Director Debate: Lars von Trier

johnny_ultimate

Favourite film: I think the so-called 'Golden Heart' (the Idiots, Breaking the Waves, Dancer in the Dark) trilogy shows von Trier at his... ahem... 'strongest'. Obviously none of these films are lacking von Trier's trademark shock factor and cinematic trickery, but they're interesting, thought-provoking films. Breaking the Waves is IMO the highlight - an intense, disturbing psychological drama with a spectacular performance from Emily Watson. Dancer in the Dark is a demanding but rewarding film, which truly dissects the concept of a musical with a real fearlessness and passionate performance from Bjork. And the Idiots... well, there's a lot to say about that film. It does try way too hard on occasion (all von Trier films do) but I think it often transcends its inflammatory approach and has a lot of interest to say amidst the real sex and unusual approach to mental illness.

Worst film: Antichrist. There's images in this film that will stay with me for decades, most of which the mere thought of which forces me to involuntarily shudder and protect a certain part of my anatomy. There are themes and imagery of note in Antichrist, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the whole thing is a meandering mess with some seriously misjudged sequences (the talking animals, for example). Plus, all the psychobabble. It's a film that demands attention with its graphic look at violence in cinema (a companion piece of sorts with Funny Games, perhaps) but there are only minor rewards for surviving the thing.

He's certainly a tryer, von Trier. He's a director I sometimes love, sometimes hate. I think proclaiming a film as pretentious is often a lazy argument, but it's undeniable in von Trier's case. His films deliberately provoke, with mixed results. I love the way he deconstructs cinema - the back projections in Europa, the demented musical interludes of Dancer in the Dark, the chalk outlines of Dogville / Manderlay (tangent: the latter of which I always thought was rather underrated and a much more interesting film than the prequel). He understands cinema, unlike a lot of directors, and challenges the audience to think about it with his experimental approaches, popularised by his involvement with Dogma 95 (although Festen remains a superior film to von Trier's efforts there).

And yet he just tries way too hard to shock on occasion. His films all have stuff to say, but are often said in such a ludicrous way they're impossible to take seriously. The narratives aren't always as rewarding as the delivery or the performances. Often they are, but sometimes there's silly symbolism or po-faced delivery in the way. And at his worst it's impossible to tell whether he's being provocative or controversial just because - experiencing his films often provides rewards, but there are some seriously offensive obstacles in the way at times.

That said, Antichrist was the first film in years to truly disgust me, and by design. He's a provocateur, no denying that. And I think cinema is all the better with his unique presence. Can't deny he's a pretentious little so-and-so though :pac:

Nolanger

He does what the best film directors do and the average ones won't: He takes the pi**!

bonerm

Antichrist didn't disgust me. It merely bored me. That said tho this guy (along with PT Anderson) are the only two contemporary directors whose work I actually anticipate. Von Trier has repeatedly excited and disturbed me with his his tv and cinematic efforts to date.

I don't personally rate his generally most critically acclaimed movie Breaking the Waves highly but I did enjoy along (as with its) sequel The Idiots. For me however Dancer in the Dark is his masterpiece. It's a rare movie that can take me to that top level of enjoyment and involement and I was just hooked from the second I heard those pressing machines banging out the beat to Cvalda.

The Europe trilogy is great also as is the (possibly never to be finished) America Trilogy. Riget is also worth a look.

Just to finish up I'll say that I've never seen a cinema clear out so quickly as it did in the first 20mins of Dogville so I'll always have a softspot for the guy just for that

Eirebear

I'm going to speak up for Antichrist, i'm not sure of the term i want to use for it (loved it certainly isnt right!) but it seriously had an effect on me.

Given Von Trier's tendancy to push the envelope, we were certainly well prepared for this, especially given the media outrage from people who hadnt even seen the film prior to it's release. It still managed to disturb me though.

The Prologue scene was one of the most beautifully shot pieces of cinema i had seen in quite some time, and the rest of the film followed in suitable fashion.

Ok, you have to wonder what he was thinking when Mr Fox popped up for his cameo, but if nothing else it served as a tension breaker before the oppresive scenes that were to follow.

I dont particularly want to see it again any time soon, but i'm certainly glad i did.

As for Lars himself, i'm still making my way through his films in all honesty i thoroughly enjoyed The Idiots, and have Dogville lined up to watch at some point this week.

Fysh

He's certainly a provocative director, but that's not necessarily a good thing by itself. I've not seen anywhere near all his films, but I'm slowly working my way through them, because I figure that he's earned as much with The Element Of Crime, Europa and The Kingdom.

