Lars Von Trier

[B-side]

Rate and discuss what you've seen from the man.

Dancer In The Dark- 9+
Breaking The Waves- 9+
Dogville- 8+
Element Of Crime- 8+

The Element Of Crime is among the top 5 most technically impressive films I've ever seen. The cinematography, the mise-en-scene, the camerawork, etc. -- all absolutely top notch. It has such an excellent atmosphere.

Dogville has potential to go up on a 2nd viewing, but as it stands, it's damn fine stuff.

Dancer In The Dark and Breaking The Waves are just fantastic films. Immensely powerful and fully engaging.

I also saw a documentary on him titled Tranceformer. It was a really great insight into his mindset, his ideas and his work up to and including Breaking The Waves.

[soitgoes...]

Enter Spinal...

[Winston*]

He's a misogynist and a shallow instigator who's never even been to America IMO.

[Boner M]

He's a misogynist and a shallow instigator who's never even been to America IMO.
Plus he physically and mentally harms his actors, in the name of 'art'. Charlatan!

[Ezee E]

All I want is Washington, but I don't think we ever will.

[Amnesiac]

All I've seen is The Idiots.

I liked it. It was heart-breaking, thought-provoking, interesting, and really unique.

[Pop Trash]

He's made some great stuff, but I've lost interest in him lately. Dogville kind of sucks. I think the older I get, the more I see through his schtick and find his films manipulative. I prefer Lukas Moodysson at this point.

[Boner M]

He's made some great stuff, but I've lost interest in him lately. Dogville kind of sucks. I think the older I get, the more I see through his schtick and find his films manipulative. I prefer Lukas Moodysson at this point.
Lilya-4 Ever is the only Moodysson film that's comparable to von Trier, and that film's as schtick-ish and see-through as they come.

[trotchky]

Dancer in the Dark - 9.5
Dogville - 10

[Qrazy]

Dancer In The Dark- C+
Breaking The Waves- C+
Dogville- C
Element Of Crime- B

Formal skill buoys the other elements which I dislike.

[Pop Trash]

Lilya-4 Ever is the only Moodysson film that's comparable to von Trier, and that film's as schtick-ish and see-through as they come.
Um at least it didn't have an argument against the death penalty by way of a blind woman trying to save enough money so her nice son can have an operation so he doesn't go blind too. Oh and then she kinda sorta accidentaly kills some guy (cuz she's blind! and confused!) so she must die because this is America and that's how we roll. Oh please Lars :rolleyes:

[Qrazy]

Um at least it didn't have an argument against the death penalty by way of a blind woman trying to save enough money so her nice son can have an operation so he doesn't go blind too. Oh and the she kinda sorta accidentaly kills some guy (cuz she's blind! and confused!) so she must die because this is America and that's how we roll. Oh please Lars :rolleyes:

I don't even care about the America issues but the scene where she kills the guy derailed the movie for me. It was all downhill after that. I found the suicidal character to be an incredibly blatant and forced catalyst for what followed. Taken out of the scene by the absurdity of it's conception Bjork's valiant attempts to instill the moment with genuine emotion just became silly. My favorite part of the film is actually the opening pure color montage and I don't even mean that as a slight. I found it fairly impressive.

[trotchky]

Von Trier's allegories are admittedly idiotic on a literal level, but his films are ultimately about mood which is why his point is always more subtle and haunting than just the clear-cut politics Pop Trash described.

[Qrazy]

Von Trier's allegories are admittedly idiotic on a literal level, but his films are ultimately about mood which is why his point is always more subtle and haunting than just the clear-cut politics Pop Trash described.

They're not only idiotic on a literal level, they're idiotic on an allegorical level. Their mood/tone and formal execution is the only thing that saves them for me but I don't see that the tone adds any subtlety to the allegory.

[DavidSeven]

The Kingdom - ***
Breaking the Waves - ***1/2
The Idiots - *
Dancer in the Dark - ***1/2
Dogville - ***1/2
Manderlay - ***

He's not above making a steaming pile (see The Idiots), but his films are exponentially livelier than the typically bland work you see from most of modern Europe.

[Qrazy]

Than the typically bland work you see from most of modern Europe.

What do you have in mind here?

[DavidSeven]

What do you have in mind here?

Just the modern trend of a lot of the films in the area being made up of same basic ingredients: verite aesthetic, episodic narrative, humorless, no style, muted performances, bunch of allegory, subtext galore. The pieces are there for something interesting in story form, but they offer little in the way of cinema (IMHO). It's a broad generalization, and the good films manage to overcome their predictable form. Also, it doesn't apply to the filmmakers who've made the biggest names for themselves (Almodovar and von Trier).

