Melancholia (Lars von Trier)

[Lasse]

It's early, but you know you want the thread already. It starts shooting in 2010.

Zentropa (http://www.zentropa.dk/index.php?pageid=222&newsid=51)
Slashfilm (http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/10/09/next-from-lars-von-trier-planet-melancholia-a-psychological-sci-fi-disaster-film/)


According to Variety, the director’s next film is Melancholia, a psychological drama and disaster movie. Title refers to Planet Melancholia, an enormous planet illustrated on the press release that looms threateningly close to Earth. "No more happy endings!" commented Lars von Trier, who will direct from his own screenplay.

Further plot details are being kept under wraps, but producer Pater Aalbake Jensen had this to say about the film: "As a disaster movie, Melancholia will use some special effects, but nothing compared to Hollywood."

I guess that’s probably because Roland Emmerich’s 2012 already used them all.
Dreadcentral (http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/33943/lars-von-trier-has-melancholia)

"No more happy endings"

http://zentropa.dk/files/images/Zenpress/PlanetMelancholiaCloseToEarth. jpg

[Watashi]

Lars von Trier is no Roland Emmerich.

[Lasse]

Lars von Trier is no Roland Emmerich.

True. Rather than merely mimicking Emmerich, he should do this film Dogville style.

[murphandslurph]

Do any von Trier movies have happy endings?

[Lasse]

Budgeted at around E5 million ($7 million), English-lingo film is set for a European 2010 shoot. Casting of international cast is currently under way.

Variety (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118009754.html?categoryid=1 3&cs=1)

[ledfloyd]

after antichrist i'm not very excited for this.

[number8]

Do any von Trier movies have happy endings?

I think he was referring to other disaster movies. Which means the movie will probably end with humanity wiped out.

[Mysterious Dude]

Some people take the apocalypse too seriously.

[Raiders]

The name of the planet is Melancholia? Ugh.

[Lasse]

Penélope Cruz is in.

I'm trying to find an English web site to quote, but it seems like it's only official in Denmark.

[megladon8]

I wonder if the movie will get at all into how this is absolutely fucking impossible.

[megladon8]

Do you think there's any Unobtanium on the planet Melancholia?

[Spaceman Spiff]

Spinal will give this 4 stars.

[Spinal]

Spinal will give this 4 stars.

It will likely deserve it.

[megladon8]

What we know of the plot actually manages to be slightly more ridiculous than anything Emmerich has released.

[Spaceman Spiff]

It will likely deserve it.

It does sound awesome in fairness.

[Winston*]

What we know of the plot actually manages to be lightly more ridiculous than anything Emmerich has released.

Lars Von Trier films don't really tend to be that concerned with realism.

[megladon8]

Lars Von Trier films don't really tend to be that concerned with realism.


Neither do Emmerich's. They're still ridiculous, though.

To be fair, I haven't seen much Trier at all. And I'm just being a party pooper.

I just do find that image and (what we know of) the plot to be totally retarded.

[Spinal]

Neither do Emmerich's. They're still ridiculous, though.

To be fair, I haven't seen much Trier at all. And I'm just being a party pooper.

I just do find that image and (what we know of) the plot to be totally retarded.

Missing the metaphor, man.

[megladon8]

Missing the metaphor, man.


Really? I find it hard to miss when the planet is called Melancholia.

I wonder if there's a race of Sadnessarians coming to cover the planet in permanent grey clouds. They feast on the happiness of children and turn it into a thick grey motor oil which they use to power their Triangle of Sullenium.

[Derek]

Really? I find it hard to miss when the planet is called Melancholia.

I wonder if there's a race of Sadnessarians coming to cover the planet in permanent grey clouds. They feast on the happiness of children and turn it into a thick grey motor oil which they use to power their Triangle of Sullenium.

Not everything can be as subtle with their metaphors as superhero films. ;)

[EvilShoe]

Von Trier doesn't even know buildings have walls. Pssh.

[Lasse]

I just hope Penélope Cruz is as naked in this as Charlotte Gainsbourg was in Antichrist. :P

[number8]

I just hope Penélope Cruz is as naked in this as Charlotte Gainsbourg was in Antichrist. :P

I was excited when I knew Natalie Portman was naked in Goya's Ghost. Then I watched it and was like :sad:.

Context is important.

[Ezee E]

I was excited when I knew Natalie Portman was naked in Goya's Ghost. Then I watched it and was like :sad:.

Context is important.
But Penelope Cruz is much hotter than Natalie Portman.

Of course, there's already a handful of movies I could already see her naked in.

[baby doll]

His USA trilogy is still missing an A. Where's my A, you bastard?

[megladon8]

Not everything can be as subtle with their metaphors as superhero films. ;)


ZING!

You've been poisoned, Derek. Weaponized hallucinogens.

[Spinal]

I was excited when I knew Natalie Portman was naked in Goya's Ghost. Then I watched it and was like :sad:.

Context is important.

Yeah, Spanish Inquistion really kills the mood.

[megladon8]

Spinal what the hell is your avatar from?

[Spinal]

Spinal what the hell is your avatar from?

Yes - "Owner of a Lonely Heart"

[megladon8]

Yes - "Owner of a Lonely Heart"


Ah. Despite being a huge Yes fan I've never seen that video. In fact I don't think I've seen any Yes videos. I'm not much of a music video person.

[Adam]

Kirsten Dunst to replace Penelope Cruz (http://www.deadline.com/2010/04/lars-von-trier-taps-dunst-for-melancholia/)

also signed on - Charlotte Gainsbourg, Kiefer Sutherland, Charlotte Rampling, Alexander Skarsgard, Stellan Skarsgard & Udo Kier

[number8]

Kiefer in a Von Trier movie.

[number8]

Wait, Alexander Skaarsgard? MY Alexander Skaarsgard? In a movie with Kiefer Sutherland?

Oh. Oh my.

[angrycinephile]

Kirsten Dunst to replace Penelope Cruz (http://www.deadline.com/2010/04/lars-von-trier-taps-dunst-for-melancholia/)

also signed on - Charlotte Gainsbourg, Kiefer Sutherland, Charlotte Rampling, Alexander Skarsgard, Stellan Skarsgard & Udo Kier

This is awesome.

Maybe not so much Dunst replacing Cruz but the supporting cast is excellent.

[Spinal]

"Lars von Trier taps Dunst ..."

Not sure that was necessary, but far be it from me to question his directorial process.

[transmogrifier]

Cruz to Dunst is a step down of cliff-like proportions. Unless it is ESOTSM-esque Dunst, then I will live.

[Spinal]

Cruz to Dunst is a step down of cliff-like proportions. Unless it is ESOTSM-esque Dunst, then I will live.

It's definitely a step down, but in Trier's hands, Dunst will likely give the performance of her life.

[Ezee E]

Dunst is more than capable of pulling off a great performance.

Meanwhile, Cruz dropped this for the millions that I'm sure she'll get in the Pirates sequel. Can't say I wouldn't blame her.

[Grouchy]

It's definitely a step down, but in Trier's hands, Dunst will likely give the performance of her life.
Well, either that or she'll quit acting.

[Spinal]

The more I think about this, the more I think it might be a good thing. Cruz is definitely the superior actress, but she is an Oscar winner with little to prove. Dunst might prove more malleable to Trier's influence and ultimately serve the overall film better.

[Adam]

Like a chubby girl with low self-esteem who's eager to please

[baby doll]

I've yet to see Penelope Cruz give a really impressive performance.

[hey it's ethan]

I've yet to see Penelope Cruz give a really impressive performance.
Looks like someone's got to Netflix Woman on Top!

[KK2.0]

His USA trilogy is still missing an A. Where's my A, you bastard?

I wish this one was the "A" movie, acting for special fx movies already involve performing at empty green studios, make it white and you have something just right for his trilogy.

[KK2.0]

I've yet to see Penelope Cruz give a really impressive performance.

I like her on 'Vicky, Cristina, Barcelona' and 'Volver'.

[KK2.0]

Well, either that or she'll quit acting.

maybe both

ok, i´m done flooding for today :P

[Boner M]

The more I think about this, the more I think it might be a good thing. Cruz is definitely the superior actress, but we've already seen her boobs numerous times. Dunst might prove more willing to be Trier's bitch and ultimately make the movie more entertaining.
[/translated]

[baby doll]

I like her on 'Vicky, Cristina, Barcelona' and 'Volver'.I wasn't crazy about either, myself. In the Allen film, she and Bardem are essentially playing national stereotypes (i.e., spicy Spanish lovers), and with far less verve than they did in Jamón, jamón. As for the Almodóvar, I'm apparently the only person on earth who found the whole thing, Cruz included, terribly bland.

[Spinal]

dYrI7EJXuEQ

Not all of it is in English, but you do get to hear Kirsten Dunst and Kiefer Sutherland talk a bit.

[Lasse]

Not all of it is in English

Nothing interesting is said in Danish, except that they shoot in Trollhättan, Sweden and that the producers hope to have it ready by Cannes Festival 2011.

[angrycinephile]

In ‘Melancholia’ I start with the end. Because what is interesting is not what happens but how it happens! So we begin by seeing the world being crushed, then we can tell the story afterwards… In this way you don’t have to sit and form theories about what will happen, but can delve down into some other levels and become interested in the pictures and the universe – that’s what I imagine.

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/10/15/lars-von-trier-says-melancholia-opens-with-earths-destruction/

[Lasse]

http://www.indiemoviesonline.com/news/a-beginners-guide-to-danish-cinema-part-one-012611


Meanwhile, von Trier is working on Melancholia, in which the Earth is destroyed by another planet crashing into it (a similar premise to classic '50s sci-fi When Worlds Collide, which was directed by Rudolph Maté, previously cameraman on The Passion of Joan of Arc and Vampyr). The apocalyptic element is apparently merely means to exploring the stories of the various characters, in the main sisters Justine (Kirsten Dunst, stepping in for Penelope Cruz when she bailed to do Pirates 4) and Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg).

