Melancholia (2011)… “The earth is evil. We don’t need to grieve for it”

My rating: 8

IMDB rating: 7.1

IMDB link: Melancholia

Dearest reader,

Earlier this week, I wrote about the honesty that fascinated me in the movie St. Elmo’s Fire, today I want to continue on this theme by looking at the flipside of honesty as intensive living, by examining honesty as an autobiographical catharsis.

This film, together with Antichrist in 2009 and the Nymphomaniac Volumes in 2013, form part of Lars von Trier’s famous ‘depression trilogy’. Von Trier, is a master in defamiliarization (ostrannenie). Wikipedia describes defamiliarization as “the artistic technique of presenting to audiences common things in an unfamiliar or strange way, in order to enhance perception of the familiar”.

This is similar to Tarantino’s earlier work, as he also presents violence in such a way that it enhances viewers’ sense of the familiar, which seems to be a way of romanticizing violence, but rather is a step backward to gain perspective on violence.

By writing in a depression, about depression, is not only a way of coping with the depression it is also a way of gaining perspective on the depression through a cathartic process. In fact, it was Freud who said that all writers are psychologically impaired and that is why they write.

Von Trier never tries to hide the fact that this particular film is about melancholy, in its various representations. Justine lives by the melancholy, she worships it. When the planet is first truly visible to the human eye, she goes out into the nature and presents herself to it in such a way that it resembles the medieval and Renaissance paintings of virgins offering themselves to the gods.

By doing this there is not only a personification of the depression, the melancholy, it is more of a ‘godification’ or idolization. Justine is so crippled by this clearly hereditary depression, that she cannot even enjoy the wedding to the man she loves. The planet Melancholia, together with the stars that she mentions again and again (which is also symbols throughout the trilogy) seem to govern her sate of mind. As the planet approaches, her depressive state worsens and worsens.

Claire is another story altogether. Claire fears the melancholy. The fear consumes her. She is constantly afraid of being hit by the melancholy (Melancholia). She also fears for the life of her son, what his life would be like if melancholy (Melancholia) would hit him.

 The most interesting reaction to the melancholy, to me, comes from Claire’s husband, John. John is fascinated by Melancholia. Although he rejects the feelings of his wife and sister-in-law, he is fascinated by the thing itself. When he is eventually faced with melancholy himself, when he realizes that the planet is going to hit, he is not able to face that reality. He kills himself, again showing that in Von Trier’s films, it is the women that are represented as the strong and the courageous.

In the end it is Justine, who has offered herself to Melancholia again and again, that realizes the inevitability of melancholy (Melancholia) and its total destruction.

To me, this film ties the trilogy together, perfectly. Most of the symbols in Antichrist is re-emphasized, while preparing one for their occurrence in Nymphomaniac. While in the other two films depression is dealt with indirectly and metaphorically, this film faces it head-on. Your biggest mistake would be thinking that this film is merely a sci-fi film.

Want to read more on Melancholia? Try these…

Review: Melancholia (2011).

Melancholia.

Melancholia- Rejecting the Bourgeois, Criticizing Cynicism.

Antichrist (2009)… chaos reigns!

 

My rating: 8

IMDB rating: 6.6

IMDB link: Antichrist

Dearest reader,

Wow, I feel so inferior writing about this movie… If you want to read a great dialogue on the nuances and underlining themes in this movie try this:

 “Antichrist”: A discussion.

The fantastically complicated Danish director, Lars von Trier, starts his ‘Depression Trilogy’ with this physically, mentally and morally exhausting film about… for me, the narcissistic and obsessive smothering of ‘natural’ grief. Melancholia followed in 2011 and lastly he added the two volumes of Nymphomaniac.

Several sources describe this film as ‘torture porn’, while others argue for the complete removal of focus from the psycho-sexual to the basic nature of these characters that are merely called ‘He’ and ‘She’. In fact, it is very significant to me that these characters are actually nameless as it points to the universality of the characters. What I mean by that is that I think that Von Trier tries to include the whole of humankind by excluding names for the two main characters. We are all inherently just like them.

I think that it is very important to realize that the death of their son was not the reason for all the madness. And although it seems like it, She may not be the most disturbed character in this film. Yes, I believed the death of the son was a catalyst that maybe quickened the downwards spiral, but both the parents’ psychological state at the death is questionable. Not only does she see what is about to happen, but the baby monitor is turned off, all these things point to the inherent narcissistic state of both the parents.