[Boner M]

Just the modern trend of a lot of the films in the area being made up of same basic ingredients: verite aesthetic, episodic narrative, humorless, no style, muted performances, bunch of allegory, subtext galore.
Hmm.... you're gonna have to start naming names here. Besides, I think von Trier superficially fits most of those traits.

[Qrazy]

Just the modern trend of a lot of the films in the area being made up of same basic ingredients: verite aesthetic, episodic narrative, humorless, no style, muted performances, bunch of allegory, subtext galore. The pieces are there for something interesting in story form, but they offer little in the way of cinema (IMHO). It's a broad generalization, and the good films manage to overcome their predictable form. Also, it doesn't apply to the filmmakers who've made the biggest names for themselves (Almodovar and von Trier).

You're going to have to give some examples because as a sweeping generalization of the filmmaking of modern Europe I don't find it to be an all too accurate one. György Pálfi, Jeunet, Kusturica, Wenders, Mikhalkov, Tornatore, Gianni Amelio, Sylvain Chomet, Mathieu Kassovitz, Luc Besson, Tykwer, Tarr, Sokurov, Polanski and others don't fit into that grouping. Well Tarr and Sokurov fit into some of the categories but not all.

So are you primarily referring to like... Ken Loach, the Dardennes, and maybe Mike Leigh?

[Amnesiac]

Speaking of him, has anyone here ever seen anything of Tornatore's besides Cinema Paradiso?

[Boner M]

I think most of the blandness of contemporary European cinema is limited to Germany - stuff like Joyeux Noel, Downfall, Sophie Scholl, The Lives of Others, The Edukators, Goodbye Lenin etc etc. Some of those films I like, but none of them are particularly edifying on the level of form or content, and have either that tiresome nightclub aesthetic that's become so fashionable since Run Lola Run, or no aesthetic at all.

I'm guessing that D7's talking about the Romanian New Wave and the Dardennes, and though I can see where he's coming from (especially given the case of Dardenne fever among US indies today), I personally find that kind of rigorous realism appealing, and what sets it apart from the aforementioned batch of German films.

[DavidSeven]

Hmm.... you're gonna have to start naming names here.

You're going to have to give some examples because as a sweeping generalization of the filmmaking of modern Europe I don't find it to be an all too accurate one. György Pálfi, Jeunet, Kusturica, Wenders, Mikhalkov, Tornatore, Gianni Amelio, Sylvain Chomet, Mathieu Kassovitz, Luc Besson, Tykwer, Tarr, Sokurov, Polanski and others don't fit into that grouping. Well Tarr and Sokurov fit into some of the categories but not all.

So are you primarily referring to like... Ken Loach, the Dardennes, and maybe Mike Leigh?

Wenders and Besson are personal favorites and a couple of the most cinematic filmmakers in the biz, so they don't fit. Jeunet is an obvious outlier. Polanski has too many American sensibilities to be considered in the group as well. Haven't seen the rest.

But yes, the Dardennes' L'Enfant is the most obvious example of what I'm talking about. I loved Ken Loach's Sweet Sixteen, but that's in spite of its predictable form. Other notable examples would be Downfall, Kings and Queens, and The Death of Mr. Lazarescu. Even The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, which tried really hard to toy with form, feels like it belongs in the same category.

Again, I realize it's a broad generality, but the films I mentioned are definitely the ones getting the most recognition from the area, so they're the ones I see. Not saying that they don't deserve merit. They just don't fall into my ideal of great film.

[DavidSeven]

Besides, I think von Trier superficially fits most of those traits.

I think what separates von Trier from the others is that his films are really performance-centric. And he gets a lot out of his actors. Maybe more than any other notable contemporary filmmaker. Of course, he has as many thematic concerns as anyone, but his actors take us there. It's a more fulfilling journey, I think, than other contemporary Europeon filmmakers whose films are theme-centric and everything else is just kind of background.

Also, while his aesthetic might be superficially similar to others, I think he gives more care to this area than he lets on. I think Dancer in the Dark is a well-shot film even if it's "ugly" in a sense. The camerawork in Dogville is certainly far removed from the verite style. Plus, he uses better music.

[Qrazy]

Speaking of him, has anyone here ever seen anything of Tornatore's besides Cinema Paradiso?

Yes, I've also seen The Legend of 1900, A Pure Formality and Malena. The Legend of 1900 looks quite good and has it's moments but overall the story and drama are a bit slight. Malena looks even better but has the same problems. A Pure Formality is actually a very interesting little close quarters thriller. At times however it's symbolism becomes ridiculously overt. I thought they were all at least worth a viewing though. I think I'll check out The Unknown Woman and The Professor next.