Reports suggest that there is a personality divide between the pair, with Claire displaying a far sunnier outlook than her gloomy sibling. But although Justine's sadness is not leavened by her marriage to Michael (True Blood star Alexander Skarsgard), it is she who is more able to accept the imminent destruction of both Earth and the human race. According to von Trier, there are shots in the movie of her “just standing there looking at the planet that comes closer and closer and accepts it. The other woman, on the other hand, becomes increasingly panicky.”

Melancholia is widely tipped to premiere at the Cannes Film Festival in May.

[Boner M]

TRAILER (http://www.melancholiathemovie.com/)

Looks good. But so did Antichrist.

[Spinal]

But so did Antichrist.

And it was! :)

[number8]

I love everything in this movie already.

[B-side]

It looks... oddly alluring.

[Lazlo]

Yes please.

[DavidSeven]

That was pretty cool.

[Lasse]

Wow, it looks beautiful.

[megladon8]

Looks interesting to say the least.

Getting echoes of Solaris.

[D_Davis]

Looks like the kind of heady SF I love.

[megladon8]

Looks like the kind of heady SF I love.



Yes, we all know how much you love Dick.

[Rowland]

I think it looks kinda silly, truth be told, and I adored Antichrist. I still have high hopes of course.

[Ezee E]

I think it looks kinda silly, truth be told, and I adored Antichrist. I still have high hopes of course.
Yeah, I'll be a dissenter too in that I think it looks pretty silly. I liked Antichrist, but I also liked that trailer. We'll see... I generally favor most of his works.

[Ezee E]

Cruz would've been far better then Dunst too... And I like Dunst.

[Raiders]

Looks awful.

[Watashi]

It's like someone watched Rachel Getting Married and said, "you know what would have made this movie better? The Apocalypse."

[DavidSeven]

It's like someone watched Rachel Getting Married and said, "you know what would have made this movie better? The Apocalypse."

And if that someone was Lars von Trier, I'd be all like "holy shit, this is going to be awesome even if it's terrible."

[eternity]

It's like someone watched Rachel Getting Married and said, "you know what would have made this movie better? The Apocalypse."
I wasn't too enthused by the trailer, but *now*...

[Spinal]

Stellan Skarsgard talks about working on Melancholia. (http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/10437/1/cannes-2011-melancholia--stellan-skarsgård-)

[ThePlashyBubbler]

For those in the LA area: Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, but for some odd(ly awesome) reason, Laemmle's Fallbrook 7 is getting Melancholia this upcoming weekend. No showtimes yet, but SWEET.

[ThePlashyBubbler]

Looks like one week only, 22nd-28th, one showtime per day, at 1:10 p.m.

Good thing I'm unemployed. :cool:

[number8]

Shit. I wish it started tomorrow. I'll be in LA. :sad:

[B-side]

I hate every single individual who is going to see that movie before me.

[Spinal]

I hate every single individual who is going to see that movie before me.

I hate them and their ass faces.

[transmogrifier]

Well, I see it in a week and a half, and I probably won't like it (given my relationship with Von Trier so far - but I live in hope because he has the tools to make a great film one day, once he gets over his desire to simply get a reaction and column inches)

Please don't hurt me.

[Bosco B Thug]

So what's the deal with this 3-month early, non-roll-out strategy, one-theater engagement? What's the deal, it's so strange! Or is it strange?

[Boner M]

he has the tools to make a great film one day, once he gets over his desire to simply get a reaction and column inches
Pretty sure his Cannes press conference stunt was compensation for the lack of press-baiting in the accompanying film.

[Spinal]

Pretty sure his Cannes press conference stunt was compensation for the lack of press-baiting in the accompanying film.

Pretty sure it was not premeditated.

[Boner M]

Pretty sure it was not premeditated.
Pretty sure he has a tourettes-like stunt reflex.

[dmk]

I hate every single individual who is going to see that movie before me.
I had tickets for a Melancholia screening in 48 hours, but I'm giving them away because I'd rather see conceptual Armenian montage instead.

That sounds like something Brightside would do, actually. And I'm not kidding, I will do that.

[B-side]

I had tickets for a Melancholia screening in 48 hours, but I'm giving them away because I'd rather see conceptual Armenian montage instead.

That sounds like something Brightside would do, actually. And I'm not kidding, I will do that.

:D

[right_for_the_moment]

So what's the deal with this 3-month early, non-roll-out strategy, one-theater engagement? What's the deal, it's so strange! Or is it strange?

It's an Academy Award qualifying run, which is necessary now because it's getting a VOD release before its "real" theatrical release in November and to be eligible for the Oscars, a film needs one week plus in theatres in LA/NYC before it's distributed via other avenues.

[Kurosawa Fan]

It's an Academy Award qualifying run, which is necessary now because it's getting a VOD release before its "real" theatrical release in November and to be eligible for the Oscars, a film needs one week plus in theatres in LA/NYC before it's distributed via other avenues.

When does the VOD release begin?

[Derek]

Looks like one week only, 22nd-28th, one showtime per day, at 1:10 p.m.

Good thing I'm unemployed. :cool:

Looks like I'll be getting less sunshine on Sunday then I planned. Thanks for the heads up!

[ThePlashyBubbler]

Looks like I'll be getting less sunshine on Sunday then I planned. Thanks for the heads up!

No problem - maybe I'll see you there.

[NickGlass]

It's an Academy Award qualifying run, which is necessary now because it's getting a VOD release before its "real" theatrical release in November and to be eligible for the Oscars, a film needs one week plus in theatres in LA/NYC before it's distributed via other avenues.

So why isn't there a NYC one-week theater run? Or is there? I must know.

[Raiders]

So why isn't there a NYC one-week theater run? Or is there? I must know.

Don't think it is coming to any other theaters until November 11. I am unaware of Zentropa's VOD service actually including this film as I thought it was not going to be shown, but maybe I'm wrong. I thought this was just a sneak preview that somehow Laemmle secured.

[Derek]

So why isn't there a NYC one-week theater run? Or is there? I must know.

Because it only has to play in NY or LA to qualify and they chose LA. Yeah, bitches. :)

Given the random location (25 miles northwest of downtown) and the 1:10pm only showtime, it's almost as if they want as few people as possible to see it. I'm not sure if they're trying to avoid any bad word of mouth generating or if they just gave it to the first theater that bit to get the one-week run and be done with it.

[Winston*]

Because it only has to play in NY or LA to qualify and they chose LA. Yeah, bitches. :)

Given the random location (25 miles northwest of downtown) and the 1:10pm only showtime, it's almost as if they want as few people as possible to see it. I'm not sure if they're trying to avoid any bad word of mouth generating or if they just gave it to the first theater that bit to get the one-week run and be done with it.

I would expect they aren't thinking of bad word of mouth if they're also thinking of Oscar contending.

[Derek]

I would expect they aren't thinking of bad word of mouth if they're also thinking of Oscar contending.

I believe I've heard people cursing his films during and/or after every one I've seen in the theater. I'm not saying they expect any bad word of mouth, but given the theater and showtimes they've chosen, it's clear they don't care whether people see it this week or not. You can show it once a night in Hollywood and sell it out for 7 days or have a matinee once a day north of the Valley and have a half-packed house only because weirdos like Plashy and I will make the trek to see it. I just think it's weird is all.

[Spinal]

Kirsten Dunst is probably the only one who has any shot at a nomination anyway.

[Ezee E]

If it's only shown at two locations, I don't think enough people will even see it to get a chance of a nomination anyways.

[DavidSeven]

Well, I'm sure screening it 30 minutes outside of LA is just for the sake of eligibility. They're probably counting on screeners and the November VOD release to get seen before the nomination period.

[Bosco B Thug]

I hope it gets a wide theatrical release in November. You know, like Tree of Life.


EDIT: Actually, if you read the Variety review, they actually go on about how accessibly it can work.

[ThePlashyBubbler]

Tree of Life : Malick :: Von Trier : Melancholia

Kiefer brings the lulz.

[ThePlashyBubbler]

Also, perhaps in the hope that Dunst's nudity would be a draw for the non-LVT fans wandering around northern LA, the marquee had the film billed as "Meloncholia."

[Kurosawa Fan]

Also, perhaps in the hope that Dunst's nudity would be a draw for the non-LVT fans wandering around northern LA, the marquee had the film billed as "Meloncholia."

:lol:

Seriously though, she's naked?

[Ezee E]

I've always had a crush on Dunst, but I never imagined she'd look very good naked.

Is there an actress that doesn't get naked in front of Lars Von Trier??

[ThePlashyBubbler]

:lol:

Seriously though, she's naked?

Very naked and very depressed. Both instances are, although only in part, in the trailer.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Is there an actress that doesn't get naked in front of Lars Von Trier??

I believe Bjork managed. That would be the lone case for lead actresses, from what I've seen.

[Spinal]

I believe Bjork managed. That would be the lone case for lead actresses, from what I've seen.

Nicole Kidman. Which is weird, because she's done it elsewhere.

[Ezee E]

Nicole Kidman. Which is weird, because she's done it elsewhere.
She wasn't naked in Dogville? Swore she was, but maybe it's because she seems to be naked in every movie.

[Henry Gale]

I've always had a crush on Dunst, but I never imagined she'd look very good naked.

I'd say both the trailer for this and one particular scene from that Ryan Gosling movie she did last year beg to differ. Y'know, cuz of boobz. Either way I think it's kind of an unexpected shift in attitude from her, since I'm pretty sure for a long time she said she'd only go naked for an Almodovar movie, or something along those lines.

