Lars von Trier's Melancholia [Here be spoilers]

Cafe Society
1

I wen’t to see von Trier’s latest last weekend with the kombatminigirlfriend, and I’d love a discussion about it, as I alone among my closest kin hate the film with a passion. Note that this thread will be spoiler heavy, on the other hand the end is pretty much spoiled after the first five minutes of the film. So here’s my take:

The good:
[ul]
[li]The second half of the movie[/li][li]Kirsten Dunst, who’s gained some weight and looks fantastic.[/li][li]The surreal montage in the beginning, which I would have paid to see on its own.[/li][li]The use of Wagner’s Tristan and Isolde[/li][li]The use of the rumbling base to signify the approach of the planet, which conveys its looming menace without showing it on screen until the very end.[/li][/ul]

The bad:
[ul]
[li]Why do the sisters have blaringly different accents? Is it just a massive fuck-you from the director to the audience, or couldn’t von Trier convince Gainsbourg to drop the French accent?[/li][li]The first half of the movie, which was chaotic and mostly nonsensical. von Trier seemed to be trying to emulate/pay homage to Vinterberg’s Festen, and besides making sure that the audience understands that Justine is a total nut job, the movie could have stood alone without it. I can see how it explores the pointlessness of a wedding in the face of impending doom…but no, it just doesn’t do it for me. There’s no logic or reason to Justine’s behavior, she just seems to suffer from shitty impulse control.[/li][li]The characters, in particular the bit players of the first half. Stellan Skarsgård is a hackneyed caricature, while Alexander Skarsgård’s groom is a lame duck. Justine and Claire’s parents seem to be rather obvious parodies of von Trier’s own, while possibly representing his view of the nuclear family. [/li][li]More minor plot holes: Why does nobody turn on a radio? Why no generators for light? What was the point of the whole golf-cart scene in the end, besides giving von Trier a chance to torture Gainsbourg in yet another film? In the limo scene in the beginning, nobody thinks of calling a jeep down from the hotel? Instead bride and groom walk (bride barefoot) for a godly distance over gravel? [/li][li]Shakey cam…yeah, awesome dude. You did the Dogma95 thing a while back, we remember. Now, in a movie which is about 95% CGI, it’s really just lame, and the off-focus shots give me a headache.[/li][/ul]

What bothers me about the whole production:
The plot is as subtle as being slapped in the head with a wet towel, which was pretty much what I thought it felt like. I appreciate trying to figure out a few things on my own, so calling the planet Melanchonia and studying everybody’s reactions to the thing slamming into Earth is just crude.
Knowing what I do about von Trier (who himself isn’t very stable and suffers bouts of clinical depression), the movie becomes less of a study of human emotion and more of a mouthpiece for a narcissistic director desperate to defend himself to the world around him, proclaiming himself a guide and savior of humanity. Justine (and to some point, her mother) is an obvious author insertion, and typically he pictures himself as a beautiful and tragic visage. He takes a chance to trash those around him (Stellan Skarsgård’s one-dimensional character is an obvious jab at the public/producers/reviewers who keep on expecting him to always produce the next big thing), explicitly telling him (and them) what he thinks of them. Dunst may as well be looking straight into the camera as she says her line.
By the end, I get the impression that von Trier sees himself as a messiah-like figure, whose depression is what will allow him to see clearly as all others cower in terror and huddle in the fetal position, because he alone in the universe can “just know things”. I find the whole film a desperate manifesto of a scared little man, who nonetheless can direct beautiful scenes.

And yes, it sorta pissed me off. :smiley:

I’d love to hear other views and takes of the film, and feel free to argue mine.

2

So, Kirsten Dunst is the latest actress who will do a single film for this asshole and never work with him again? I get the impression that Lars is some new type of Hollywood hazing ritual.

I’ve gone beyond hating his films, and transferred my loathing to him as a human being.

3

I expect that she’ll probably get some sort of award for the film, so it’s not impossible that they’ll keep working together. Incidentally, did anybody else notice the very drawn out reveal of her rack? From the decolletage of her wedding dress (from which they nearly explode in every take), to the bathing scene where they’re first shown as just a glint and then from the side to the later full frontal in the Melanchonia-tanning scene. Though the last scene in particular was a gorgeous shot, everything leading up to it felt a bit like a striptease in a kind of juvenile way.