[Qrazy]

Wenders and Besson are personal favorites and a couple of the most cinematic filmmakers in the biz, so they don't fit. Jeunet is an obvious outlier. Polanski has too many American sensibilities to be considered in the group as well. Haven't seen the rest.

But yes, the Dardennes' L'Enfant is the most obvious example of what I'm talking about. I loved Ken Loach's Sweet Sixteen, but that's in spite of its predictable form. Other notable examples would be Downfall, Kings and Queens, and The Death of Mr. Lazarescu. Even The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, which tried really hard to toy with form, feels like it belongs in the same category.

Again, I realize it's a broad generality, but the films I mentioned are definitely the ones getting the most recognition from the area, so they're the ones I see. Not saying that they don't deserve merit. They just don't fall into my ideal of great film.

Ah k, I see what you mean now I think (only seen the first and last of those four). Well if you're looking for something a bit more energetic and with a sense of humor I suggest diving into Kusturica. His contemporary output is not as great as his earlier work but it's usually still worth a look. Underground and Time of the Gypsies are essential, Black Cat, White Cat and Do You Remember Dolly Bell? are very good, When Far was Away on Business and Life is a Miracle are also good. Arizona Dream is fine also but not really indicative of his European work.

[Qrazy]

I think most of the blandness of contemporary European cinema is limited to Germany - stuff like Joyeux Noel, Downfall, Sophie Scholl, The Lives of Others, The Edukators, Goodbye Lenin etc etc. Some of those films I like, but none of them are particularly edifying on the level of form or content, and have either that tiresome nightclub aesthetic that's become so fashionable since Run Lola Run, or no aesthetic at all.


Yeah I've sort of avoided most of those films because I found the few I'd seen (Downfall and Goodbye Lenin) to be somewhat effective on a few levels, but relatively bland and uninspired cinematically.

[eternity]

Manderlay- 1
Dogville- 1

Dancer in the Dark- 7

[Amnesiac]

More curiosity:

What in particular is bland and uncinematic about The Lives of Others?

I've been seeing a lot of criticism of this film over the last little while it's left me a little perplexed. Especially since I remember it was showered with a lot of praise when it first cropped up, barely remember any negative feedback (maybe I wasn't checking the right forums, back then). I myself remember thinking it was quite the astounding film when I first watched it during its initial theatrical run.

[Boner M]

Other notable examples would be ...Kings and Queens...
Wha? I think it's somewhat uneven, but it couldn't be further from the kind of filmmaking you're identifying. It's a glorious mess of emotions, and it's hard to ignore Desplechin's sheer scope and ambition (his prior Esther Kahn is probably even more unwieldy). Now I think you're just naming European films that you don't like.


What in particular is bland and uncinematic about The Lives of Others?
*shrug* It just felt like good TV storytelling. I was engrossed by it, but ultimately it didn't leave much of an impression afterwards and I find myself sympathising with the positions of its detractors.

[DavidSeven]

Wha? I think it's somewhat uneven, but it couldn't be further from the kind of filmmaking you're identifying. It's a glorious mess of emotions, and it's hard to ignore Desplechin's sheer scope and ambition (his prior Esther Kahn is probably even more unwieldy). Now I think you're just naming European films that you don't like.

Well, it's been a few years since I saw it, so my memory of it could be fuzzy. But I liked Mr. Lazarescu, so you're theory can't be right.

:P

[Kurious Jorge v3.1]

"Nocturne" - 4
The Element of Crime - 7
Dancer in the Dark - 8.5
Dogville - 8
To Each His Cinema segment - 10

[B-side]

I had no idea this place was so... indifferent, or even hostile, towards Trier.:crazy:

[transmogrifier]

Not a director I have too much time for, mainly because his fervent desire to provoke comes at the expense of any cinematic quality to his movies. I find them ugly to look at, and the stories trite; he needs to hire a better screenwriter and learn to tell a story visually, and perhaps then his admittedly interesting ideas would be worth more.

[B-side]

Not a director I have too much time for, mainly because his fervent desire to provoke comes at the expense of any cinematic quality to his movies. I find them ugly to look at, and the stories trite; he needs to hire a better screenwriter and learn to tell a story visually, and perhaps then his admittedly interesting ideas would be worth more.

Have you seen any of his earlier work, or even Dogville?

[Morris Schæffer]

Breaking the Waves [**] was banal and too far removed from what I'd categorize as a powerful love story. I thought it was rather ugly at times, unpleasant.

Dogville, which I tried to watch, was distracting in the extreme with those awful chalk lines and bare sets. I understand why he did it, but could the point really not have been gotten across any other way?