As a therapist, he makes a crucial mistake by not evaluating his own grief, but rather projects his academic ideas of the perfect grief process onto her. This almost god-complex that the man suffers from, causes him to take her from the hospital and then eventual to the outdoors to face her fears. He becomes obsessed by her anxiety, and in doing so, his therapy does not help her, but rather induces these spells of anxiety.

These forces of the self are not the only thing that influence this toxic, pseudo-therapeutic, tortured love tainted by sexual violence relationship between the parents. It is almost as if the nature (found in the park very appropriately named ‘Eden’) is trying to absorb these two characters. As she lays down in the grass, she turns green and the vines start to curl around her literally consuming her.

As with the other movies in the trilogy, this film is loaded with symbolism. Starting with the title, Antichrist, one is inclined to search for religious symbols. The first of which is the name of the son, ‘Nick’, also the subject of the thesis which she was working on was about witchcraft and, of course the name of the park, Eden. Other symbols include the fox, the deer giving birth and the crow. The mutilation of the feet is another symbol that can also be regarded as religious. The funeral goers at the end of the film is another symbol, and just like all the aforementioned symbols one is never quite sure what they refer to.

Certainly not an easy film to watch, this graphic exploration of the human psyche and its constant search for connection to others or even nature beautifully represents the Von Trier oeuvre.

Want to read more on Antichrist? Try these…

Von Trier Depression Trilogy

Roger Ebert: Antichrist

 

Nymphomaniac Vol.II (2013)… yes, I did watch it

My rating: 8

IMDB rating: 7

IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2382009/?ref_=nv_sr_3

Dearest reader,

The most important thing that you could know about this film, is the fact that it was directed by Lars von Trier. Although, he is one of the biggest film makers of our time, he makes a very specific film and you have to know that, going into this film.

I watched Volume 1, and was absolutely captured by the sensual experience, that watching one of these movies entails. Every shot and every sound is a play on the senses. I then even watched it with earphones and the effects of the sound was overwhelming.

Naturally, I could not stop at the first Volume, because you are so intrigued with these characters, even Jerome, that you just need to know the fate of these characters. And in this second volume you are most certainly rewarded for sticking around.

Charlotte Gainsbourg is one amazing actor. I feel like I do not have enough adjectives to describe the way in which she portrays Joe, not as someone with an affliction, but someone who is blessed. She connects in a very irregular way with the viewer that on the surface she still seems distant.

Volume 2 had a lot more symbolism and mythology worked into it, which I very much enjoyed. Especially, where Seligman tells of his own sexual situation. The question of spectatorship, which of course cannot be seperated from scopophilia (Peeping Toms), fetishism and most importantly voyeurism, is also constantly raised. As a viewer and a ‘hearer’ of her story we achieve some sense of satisfaction through her telling and through the ‘taboo’ element.

Volume 1 showed the innocent (is that the right word?) little Joe, coming to terms with her sexual appetite, while Volume 2 takes a step into the darkness by portraying Joe’s inability to be sexually stimulated. She goes through a series of very controversial methods of trying to regain her ability to be sexually satisfied. The world’s new-found fascination with BDSM continues in this, totally impersonal portrayal of Joe’s need for sadomasochism. As Joe try to return to the normative, to have a relationship with ‘K’- the director again makes a subtle statement about our inability nowadays to be stimulated by the personal and instead she is stimulated by rubbing her own clitoris against the stand. She achieves stimulation through ritual mutilation and her own ‘choice’ (to be stimulated through this). This is perhaps a very abstract way of thought, but I hope you followed!

Jamie Bell kills it in the role of ‘K’, the BDSM expert, which is quite a step from being Esca in The Eagle. Other noteworthy performances include Mia Goth as ‘P’ and of course, Stella Skarsgard as Seligman.

—-SPOILER—–

Just a small note on the ending. I’ve read several bad reviews that especially attacks the ending of this film…. I think this film could not have a more suitable ending- to me, it is Joe being judged, not necessarily by Seligman, but by the viewer throughout the entire film. Again, the matter of spectatorship and voyeurism. The fact that Seligman shows himself also as sexual, to me, is a comment on the viewer. We will often view someone as Joe as distasteful or sinful, but deep down the only difference between us and her is that biologically she is compelled to act upon it, we on the other hand, push those feelings down and down and then one day it materializes in something, exactly like what Seligman did.