Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Nymphomaniac: Vol. I

You know what I value most about Lars von Trier? The fear of not being able to anticipate his next move. His films know no bounds. They don’t constrain themselves with formal ratings, standard run times, or star status demands. When word spread that von Trier’s next film was a four hour epic about one woman’s lifelong struggle with nymphomania, it seemed tailored-made for the von Trier canon. But how far would it go? These ingenious character posters helped shed light on the film’s intentions, but when you open yourself up to the world of Lars von Trier, it’s impossible to accurately assume where you’ll end up. 

Ten minutes into Nymphomaniac: Vol. I (which was released last week, Vol. II will hit theaters April 18, and video on demand April 3), I knew it best to forego any perception I had of what the film would be. First off, and let’s just get this out of the way early, the sex is not so bad. There is no sexual abuse or mutilation (a common theme in von Trier’s films), no sex with corpses or animals or whatever the hell else we might expect from von Trier. Some of the scenes are graphic – yes, semen drips out of a woman’s mouth after she sucks a guy off on a train; yes, there is a one minute montage of still photos of various dicks; yes, you see Shia LaBeouf wanking it before he has anal sex with a consenting young woman – but they were relatively tame by von Trier’s standards. (For the record, the famous actors in the film aren’t having sex. Von Trier filmed porn stars actually having sex and digitally imposed their bodies over the actors. A daring and technically impressive feat that only von Trier would attempt.)
The film opens on Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg), who lays bruised and battered in a dark alley. She is soon discovered by Seligman (Stellan Skarsgård) who offers her shelter at his nearby home. Moments later, at Seligman’s intrigued request, Joe begins telling her life story, guiding Seligman through her existence as a self-proclaimed nymphomaniac. And right away, von Trier attempts narrative choices that should come off as stale, but in his hands, are anything but.

Most all von Trier films are broken into distinct chapters, but rarely do his characters announce the title of the chapter and offer a description of what the audience is about to see. It’s such an obvious, self-reflexive dig that von Trier is clearly having fun with. He isn’t afraid to remind the audience that they are indeed watching a movie. Another risky narrative choice is Seligman’s frequent interruptions. I always feel it is best for a flashback to stay in flashback until it is finished. Continually jumping to the present puts a film’s flow at risk. But von Trier has something to offer. In fact, he might be the only living director who can relate sex to fly fishing and the Fibonacci sequence in such a compelling manner. Believe me, I know this sounds bizarre. But it’s also rather fascinating. The Seligman character is an incredibly well-read man, fiercely intelligent and always able to offer profound insight. I loved every word of Joe and Seligman’s conversation, as loosely connected as some of the metaphors were, they were engaging all the same.

Back to the story. Joe was raised in an ostensibly mundane household. She had a loving father (Christian Slater), a “cold bitch” for a mother (Connie Nielsen), and a rebellious best friend who encouraged sexual discovery. For the flashbacks in Vol. I, Joe is played by newcomer Stacy Martin, who is the true star of the film. As young Joe, Martin delivers a fearless performance of a sexually liberated, but utterly tortured young soul. Honestly, the film wouldn’t really work without Martin’s conviction. It’s one of the most committed performances ever featured in a Lars von Trier film.
Every other actor is on point as well. Stellan Skarsgård actually plays a decent man for a change, while LaBeouf defies the expectations set by his outlandish off screen behavior and actually delivers a fine performance as Joe’s first love. Uma Thurman has a devastating, enraged one scene wonder of a role, and Charlotte Gainsbourg manages to find the perfect balance of indifference and shame, all while confined to the comfort of a small bed.