[Derek]

Tree of Life : Malick :: Von Trier : Melancholia

I sort of agree, at least in terms of scope, macro/micro dichotomy, etc.


Kiefer brings the lulz.

Definitely, though John Hurt and especially Udo Kier brought them even more. The first half of this is really hilarious, of course in an emotionally awkward way that only Lars von Trier could capture. Have to get to bed and have a few busy days coming up, but I will definitely have more to add later.

[Derek]

I've always had a crush on Dunst, but I never imagined she'd look very good naked.

I've never found Dunst particularly attractive, but her breasts were a real show-stopper.

[Pop Trash]

She wasn't naked in Dogville? Swore she was, but maybe it's because she seems to be naked in every movie.

Well she was sorta naked when she was...

...getting raped.

[Spinal]

Well she was sorta naked when she was...

...getting raped.


You mostly see Stellan Skarsgård's ass.

[Henry Gale]

You mostly see Stellan Skarsgård's ass.

But what an ass!

[MadMan]

So far, I've only viewed Antichrist from Von Trier, and I thought it was great and very disturbing. Melancholia looks, well, interesting, to say the least. I have no idea if it will be any good, and mostly I find it really weird that Kiefer "Jack Bauer" Sutherland is going to be in a Von Trier film.

Right now I'm still waiting for Netflix to release to me Breaking The Waves.

[Spinal]

But what an ass!

So good that some people mistook it for Kidman's apparently!

[transmogrifier]

Visually stunning opening and closing, framing a rather simple (but effective) analysis of the psyches of two sisters, one trying hard to be outwardly happy but starting to unravel, the other juggling an inherent concern for and a constant disappointment in others, who can't quite fathom the doom that awaits everyone. Von Trier is on his best behaviour here, creating a focused, disciplined effort with many grace notes and an empathy for the characters as they try to wrestle with their internal demons, external relationships and the metaphorical death that awaits us all. I'm not a huge fan of the director, but I was intrigued throughout.

For the record:

Dogville - 73
Melancholia - 71
The Five Obstructions - 68
Dancer in the Dark - 60
Breaking the Waves - 55
Antichrist - 53

I've seen The Idiots as well, and it would probably be between The Five Obstructions and Melancholia, but I can't remember it well enough to rate.

Oh, and as a eloquent comparison between our daily lives and the vastness of cosmos, this kicks The Tree of Life's arse.

[Bosco B Thug]

Melancholia - 71
Antichrist - 53

Oh, and as a eloquent comparison between our daily lives and the vastness of cosmos, this kicks The Tree of Life's arse. I'm hoping I like Melancholia better than Antichrist too.

And I'm honestly hoping for a much more existentially cathartic film with Melancholia than I was with Tree of Life, it's true, but going off premises alone. I'm more itching for some of Trier's abuse than Malick's "Oh we're specks in the timeline isn't it wonderful?!" etceteras.

[elixir]

It's cool that everyone is misreading The Tree of Life. Anyways, Dancer in the Dark kind of put me off von Trier...but I still want to get to Dogville at some point.

[Melville]

It's cool that everyone is misreading The Tree of Life. Anyways, Dancer in the Dark kind of put me off von Trier...but I still want to get to Dogville at some point.
I disliked Dancer in the Dark—thought it was too ridiculous in how it piled on the tragedy—but I liked to loved Dogville, Breaking the Waves, and Antichrist. You should give his other movies a shot. (I'm assuming, from your wording, that you've only seen the one movie of his.)

[Pop Trash]

It's cool that everyone is misreading The Tree of Life. Anyways, Dancer in the Dark kind of put me off von Trier...but I still want to get to Dogville at some point.

Have you seen Breaking the Waves yet? You might dig that. I'm not a big Von Trier fan but I still think that one is pretty great.

[Pop Trash]

I disliked Dancer in the Dark—thought it was too ridiculous in how it piled on the tragedy—but I liked to loved Dogville, Breaking the Waves, and Antichrist. You should give his other movies a shot. (I'm assuming, from your wording, that you've only seen the one movie of his.)

Seriously. Bjork gives a fine performance, but the movie gets into a Monster's Ball/Crash/Babel level of contrived miseries.

[elixir]

Yeah, I've just seen Dancer. Hm...I think I'll watch either Dogville or Breaking this week.

[Bosco B Thug]

It's cool that everyone is misreading The Tree of Life. I was going more for comedic effect rather than any serious consideration of The Tree of Life, which is a modern masterpiece. Sorry transmogrifier.

[Pop Trash]

I was going more for comedic effect rather than any serious consideration of The Tree of Life, which is a modern masterpiece. Sorry transmogrifier.

Are your ratings on a 1-8 scale then?

[Bosco B Thug]

Are your ratings on a 1-8 scale then? I may feel the film has certain shortcomings, but by its nature alone, and that it mostly succeeds at being so artistically ambitious, I think it deserves "modern masterpiece" status.

[transmogrifier]

I'm more itching for some of Trier's abuse....

You're not going to get that with Melancholia. It's quite gentle, really.

[Bosco B Thug]

You're not going to get that with Melancholia. It's quite gentle, really. That actually sounds even better. Can't wait.

[Boner M]

I'm still reeling from the experience, but I think this is my favorite LvT film. Stunning.

[Boner M]

Upon reflection, the film strikes me as being as canny a metaphor for depression as it is for climate change, esp. regarding Sutherland's character who might as well be the ultimate avatar for deniers. Plus the UN conference in Trier's homeland must've occurred close to when the idea originated.

But really, I was floored by this. It definitely lags in places, but the cumulative force is extraordinary; I often find LvT's films live and die by their metaphors and here he's found one that works in every way.


I eagerly await Boner's curt dismissal of Melancholia.
Sincerest apologies.

[Spinal]

I'm starting to wonder whether I'll like this.

[Qrazy]

This sounds like a Von Trier I could actually get behind.

[Pop Trash]

I'm starting to wonder whether I'll like this.

**1/2 stars and a disappointment after the brilliance of Antichrist?

[transmogrifier]

I'm starting to wonder whether I'll like this.

Depends on whether you prefer prankster, attention-grabbing LVT, or a LVT who seems content (finally!) to let his content, ideas, actors etc do the work for him in engaging the audience. As I said above, it is his most gentle film (though I haven't seen The Boss of It All)

[Spinal]

It's kind of starting to sound like Trier's Fanny and Alexander, but I'm still looking forward to it, naturally.

[B-side]

attention-grabbing LVT

I really despise this silly, prudish and curt dismissal of Trier. Clearly, his films are provocative solely for the sake of provocation. Not because there's a place for cinema that isn't middlebrow and subdued. Not because he hasn't been through some intense emotional drama that warrants an equally intense exploration of the human psyche. No. It's definitely just because he gets to giggle at people for taking him so seriously.

[transmogrifier]

I really despise this silly, prudish and curt dismissal of Trier. Clearly, his films are provocative solely for the sake of provocation. Not because there's a place for cinema that isn't middlebrow and subdued. Not because he hasn't been through some intense emotional drama that warrants an equally intense exploration of the human psyche. No. It's definitely just because he gets to giggle at people for taking him so seriously.

I'll give you one thing: at least he isn't sarcastic.

[Mysterious Dude]

Some people take the apocalypse too seriously.
I'm not really sure what I was trying to say in this post.

[Boner M]

I really despise this silly, prudish and curt dismissal of Trier.
??

[Spaceman Spiff]

??

trans is afraid of sex.

[B-side]

??

I was using trans' post as jumping off point for an irritated tangent. That wasn't necessarily directed at trans. There is a prudish and superficial desire among most people to immediately dismiss anything with a fair amount of nudity or violence as shallow and needlessly provocative, which never makes any sense to me. It seems like, a) an attack on the writer/director of the film as opposed to the actual film, b) silly given that those things have a very permanent and consistent play in reality, no more or less than a walk to the store or a first date. There's a place for all of it.

[transmogrifier]

trans is afraid of sex.

Well, I'm certainly afraid of someone smashing me in the balls.

[Boner M]

Well, I'm certainly afraid of someone smashing me in the balls.
Prude.

[Spaceman Spiff]

When is this opening for limited distribution? (at least in Toronto)? Dying to see it, and annoyed that all my French friends are raving about it.

[StanleyK]

I didn't like this one very much. It felt like a stylistic regression from Antichrist; I really don't care for Trier's use of jerky handheld camerawork and diffused editing. It could've used more of the immaculate compositions from the prologue; the first five minutes or so are a thing of beauty, and the high point of the film. I'm trying to think about why exactly Melancholia failed to engage me and hit me viscerally like Trier's previous film, but I can't really think of a reason. Whatever it is, the descent into primal madness of She in Antichrist was much more compelling than Justine's self-destruction.There's plenty to like here- Gainsbourg once again knocks it out of the park, I dig the Tarkovskyan vibes and references, and there's a lot of effective humor ("She ruined my wedding! I will not look at her!"). But in the end, awesome a sight as it is to behold, the last shot felt somewhat hollow, lacking the cathartic nature of the climactic violence and self-mutilation of Antichrist

[Kurosawa Fan]

This has become... available... by certain methods, for those who don't want to wait until the DVD release in November.

[Spinal]

This has become... available... by certain methods, for those who don't want to wait until the DVD release in November.

Isn't November the theatrical release? Because I don't want to see this on anything less than a large screen.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Isn't November the theatrical release? Because I don't want to see this on anything less than a large screen.

