Lars von Trier

johnny_ultimate

Seen a couple of this director's films recently and think he is a very interesting fellow indeed. Had only seen Dogville and Manderlay (both of which I liked, the latter especially) before, but watched the Idiots and Dancer in the Dark within the last few weeks. The former is one of the Dogme 95 movies, and as such is predictably minimalistic and offbeat. Very challenging film, with really deep subtexts and some pretty controversial subject matter - group of people decide to unleash their inner idiot to escape society, until reality inevitably hits. Dancer in the Dark is fascinating viewing too: not quite Dogme, but still a very low key subversion of the Hollywood musical, with a hypnotic performance from Bjork and a pretty disturbing and intense story about one East European immigrants naivety and inability to deal with the harsh reality around her.

Definitely one director who could come across as pretentious though - films sometimes border dangerously close to inaccessiable and preachy, but I think he generally avoids it - films of his I've seen so far have proven pretty intelligent and thought provoking, despite a sometimes unforunate coldness. But is his use of extreme minimalism (chalk outlines???) just being arty for the sake of it? Any think von Trier is another pretentious and clinical preacher, or intelligent and unique talent?

Karl Hungus

I've always been torn with reguards to von Trier.

On one hand, he's one of the few people I'd consider truly pretentious, but on the other hand he's got some terrific talent. I found The Kingdom was one of the best horrors, it was just so quirky and offbeat, but had this profoundly disturbing atmosphere to it, and it was also my first introduction to von Trier. Dancer in the Dark really made me cry, it was a very powerful film indeed.

My biggest criticism of his work is that almost all his film that I've seen have been uncompromisingly depressing, with The Kingdom being the only one that was a step outside that comfort zone, so to speak. I think I gave up on him after I saw Breaking the Waves, and didn't even bother with Manderlay. I remember thinking at the time of seeing Dancer In The Dark what a breath of fresh air it was, but now I'd look at a von Trier film and think that I'd have a guarantee that lots of bad things will happen and I'm going to be emotionally flogged, and it got rather tiring for me. It's like the inverse of the usual Hollywood romantic comedy.

Compare his work to that of David Lynch, who's also often criticised for being pretentious or arty for the sake or it, but who has constantly stepped outside his niche and delivered masterpieces, be it The Elephant Man, The Straight Story, or Blue Velvet, the guy's rarely had a misfire. The Straight Story was a beautifully uplifting film, I absolutely loved it, but I think something like that would (at this stage) be completely beyond the skill of von Trier. I'd like him to prove me wrong though.

monkeyfudge

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

But is his use of extreme minimalism (chalk outlines???) just being arty for the sake of it? Any think von Trier is another pretentious and clinical preacher, or intelligent and unique talent?

But that chalk device really worked well in the scene

where the rape takes place and everyone can clearly be seen going about their business while it happens.

I'd be a fan of Von Trier anyway. But I do admit his work can be a bit depressing and hard going. I loved Breaking the Waves and I thought Emily Watson's performance was fantastic.

He also had a great segment in Chacun son Cinéma, which I saw at the recent Dublin film festival.

lodgepole

His most recent Boss Of It All is also very good, and it's a comedy. He laid down new rules of film making for this one (the film was edited by a computer, with no input from humans) but at its core (like all his films) it's a very straightfoward piece of storytelling.

Breaking the Waves was my first Von Trier film, but i've since seen all of his theatrical work (except The Five Obsturctions) and it is all recomended viewing. You might not always enjoy them but they're fascinating none the less.

I truly believe that he'll make his Straight Story one day. I suspect he'd be embarassed at just how good a normal film he'd be capable of making.