Some of you are surely going to detest this film. Others will love it, be appalled, frustrated, unmoved by it. To define a von Trier film is to define the meaning of polarizing art. Such is his way. I haven’t liked all of von Trier’s films, but I have yet to see a dull one. There’s an acute audacity to his filmmaking – a fuck it all mentality – that I’m utterly drawn to. Many will argue what purpose (if any) Nymphomaniac serves, of which I can offer no real insight. Like all von Trier films, I found Nymphomaniac: Vol. I to be a bold, mostly worthy experiment. It isn’t as accomplished as some of his other features (it lacks the emotional depth of Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark, the fury of Antichrist, and the complex beauty of Melancholia) but you can bet I’ll be waiting eagerly for the moment I can rent Vol. II on demand. Will it be any good? Who the hell knows. But isn’t that the point? B+

34 comments:

  1. Great review! I'm going to check this out tonight or tomorrow. Really looking forward to whatever shit Lars digs up. Also, you know you can see Vol. II now right? Like online.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks! I hope you enjoy it (though "enjoy" probably isn't the best word). You mean online like illegally? Nah, I'm not into ripping filmmakers off. I can wait three weeks.

      Delete
    2. Oh come on, I’m sure Lars won’t miss your money.

      Delete
    3. Look, you seem to mean well, and I do appreciate you reading and commenting on the review, but we strongly disagree here. How many people do you think have downloaded Vol. II illegally? Let’s lowball and say 1,000. On April 3, it will cost $10 to rent on demand, so that’s $10,000, gone. I’m certain Lars von Trier has far more money than I do, but in my world, $10 grand is no joke.

      I’ll probably end up releasing my next film on demand, and if I’m lucky enough to have 1,000 people watch it, I would be very upset to learn that most of them viewed it online, illegally. That would genuinely damage me financially. Again, I know you mean well, but this stuff really does affect people. This isn't a judgement of you, by the way. We just have differing morals on acceptable movie-viewing habits.

      Delete
    4. This topic has been beaten to death, but I'll go ahead anyway. It's a fallacy to think that because people download a movie that that decreases the revenue the makers gain (at least to the degree the way you are using numbers would suggest). If I were to have to pay to see each and every movie I watched, I would quickly go broke. I do pay for some of the movies I see, but the truth is, if I had to pay for everything, the makers would not get any more money from me, I just wouldn't be able to watch as many films.

      Now you obviously intend to watch and pay for Nymphomaniac, which I encourage. But your hard line stance against downloading seems silly to me.

      Delete
    5. It’s all a matter of scale. Thousands of people downloading The Amazing Spider-Man 2 isn’t going to financially hurt Marc Webb. Thousands of people downloading Fruitvale Station is going to financially hurt Ryan Coogler and his producers. There’s a line somewhere in that margin that has (some) people either encouraging sales or promoting downloads. I’m not an authority on setting that line. I’m just a guy who prefers to stay on one side of it. Sorry if that seems “silly” to you.

      (For the record, I've downloaded films before. Mostly when I was younger. Today, it’s simply not something that interests me. Also, I have never once publicly discussed my “hard line” stance on this topic. Nor do I have plans to beyond this comment thread. This Anonymous fellow brought it up, so I felt it warranted a response.)

      Delete
  2. Great review sir! I hate to be lumped in with anonymous for having watched part II already but I'm a von Trier fanatic and had to see it (he'll get my money anyway when I buy both parts) and that's when things really get nuts. Stacey Martin is a true star in the making here and hopefully she gets more roles as exciting and deep as the one she got here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks buddy! Yeah, like I was saying above, I don't judge ANYONE for how they choose to watch their movies. It's just not for me. I do love hearing that things get crazier in Vol. II though. I'm so pumped for that.

      Delete
  3. Well, speaking from my experience, you're in for a surprise and maybe some disappointment with the second part. Gainsbourg takes over and it feels not as great as the first movie, though I did enjoy Jamie Bell a lot ! But you'll see, I'm eager to read your review on part II because for me, it was somewhat a downfall.. and yet, if I think of it as a whole, it raises so many moral questions and it just.. damn, Trier just makes me question almost anything..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the vibe I'm getting from people who have seen Vol. II: darker, perhaps not as good. But the fact that the film causes you to question things is, in my opinion, a large part of von Trier's intentions. If anything, I'm interested to see where Vol. II goes, because I did think Vol. I was tame.

