Nymphomaniac trailer

[tazber]

Posted: 11/22/13 at 12:29pm

So this is extremely NSFW.

It looks like classic Von Trier. The cut currently stands at 5 1/2 hours. They're going to edit out an hour and a half and release it as two movies, in two versions (R, and NC-17).

You can already tell there is a female main character who will be put through the wringer, graphic sex, and it looks like some disturbing violence. So, status quo then.




Link

Updated On: 11/22/13 at 12:29 PM

[ClydeBarrow]

Posted: 11/22/13 at 1:16pm

Lars Von Trier has gone from one of my most favorite to least favorite directors over the course of his last couple films. This actually looks pretty good but I'm staying cautiously optimistic. If we get to see Jamie Bell naked then I'm definitely on board.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 11/23/13 at 11:32am

ClydeBarrow- So you didn't like Melancholia? I could see why Antichrist would have a lot of people turned off by him and l'enfant terrible antics that surround his movies but Melancholia is a masterwork.

This well..... Charlotte Gainsbourg appears game for just about anything.

The trailers at first showed the chapters that made it appear like a series of vignettes but the posters and this trailer confirm there is a character played by Charlotte Gainsbourg that tracks her sexual activity when she was younger to present day.

Supposedly Zentropa is very antsy on this one, mostly because of the length and of course the explicitness.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 11/23/13 at 11:47am

I agree that MELANCHOLIA is a masterpiece. I feel like I always remember watching that at the movies. I also like ANTICHRIST; it's hard to get through, but I think the acting and the images are great. I'm looking forward to this one...and I guess it's no longer inappropriate to be insanely attracted to Jamie Bell; he's so hot now!

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 11/24/13 at 8:23am

If Zentropa is antsy about the explicitness they sure are not shying away from it in the trailer.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 11/24/13 at 10:14am

Von Trier fan here. This looks boring to me.

[tazber]

Posted: 1/23/14 at 1:40am

Part 1 screened at Sundance.

An early opinion:


Link

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 1/23/14 at 2:44am

A more positive opinion from the same screening here. I'm dying to see this.
Nymphomaniac Review

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 1/23/14 at 7:46am

Ooh, those are fun. I don't love everything von Trier does, but I admire him for keeping things interesting. I'm always skeptical of reviews that dismiss him out of hand as a shock jock. Have they not seen the rest of his work?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/23/14 at 11:33am

Melancholia is the only Von Trier film I like and it was actually my favorite film that particular year. Not sure if I want to see this one especially if it looks like another Antichrist.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 1/23/14 at 5:31pm

It's gotten raves in Europe, but most people have seen Part 1 that also was the Secret Screening at Sundance. I know somebody who saw Part 1 and loved it. She tends to favor early Von Trier but also loved Melancholia. It's absolutely not close to Antichrist but works almost as an examination of his whole career in a way, according to her.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 1/23/14 at 6:45pm

It's also reportedly the funniest movie he has ever made.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 1/23/14 at 8:51pm

Funnier than Dogville? My friends and I were howling with laughter once we got into it...

I like a lot of his films. This sounds like a ridiculous complaint, particularly as there's a huge history of this in films (and everywhere else) but I kinda wonder why in Nymphomaniac, once again, he's speaking about a woman's experience. There's nothing wrong with that in theory -- and I'd be a hypocrite to say that many of my favorite plays, novels and movies are by male authors who do the same (particularly older works where it was easy to, for example, have Thomas Hardy use Tess as his protagonist because it showed his theme easier with women having so many fewer rights.) But with von Trier sometimes he takes it to a ridiculous level. Could he make a sympathetic film about a male nymphomaniac (could anyone? And no, Shame certainly does not count.)

Poor Shia with this coming out just when he's announced he will never do anything in the public spotlight ever again -- he seems to be getting good reviews, for some reason, so it's good to know that he will simply ignore them and never ever comment on them, or accept any potential awards or press. Ever.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 1/23/14 at 10:02pm

Shia's getting good reviews? Even the raves pounce on that wildly fake accent. Gainsbourg, Skarsgaard, and Stacy Martin are getting good press and many people have deemed Uma the show-stopper albeit in one 10 minute scene.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 1/24/14 at 1:19am

I admit, I have read two reviews, but both said he was surprisingly good.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 1:32am

So I watched the first one. Need space for the second one, which I am kinda dreading for reasons I'll lay out but have little to do with Vol. I.

