Nymphomaniac (2014)

[baumer]

Discuss

[Jack Nevada]

It's a big, mean, ludicrous four hour joke with a very cruel and juvenile punchline and a lot less sex than I expected. There are moments that can seem profound or sincere, but if you take this thing seriously and call it it "shocking" or "tragic" or "devastating" or whatever it just means you've fallen into von Trier's trap. There is nothing profound or sincere about it.And I loved it.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Jack Nevada

[Jim Shorts]

I've seen better late night on Cinemax.  

[Jake Gittes]

Well I wouldn't say it was Trier's intention to give you anything better than that.

 

Anyway, I saw Vol. 1 and really couldn't stand it. It felt like it was going on for three hours instead of two, it was flatly acted (previously I thought I could easily listen to Charlotte Gainsbourg and Stellan Skarsgard talk all day - turns out I was wrong, but hell, I'll just blame it on the writing), and all the fishing metaphors felt like the kind of humor that would be much more at home in a Woody Allen film.

 

Perhaps most of all, it didn't feel either provocative or titillating not just in the sexual way, but in any way - and here, I think, lies the reason why Trier's past films were so effective: he always deliberately limited and challenged himself in some way. Europa worked inside the genre borders of a stylized neo-noir; Breaking the Waves had its stripped-down, grainy look and very naturalistic performances; The Idiots was full-on Dogme 95; Dogville had an extremely minimal, stage-like set; Antichrist had two characters in mostly just one setting. In Nymphomaniac, there are no limitations like that - anything goes.

 

Trier has always had a huge ego, but here it's like he actually believed himself for the first time to be God, which instantly led to his downfall. He allows himself to do anything he wants, and because of that, nothing means anything anymore. Long silence broken by Rammstein, constant switching of tones or a dick montage set to Shostakovich might have actually meant something in an earlier film, or at least would be genuinely provocative, but here they're the equivalent of an old guy attempting to impress you by telling you dirty jokes and suddenly pulling his dick out, and in the end he mostly just comes off as desperate and you just get tired and want to leave. Nothing matters. Everything's just one big joke, one big act of trolling, if you will. I have no idea what I was supposed to find in that; maybe it'll be clearer when I see the second part. 

 

P.S. Gotta admit though, the whoring bed scene was good. Thurman really sold it. 

Edited April 1, 2014 by Jake Gittes

[Jack Nevada]

See, those are some of the reasons why I loved the movie.

[Jake Gittes]

Yeah I understand. Well, good for you (no sarcasm or condescension meant). At least you aren't claiming you found something truly deep and meaningful in it - now those people I have a much harder time understanding. 

 

Though I did really like David Eihrich's piece over at The Dissolve which took the whole film to be Trier's massive reflection on his career, and Joe to be his definitive lonely, abused and misunderstood lead character. But I won't know how much I actually agree with it until I see both parts. Based on Vol. 1 I already partly see where he's coming from, but I still can't get over how self-satisfied the direction was and how unaffected I was by Joe and anything that happened to her. ("I can't feel anything", all right).

[Jack Nevada]

Yes, the people calling Nymphomaniac deep are full of shit. Like Mark Kermode said in his (positive) Antichrist review you should take everything LvT says and does with a grain of salt. I've read some very earnest Finnish reviews of the film that honestly believe von Trier is trying to say something meaningful about gender or sexuality or whatever even though he's so clearly not. To me it was obvious from the first five minutes that the whole thing was going to be immature and not to be taken seriously, so I just went with it and found the movie highly entertaining in its ridiculousness. 

Edited April 1, 2014 by Jack Nevada

[Jake Gittes]

The man's a troll for sure. Though that makes it especially important to recognize when he's being genuine. And often he manages to be both in a single movie. (ex: The Idiots).

Edited April 1, 2014 by Jake Gittes

[Jack Nevada]

My dad thinks Lars von Trier is The Devil. He saw Dancer in the Dark when it came out and he's still pissed about it.

[mcclaine]

8.5/10.