      Delete
  4. I really liked it. I think it's the most entertaining Von Trier film that I have seen so far.I loved the way Skarsgard's character is used in this, and frankly, the chapter names are fun. Oh and that penis catalogue :') Martin is one fearless young lady though.

    Things go a bit more Von Trier-ish in Vol 2 (his worldview is SO dark), but the whole story is pretty great.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I loved that you liked this one so much. Von Trier's chapter names are always incredible; it's so cool that he has the balls to split his films up that way. Martin impressed the hell out of me in this film. Where the hell did LvT find her?

      Delete
    2. Oh the point where he ended the first one- now THAT'S a cliffhanger! Amazing.

      Delete
    3. Ha, no kidding. And how bout that music? Fucking hilarious.

      Delete
    4. I started laughing so much. Oh and about Von Trier finding Martin, the thing that amazes me the most is how he managed to make LaBeouf semi-attractive, even with that accent, in this film. What a mindfuck that was :/ :/

      Delete
    5. When that music started in the beginning, I said, "Oh boy... here we go." I actually thought LaBeouf was pretty good in this film. I've always liked him as an actor, but he's never been nearly as great as I suspect he THINKS he is, you know?

      Delete
  5. I'm definitely going to see this but... I will rather see both films in one entire viewing no matter which cut of the film it is. Besides, I want to see both parts back-to-back and then give out a formal opinion. I did that with Che in early 2009 when I went to the roadshow screening, I will do the same with Nymphomaniac. After all, I'm kind of a film purist and a hardcore von Trier fan. He's Mein Fuhrer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Honestly, that's not a bad approach at all. The waiting is kind of a bummer, for sure. I really hope you like this one, but something tells me you will.

      Delete
  6. hmmm seems like this one will be polarizing. i'm not much of a von triers fan, tho i appreciate his approach to film. definitely gonna watch

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think there are certain aspects of this film that people who appreciate film will, you know... appreciate. He does a lot of amusing things with text, for example, that is unlike any other style of filmmaking I've seen.

      Delete
  7. You question what purpose (if any) Nymphomaniac serves, and I'm not sure either. Maybe Lars von Trier is just opening for a discussion about addiction, as scenes present both sides of the argument. For example on the one hand feeling sorry for the helpless addict, and on the other hand showing reckless behaviour that causes suffering to others.
    Also, probably Lars von Trier made the film for kicks, wanting to live out all his sexual fantasies or nightmares on camera :)
    There's so much to digest in one sitting, so I think it will take a rewatch to really get to grips with what it's all about. When I say rewatch, I mean I want to see the director's cut. (I saw the abridged version earlier this year)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think I added that line in my review because I've been seeing a lot of "WHAT'S THE POINT OF THIS MOVIE?!?!" hate speech. Which is really kind of a lazy question. But anyway, I do buy that Lars made this film to live out his own sexual fantasies. In fact, I think you're absolutely spot on there.

      I would love to see the director's cut of this flick. Wonder if we'll ever have a chance?

      Delete
    2. The uncut director's cut was released at Berlin Film Festival, so hopefully it will eventually find its way to dvd. I hope they don't cop out, and only release abridged version on disc.

      Delete
    3. Ahh same here. Maybe we'll get lucky and Criterion will pick it up.

      Delete
  8. Hmm. I really didn't like this film. At all. I saw Part I and Part II back-to-back and I am intrigued by what you think of Part II. Usually when you watch a film by LVT, no matter what you think about the subject matter you can still admire the filmmaking at work. Here his approach to this story was angering.

    I knew I wasn't on board with it in Part I, but at least it has a sense of humour at times, and was a fascinating study of a young woman discovering her addiction. Part II is just brutal. Really ugly stuff. Lots of self abuse, seeking out violence for pleasure etc. I found the sex pretty confronting (way beyond Blue, and even Stranger by the Lake) - and interesting that LVT used porn stars and then digitally added in the actors.

