and loved it, though I've never been in a theater with such an unappreciative audience -- talking, laughing, snorting, and rooting through tin cans (!?) all the way through it. The usher at the theater is a patron at the library where I work and this morning she's already come in and basically yelled at me for enjoying the movie! Didn't lessen my experience though, and the two people I was with were impressed with it as well.

I don't have any real insights to add to what everyone else has said, but a probably silly question: did anyone else

Spoiler

think of The Birds at the finale, when Claire and Justine clasp hands and we then move to a shot of Justine gently smiling? I immediately thought of Tippi Hedren and Jessica Tandy in the similarly chilling last scene of the Hitchcock film... but I tend to read Hitchcock into things where he doesn't belong.

While I'm at it, the one scene I was unsure how to read was that in which Justine says she knows "things," such as the number of beans in the jar at the reception. That seemed slightly off to me, but I wondered if I was just missing a detail someplace. Did she glean the information somewhere or was the movie actually suggesting she "just knew" the count??

Overall, what an astonishingly vivid and moving portrait of depression from Dunst here. Can't believe she wasn't recognized by the Academy.

dustybooks wrote:

Spoiler

think of The Birds at the finale, when Claire and Justine clasp hands and we then move to a shot of Justine gently smiling? I immediately thought of Tippi Hedren and Jessica Tandy in the similarly chilling last scene of the Hitchcock film... but I tend to read Hitchcock into things where he doesn't belong.

While I'm at it, the one scene I was unsure how to read was that in which Justine says she knows "things," such as the number of beans in the jar at the reception. That seemed slightly off to me, but I wondered if I was just missing a detail someplace. Did she glean the information somewhere or was the movie actually suggesting she "just knew" the count??

Spoiler

I feel pretty certain that we're supposed to understand that Justine has psychic abilities in addition to being monumentally depressed. In fact, it could very well be her psychic abilities contribute to her depression.

^^^ Mmphh, Justine's behavior at the wedding (especially toward her boss but pretty much everybody) and subsequent behavior can be easily explained by that. Another layer (optional though, maybe Justine's good with numbers or someone told her) with which to appreciate this flick. BD/DVD is already available for pre-order (March 13).

I don't think Christine is meant to have psychic abilities. She's more like a knower, someone who experiences gnosis, which explains how she also seems to know instinctually the presence of the other planet and the imminent destruction of the earth when she looks knowingly at the sky after the first horse ride. Characters like this routinely pop up in literature.

I'm one of those guys where von Trier has been oil to my water, I just can't assimilate this stuff, but I'm getting the sense that I should perhaps give this a try?

I'm in the same boat as you, having laughed Antichrist off the stage, but this one almost makes me want to reconsider his previous efforts that I found so much wrong with. It's really different from his usual in a good way.

Does anyone ever like von Trier right off the bat? I tend to think of him now as a sort of adorable teddy bear, but I remember actively disliking the first four films of his I saw. (It was Riget turned me around, I tellsya.)

Melancholia does seem to be especially well received among both LvT lovers and haters.

OK, I'll grab a copy tonight.

Dancer in the Dark, though... to quote funkboy above: "Oy Vey!"

HerrSchreck wrote:I'm one of those guys where von Trier has been oil to my water, I just can't assimilate this stuff, but I'm getting the sense that I should perhaps give this a try?

Absolutely you should see it, on a theater if possible (Angelika is the only place in NYC still showing it, this week and next). Before "Melancholia" all the features of von Trier I've seen have felt like poison to my cinephile-loving senses. Now I want to have Lars' babies. :-)

swo17 wrote:Does anyone ever like von Trier right off the bat?

Yo

Got it. Will watch tomorrow more than likely-- I pinched myself a copy today of the new CC Gojira 2-discer, (my birthday present to myself, 45 yrs old wretched as I was just telling Sir Zedz in PM) and must of course do some formal writhing in paroxysms of pulpy joy.

domino harvey wrote:

swo17 wrote:Does anyone ever like von Trier right off the bat?

Yo

Same here. Saw Dogville first, it clicked with me straight away ... But I think swo's generally right, and hearing the conversations at the Melancholia screening drove home just how not-for-all-tastes he is, even in a relatively accessible and aesthetically beautiful movie like this.

dustybooks wrote:

domino harvey wrote:

swo17 wrote:Does anyone ever like von Trier right off the bat?

Yo

Same here. Saw Dogville first, it clicked with me straight away ... But I think swo's generally right, and hearing the conversations at the Melancholia screening drove home just how not-for-all-tastes he is, even in a relatively accessible and aesthetically beautiful movie like this.

I went in blind to Breaking the Waves during its original run, not even reading a review, and came out a convert. People really don't seem to get his sense of humor. I remember a dude who was outraged that the directors name was bigger than the title on the BtW poster, like a Danielle Steele paperback. I really wish he would do more comedy, I love The Kindgdom and Boss of it All.

Regarding the Hitchcock Birds nod, I wouldn't be surprised, as the promotional photos for Antichrist had LvT posing with a dead crow, an homage to the famous Hitchcock promo shot.

Of course it's open to interpretation, but my take was that the film's stunning opening sequence shows us Justine's psychic vision of the future - each element of that vision is elaborated upon over the course of the film.

As to von Trier's canon, his earlier "dogma"-enforced work left me cold, but there was something about ANTICHRIST that drew me in instead of repelling me. MELANCHOLIA completely won me over (apart from the incessant hand-held camerawork).