I don't believe so. It's the release of the DVD and OnDemand. I guess there could be a small theatrical run at that time, but that wasn't included in what I read. Wouldn't come anywhere near me either way, so I might have passed that bit over knowing it didn't apply.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, I thought that was theatrical release too. Would rather see this on large screen. Maybe for Denver Film Festival.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Yeah, it appears it will receive a theatrical run starting November 11, despite hitting OnDemand on October 7.

[B-side]

I'm grabbing the screener right now, but I don't expect the quality to be worth a damn. I'll likely be waiting until the 7th to catch it on On Demand.

[Boner M]

The bookending sequences of the film are the kind of thing that require a theatre viewing.

[B-side]

The bookending sequences of the film are the kind of thing that require a theatre viewing.

I live in the middle of nowhere, so I won't have that opportunity, though I certainly wish I did. For those interested, the quality of the screener is great:

http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz70/SalvadorDali_2010/Miscellaneous/vlcsnap-2011-09-25-21h43m43s210.png

[B-side]

Melancholia is entirely solid if somewhat unremarkable. Bred from the same bitter and misanthropic mother, Claire is anxiety and Justine is depression. Two sides of the same coin. They more often than not coincide in mental illness, even if they seem entirely opposed. The same applies to the sisters. They can't get along at all, yet they remain "together." It's a tribute to Trier's experience with severe depression that he feels such sympathy for Justine and ends up placing her in the position of rationally detached and accepting in the second half. Her stoicism counters Claire's pervasive anxiety, grounding her and serving as a distraction come time to face the prospect of certain death. If you've been through depression, you know that when you're depressed, you cultivate an almost supernatural ability for self-sabotage and doomsaying. Melancholia is the culmination of those fears (anxiety) and that doomsaying cynicism (depression). Melancholia, the planet, is death. It is something larger than you and entirely out of your realm of control. It is the inevitable, thus the only protection is a poorly formed teepee i.e. a self-crafted, insufficient sense of security.

[number8]

LOL. The character theatrical one-sheets for the film include one for Von Trier himself.

http://bitcast-a-sm.bitgravity.com/slashfilm/wp/wp-content/images/melancholia-character-posters-1.jpg

[Boner M]

That's hilariously retarded. Also, is he smoking a joint?

[Boner M]

Saw it again last night, still love it, though there are some stretches of the Justine chapter that feel superfluous.

Trier's dedication to images of fragility and delicacy really stands out on second viewing. Diminutive golf buggies, hot air balloons, snowflakes, wedding dresses, the teepee... the little piece of wire on a stick used to view Melancholia's proximity is such a great, totemic image of human fallibility.

Feels awfully strange to be this board's biggest champion of a Lars von Trier film. End of the world, indeed!

[number8]

Finally saw this tonight. I dig, but I think one of the reasons this will, er, alienate a bit is because it's a film that takes the point of view of nihilistic depression, and if you do not understand how depression works, Dunst's character is likely going to be frustrating. Kind of weird, that a lot of films get called "depressing" when they're just sad or mildly tragic, but this is a film that tries to sell the melancholic/depressing point of view but ended up being quite a gentle and reassuring film. I mean, if you look at it from Dunst' point of view, the fact that Earth gets blown up is a happy ending, and that last shot is practically joyous.

Also, Udo Kier is fucking hilarious.

[number8]

Upon reflection, the film strikes me as being as canny a metaphor for depression as it is for climate change, esp. regarding Sutherland's character who might as well be the ultimate avatar for deniers. Plus the UN conference in Trier's homeland must've occurred close to when the idea originated.

Do you still stand by this interpretation? I don't like it, because the context in the film is rather the exact opposite. The scientific community agree about climate change, but it's denied by science-deniers, whereas in the film, the scientists say the planet is not going to hit, but science-deniers say it is, and they end up right. Kiefer's character isn't a denier, he's actually the fact-based, logical-thinking man. He gets proven wrong the same way Dafoe's character, who represents the same viewpoint, was in Antichrist. Von Trier loves to tear down the educated, logical characters. He seems to find them arrogant.

But it's funny that you make that metaphor, though, because I also saw 4:44, the Abel Ferrara film with the same premise, except in his film, the apocalypse is the thinning of the ozone layer, and includes local NYC anchor Pat Kiernan in a cameo playing himself on TV, starting his final broadcast ever with "Al Gore was right." It's positively comical.

[Boner M]

Those are good thoughts... but it can still be an allegory with the basic roles reversed, right? The righteous man who blusters nonstop about 'the facts' only to [spoiler]; it's that basic scenario that makes me interpret KS's character as representative of the hypothetical situation of a denier in the face of his own fallibility.


Also, Udo Kier is fucking hilarious.
Indeed.

[NickGlass]

But it's funny that you make that metaphor, though, because I also saw 4:44, the Abel Ferrara film with the same premise, except in his film, the apocalypse is the thinning of the ozone layer, and includes local NYC anchor Pat Kiernan in a cameo playing himself on TV, starting his final broadcast ever with "Al Gore was right." It's positively comical.

Uhhhhh...I guess I have to see the new Ferrara, then.

Also, I completely agree with the frustration that the Justine portion (and, well, Justine herself) will evoke in many who don't understand depression, but--as brilliant as I found certain choices--it's also a rather easy platform for erratic behavior. I think the portrait is a fine one, but still rather shallow.

It's a bit of a prickly film, this one. It's one I found moderately tedious, yet I feel the need to defend it.

[baby doll]

I think the moral of the film is that the internet is the most reliable place to get information.

[number8]

WOW.


"Today at 2pm I was questioned by the Police of North Zealand in connection with charges made by the prosecution of Grasse in France from August 2011 regarding a possible violation of prohibition in French law against justification of war crimes."

"The investigation covers comments made during the press conference in Cannes in May 2011. Due to these serious accusations I have realized that I do not possess the skills to express myself unequivocally and I have therefore decided from this day forth to refrain from all public statements and interviews."

Lars von Trier

Avedøre, 5. October 2011

[ThePlashyBubbler]

WOW.

Careful, 8. You're toeing the line of a French violation.

:rolleyes:

[elixir]

This is such a joke.

[B-side]

Jesus. Can't blame him for not wanting to do interviews anymore.

[ledfloyd]

Melancholia is entirely solid if somewhat unremarkable.
this was pretty much my take on the film. it's hard to criticize it, because it is a solid piece of filmmaking. but i was profoundly unmoved by the second half of the film, and it felt like i was supposed to be overwhelmed. i guess it just feels... thin? to me. and i wonder how much of that is a product of having had very real struggles with depression and anxiety.

[StanleyK]

i guess it just feels... thin? to me. and i wonder how much of that is a product of having had very real struggles with depression and anxiety.

With me it's the opposite, I've wondered if I didn't get anything from this film because I've never had any experience with depression.

[Spinal]

France, I've defended you time and time again. No more. We're through.

[ledfloyd]

With me it's the opposite, I've wondered if I didn't get anything from this film because I've never had any experience with depression.
maybe it's just the film. it seemed like a realistic portrayal of depression and anxiety but... i don't know, it still felt really insubstantial to me.

[Spinal]

Opening
11/11/2011
West Los Angeles, CA: Nuart Theatre
New York, NY: Lincoln Plaza
New York, NY: Angelika Film Center

11/18/2011
Albany, CA: Albany Twin
Encino, CA: Town Center 5
Palm Desert, CA: Cinemas Palme D'Or 7
Palm Springs, CA: Camelot Theatre 3
Pasadena, CA: Playhouse 7 Cinemas
San Diego, CA: Hillcrest Cinemas
San Rafael, CA: Smith Rafael Film Center
Santa Ana, CA: South Coast Village 3
Santa Cruz, CA: Nickelodeon Theatres
Denver, CO: Mayan Theatre
New Haven, CT: Criterion Cinemas 7
Washington, DC: E Street Cinema
Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami, Bill Cosford Cinema
Miami Beach, FL: Miami Beach Cinematheque
Atlanta, GA: Midtown Art Cinemas 8
Cambridge, MA: Kendall Square Cinema 9
Minneapolis, MN: Lagoon Cinema
Montclair, NJ: Clairidge Cinemas 6
Huntington, NY: Cinema Arts Centre
Kew Gardens, NY: Kew Gardens Cinemas 6
Malverne, NY: Malverne Cinema 5
Manhasset, NY: Manhasset Cinemas 3
White Plains, NY: Cinema 100 Quad
Philadelphia, PA: Ritz 5 Movies
Austin, TX: Alamo Drafthouse South Lamar
Austin, TX: Violet Crown Cinemas
Dallas, TX: Angelika Film Center and Cafe
San Antonio, TX: Santikos Bijou Cinema Bistro 6
Salt Lake City, UT: Broadway Centre Cinemas
Seattle, WA: Harvard Exit Theatre

11/23/2011
Tucson, AZ: The Loft Cinema
Camarillo, CA: Paseo Camarillo Cinemas 3
Indianapolis, IN: Keystone Art Cinema 7
Northampton, MA: Pleasant Street
Baltimore, MD: Charles Theatre
Royal Oak, MI: Main Art Theatre
Kansas City, MO: Tivoli @ Manor Square
University City, MO: Tivoli Theatre
Portland, OR: Cinema 21 Theatre
Memphis, TN: Ridgeway 4
Milwaukee, WI: Downer Theatre

11/25/2011
Sacramento, CA: Crest Theatre
Santa Rosa, CA: Summerfield Cinemas 5

12/2/2011
San Luis Obispo, CA: The Palm Theatre
Hartford, CT: Real Art Ways Cinema
Athens, GA: Cine Theatre
Honolulu, HI: Kahala Theatres 8
Provincetown, MA: New Art Cinema- Whalers Wharf Cinema
Asheville, NC: Carolina Asheville 14
Albuquerque, NM: Guild
Columbus, OH: Gateway Film Center 8
Dayton, OH: New Neon Movies

12/8/2011
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Cinema
Saratoga Springs, NY: Saratoga Film Forum
Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma City Museum of Art

12/9/2011
Little Rock, AR: Market Street Cinema
Waterville, ME: Railroad Square Cinema 3
Grand Rapids, MI: Urban Institute of Contemporary Arts
Keene, NH: Putnam Arts Lecture Hall
Ithaca, NY: Cinemapolis 5
Pelham, NY: Pelham Picture House
Columbia, SC: Nickelodeon

12/16/2011
Fayetteville, NC: Cameo Theater
Keene, NH: Colonial Keene
Spokane, WA: Magic Lantern Theatre

Link (http://www.magpictures.com/dates.aspx?id=bbcb733d-8d0e-495a-ba6d-be9a79453d1c)

[Ezee E]

:pritch:

[Rowland]

Nowhere near me, joy.