I wasn't hugely impressed with Antichrist, though. I was impressed (perhaps surprised would be a better word) that certain sequences and images were left uncut in the film (haha, pun not intended), but I didn't think the script worked well enough to justify them and as a result it felt a bit like 9 Songs - yes, it's showing something that hasn't been depicted in that way before, but it's not doing so in a way that makes the narrative more engaging or nuanced so ultimately it's a shallow gimmick.

johnny_ultimate

My main problem with Antichrist is how much bullcrap dialogue there is before the 'climax'. It just goes on and on and on. The first scene is interesting (although I'd also say overwrought) and the themes it addresses in the violent conclusion are curious, but it takes so much effort to get there it just doesn't feel worthwhile. It definitely has points to make about on-screen violence and how we react to it, but it's a misstep for von Trier IMO considering how up itself it is!

Obviously none of his films are 'immediate' and one must commit themselves to his films to get the most out of it. But while most of his other films reward the investment, Antichrist doesn't to the same degree. And of the rest of the films I've seen I don't actually disliked any of them (has been a while since I've seen Dogville though which I'd like to go back to). It's just Antichrist is a bizarre and disjointed mess of a film that misses more than it hits.

One thing though: he has an unusually good knack for getting good performances, particularly from his female leads. Emily Watson, Bryce Dallas Howard, Nicole Kidman, Bjork: none of them have been better than they've been with von Trier. Even Antichrist has two strong performances from the (always reliable) Gainsbourg and Dafoe

ztoical

Lars Von Trier is a diector that confuses me alot and I'm not sure what to make of him sometimes. The public image he has with the camper van going to Cannes and the Bettany/Kidman/Porn Magazine story makes me think what a twat but then I sit through films like Dogville and I'm not so sure.

Dogville is a film that is a film that had a massive effect on me but a very weird effect to the point that I won't watch it again. I went to see a late screening at the last minute when walking home through Union Square in New York. There was me and one other person in this massive screen and I remember sitting there being very aware of the cinema but also being very drawn into the story. The blackness of the backgrounds just mereged into the cinema and it was like sitting right in it. I came out to bright flashing city lights and felt this massive urge to go do something I just couldn't work out what that something was. I ended up sitting in a diner filling several sketchbooks with notes and doodles and ideas. It was all a bit odd and I can't say what exactly about the film had the biggest effect on me but it's a film that just made me want to be creative. Maybe the lack of sets and backgrounds made my mind want to go fill it in, who knows. I'm not sure if it was fluke or intentional or what. So Von Trier is either some amazing genius or some mad drunken idoit whose got luck a few times I just can't tell.

bnt

I've only seen a couple of his films, and can't say I was too impressed. With The Idiots, I was left with an overwhelming sense of "what's the point?" It's about a bunch of "normal" people who play at being mentally disabled, to see how people react: if he was trying to make some kind of point about mental disability, it was lost on me. Lars didn't even want his name on the finished product - there's artistic confidence for you.

As for Breaking The Waves ... was all that anguish really necessary? It also struck me as explotation, of someone without the intelligence or skills to survive in the real world. Emily Watson is to be applauded for her bravura performance, and that's about it, in my opinion.

johnny_ultimate

bnt wrote: »

I've only seen a couple of his films, and can't say I was too impressed. With The Idiots, I was left with an overwhelming sense of "what's the point?" It's about a bunch of "normal" people who play at being mentally disabled, to see how people react: if he was trying to make some kind of point about mental disability, it was lost on me. Lars didn't even want his name on the finished product - there's artistic confidence for you.

The no credit thing is one of the Dogma 95 'rules' - whatever arguments about the rules themselves, at least he was sticking to the vow of chastity or whatever! It's been a while since I saw the Idiots, but thought it went far further than simple being about people acting like they're mentally disabled. More so about social norms and how people are tied to these restrictive rules. The last scene is strangely uplifting even - for a film that rigidly conforms to a number of rules, it's a celebration of actually breaking the rules and doing what you feel like. Can't disagree that it's a particularly polarising film though, personally just thought it managed to bypass it's potentially offensive main concept.

Also, despite the 'no credit' rule, he's a man very fond of his own name. This title stays up for the entirety of the Europa closing credits:



Things like that suggest he's more than a little up himself!

dark crystal

Eirebear wrote: »

The Prologue scene was one of the most beautifully shot pieces of cinema i had seen in quite some time, and the rest of the film followed in suitable fashion.

.

I have to agree, that first 5 minutes was breathtaking, heartstopping and hauntingly beautiful. I got goosebumps!

Saying that, I haven't managed to watch the whole film in it's entirety yet, but it is certainly interesting so far - though the fox scene is, erm, strange to say the least.

I have seen Dogville and Breaking The Waves and enjoyed both of those films immensely. Have yet to see Dancer In The Dark and honestly, I have little interest in seeing The Idiots.

He really does push his actresses to their limits....perhaps that is why he often gets accused of being mysoginistic. The female characters' sexuality is often intermingled with violence and despair and certainly in the case of both Dogville and Breaking The Waves, they are exploited sexually. Perhaps, there are deeper issues at play there, but for me, I just enjoy the work as it manifests itself on the screen.