Karl Hungus

Actually, The Boss Of It All completely slipped my mind, that's one I'm definitely looking out for.

ztoical

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

But is his use of extreme minimalism (chalk outlines???) just being arty for the sake of it? Any think von Trier is another pretentious and clinical preacher, or intelligent and unique talent?

from some of the stories I've heard of his antics off screen he does sound a little pretentious and up his own arse but I had to say I loved Dogville and I remember seeing that film in the cinema very vividly. I was living in new york at the time, went to a late show where it ended up being me and one other person in the place. I sat smack in the middle and when the film started and it all went dark all I could see was the characters and the chalk outlines then after the film I came out into the middle of new york and just lights, people, cars, buildings eveywhere and it took my head a while to readjust. I didn't find that film depressing at all, in fact I came out of it with an overpowering urge to produce something creative - went home and painted for several hours.

this might just be me but I find his film have a very strong once off impact - I've seen pretty much all his films in the cinema and own them all on DVD but I can never bring myself to watch them - I like having them on DVD and have leant them to others to watch but I don't know if I'll ever watch them again.

johnny_ultimate

I don't know if I'd consider him an entirely depressing director. As ztoical mentioned above, Dogville isn't unrelentingly bleak, and the end is - in a very weird way - a satisfying one. The Idiots as well creates a rather uplifting ending - although a very demented one at that. The main character finally learns to reject her demons. Granted, its a very, very odd ending, but I think the main jist of the ending is actually somewhat hopeful. But its like Bergman: all of his films I've seen are intensely dark (except the somewhat more nostalgiac Fanny & Alexander) and although he did make some comedies, he reflects bleakness so well and powerfully I wouldn't consider this a criticism. A valid point though: Dancer in the Dark is a pretty bleak experiment.

Frank O. Pinion

I recently watched the 5 1/2 hour uncut version of Nymphomaniac, which I thought was a total masterpiece. One of the best films of 2013, along with Roman Polanski's Venus In Fur. I don't know why it took me five years to give Nymphomaniac a shot, perhaps because my only previous exposure to von Trier, was Antichrist which I remember being disturbed by. I probably need to rewatch it, but certain "scenes" burned in my memory puts me off.

Anyways, my love of Nymphomaniac has made me watch through his filmography. I also found Breaking The Waves, Dancer In The Dark, and Dogville to be masterpieces, and made von Trier a new favourite director of mine. Just Manderlay and Melancholia left to watch, and I'm looking forward to The House That Jack Built later this year.

p to the e

I loved AntiChrist . It had a genuinely creepy atmosphere throughout, shocks all of the senses and stuck with me for a long time afterwards. The fact that there's no supernatural being involved (that's not a spoiler) makes it all the more unsettling.

Melancholia is... I'm still not sure - will have to watch it again I think. Needs a second viewing.

quickbeam

I've not seen all his work, but of what I have seen I mostly like LvT.

Breaking The Waves was perhaps a little overrated, not that I thought it bad, but everybody raves about it so much, and though the performances were fantastic (Watson's first role, I believe?) the story itself was too depressing and/or didn't grab my attention like I thought it would.

Dancer in the Dark was great, and heartbreaking.

Dogville was absolutely fantastic, though I thought Manderlay was much inferior to it.

Melancholia I loved. A real film of two halves, I found the second half more compelling, but even the first half was interesting.

Nymphomaniac was interesting. I'm not sure it needed two films to tell the story, but I liked it and was certainly different.

I don't know if I'd describe him as pretentious as such. Chalk outlines worked for the films he used them in, and even added to the story. I liked the stripped-back nature of it. The rest of the films I've seen are fairly conventional in their filming even if not in their storytelling. He's a bit of an ass by all accounts (see the Hitler reference during a Melancholia press conference), but he's a director who's films have always intrigued me and I'd definitely be interested in filling in the gaps in his filmography.

Antichrist is one of my favorite movies of all time.

pitifulgod

glasso wrote: »

Melancholia is... I'm still not sure - will have to watch it again I think. Needs a second viewing.

I would go as far as saying it might be his masterpiece. His handling of depression is so bloody memorable, evocative and spot on. The absolute struggle to even care when the world is literally collapsing around you.