[lovejuice]

Finally saw this tonight. I dig, but I think one of the reasons this will, er, alienate a bit is because it's a film that takes the point of view of nihilistic depression, and if you do not understand how depression works, Dunst's character is likely going to be frustrating. Kind of weird, that a lot of films get called "depressing" when they're just sad or mildly tragic, but this is a film that tries to sell the melancholic/depressing point of view but ended up being quite a gentle and reassuring film. I mean, if you look at it from Dunst' point of view, the fact that Earth gets blown up is a happy ending, and that last shot is practically joyous.

That's my reading as well and precisely why the film doesn't sit well with me. I find it less nihilistic than egotistic. Justine's acceptance is supposed to be shone in better light than the couple's angst and denial. Yet the event on the wedding night makes it hard to side with her. (I don't think Von Trier even aims that to begin with.) And when I blame the character rather than sympathize, her philosophical stance reads more like a selfish desire for others' unhappiness just because she screws up her own life.

[D_Davis]

Watching this tonight on demand.

[EyesWideOpen]

Watching this tonight on demand.

Thanks for this info! I'll watch it on amazon tomorrow.

[Henry Gale]

I really, really liked this, possibly more than anything Von Trier's ever done.

Even though most people I know are aware of his films (and sometimes they even see them), this is probably the first of his that I'd actually go out of my way to recommend, even if it isn't the first I've appreciated. That isn't to say that it's a film that holds back or plays it safe, it's still a film trying to convey the dread and disaffection of the world, with or without it ending, through the eyes of someone who's already given up on it – even if you choose to read that it's because she already sees its end coming that she feels the way she does – but it still does exactly what it needs to in the way it tells the story from one location with very few characters, pushing them every which way emotionally without getting too sensational and abrasive about what it does to them (like, say, Antichrist did), which I think Von Trier often uses as a crutch to force his audience to feel things he can't otherwise convey as a storyteller, pushing things as far as possible because he can.

I think it may be the most elegant, oddly beautiful work he's put together, and I say that knowing it's a film that destroys the planet. One of the best of the year.

[Ivan Drago]

I have it on demand too, but I'm waiting for theaters. It'd be cheaper. Not playing in Nashville. . .but an arthouse theater in town has it advertised on their web site as 'Coming Soon', so we'll see.

[Spinal]

It appears that the Portland release of this has been moved back to Dec. 2. I am going to hurt somebody.

[Lucky]

I really, really liked this, possibly more than anything Von Trier's ever done.

Agreed. Von Trier is not a director I would place on my favorites list or even a director I normally look out for, but I have high praise for all of his work. I'm pushing Antichrist to the top of my to see list after this.

[Barty]

So good. Really impressed, time to give Trier's other films a watch.

[Pop Trash]

I quite liked this, in the sense that it sticks with you and can haunt whatever activity you are doing in the hours (days?) after the fact. The first half seemed to be a lesser version of Rachel Getting Married, but sets up what LVT is saying re: people with a depressed disposition by the end of the film. Also: for a film that at times seems haphazardly made via the Dogme style (jiggly, handheld camera, brazen jump cuts) there are plenty of memorable images as Boner pointed out: the smallness of the golfcarts, the "magic cave" at the end, wedding dresses, very well used CGI, etc.

I'm not a big LVT fan either.

[Bosco B Thug]

Loved it. Don't know for sure if it trumps Antichrist in any way but in the resonance of its story and themes with me, but I will say I was very happy it was a return to his Dogme vivacity over Antichrist's aimless portent.

I've always held negative opinions about ceremonies, from graduations to weddings (and I knew I had to see it in preface to the holiday today!), so the film being prominently an evisceration of any and all worldly contrivances and trivial sentimentality makes von Trier's screenplay an incredibly satisfying work of deep snark (that of course is sincerely poignant and overwhelming by the end; claims of the first half's comedy are apt).

[BuffaloWilder]

Dallas, TX: Angelika Film Center and Cafe


What what y'all.


I'm gonna try to get our projectionist to go all Tyler Durden on the movie, but I'm not sure if it'll make too much of a difference, after all.

[Dillard]

I should've avoided this one altogether, knowing Von Trier. Yeah, I'm not a huge fan, so for those who are, you can take my opinion with a grain of salt. I'm with Chris Wisniewski (http://reverseshot.com/article/melancholia) on this one. I'm not a huge fan of inhabiting a nihilistic worldview for 2 1/2 hours. I also agree with his assessments of the script's first half:


Justine is believably depressive and damaged, but nothing that happens around her has even a whiff of authenticity, first frame to last. I struggled through the wedding sequence to make sense of it all: how she knew her husband or how well or long they’d known one another; why she had agreed to marry and then why she’d decided to sabotage her wedding; and how all of this could possibly happen in one night. Episodic in the worst way, part one plays like a shrill and repetitive run-on sentence authored by someone who has a clear idea of what he wants to say but hasn’t adequately structured and packaged those ideas.

By the time we get to the second half, I perked back up to see how the characters would react to the approaching and receding planet. I found it more compelling and coherent dramatically, and many of the images to be beautiful, but once I noticed the plot conceit unveiling, of how Justine and Claire would switch positions emotionally, and how Justine's hopeless worldview, gifted her by her mother, of "The earth is evil" would win the day, I couldn't help but be bored.

Does Von Trier mean to say anything about the human condition other than "The earth is evil"? Whereas (and many people have made these comparisons) Malick and Tarkovsky are genuinely interested in existential questions, and honor the wondering humans have about end times, life's meaning, and the question of the divine, Von Trier shuts the door on such conversations. I see Von Trier's voice represented not in Justine but in the mother, Gaby. She does not question ceremonies, relationships, and culture for the sake of advancing a conversation of why these things matter; she is hateful and isolationist, more interested in hurting those around her than in being in relationship. This is, as Wiesniewski says at the end of his review, a "lousy, sad, miserable place" that Von Trier lives in, and by extension, his characters live in. This isn't the world I know and I'm straining to see how I've gained from having an experience stepping into Von Trier's.

[Spinal]

Seeing this tomorrow!

[Spinal]

A very good film, though not one I would rank among Trier's best. The first half suffers from having a protagonist that is apathetic. Even though we may guess the depth of her depression, it's hard to tell what exactly she is fighting for. The second half ups the stakes as it becomes very clear that a young boy's future is at risk. Some absurdly striking imagery, but the film doesn't quite feel complete for some reason. Still, I liked the way it undercut the conventional disaster film expectations. It is a film about personal devastation and not devastation as spectacle. A nice companion piece to Antichrist, but doesn't hit the same emotional highs.

Why is Dunst the one receiving the accolades? Gainsbourg is the star here.

[baby doll]

The first half suffers from having a protagonist that is apathetic. Even though we may guess the depth of her depression, it's hard to tell what exactly she is fighting for.Come on, dude, not every narrative film needs a goal-oriented protagonist.

[B-side]

The first half suffers from having a protagonist that is apathetic. Even though we may guess the depth of her depression, it's hard to tell what exactly she is fighting for.

I don't really see why this matters. Why does she have to be fighting for something specific?


Why is Dunst the one receiving the accolades? Gainsbourg is the star here.

Agreed here.

[[ETM]]

Why is Dunst the one receiving the accolades?

She took her kit off?

[Kurosawa Fan]

Why is Dunst the one receiving the accolades? Gainsbourg is the star here.

I haven't seen it, but there's a propensity for the media to pour accolades on someone who generally gives flat and/or unconvincing performances when they show up in a "high art" type of project and hold their own. That would be my guess. Gainsbourg is always great, so her performance isn't taking many people by surprise.

Plus the naked thing. The media loves a hot female who is willing to take it all off in the name of art.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I'm a little groggy, and I'm just realizing that your question was likely rhetorical. I'll leave now.

[Raiders]

I should've avoided this one altogether, knowing Von Trier. Yeah, I'm not a huge fan, so for those who are, you can take my opinion with a grain of salt. I'm with Chris Wisniewski (http://reverseshot.com/article/melancholia) on this one. I'm not a huge fan of inhabiting a nihilistic worldview for 2 1/2 hours. I also agree with his assessments of the script's first half:



By the time we get to the second half, I perked back up to see how the characters would react to the approaching and receding planet. I found it more compelling and coherent dramatically, and many of the images to be beautiful, but once I noticed the plot conceit unveiling, of how Justine and Claire would switch positions emotionally, and how Justine's hopeless worldview, gifted her by her mother, of "The earth is evil" would win the day, I couldn't help but be bored.

