09-25-2009, 06:25 PM
******SPOILERS INCLUDED BELOW********
Well, I went ahead and watched this movie.
There were some interesting things going on, but for the most part I thought it was garbage. The thing is...most of the criticisms I have of the film would probably be responded to by saying, "Well, that's how Von Trier intended it to be." And maybe that's true, but here are a few of the many issues I had:
- the cinematography seemed to jump back and forth between a Calvin Klein ad style and the "Dogma rules" style -- natural lighting, hand-held camera, no visual effects, etc. It was jarring, to say the least. Intentional? Maybe.
- the "nihilism of nature" theme was sort of interesting, but I felt like Von Trier didn't give enough credit to his audience -- especially with the fox scene. It wasn't enough that the fox is disemboweling itself -- it also has to spell it out for us by speaking, "Chaos reigns?" C'mon. You've got the acorn storm, the falling trees, the attacking bird, the stillborn deer hanging out of the momma deer, the growth on DeFoe's hand...we get it. No need to spell it out for us.
- the genital mutilation scenes. Did we really need to see: 1) She jerk off his dick until he came blood? Was the wooden plank to his erect penis not enough? and 2) An extreme close-up of She cutting off her own clitoris? I'm not sure why it had to go that far -- not that those things couldn't happen in the story, but I feel like both scenes would have been more effective if it left a little more to our imaginations (think the ear-cutting scene in Reservoir Dogs). To me, the SOLE purpose of those two scenes was to shock and to generate controversy/buzz.
- overall, I felt that the whole treatment of the child's death was heavy-handed and overly melodramatic. But again -- maybe the whole movie was just an allegory and therefore beyond criticism in a way.
I think Von Trier has serious female issues. Dancer in the Dark and Breaking the Waves were both very good movies (I liked both of them a lot more than this one), but they both put the female lead through a lot of physical/emotional/mental torture.
You may think my reaction to this film is somewhat "puritan"...and maybe it is, but I felt cheap and dirty after watching it and I sort of wish I didn't see it (not blaming you, rok). No offense to anyone else who liked it (including liner). It's just my personal opinion.
To sum up, I felt it was a cheap exploitation flick disguised as an intellectual art film.
Well, I went ahead and watched this movie.
There were some interesting things going on, but for the most part I thought it was garbage. The thing is...most of the criticisms I have of the film would probably be responded to by saying, "Well, that's how Von Trier intended it to be." And maybe that's true, but here are a few of the many issues I had:
- the cinematography seemed to jump back and forth between a Calvin Klein ad style and the "Dogma rules" style -- natural lighting, hand-held camera, no visual effects, etc. It was jarring, to say the least. Intentional? Maybe.
- the "nihilism of nature" theme was sort of interesting, but I felt like Von Trier didn't give enough credit to his audience -- especially with the fox scene. It wasn't enough that the fox is disemboweling itself -- it also has to spell it out for us by speaking, "Chaos reigns?" C'mon. You've got the acorn storm, the falling trees, the attacking bird, the stillborn deer hanging out of the momma deer, the growth on DeFoe's hand...we get it. No need to spell it out for us.
- the genital mutilation scenes. Did we really need to see: 1) She jerk off his dick until he came blood? Was the wooden plank to his erect penis not enough? and 2) An extreme close-up of She cutting off her own clitoris? I'm not sure why it had to go that far -- not that those things couldn't happen in the story, but I feel like both scenes would have been more effective if it left a little more to our imaginations (think the ear-cutting scene in Reservoir Dogs). To me, the SOLE purpose of those two scenes was to shock and to generate controversy/buzz.
- overall, I felt that the whole treatment of the child's death was heavy-handed and overly melodramatic. But again -- maybe the whole movie was just an allegory and therefore beyond criticism in a way.
I think Von Trier has serious female issues. Dancer in the Dark and Breaking the Waves were both very good movies (I liked both of them a lot more than this one), but they both put the female lead through a lot of physical/emotional/mental torture.
You may think my reaction to this film is somewhat "puritan"...and maybe it is, but I felt cheap and dirty after watching it and I sort of wish I didn't see it (not blaming you, rok). No offense to anyone else who liked it (including liner). It's just my personal opinion.
To sum up, I felt it was a cheap exploitation flick disguised as an intellectual art film.