Melancholia (2011)

Title: Melancholia (2011)

Director: Lars Von Trier

Cast: Kirsten Dunst, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Kiefer Sutherland, John Hurt, Alexander Skarsgard, Stellan Skarsgard, Udo Kier

Review:

Director Lars Von Trier’s films always have this acid, depressive, sad outlook on life. Ever seen Antichrist (2009)? If you haven’t seen it yet, let me tell you, it’s an overdose of sadness and despair. I mean look at Von Trier’s latest film: Melancholia; the title says it all actually. The word melancholia refers to a form of abnormal sadness, sadness so deep that it can become a form of insanity. And Melancholia is just that; two hours of pure unadulterated sadness, and that’s fine by me because when you really stop to think about it, how sad is life on this planet? How truly sad are the conditions under which our society lives in? I mean, yes, many things can cause us happiness, many moments can bring us joy, but when we look at the big picture, when we look at how the world is being run, it is a sad, depressive state of affairs.

In Melancholia we meet two sisters: Justine and Claire. Justine has just gotten married and she is on her way to her wedding reception. On the surface, she seems happy, the way every bride should be. At first it seems that nothing can destroy the happiness between the happy couple. But as the evening progresses, it becomes quite evident that Justine isn’t happy at all, in fact she is the opposite, depressed beyond belief. Will she be able to go through with this night? With the responsibilities expected of her after marriage? What is really bringing Justine down so much? Claire, Justine’s older sister is trying to keep Justine’s emotions under control, but it seems nothing can control Justine’s gloom and doom. At the same time, a giant planet called Melancholia is headed straight towards us, and apparently will completely obliterate Planet Earth. Will Melancholia destroy us, or will it pass us by?

So yeah, I was blown away by this movie, yeah its constant sadness can be a bit overwhelming at times, but I have to admit there’s a meaning behind the sadness, a reason for it. And when we analyze the root of the sadness, it is completely merited. Let’s see, greed is swallowing humanity whole, children die of hunger every day. There is such a thing as child slavery in our modern world. Most of us think we aren’t slaves, that slavery is something of the past, but is it? The masses are being lied to, and really, when we get down to it, how much of what we hold to be true, really isn’t? How many people live under the assumption that everything they’ve been taught is true, when in fact it isn’t? How unfair and selfish are governments? How selfish are the rich and powerful? How much more could humanity be doing to improve life on this planet so that everyone can be happy? Why must one class rule over the other? Why can’t we all just live happily in this world? Why do we give such importance to trivial things that don’t really matter? How sad is it that we are being programmed to consume by the media? How much of what we see and read on the news is a lie? I mean…so many things can make it sad to live on this planet. The ideas that this film transmits are very true, in general, things on this planet can make anyone extremely sad. Melancholia really explores the idea that when we “wake up”, that when we get to know how this world is really being run, when we truly open our eyes and see how things really are, the truth of it all can make you bitter and sad.

This film sends a big “fuck you” to all the bullshit; and excuse my French, but this is exactly what the film does. This is exactly what Von Trier is saying. The film does this by using marriage as a starting point to analyze humanity and the things we choose to give importance to. In the film, during Justine’s wedding reception, when everyone has to say something nice to the Bride and Groom, Justine’s mother stands up and says “I don’t believe in marriage, so enjoy it while it lasts, which won’t be long”, which is a brutally honest comment on marriage. Why do you need to sign a piece of paper to be in love with someone? Do you really need to go through this whole legal process to bind your life to another especially when it’s supposed to be “forever”? I’ve always thought marriage can be a huge farce because most of the time, five years later, people can’t stand each other. I've always thought that life is so mutable, so ever changing that committing to something "forever" is really saying a lie. Most of the time what happens is that couples get bored with each other. So then they have kids and complicate the inevitable break up that will come anyways. I’ve recorded a couple of weddings (something I do on the side) and every time they get to the part where they promise themselves forever, I think “yeah right”. I mean, yeah it’s a beautiful thought to be able to live through life with the same person forever, and kudos to those who achieve it and are truly happy, but it’s almost a fairy tale like idea, and fairytales are far from reality. The reality is that most couples will end up getting divorced in less than five years. And what about all the rituals you go through during the actual marriage? At one point, Justine’s mother gets away from the reception and when someone tries to find her she tells them to “fuck off with your stupid traditions!” What the film is trying to say is that it’s all insignificant and pointless when we take in consideration the issues that should really matter in life; the bigger issues that we should all be aiming to improve on collectively, instead of worrying about old traditions and trivial things that really don’t matter in the end.