Does Von Trier mean to say anything about the human condition other than "The earth is evil"? Whereas (and many people have made these comparisons) Malick and Tarkovsky are genuinely interested in existential questions, and honor the wondering humans have about end times, life's meaning, and the question of the divine, Von Trier shuts the door on such conversations. I see Von Trier's voice represented not in Justine but in the mother, Gaby. She does not question ceremonies, relationships, and culture for the sake of advancing a conversation of why these things matter; she is hateful and isolationist, more interested in hurting those around her than in being in relationship. This is, as Wiesniewski says at the end of his review, a "lousy, sad, miserable place" that Von Trier lives in, and by extension, his characters live in. This isn't the world I know and I'm straining to see how I've gained from having an experience stepping into Von Trier's.

Well, considering this post and linked review exist, I will simply say "I agree completely" for now.

[Spinal]

Come on, dude, not every narrative film needs a goal-oriented protagonist.

I don't think it's an accident that the second half of the film is much more effective than the first half.

[Derek]

I don't think it's an accident that the second half of the film is much more effective than the first half.

Though the first half had more Udo Kier...

[Spinal]

While I think that Dillard and Raiders overstate the case and oversimplify the film, I do think that there is something to be said for the for argument that Justine is not as rich and complex a character as she could have been. She's trapped in a malaise pretty much throughout. It doesn't keep it from being a being a well-made film. It does make Justine fairly easy to dismiss.

I keep coming back to the idea though that this film is not intended to be a commentary on humanity in general. I think it's intended to reflect personal breakdown. And I like that Claire is unsympathetic to Justine's state initially and then finds that she is plunged into the same state of feeling there is no way out. No hope.

I look forward to seeing it again to see how it plays when you know where it's heading.

[Spinal]

I haven't seen it, but there's a propensity for the media to pour accolades on someone who generally gives flat and/or unconvincing performances when they show up in a "high art" type of project and hold their own. That would be my guess. Gainsbourg is always great, so her performance isn't taking many people by surprise.

Plus the naked thing. The media loves a hot female who is willing to take it all off in the name of art.

Maybe it's because I've always been one of Dunst's defenders, but I didn't think her work here was anything special for her.

[Raiders]

I think ultimately, it just doesn't work on any dramatic level whatsoever. The first half centers around a character who basically just randomly experiences various states of depression and mental anguish. The wedding exists solely so Von Trier can place this character, and her mother with all her doom and gloom, in a situation that perfectly expresses the useless trivialities of our earthly existence. I disagree with those who say the film avoids "movieness" in regards to its view of depression; it awkwardly shoehorns practically every form of personality conflict Justine can have into one three or four hour period. She didn't just suddenly get that way (her closed-room conversations with Claire bear out that this is a condition), so how can Michael only now give up... why did he even go through with this? He's given no personality or room to be any type of character whatsoever... and sadly, neither really is Justine.

The second half should be dramatically more intriguing, but at every instance Von Trier seemed to be mocking Claire's obsession with Melancholia, he seems to be also mocking any sensible reaction. I doubt she is any more concerned or panicked than any rational person would be (I did like as Boner pointed out the fragility of the instrument used to chart Melancholia's movements). Von Trier is instead working as hard as he can to legitimize his own nihilistic view of life on earth and create in Justine a kindred spirit, able to embrace to end of all existence as we know it ("we're alone... life is ending... the earth is evil") so much so that his final shot had me practically rolling, what with the fragile and inconsequential "teepee" laid to waste as Claire cries and rustles about while Justine calmly accepts it.

I will readily admit I do not nor have I ever wrestled with depression. But I can say that if you're film exists solely to legitimize your own depressed view of our very existence and with the silly concerns we have in our everyday life (schedules, celebrations, taglines), then you'll have to understand when I call it a piece of crap.

[Spinal]

I will readily admit I do not nor have I ever wrestled with depression. But I can say that if you're film exists solely to legitimize your own depressed view of our very existence and with the silly concerns we have in our everyday life (schedules, celebrations, taglines), then you'll have to understand when I call it a piece of crap.

I don't think it's hard to look around at what is going on in the world today and see justification for a plea to focus on what really matters. We face all kinds of threats - nuclear annihilation, terrorist activity, climate change - and yet people continue to obsess and bicker over comparative trivialities. Trier argues here that the way we pace through the empty traditions of the past prevents us from truly confronting problems that need to be addressed. Justine knows what is coming before anyone else does. But no one is willing to listen. Example: she asks her father to stay so they can talk, but he takes off early. Trier also suggests that the flimsily constructed protection of religion (the fragile teepee) will not be enough to save us.

Despite what the detractors might say, this is not a nihilistic film. It's a sad film. It's a film that recognizes, like many other films do, that our time on this planet is finite. And it urges us, like many other films do, to open our eyes and live with more purpose.

If Trier sees himself in Justine or Claire - and he might - it is doubtful that he likes what he sees.

[Raiders]

I don't think it's hard to look around at what is going on in the world today and see justification for a plea to focus on what really matters. We face all kinds of threats - nuclear annihilation, terrorist activity, climate change - and yet people continue to obsess and bicker over comparative trivialities.

That's because the individual can do little in the face of most of these threats, so we accept it otherwise we go into depression (natch). Von Trier also alludes to none of this, so I'm not certain what this has to do with the film.


Justine knows what is coming before anyone else does. But no one is willing to listen. Example: she asks her father to stay so they can talk, but he takes off early.

Perhaps if she had told him the world would end in a few days, he may have stayed. His character is also so poorly designed, or rather designed as such a playful, carefree doofus, that I can't fathom what she would talk to him about.


Trier also suggests that the flimsily constructed protection of religion (the fragile teepee) will not be enough to save us.

That seems a bit of a stretch, but hell, Roland Emmerich managed that in 2012.


Despite what the detractors might say, this is not a nihilistic film. It's a sad film. It's a film that recognizes, like many other films do, that our time on this planet is finite. And it urges us, like many other films do, to open our eyes and live with more purpose.

What purpose does Justine live for in this film, other than to construct a silly teepee so that the boy can have the illusion he will survive?


If Trier sees himself in Justine or Claire - and he might - it is doubtful that he likes what he sees.

Maybe, but I don't get that from the film he has presented.

[Dillard]

I keep coming back to the idea though that this film is not intended to be a commentary on humanity in general. I think it's intended to reflect personal breakdown. And I like that Claire is unsympathetic to Justine's state initially and then finds that she is plunged into the same state of feeling there is no way out. No hope.
But as the film is meant to be a witness to or experience of personal breakdown, the film is still portraying a certain set of worldviews, those of the filmmakers and those of the characters in the film. It would make sense that as writer and director (and more? I'm not sure the extent of his control over all aspects of the film) Von trier's worldview would play a predominant role in shaping the film world and the characters inhabiting that world. It seemed to me anyway that even if it was not Von trier's primary intention to make a philosophical contribution to our thinking about Big Human Issues, he cannot escape from doing so with the nature of this material: marriage, depression, family relationships, and, most glaring of all, the end of the world. His dialogue (ie "the earth is evil") reveals an awareness of the magnitude of what he is dealing with. And more telling: his bombastic visual style (ie the slow motion prologue) coupled with grandiose musical choices (ie Wagner) - proceed to make a story of personal breakdown into a much larger commentary. It cannot help but be given these trappings. Though certainly his handheld camera is a medium for gritty, personal storytelling (supporting your point) Von trier cannot help himself. He always seems to return to immaculate, stylized imagery such as Justine bathing naked by the river.

[Spinal]

That's because the individual can do little in the face of most of these threats, so we accept it otherwise we go into depression (natch). Von Trier also alludes to none of this, so I'm not certain what this has to do with the film.

It's quite easy to imagine Melancholia and its collision course with Earth as any number of impending doomsday scenarios. It's an open metaphor. It's not hard to make this leap.




That seems a bit of a stretch ...


Really? I thought that was one of the film's clearest bits of social critique. The adult women know that they have no real solution that will protect an innocent child from the awful truth. So they indulge in a fantasy that offers nothing but another in a long line of diversions. Much like the trivialities that happen throughout the first half.

[Spinal]

His dialogue - "the earth is evil" reveals an awareness of the magnitude of what he is dealing with. And his bombastic visual style - coupled with grandiose musical choices (ie Wagner) - proceed to make a story of personal breakdown into a much larger commentary. It cannot help but be given these trappings.

You seem to want to interpret a line of dialogue as Trier's literal message for viewers. That's absurd. It's a line delivered by a character in a moment of despair and darkness. It's a line delivered after other people have failed to recognize and acknowledge the depth of her sorrow. You are free as a viewer to accept or reject it, but it is that character's truth in the moment.

[Dillard]

You seem to want to interpret a line of dialogue as Trier's literal message for viewers. That's absurd. It's a line delivered by a character in a moment of despair and darkness. It's a line delivered after other people have failed to recognize and acknowledge the depth of her sorrow. You are free as a viewer to accept or reject it, but it is that character's truth in the moment.

It's not absurd to take this dialogue as meant for viewers when so many of Von trier's stylistic choices convey a filmmaker winking at his audience.

[Raiders]

I don't know that, for once, I find Von Trier to be less than sincere with this film, but I do disagree with the amount Spinal is distancing what I perceive as Von Trier's own deep-seated distaste for much of the basics of this world and Justine as presented. The grace which she is bestowed at the end of this film certainly implies to me an acceptance by Von Trier to her beliefs, which include the line Dillard (and to an extent myself) considers the crux of the film.

[Dillard]

I don't know that, for once, I find Von Trier to be less than sincere with this film, but I do disagree with the amount Spinal is distancing what I perceive as Von Trier's own deep-seated distaste for much of the basics of this world and Justine as presented. The grace which she is bestowed at the end of this film certainly implies to me an acceptance by Von Trier to her beliefs, which include the line Dillard (and to an extent myself) considers the crux of the film.
I don't mean to imply that Von trier is being insincere. I mean that Von trier's style consistently calls attention to itself and encourages the viewer to consider the perspective of the films primary author.

