There are some compelling images, but definitely fast-forward through the first 2/3.
I can’t decide if that’s impressive or a worrying medical condition.
I’ll watch clips to see how good the CGI is but that’s it. When I think of filmmakers Von Trier is at the bottom of the list.
Thanks for directing the thread to the correct sub-forum.
I would venture a guess that this film is as much about sex as “Magic Mike” was about male strippers. “Magic Mike” (directed by Soderbergh) was about dreams and hope and how that optimism get crushed or lost in the illusions/delusions people create or surround themselves with, over time. The club was simply a specifically chosen venue to let us watch the social and interpersonal interactions in such an environment, imho.
I could see where a case could be made that von Trier’s films are bleak or violent. But imo, there is so much more there. My personal favorites at this time are “Breaking the Waves” and “Dogville”.
Certainly von Trier is very dark and very stark in his storylines. But what I notice is his oddly hidden optimism, his belief in magic, in the inherent value and ethics of being “good” and of willingness to sacrifice. Unlike fare like “Last Exit to Brooklyn” or “Requiem for a Dream” (author the recently deceased Hubert Selby, Jr.) in which the characters are not sympathetic and the outcomes are all depressing, I find that comparatively Lars von Trier’s visions offer a sense of hope or a new beginning.
“Once Were Warriors” (Lee Tamahori, New Zealand) is similar in that respect. The violence is not gratuitous and is, in itself, particularly graphic to make the point of the film, which is how awful domestic violence really is. I feel similarly about von Trier’s work.
I think the use of ethics, magic and faith is obvious in “Breaking the Waves”, but even in “Dogville” you see self-awareness, a constant learning, a striving to become something truer without the lies of internal illusions. You just have to look harder.
I almost missed being on to his films because the first one I saw I disliked immensely on the first view… “Dancer in the Dark.” I didn’t dislike it for being bleak, but frankly I found it boring and lengthy. After digging up more of his work, I watched it again and saw more value to it.
Like Steinbeck, von Trier sees the world in a constant battle between good and evil, I think, and he plays in the shades of gray morality, but what really makes his themes stick is the magical element he weaves into them.
I saw your name and thought of director Ken Loach. I’m fond of his work also.
“Breaking the Waves” is one of my all-time favorite films, but I didn’t like the couple of later Von Trier films I saw nearly as much, and I’ll almost certainly skip this one.
So, like another poster said, you need another poll choice.
Hindsight is always 20-20 on Poll choices but I admit I’m delighted people vote here. I love voting on rancom Polls in and of itself, actually, and it’s a lot more fun when people participate.
I suspect the most daunting thing about this film will be the already controversial length of the production. The last film I saw that approached 5 hours was the Russian “Philosophy of a Knife” which was painfully annoying, inane, boring and poorly written, acted, directed and cut. Several hours of watching snow fall in the forest spliced with reenacted war atrocities via killing the same actors over and over in different ways because of a low budget, made “Philosophy” want to either gouge my eyes out and/or sue for my money back if I hadn’t found it in a $2 doco bin on sale. Sadly, getting my four hours back wasn’t an option.
Nymphomaniac has to be better than that, at any rate.
So this isn’t a movie about sex, it’s a way for Lars von Trier to masturbate on screen for five and a half hours? That makes it sound so much better.
I think that would be closer, actually. I haven’t seen it yet since it hasn’t come out, but from interviews, I would guess it’s a five and a half hour therapeutic consideration of Lars von Trier coping with his confusion about his self-worth, his depression and his sexual adequacy through analogies and symbolism and sharing that with the world. Kind of like Cronenberg with his “Crash” or his “Videodrome”.
It’s not much more tempting for you that way either, is it? 
Hmmm…not sure I can agree. Or at least not to a degree that makes an effective difference. Dogville being a case in point. While yes, perhaps Nicole Kidman’s character is looking forward with sense of hope ( because things sure couldn’t get much worse than they were ) or a new beginning ( because, everything has changed ), it’s in the context of the bleakest milieu ever. After suffering miserable abuse she has just graduated to thoughtful sociopath status like dear old dad. Yay for her! 
Not that you can’t sympathize with the character. And it is not that the film isn’t thought-provoking. And it’s not that Kidman sucks ( I’ve always defended her acting, I think she is more capable than her critics charge ).
It’s that I simply can’t enjoy any of it. I don’t do Lars von Trier anymore for the same reason I no longer do fair like Once Were Warriors, Brokeback Mountain, most of John Steinbeck, Thomas Hardy or more recently China Mieville. I no longer derive entertainment from bleak and downer works of fiction. I’m okay with dark, I can enjoy moments of bleakness. But overall miserable? Nah, done. I’d rather gnaw open my own wrists than read/sit through Jude the Obscure again.
No. If you can talk Uma Thurman into acting in your sex movie, you don’t get to whine about your life.
Perhaps hope was the wrong word. Self discovery is probably more accurate. I hope you find sociopath to be a negotiable word. If nothing else, the Grace character in the films consistently put the needs of others above her own and as noted, it didn’t get her anywhere good and it didn’t help them either. I prefer to think of it as Grace learning to REFUSE to cater to sociopaths, via experience. I find that uplifting.
Of the U.S. Land of Opportunity series so far, many people perceive it the perspective as anti-American. I think it’s just anti-hypocrite and I find that hopeful and useful were his movies to make changes for people personally or for groups of people or for trends in how countries treat their own or other populations.
I can’t say I derive entertainment from dour movies. I like to think I derive a better understanding of myself and the world and how we fit together by considering their point of view.
I would suppose I approach American politics for the entertainment value. There is nothing to be derived from understanding any of it because we live in a plutocracy and can effect zero change. The whole country could rise up, and the elite will do whatever they want to anyway.
At least with movies that lead to introspection, spending time on it has some value.
Lol. Contraire, we are not the thought police nor censors. I have no interest in controlling what Mr. von Trier does or doesn’t whinge about.
Will cede that I find his whinging interesting and you don’t which is fair enough.
And he did it with just two words: “WHORING BED!”
I was almost there, but I decided to give this a shot. Just watched all of it last night. (It’s magic!)
It’s not without flaw, but overall I’m amazed to say: it was kinda brilliant.