The question the film asks is, would it matter if humanity was suddenly obliterated from existence? Doesn’t humanities evil warrant its destruction? I’m a realist when it comes to things of this nature. I know how evil man can be. I know how evil man is being right now as I type this, but I choose to be hopeful. I choose to be of the ones who holds on to the idea that humanity will one day get past all these age old hang ups and mature. That one day, after all these lessons we’ve learned through the ages, that we will all want the best for all of us. That greed will one day dissipate, that we will find a way for all of us to be happy on this huge spaceship called earth. Wishful thinking? I hope not, because if these ideas are all just wishful thinking, if humanity will stay stuck in a never ending circle of evil, then I will have to be just as sad and melancholic as Kirsten Dunst’s character on this film. Her sadness reaches such lengths that she cant even move her legs to walk, it is so powerful that even her favorite food tastes bad. Her sadness totally engulfs her; melancholic is the perfect way to describe her. Justine, her sister, is the opposite. She tries to see everything in a positive way. She tries to help her sister, aiding her through her despair. I thought it was interesting how both sisters represented different ways of seeing the world. Justine sees things for what they are, and Claire represents the more idealistic way of looking at things, which isn’t always the most realistic way of seeing things.

The cast is a superb one; I was amazed at how much talent was up there on the screen. Kirsten Dunst looks absolutely stunning on this film. I think most guys out there will agree after seeing this film that Kirsten Dunst has one of the most amazing bodies in Hollywood, a true beauty. Her performance bares all, it is a very vulnerable and sincere performance, I loved it. Deep down inside she hates humanity and everything it has come to represent. She feels a greater connection with the universe, which she loves to gaze at, and nature. At one point she simply chooses to sit naked in the middle of the forest and look at the stars. The symbolisms being that she wants to disconnect from everything and just be totally free. Charlote Gainsbourg, who can now be considered a Von Trier regular (she also starred in Von Trier’s Antichrist) plays the idealist, the polar opposite of Justine. In many ways, she’s the kind of person who wants to turn a blind eye to the way things really are and chooses to see things in an idealistic, albeit unrealistic way. Though the are sisters and care for each other, they are really very different people. Kiefer Sutherland also plays the idealist. I was glad to see him in a film that is actually good; and not in crap like Mirrors (2008). John Hurt plays Justine’s father, a playful and happy man who laughs at life and enjoys not taking things too seriously, which I felt a connection with. Udo Kier made me laugh as the wedding planner, a small role, yet Kier is one of the few “funny” things about the film. All in all, an amazing cast.    

      

Some might find this film to be a bit difficult to sit through because of its constant sadness, but hey, what can you expect from a film called Melancholia or for that matter,  a film from director Lars Von Trier? True, the film is filled with gloom and doom, but Von Trier balances it all out with gorgeous visuals, beautiful cinematography and settings. I also enjoyed the fact that even though this is a film about “the end of the world” so to speak, it focuses on a more personal story. If this film had been directed by say Michael Bay, it would have been all about meteorites destroying buildings and cars exploding and chaos on the city streets, but on Von Trier’s hands, this film is about a rich family who lives in an isolated mansion, far away from the masses. The last moments of this film are truly gripping, and the film has one of the best endings I’ve ever seen on any movie, truly gripping. You’ll feel that you got front row sits to the end of the world! Kudos to Von Trier, that ending left me gasping. This film would have certainly been on my “Best of 2011” list had I seen it when I wrote the list, but alas, I saw it after. Still, just make believe I put it on there because it truly was one of the best of the year. 

Rating: 5 out of 5

Antichrist (2009)

Title: Antichrist (2009)

Director/Writer: Lars Von Trier

Cast: Willem Defoe, Charlotte Gainsbourg

Review:

Going into a movie like Antichrist there’s one thing you have to know, it’s going to be a shocking, dark and depressing affair. This is probably why it took me a while to finally get around to watching it; I knew this wasn’t the kind of film you can watch at just any moment. You have to be in the right mood to watch a movie like this one, a deliberately dark psychological piece. So I guess I was ready for something dark when I finally got around to it. Antichrist is a film that caused a major uproar when it was first released, reportedly people even fainted during its screening at Cannes. Audiences were immediately polarized by the film as is usually the case with films that are graphic, violent and have strong thematic and psychological elements. Films like this one don’t subscribe to anyone’s rules, they exist on their own universe and you have to adapt to it if you’re going to go for this ride.

Antichrist is the story of He (Willem Defoe) and She (Charlotte Gainsbourg), a couple who are coping with the death of their baby boy. You see, one night, while they were having sex, their baby boy wakes up and decides he wants to walk about the house. He is then hypnotized by the white snow falling outside, so he takes a chair steps up to the open window to look at the snow. When he tries to reach out to the snow, he falls to his death! This of course traumatizes both parents, but because He is a psychologist, He deals with it better then She does. I guess being a psychologist, He knows how to deal with this kind of situation a little better. But She is destroyed, She doesn’t know how to continue with her life and blames herself. Will She ever recuperate? Will going to a cabin in the forest to deal with their inner demons make matters any better?