    I am rambling. Didnt dig the flick - I called bullshit on it pretty early. I didn't believe that people could behave in such a way, nor that these two opposing people would find themselves in the same room and have these discussions. I was like Seligman when he pulled up Joe and said 'no no no, I don't believe the coincidences in this story'. Maybe I am just sheltered haha. We will have to discuss more in person :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's funny, I actually saw you bashing this on Facebook literally five minutes before I was going to start watching the film. Knowing how much you and I agree on flicks, I was like, "Oh Christ, what am I getting myself into?"

      But really, when it comes to LvT, I think our normal tastes go right out the window. Which means I totally get why we don't agree on this one. My biggest fault with it were those coincidences you're talking about. It almost felt like Trier couldn't think of another way to move the story along, so he came up with something cheap and obvious and tried to save face by having Joe explain that coincidences do happen and blah blah blah.

      From what I'm hearing about Vol. II, it doesn't sound very interesting. But then again, Antichrist has a lot of those qualities you just mentioned, and I really appreciate that film. Who the hell knows, you know? I fully understand your hate for Nymphomaniac, and wouldn't dare try to argue why you should like it. When it's LvT, all bets are off.

      (I am curious though... are you a fan of his other films?)

      Delete
    2. This is the first film from him I actively dislike. I really liked Dancer in the Dark, and appreciate Dogville and Antichrist. Especially Antichrist. Not the biggest fan of Melancholia I admit, but there are some extraordinary elements in that film. Dunst is sublime, for one. Yeah, my dislike for LVT is somewhat unique to this film.

      Delete
    3. Ahh very interesting. So it's not like you hate LvT, you just didn't enjoy this one at all. I guess that's what I was getting at with the intro to my review... you just NEVER know what the hell this guy is going to do. I enjoy that fear, even if I don't always enjoy the results. But yes, I'm very much looking forward to talking about this and MANY more films in person!

      Delete
  9. Puagh, I can't say I think the same at all. I found the movie sensless and unjustified. All of Seligman's methafors are absolutely stupid and have no real grounds, it's like LVT wrote the film in a weekend.
    Gainsbourg is not even inspired, and the rest of the cast's work also forgettable. (Except for Thurman and Martin, I loved their scenes.)
    I actually liked The Idiots and Dancer in the Dark, and I LOVED Melancholia, (I've still yet to watch Antichrist), so I really went to watch this one very open-minded. But I just couldn't click with the movie's intentions. I really think it's a disappointment and people are just talking about it because it's LVT and famous actors are on it.
    I've already watched Volume II and it's actually more of the same. Or worse. I don't know. I only liked the ending, the rest of it was also sensless. Oh, how I hate those metaphors!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like I've said, I'm not even going to begin to argue with people over the validity or worth of this movie. The very existence of a LvT film dictates polarization. I fully understand why you didn't like this film, but I can also understand why other people do. And I also agree that, no matter what the movie is, people will always talk about a Lars von Trier film simply because it's a Lars von Trier film.

      Delete
  10. I'm not sure what I was expecting, but I was hooked from the beginning. On the strength of Vol. 1 alone, I'd probably put this just behind Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark. Can't wait for Vol. 2!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's awesome man, glad to hear someone else praising it. I enjoyed my time with it as well, but was surprised it didn't "go further," which is something it sounds like he accomplished with Vol. II.

      Delete
  11. "I found Nymphomaniac: Vol. I to be a bold, mostly worthy experiment. It isn’t as accomplished as some of his other features (it lacks the emotional depth of Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark, the fury of Antichrist, and the complex beauty of Melancholia)."

    I couldn't have used better words to describe it. I feel the same about the three previous von Trier's films you've mentioned. This one was entertaining but I didn't have the emotional impact other von Trier's films had on me, like those mentioned and Dancer in the Dark. And I was talking about von Trier with a friend the other day, as she asked me what I thought about Nymphomaniac and I exactly told her that it was "another bold and unique" experience. I think bold is like the perfect way to describe what he does. I feel the same as you do, I'm always interested to see what he's come up with this time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, that's part of the fun of LvT... experiencing what kind of crazy shit he's come up. I don't love all of his films, but I always appreciate them. I thought Nymphomaniac was definitely a worthy experiment. Bold, certainly.

      Delete