4

Doesn’t seem likely though.

Emily Watson - nominated for a Best Actress Oscar, never worked with him again.
Björk - won Best Actress at Cannes, never worked with him again.
Nichole Kidman - nominated for Best Actress Bodil Awards, never worked with him again.
Bryce Dallas Howard - nominated for Best Actress Robert Festival, never worked with him again.

Has any actress ever worked with this asshole twice?

5

Bjork - Never worked with anyone again, at least for movies. She hated it so much she said she wouldn’t do movies anymore.

6

Exactly. Who knows what acting career was cut short by her being unfortunate enough to work with Lars?

7

Charlotte Gainsbourg was in LvTs last film, Antichrist. I was a little surprised to see her name in the credits for this movie due to LvTs reputation.

Personally, Ive been carrying out my own personal boycott of his movies since Dogville. Mark this one up as yet one more of his movies Ill be ignoring.

8

Casts resurrect thread costing 50 mana points, holds still for the 3 seconds necessary to channel

Okay, well I just came back from seeing this film, although why it took FOUR FUCKING MONTHS to open in the UK I have no idea. My thoughts:

Overriding view - I loved it. It was an exquisitely beautiful depiction of a horrifying event and despite the very pertinent things that kombatminipig says in his/her OP I still thought it was outstanding. I agree that the disjunct between the first half and the second half was striking, and that the wedding scene overall served a little bit as a “so what was that about?”. But ultimately I think it was an attempt to show us what is supposed to be a quintessentially happy and vital celebration of love and a ritual focussed on humanity and its continuation (from weddings come children) with its soul sucked out as Justine’s condition overcame her to the point where she couldn’t even make it through the reception. This of course foreshadows how Melancholia will suck the live out of the universe by hitting Earth. In that regard the groom doesn’t need to be anything more than someone to reject, that’s his function in this, and I think Alexandar Skarsgård did a perfectly good job of making him into someone that we could look at and not get why she should want to reject him, underlining the tragedy of her illness.

I’m seeing a lot of hate for VT and the way he is being assumed to be inserting himself into the writing and characterisation, but personally I don’t think it makes it any less authentic a depiction of depression (having experienced it myself I can certain relate to Justine). What makes this more than simply a ploddy art movie about someone being depressed, though, is of course Justine’s depression is the mirror of the fate of the world, and how she feels is what everyone feels in the end.

One thing I thought very clever with the opening sequence (amazing as it was) is that it showed us how the film ends, Earth is destroyed. The rest of the film is then that much more poignant as we know everything being done is hopeless, the enthusiasm for the astronomical event utterly misplaced, and that all we’re seeing is going to one inescapable conclusion. Without that we would have spent a lot of time wondering will it hit, won’t it hit - but that way we know from the start everything we’re seeing is pointless, everyone is doomed.

I thought Dunst’s depiction of living with depression was masterful, it felt completely real to me and at one point had me in tears, echoing her as she wept that she couldn’t even taste her favourite food any more. Again, having been in that position myself (although not to that extreme and fortunately not for very long) I know what it’s like to have no will to live, no feeling, no desire for anything, and it’s harrowing. You can see in Dunst’s face a lack of any vitality or interest in anything, she plays it to a tee.

I thought the acting on the part of all the others was great too, particularly Gainsbourg’s whose growing desperation at the end was just as harrowing to watch as Justine’s depression. Sutherland’s bouyant enthusiasm about the planet souring into fear and finally despair is also well done. I kind of agree that Justine’s parents and Stellan Skarsgård were a bit pointless, maybe the latter is supposed to be a dig at the suits, I don’t know.

But for me the high point of the movie was the climax, with the bass of the movie building to an awesome crescendo and then the final moment when you see Melancholia collide with Earth, and the flames engulfing everything, followed by silence. Of all the ways this moment could have been presented I couldn’t think of one more fitting for the subject - growing fear rising to terror, then silence.

My only complaint is to echo what others have said about the shaky cam which was so bad as to make my friend so sick she had to keep her eyes closed a lot of the time (I offered for us to leave but she wanted to see the ending). But apart from that I judge the film a masterpiece, and one that must must MUST be seen in a cinema.