Lars Von Trier

A Dane like Hamlet and Kierkegaard, this ultra-pretentious, cartoon-hating, shaky-cam loving, America-despising innovator is someone we can all learn something from.

I still love him dearly despite a lot of critical hatred.

Discuss.

I just watched Antichrist three days ago and I'm still too shaky to discuss what I've just seen...

__________________

It's not just anime he hates. He hates all animation. I won't waste my time explaining his basic psychoses now. HA!

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I get it. Hating animated films resulted into creating Antichrist.
What a life he must have led.

I thought Anti-Christ was an incredible film. And if it was the spawn of any sort of hatred it is hatred towards women. I loved the film, but the message was very obscene. Nevertheless, I feel that it's quite impossible that Von Trier is a misogynist and was trying to make some kind of implied critique. Many of his films (DitD, BtW, Dogville?, Manderlay??) are about the strength and resilience of women with evil male figures; he could almost be considered a misandrist.

Also, I'm very much excited for THIS.

I just finished watching his filmography and am so glad Criterion is taking in Antichrist. I love how the bulk of his work always makes you stare blankly at nothing while the credits roll (well maybe I'm alone there) because he uses the camera in such an intimate way that one could almost describe as penetrating in certain circumstances. Reminds me of films like Ikiru and all those wonderfully depressing, long close-ups.

Also, the people calling Antichrist misogynist miss the point of how the imagination explores self-torture. It's not like Gainsbourg was the only victim

I've heard a lot of hate (not on here, but elsewhere) on Von Trier. Nevertheless, I love all his stuff and interpret all of it very positively.

And when misogyny is that blatant, it quickly turns into implied critique. It is when misogyny is not blatant, when it is embedded somewhere deeper in the story, that a film finds itself supporting it. The more obvious something is, the less it really is whatever it is trying so hard to be. A truly great film can do both, but this is very difficult.

His best films are still his Europe trilogy IMO, although he really broke through all that pure shaky-cam stuff with Anti-Christ, certainly one of the finest films of the decade. I hope his next film is just as varied in style as Anti-Christ. Purely Dogme-shot films get a little tedious for me. I'm a sucker for careful cinematography and Dogme isn't it. Sure it's effective at times. At times, though, let's be clear.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

There's always Dancer In The Dark

... I know the criticisms for this one well. It's manipulative. Von Trier is a sadist. Bjork's beautiful performance deserved more dignity. She was emotionally a wreck afterwards. Von Trier's camerawork is generally sh!tty and ultra-Dogme. He ruins the musical bits with his sh!tty editing.

I generally agree with these.

Nevertheless, I felt horrible and bawled and thought about human suffering and the power of love for several days afterward.

Successful or not? You decide.

As far as I'm concerned, if you were impacted it was successful. Just look at...oh I dunno, cannibal holocaust lol

If anything it's a triumph of emotional manipulation and reveals Von Trier to be probably the most skilled manipulator of emotions that film has ever seen. I read that Bjork kept trying to tell him to "tone it down" on the pathos and tragedy, but I wouldn't listen to her. Again, the sadness of the film is so overblown, so ridiculous, to be point of almost being humorous, that it utterly devastates you. Sometimes I watch films to ELL OH ELL. Sometimes I watch films to be titilated by gore. Sometimes I watch films to be devastated by tragedy.

Film is much, much more about emotions though, so I can't say it's the best film I've ever seen just, because it moved me so much. All the technical criticisms of Von Trier are correct. I'm not too big a fan of shaky-cam in the end.

Yeah I've read about Bjork's job and how it ruined her enough to abandon the profession, but it's not unheard of. Tim Roth had a similar reaction after he did Funny Games. Either way it gives Von Trier an edge as to being brutally honest while maintaining a fluttering sense of non-entertainment escapism. I don't really know who else to compare him to

But to be fair, von Trier's editing and cinematography was generally a test, especially for Dancer in the Dark. He attempted to cut ____ amount of times in one scene, as well as use 100 cameras in that same scene. Now, whether or not it works is another question entirely.

And personally, I like von Trier a lot. I think he's a great director; however, I understand why many would consider him pretentious, but that word is pretty empty, I think.

Sweet info.

Well, basically I take "pretentious" as a compliment these days, seeing its de facto meaning is "stuff that goes over the heads of the general populace".

I can see where films like his two entries in the America: LoO trilogy could be considered pretentious. Why no set? What does this accomplish? I personally think that it's a metaphysically fascinating choice, but have not yet reconciled it with the subject matter. Is he saying that America is kind of an incomplete project? Is it inherently hollow since it rests on a such rickety structure of post-Enlightenment traditions? Is he saying that despite the mythology surrounding it, he, Von Trier, can see through America? This interpretation would fit with his "expose" subject matter with these films.

It's easy in this case to say that Von Trier just had this idea out of the blue and did it "because he could". I don't personally care what he "intended" even if it was nothing. Intending nothing is probably what most people associate with the term "pretentious". Nevertheless, we live in a deconstructionist age so, your point, what's your point, Modernity???

With your points on his trilogy, I believe that was exactly one of the points he was trying to get across. Surely his personal ego became involved with this, which was one of the few downfalls but basically he did it to downsize the american pride most of us have under naivety. Modernity I can't connect with Von Trier because I personally consider him a post-modernist in the sense that he's given up on modernity by mocking it

Sorry, I wasn't trying to connect him with modernity at all but say exactly what you said.

Pretentiousness is a modern conception. It basically doesn't exist post-Derrida, I claim.

I love Von Trier. Antichrist blew me away. Even his lesser films like Manderlay are fascinating.

Only seen five of his films

Antichrist-
Dancer in The Dark
Europa- -
Melancholia-
The Element of Crime- -

__________________

Like you said, the sadness is so overblown that it sort of desensitizes you to the film. The movie focuses so much on the character's tragedies and not really the character herself and I never felt a compassion for her beyond feeling sympathy for her situation, for these reasons I was never personally devastated or emotionally impacted that much by it, and I really have no desire to watch it again, not because it's sad but because it is so one-dimensional.

__________________
Let's talk some jive.

I love Dancer In The Dark and would watch it a zillion times.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!