Anyway,

If this were made by any other filmmaker, critics would call this not so much a rebuke of LVT but an acidic, biting, chew off autopsy of LVT's whole oeuvre in a very comedic and emotionally effected way. The film is Lars at his most formal in terms of crafting scenes while also balancing his Dogme 95/Brechtian sensibilities. There is no clear time stamp on the periods and no real indication of passage of time in clothing beyond the fact we know younger Joe aged to present-day Joe, but Lars is not bothering to play up the period.

Okay, the whole pretense set up by this film is the basis for much of the humor and ridiculousness. Stellan Skarsgard finds Charlotte Gainsbourg's Joe beaten up on the street. He takes her in like any decent human being and once she speaks, she fluctuates between absurd self-loathing that has a definite comedic bite at times and also some insights of herself. One issue one may find is that Lars refuses to announce which time Joe wants to be absurd or insightful. Not hard to figure out by the end but it takes its time to make it clear what this character represents. Skarsgard has these moments too. He's the audience stand-in, nice and also is tied to these metaphors that makes me think LVT is making fun of certain film criticism because it is just too damn obvious, nearly stopping scenes. Yet, it is partially forgiven because it is so playful. This is Lars Von Trier playing the hits as an encore in those moments.

But, let's go beyond the pretense and go into what they are talking about. Stacy Martin as a younger version of Joe is the star of the film and deservedly so, as she is excellent. Yes, all of the sex scenes mostly involve her and yes, they are explicit and Lars was playing no games in even trying to hide it. But this is about Joe trying to find desire and in the final scene, we find regardless of how intricate and interesting Joe wants to make her life, her first real step for something greater is a misstep.

This misstep is in the form of Jerome, played by Shia LaBeouf who is awful and I am not quite sure if LVT was just fine or not with him being so awful. The mockney accent is just..... It would make Kevin Costner circa Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves blush. Accent aside, the dream playboy is a bit much because Martin could easily eat him alive. But, he 'took' her virginity and I'll give Lars that this misstep is what we are supposed to think and Joe is deluding herself. Couldn't it just have been for a better actor?

Christian Slater is really good in his role as Joe's father albeit he never ages in the passage of time in a role where it is a bit much for him to play 'the dad'. Connie Nielsen has not much to do as Joe's mother which is a shame as I like her a lot and hope in Vol. II is where she gets more to stretch. Uma Thurman in her 10 minutes of screentime packs a lot of unfinished business that I believe she had in her since Kill Bill Vol. II. Fireworks are launched when she hits the screen and then I just wonder if this was everything she ever wanted to say about Ethan Hawke publicly but thought better of it and decided to wait for a the right role she was given and give it pathos.

I really liked the final 'chapter' so to speak and it works to Lars' strengths entirely as applying the philosophical to the real with there being something lost in that transition. But then as the credits rolled, I saw the clips for Vol. II and got a bit worried. It made me wonder if the big themes applied into the small, as in the character of Joe, were flipped to making the singular story of Joe apply to bigger themes. This has not always worked in his other films. In Vol. I I sensed no real urgency to make Joe a generalization of nymphomaniac/sex addict but Joe's path for self-exploration hinted at make me wonder if it becomes too much of a generalization and one where it becomes a little more unbelievable.

Anyway, I do recommend watching Vol. I. It's not so much a film just for the diehards but I think even if you find Lars to be l'enfant terrible/troll about his movies, you may find this mildly amusing in just how brazen but aware he is of his critics.







Updated On: 3/30/14 at 01:32 AM

[strummergirl]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 12:58pm

This is available on VOD, btw. Anybody else catch Vol. I?

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 3:15pm

Is it true Shia LaBeouf used a body double for the graphic sex scene? If so, that's lame.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 5:06pm

Hmmmm.....

I forget the actual details of whom had a double or not because Martin is in quite a lot of the gratuitous scenes. I could see in instances where she was had a double and put her head or rather anything above the waist over it but then there are some graphic scenes that are pretty hard to hide her face because her face is part of the whole sex act. Yeah, that felt a little gross typing. But apparently Martin and Gainsbourg (I am assuming from Vol. II as she was clothed through all of Vol. I) had the same double.

As for LaBeouf, I definitely think he had a double and it seemed more obvious that Lars was hiding it. The way the explicit shots are framed and cut around is more obvious with him. Plus there is a scene where he is masturbating but his whole hand is covering what I already think is a prosthetic.

I also need to note the sound design definitely insists this is the real thing, even in cases where I was sure it was 'faking'.