[Spinal]

It's not absurd to take this dialogue as meant for viewers when so many of Von trier's stylistic choices convey a filmmaker winking at his audience.

I have no idea what you're referring to here, so I cannot comment. I didn't get that at all.

[Spinal]

I don't know that, for once, I find Von Trier to be less than sincere with this film, but I do disagree with the amount Spinal is distancing what I perceive as Von Trier's own deep-seated distaste for much of the basics of this world and Justine as presented. The grace which she is bestowed at the end of this film certainly implies to me an acceptance by Von Trier to her beliefs, which include the line Dillard (and to an extent myself) considers the crux of the film.

What grace is she bestowed?

[Raiders]

What grace is she bestowed?

The entire last few moments when she rejects her sister's plan for their final moments and, because she "understands" things other people don't (Von Trier seems to essentially equate her previous depression with clairvoyance) and calmly helps a small boy build a feeble structure which she knows will fail all for his own benefit and then calmly and yes, gracefully, sits and accepts the world's destruction.

[Pop Trash]

I often run hot and cold on Von Trier in general, but I took this as a sincere attempt by him to understand his own depression.

Am I as cynical and pessimistic as Justine in this? No, but just about every time I read the news I fight the overwhelming impulse to give up on humanity. This and Take Shelter are very similar in their desire to say that maybe the crackpot, conspiracy theorist loon you always try to avoid or dismiss is on to something.

[Dillard]

I have no idea what you're referring to here, so I cannot comment. I didn't get that at all.

Sorry that wasnt clear. What I mean is: Von trier's worldview pervades the film. Just as Von trier's visual and musical choices (see examples given in previous posts) call attention to themselves and encourage the viewer to reflect on von triers gloomy worldview, so also does Von trier's dialogue.

[Spinal]

The entire last few moments when she rejects her sister's plan for their final moments and, because she "understands" things other people don't (Von Trier seems to essentially equate her previous depression with clairvoyance) and calmly helps a small boy build a feeble structure which she knows will fail all for his own benefit and then calmly and yes, gracefully, sits and accepts the world's destruction.

I don't know if it's grace. Resignation seems more like it.

[Spinal]

Sorry that wasnt clear. What I mean is: Von trier's worldview pervades the film. Just as Von trier's visual and musical choices (see examples given in previous posts) call attention to themselves and encourage the viewer to reflect on von triers gloomy worldview, so also does Von trier's dialogue.

I think the main disagreement we have is that you see a filmmaker who is saying "I am miserable. Be miserable with me." And I see a filmmaker who is saying "I know misery. This is what it feels like. How could we interact with each other in a more meaningful way to make the world a better place?"

[Raiders]

I don't know if it's grace. Resignation seems more like it.

Could it not be graceful resignation? My point is simply that I firmly believe, and I think the evidence supports this, that Von Trier finds comfort in his own creation of Justine as the calming presence at world's end which, using the only filmic context we have, is a direct result of her worldview which does indeed encompass the tenet that the earth is evil and the things of the earth trivial.

I don't even think our disagreement is here but rather you are willing to extend this to a belief that we should turn our attention away from tradition and ceremony and focus on larger issues. I a) don't think abandoning our traditions, schedules and ceremonies solves the issue and b) don't think Von Trier successfully merges any of these elements into a remotely successful film. As I initially was talking about, the film is almost too serene. I think for once (well OK, it's happened a couple times) I respect where Von Trier's head was at but think he needed to actually be bolder. He's too content with pretty images and cramming a lot of marginally-connected segues and his film ultimately doesn't explicitly say much of anything.

[Spinal]

Could it not be graceful resignation? My point is simply that I firmly believe, and I think the evidence supports this, that Von Trier finds comfort in his own creation of Justine as the calming presence at world's end which, using the only filmic context we have, is a direct result of her worldview which does indeed encompass the tenet that the earth is evil and the things of the earth trivial.



I don't feel as comfortable as you do in imagining where the director does and does not find comfort. What I think is important is that Justine did not start out with the degree of hopelessness that she exhibits late in the film. She has grown progressively worse over time. She has tried to reach out but no one was willing to try to understand her. If we call what we see in Justine in the final scene "relief", then I would be willing to go along with that. Again, I don't feel, as you and others seem to, that this is the film's 'message'. I think that it is the expression of a deep-seeded fear. I don't think the author wishes for us to accept it. I think the author wishes for us to be disturbed by it and to work to make it not true.



I don't even think our disagreement is here but rather you are willing to extend this to a belief that we should turn our attention away from tradition and ceremony and focus on larger issues. I a) don't think abandoning our traditions, schedules and ceremonies solves the issue

Blindly following tradition for no good reason other than that's what we have been taught absolutely makes it more difficult to address reality and solve large problems. Yes, I certainly believe that.



and b) don't think Von Trier successfully merges any of these elements into a remotely successful film. As I initially was talking about, the film is almost too serene. I think for once (well OK, it's happened a couple times) I respect where Von Trier's head was at but think he needed to actually be bolder.

Well, I do think Antichrist is a more successful exploration of these themes. Maybe you should try that one. ;)

[Dillard]

I think the main disagreement we have is that you see a filmmaker who is saying "I am miserable. Be miserable with me." And I see a filmmaker who is saying "I know misery. This is what it feels like. How could we interact with each other in a more meaningful way to make the world a better place?"

This is very well said spinal and i think your assessment of our differences is pretty accurate. Your question, though, gets at the heart of the matter for me. If Von trier is trying to engage this question, I believe he only shows us answers in the negative; of what not to do. Yet he poses no alternative answer as a possibility in his characters and this is what leads me to question if he really wants to add anything constructive to the conversation. We are forced to inhabit a world where the breakdown of human interaction is inevitable.

[Spinal]

If Von trier is trying to engage this question, I believe he only shows us answers in the negative; of what not to do. Yet he poses no alternative answer as a possibility in his characters and this is what leads me to question if he really wants to add anything constructive to the conversation. We are forced to inhabit a world where the breakdown of human interaction is inevitable.

Yeah, I mean I guess I don't strongly disagree with this. Is it his job to add to the conversation? Isn't it enough to create an artistic representation of a state of mind and inspire conversation in others? I think that's reasonable and valuable.

[Dillard]

Yeah, I mean I guess I don't strongly disagree with this. Is it his job to add to the conversation? Isn't it enough to create an artistic representation of a state of mind and inspire conversation in others? I think that's reasonable and valuable.
It's hard for me to argue against what you are saying given our stimulating conversation, inspired by the film. However I feel that I can only contribute to such a conversation given an imagination that has been enriched by countless stories, film and otherwise, that have showed me a vision for what is possible in the positive. I don't mean stories that aren't in touch with the evils of our existence, I mean those stories that ask the question (say, of how to interact in a more meaningful way so as to make the world a better place) and in spite of the evils of our existence show us, hey, such and such is possible, whether that's an action on a characters part or a relationship between characters or even an intention for the good life.

If we had only Von trier's film and films like it, our imaginations and conversations would be impoverished. Von trier's film provokes a constructive conversation because of rich imaginations that know what Von trier is leaving out of the story.

[Bosco B Thug]

Gainsbourg was excellent as always, but Dunst had the more difficult, differentiated character to play.

Good discussion going on, although I'll quote only this early, pre-discussion post to express my stance, which is pretty much an "Agree to disagree" case:


Whereas (and many people have made these comparisons) Malick and Tarkovsky are genuinely interested in existential questions, and honor the wondering humans have about end times, life's meaning, and the question of the divine, Von Trier shuts the door on such conversations. I see Von Trier's voice represented not in Justine but in the mother, Gaby. She does not question ceremonies, relationships, and culture for the sake of advancing a conversation of why these things matter; she is hateful and isolationist, more interested in hurting those around her than in being in relationship. I won't disagree that Von Trier is not out provoke nuanced, proliferate conversation, but I'll disagree that Melancholia is a failed piece of essentialist negativity (and that negativity can't be absolutely sublime). Also, should we marginalize those who are particularly attune to the shitty in the world and can see past any Malickian reprieve? I don't see myself as a nihilist at all, yet I identified with Justine endlessly, the mother was my hero (in a sense that doesn't include her small-time cruelness), and Justine was only being honest with Alexander Skaarsgard. One person's hateful negativity is another person's giddy catharsis. :P

[Beau]

Some interesting points. I found the film worked for me in a musical rather than a dramatic way, the appearance and disappearance of bodies behaving like musical notes. The busy first half, with its bustling characters trying to have a good time, segues to the emptier second half, with its renewed landscape purged of unwanted guests and scored to the beat of hushed tones. There is a relaxing march to the apocalypse, bathed in the bluish tones of a drowsy breakfast. I was so enraptured by this atmosphere, that I almost had no time for psychological or even thematic ruminations. The film just flowed into and out of me.

I suspect that, in a way, this feeling of being almost unconsciously dragged across the length of the film's running time is what Justine is going through, for reasons unknown. She never fits in with the rest and never finds an output to express her difference. Probably because to express her difference would still mean to communicate with others and, I feel, she doesn't care to do that. She tries to prop up a semblance of a "normal" life during the first half and, indeed, the first half is the culmination of all her efforts to be "normal," the day she is honored with the dual prizes of marriage and job promotion. Someone mentioned that the first half doesn't feel genuine or authentic, and I feel that's perfectly fine. The entire first half is deeply farcical, an elaborate sham that nobody really believes. Justine has no connection to her husband, her parents offer her no support whatsoever, her sister operates on such a completely different wavelength so as to be utterly irrelevant to the solving of her existential problems...