Is not a 10/10 because four hours is too long.... 

[JohnnY]

Yes, the people calling Nymphomaniac deep are full of shit. Like Mark Kermode said in his (positive) Antichrist review you should take everything LvT says and does with a grain of salt. I've read some very earnest Finnish reviews of the film that honestly believe von Trier is trying to say something meaningful about gender or sexuality or whatever even though he's so clearly not. To me it was obvious from the first five minutes that the whole thing was going to be immature and not to be taken seriously, so I just went with it and found the movie highly entertaining in its ridiculousness. 

 

Well, Lars Von Trier did try to deliver a message in this movie - "blablabla women are sexually oppressed".- but he was obviously more focused on trying to shock the audience. The movie was obscene when it wasn't needed and wasn't obscene when it could have been, Sometimes it's a bit confusing if Joe realized how her addiction is destroying her life or if she's proud of what she's doing. There was little connection between Part I and Part 2 so you wonder if it 4 hours really was needed for such a small character development. And the end is completely fucked up.

[Jack Nevada]

Yeah, I'd rather think of the ending as a dream sequence. 

 

And I'm sure this could've been done in 90 minutes, but I wasn't bored once during those four hours. It's so witty, and so well-acted, and so outrageous that to me there wasn't a dull moment.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Jack Nevada

[Noctis]

So, basically, Jack got a hard-on. No surprise there.

[Ezen Baklattan]

Well I wouldn't say it was Trier's intention to give you anything better than that.

 

Anyway, I saw Vol. 1 and really couldn't stand it. It felt like it was going on for three hours instead of two, it was flatly acted (previously I thought I could easily listen to Charlotte Gainsbourg and Stellan Skarsgard talk all day - turns out I was wrong, but hell, I'll just blame it on the writing), and all the fishing metaphors felt like the kind of humor that would be much more at home in a Woody Allen film.

 

So, like this?

 

http://youtu.be/7tpPQgRuccw?t=6s

[Jack Nevada]

It has fine performances from everyone, a droll script and high entertainment value (plenty of bang for your buck *badum-tssh*) Nymphomaniac might be von Trier's most superficial, trollish and straight-up goofy movie yet but it's also, I think, his most relaxed and enjoyable effort and a great ride. I want to see it again.

[luna]

i could have agreed that there was more trickery over meaning after seeing only the first part, but the second part so unmistakably clarifies its polemic objectives that i find it hard to believe one couldn't see its themes. in fact, aside from his didactic masterpiece dogville, i'd say this is his most obvious work of political philosophy.

 

i was feeling rather underwhelmed at the halfway mark, but the second half is fucking beautiful, and subsequently lifts the first half as well.

 

9.0

[luna]

my more detailed review:

 

we begin with a tour of fly fishing, and fist fucking. actually, there's no fist fucking here, a lamentable exclusion. but we're thrown into an artistic whimsy that recalls von trier's most playful moments, perhaps most resembling the five obstructions, oddly. fibonacci, edgar allan poe, and a gorge of orgies to make you question the meaning of the phrase 'censored edition' add up to, well, something that underwhelmed me, to be honest. but that wasn't a movie - merely half a one. so i popped in the second, the darker part apparently, and it was: but it wasn't; it was, in fact, a redefinition of the first, placing joe's story in perspective with a series of speeches that served to clarify von trier's polemic objective. the ending, bait, hook and all, concluded what i see as a coherent statement regarding gender, sexuality and violence, something one mightn't expect given that this film is von trier playing a trick. apparently. well, it is. and it's philosophy. it's both. it's beautiful.

Edited July 9, 2014 by lisa

[The Futurist]

There is a 4 hour plus director 's cut coming soon.

Lars Von Tirer was against dividing the movie in half and against the cuts.

He didn't do the post production on the film as it is stated at the begnning of Vol 1.

[Joel M]

I think it works better as a duology than a giant single movie

[Lordmandeep]

These are types of movies that give Netflix a bad name.