So this film caused an uproar for various reasons, one of them is its sexually explicit images that border on pornographic. Actually, scratch that, they don’t border on porn, they are porn. Antichrist reminded me of They Call Her One Eye (1974) a revenge flick from the seventies that did the same exact thing. It’s a film with a story, and a plot, but suddenly when characters have sex; it’s not simulated like in most films. When characters have sex in They Call Her One Eye (a.k.a. Thriller: A Cruel Picture) suddenly what you are seeing is a porn film, with as sexually explicit images as those you’d find in a porn flick. But don’t go on thinking that Antichrist is a porn film because it isn’t. It’s a regular film, with an involving story and plot, but when it comes to nudity or sex, it doesn’t hold back at all. Willem Defoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg had no problem in showing their junk on this flick, though in the most sexually explicit scenes, it’s not them you are seeing, but their porn star body doubles. Still, these are very daring performances; these actors really exposed themselves both physically and emotionally.

But aside from the explicit sexual images, the film was also accused of being misogynistic. Meaning it was throwing a lot of hate towards females. I don’t agree so much with this point of view. I mean, this is a woman who lost her son, of course she is going to be depressed and angry and maybe even a little violent. What is the problem with portraying a character like that? When you watch this film you feel as if She is a ball of negativity, every comment, every thought that She says is downright depressing and sad. There is not an ounce of positivity on this female character; she spews hatred and anger with every word she says. I don’t blame her for it, and I think for all intents and purposes it’s an accurate portrayal of a woman filled with guilt over the death of her son. In this way, the film reminded me a whole lot of Fabrice Du Welz’s Vinyan (2008), another film about a couple dealing with the death of their sons. Actually, both of these films are similar in more ways then one, but I’ll let you discover that on your own when you see them.

Roger Ebert gave a very religious interpretation of the film, stating that the death of the son represented “the fall of man” and that He and She are Adam and Eve and what have you, but I don’t think this was Von Trier’s purpose with this film. And if you guys know me, if I find religious symbolisms in a film I will point them out if need be, but to me this is not really a religious film even though it’s called Antichrist. To me Antichrist was really just a catchy title looking to grab people’s attention; trying to create some ‘controversy’ which is always a good thing for any film. The forest where He and She run off to is called Eden, but it is not a paradise, in fact, its pure hell for both characters. Both characters can be seen as Adam and Eve in the sense that they are stripping their souls bare naked, same as Adam and Even walked naked in the biblical Garden of Eden. Defoe is seen as ‘Satan’ by She, but only because she blames him and herself for the death of the baby. So the film does use a couple of biblical references here and there, but I doubt Von Trier was trying to give us his interpretation of the bible or something. This was a film about death, and accepting it as part of life. There this scene in the film in which a bird falls from a nest to the ground, as soon as it hits the ground, we see it was already dead, and ants begin to eat its rotting carcass. She looks at this and begins to cry, the scene was a slap in the face towards She, a wake up call of sorts letting her know that death is a part of life and that sometimes nature is cruel and doesn’t play nice all the time. That’s a cold hard fact. You can be walking fine and dandy down the street one day, three seconds later, a bus passes by and kills ya. Who could have known? Nobody, that’s who. But that’s life, and randomness and chaos goes hand in hand with it.  

Speaking of nature, in this film, nature takes a dark, cruel tone. The forest seems evil just by the way it was lit, or by how the shadows and natural light play on the trees. Animals aren’t cute little things like in a Disney film, they seem evil, imperfect. Nature in this film isn’t pretty, its dark and violent; not to be trusted. Von Trier mentions that we might hang a painting of a forest in our living room as if its something beautiful and sweet, yet at the same time it represents hell, with all sorts of different species trying to kill each other in order to survive, to Von Trier, the world is reigned by chaos and randomness. Same as the world we live in. In the film, the forest is also representative of the hell that He and She are living through. And finally, Im gonna comment a bit about the films violence, which is also pretty graphic. During its last half hour, Antichrist gets really intense and suddenly becomes the true definition of ‘torture porn’. Swear to god its even more torture porn then stuff you’d see in any modern horror movies! I wasn’t expecting that from an artful picture like this one! But the violence in Antichrist is pretty shocking in deed, I’d never seen anything like that on any film before. Kudos to Von Trier for conjuring up some truly disturbing images! And for directing a film that captures characters in dark emotion turmoil, not all films have to be about cute little animals singing and talking. There is a dark side to human nature and it needs to be represented in art as well, without a necessity to justify where the film goes. This is art, and art imitates life, can’t blame an artist like Von Trier for doing just that.

Rating: 5 out of 5

 

A serious film, from a very serious director