Updated On: 3/9/14 at 05:06 PM

[ClydeBarrow]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 6:25pm

I just watched Vol 1 and think I'll reserve judgement until after watching Vol 2. I'll probably check it out tomorrow. Kind of how I hate when people have such strong opinions about plays at intermission this feels like the same type of thing.

For now I will make a few comments on the acting. I'll say that I don't get LVT's obsession with Charlotte Gainsbourg. I've never thought she has been very good in anything I've seen her in and this is no exception. This movie has probably benefitted by the fact that the younger version(s) of herself are mostly shown. I thought Uma was overacting A LOT. Maybe it's the nature of that character but she was at 1,000 the whole time on screen and never had a moment to breathe and act like a real human. Christian Slater and Shia's accents were both hysterically funny. Stellan Skarsgård was pretty good although he was kind of like his fumbling professor Erik Selvig from Thor.

One thing I did notice about Shia's sex scenes was that he definitely wasn't the person shown about to go down on Joe. That guy had a totally different haircut. The other times I couldn't tell. Seems weird that he wouldn't be naked in this but he would be in the Sigur Rós video. I just want to see Jamie Bell in Vol 2 and here's hoping he's naked.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 3/9/14 at 11:37pm

I actually think Vol. I can work as a standalone.

I am the opposite on that Thurman scene. You're seeing a woman undone by unseen history but palpable betrayal. Yes, you have to jump cut her going through the motions of which, sorry, is what we are pretty much being insisted to be on her side as Mr. H is a total ass to Joe. I thought the choices made there by LVT in terms of writing, directing, and editing were fine. It's clear Mrs. H was at that place much longer than her screen-time.

I cannot really say Charlotte had that much substantial aside from narrator which I thought she was fine. She gave me the biggest laugh of the film the way she delivered the monologues about penises and Mars.

She's one of the rare female actors who continue to work with LVT after one film, so I have to say that is why he casts her*. She can apparently handle it. I also thought she was excellent in Melancholia but it appears I just think more highly of that film than the others.

*- Nicole Kidman supposedly was prepared to play Mrs. H but dropped out due to scheduling conflicts, so that perfectly would've tied together the LVT spectrum of his Brechtian side and his Tarkovsky side.



Updated On: 3/30/14 at 11:37 PM

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/30/14 at 2:51pm

Just saw this today and I pretty much have nothing but unbridled love for it. It was so wickedly funny! Uma Thurman's scene was BRILLIANT, being both hysterical and depressing at the same time.

SPOILER*******************************************

She had my favorite line, when upon her exiting from the apartment she grabbed her son that ran back to his father and said, "We mustn't give your father a guilt trip!" before going back to punch him!!!

END SPOILER*************************************


Chapters 3 and 5 were my favorites, but I enjoyed all of it. I was worried about Chapter 4 at first, but Christian Slater did well (certainly much better than he's been on TV lately) and I was ultimately moved the most during this segment.

I can't wait for Vol II next weekend, but I would have much preferred Lincoln Center to NOT have shown the trailer to Vol II to a group of people about to watch Vol I.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 3/30/14 at 3:05pm

Whizzer, I think if the 'Coming up next in Vol. II' was post-credits for you, then Lincoln Center had no choice. It was tagged with mine on Demand.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/30/14 at 3:25pm

There were some scenes from Vol II in the credits, and the trailer didn't appear to spoil anything major, but I had been purposely keeping myself in the dark about the films so I was a bit disappointed to see it.

Btw, I thought Shia's casting was amazing. He may not have been giving an intentionally bad performance, but I do believe LVT intentionally wanted his performance to be what it was. I especially thought this when Skarsgard questioned Gainsbourg about the coincidences in the Jerome narrative. The phoniness of Shia's performance and accent finally caught up with him and was called about it by one of the characters!

[strummergirl]

Posted: 3/30/14 at 3:52pm

That was one of my favorite parts when Stellan was all, 'REALLY?!?!?!?' about Jerome's re-appearance. There definitely seemed like intention in the character and performance but there is little in LaBeouf's whole history as a performer that suggests to me he is in on it. He wants to be taken seriously and Lars wants his fun. I think everything to do with Jerome is LVT.

There have been good pieces on how Skarsgard's Seligman and Gainsbourg's Joe function as clashing sides of LVT's personality and approach. I definitely can see how that can be interpreted and their interactions while golden definitely are not these naturalistic dialogues on what they are discussing.