In short, the first half plays out as if a group of actors had been grouped together three hours before the fact, given a script, and told to resemble a family. What results from this wicked experiment seems to reflect precisely the nature of Justine's social context. The second half is an entirely different film. As if a rock had been decorated with paper cut-outs and then wiped clean of all adornments by a huge tidal wave. This is fairly radical from a narrative standpoint, since the second half overlooks a great deal of expository material outlined in the opening hour. Justine walks around in a daze and mutters inane stuff about the evil of the world. A teenager could have probably come up with her dialogue. It's not very profound and frankly stupid. But she is not required to be profound.

The question being made in this discussion is whether or not von Trier agrees with Justine's immature rant. I don't know if he does. What seems clear is that the film itself, its strange and serene mood, is far more complex and nuanced than Justine's declarations.

I can't take this film seriously as an indictment about the evils of mankind because, to begin with, we see almost none of it (a bunch of uptight socialites can't represent the weight of countless murders and holocausts perpetrated throughout human history...), and Justine's sickness does not seem to be a reaction to anyone's evil. There is no juxtaposition, no friction between the evil world and Justine. We see friction between Justine and the norms of civilized society, but the ramifications of this friction have more to do with Justine not finding her place and less to do with some sort of insightful social critique. That is, the tragedy here seems more personal than global. No amount of overachievement on the part of von Trier's aesthetic serves to make the reach of the story any wider. I don't thnk that because Justine utters a few words about humanity and von Trier visually screams at us with delicious slow-motion that suddenly we're witness to an epic about the world. This is an epic about Justine and the scattered beans around her she calls her immediate family. A film like Andrei Rublev, now that is about an individual and the sick world around him. The interaction is explicit, it's right there: Andrei confronts war, he confronts pagan cults, he confronts the petty jealousy of another, that is, he confronts both the micro and macro levels of human frailty. Or take another Tarkovsky, like The Sacrifice, which almost certainly inspired Melancholia, since it's also about impending apocalypse encroaching upon a depressed protagonist living in a large secluded home. But there, the apocalypse is caused by man. Here, it's an astronomical body. If von Trier's film occasionally seems to aim beyond the confines of Justine's immediate surroundings, that probably has to do with how individual dramas seem biblical in scope to those suffering them.

Now, when I say the film has no greater reach than Justine's leash, I don't mean to say that we cannot gather any broad ideas from the film. But the broad ideas, I feel, are inevitably filtered through the experience of Justine. We can only interpret the film's portrayal of stupid human convention through Justine's failure to accomodate to it. I agree that von Trier's heart probably bends closer to Justine than anyone else in Melancholia. But it's likely that her words are nevertheless not intented as gospel. She "knows things," but not enough to find a solution. The film's sadness, I think, is derived from the fact that Justine is so weakened by her frustrated interaction with human convention, that she cannot really build an alternative. Her retreat is into antisocial inertness. She eventually shows a kind of gracefulness in the face of doom (as someone here mentioned), but up until then (and even then), her rejection of convention is more depressingly morbid than enlightened.

I wonder if the overarching theme of the film is not like one of those "vanitas" paintings, which portray skulls or ephemeral details like bubbles as a way to evoke the transcience of life and the futility of amassing earthly treasures. That has already been suggested in the discussion: life is brief, let's not clutter it with silly convention. But conventions are very complex things, passed down through generations, communicated through media, reinforced by our social spheres. As a reminder of the superflousness of certain human habits, Melancholia is only mediocre. "All these silly marriage activities while a giant planet plummets down to earth..." Well, okay. But why do we perform these activities? What benefits do they have? What do they communicate? Do they provide solace? Do they provide structure and organization? Do they clutter our lives with meaningless fluff, and if so, why do we not see it as meaningless fluff? What social, moral, and political reasons lie behind the perpetuation of these conventions? If the film is trying to say that conventions are stupid because tomorrow we might be squashed by a metaphorically named planet, then I can only nod in half-agreement and then sort of shrug dismissively. What I think happens, though, what I think the film is doing, is poetically rendering the crisis that occurs when an individual suddenly feels him or herself utterly detached from convention. The second half of the film, then, is a dazed and confused depiction of detachment-shellshock. I find that more satisfying. I don't know that von Trier offers solutions, other than that we try not to fool ourselves into fitting a mould we cannot conform to. Justine suffers because she tries to conform and fails to do so. Had she never tried, perhaps she could have been happier earlier (or happy at all). But then we would not have had a movie, just a smiling Kirsten Dunst flashing her boobs and accepting death. Which would have been a better movie for some, I suppose.

I guess I'm consciously trying to downplay what the film has to say about humanity in general, prefering to see it as a character portrait above all else, and even then, not a very profound portrait in the psychological sense, more like a sensory character portrait, what it feels like to walk around feeling glum and dispirited and nihilistic. Not a very productive reason to spend celluloid, according to some, but it does offer some food for thought, a way of approaching a state of mind.

[Beau]

Not that an intimate character portrait cannot, by virtue of exploring a human being, therefore say something about "humanity in general." But that is not really related to what I was saying above.

[Dillard]

I like a good deal of what you're saying Beau: the film as a sensory, tonal experience more than a narrative or psychological experience. That interpretation doesn't make me like the film any more, but it does make more sense in terms of Von Trier's intention.

What I don't agree with is that Von Trier escapes from making statements about the human predicament (even if this is not his primary intention). Sure, the planet colliding with earth is not a man-made disaster, but the earth's destruction will affect all of humanity, not just this family. The first half of the film sets up how this family functions more or less in an isolated state. But the second half will show how this family functions given the conditions of impending apocalypse. One could make a good argument, I think, for this family being a microcosm for human families in general within this context of impending doom.

And I think by saying Melancholia is primarily meant to be a character portrait of Justine and that we experience the film through Justine's filter, you're down-playing the role that the key relationship (Justine and Claire) plays in giving multiple perspectives. The second half of the film highlights Claire's deteriorating state. I don't think this narrative allows us to settle into one perspective. As I've already said, for me, the film turned into a portrayal of the breakdown of relationship, of connection, when it matters most. This is about a whole family and in particular the relationship between these sisters. In the second half we hop between Justine and Claire's perspectives and see how truly alone these two persons are. Humans are shown to be completely isolated in their psychoses, in their selfishness, weakness, and cruelty. Humans are shown to be helpless to these "sins" (or whatever you want to call them). This is the hopeless aspect of the film to me and it is hard for me to ignore. It is a small-minded view of what humans are capable.

There's, in general, a breakdown of human imagination. The ending is a case in point. Why is no one looking at Melancholia in those last moments in the film, surely a sublime moment of horror and beauty to be shared? Why does the astronomer kill himself when the end is near? If the end is near, the end being brought about by a cataclysmic astral event, and I'm an astronomer, I'm going to want to see that event! And I'm going to want to share that with the people around me. The interiority of the characters in that last moment is absolutely maddening!

[Raiders]

I like a good deal of what you're saying Beau: the film as a sensory, tonal experience more than a narrative or psychological experience. That interpretation doesn't make me like the film any more, but it does make more sense in terms of Von Trier's intention.

What I don't agree with is that Von Trier escapes from making statements about the human predicament (even if this is not his primary intention). Sure, the planet colliding with earth is not a man-made disaster, but the earth's destruction will affect all of humanity, not just this family. The first half of the film sets up how this family functions more or less in an isolated state. But the second half will show how this family functions given the conditions of impending apocalypse. One could make a good argument, I think, for this family being a microcosm for human families in general within this context of impending doom.

And I think by saying Melancholia is primarily meant to be a character portrait of Justine and that we experience the film through Justine's filter, you're down-playing the role that the key relationship (Justine and Claire) plays in giving multiple perspectives. The second half of the film highlights Claire's deteriorating state. I don't think this narrative allows us to settle into one perspective. As I've already said, for me, the film turned into a portrayal of the breakdown of relationship, of connection, when it matters most. This is about a whole family and in particular the relationship between these sisters. In the second half we hop between Justine and Claire's perspectives and see how truly alone these two persons are. Humans are shown to be completely isolated in their psychoses, in their selfishness, weakness, and cruelty. Humans are shown to be helpless to these "sins" (or whatever you want to call them). This is the hopeless aspect of the film to me and it is hard for me to ignore. It is a small-minded view of what humans are capable.

There's, in general, a breakdown of human imagination. The ending is a case in point. Why is no one looking at Melancholia in those last moments in the film, surely a sublime moment of horror and beauty to be shared? Why does the astronomer kill himself when the end is near? If the end is near, the end being brought about by a cataclysmic astral event, and I'm an astronomer, I'm going to want to see that event! And I'm going to want to share that with the people around me. The interiority of the characters in that last moment is absolutely maddening!

I think in the case of the "astronomer" (I gather from the context this is merely a hobby for a man with too much time and money), his suicide is brought about by the fact that his intensely rational mind cannot comprehend the improbability of the end of the entire world and perhaps more personally, his own destruction.

Conventions, even down to actions and rationalities, are the object of Von Trier's scorn.

[Beau]

I absolutely downplayed the role of Claire, I agree. The film's tone is so often reflective of Justine's depression, that my memory cannot help but recall the film as a first-person narrative (in the vein of The Conformist and Eight and a Half, where the first-person filter is absolute and authoritarian), but you're probably right, Melancholia is not strictly first-person.

That said, and although I emphasize with the idea of the family as a microcosm, I don't know if I can quite hop into that bandwagon, perhaps because I see this family as very unique and particular (social and economic status, personality and emotional disorders, rampant dysfunction, etc...). They don't allow me to stretch them out beyond the borders of their skin and their closed circle. They're a family, an example of a human family, but I don't know if they can represent every family or even most. Giving Justine the gift of clairvoyance and having her make love to a celestial body doesn't really serve to make her some sort of everywoman in my mind. I feel that if we persist in looking at this family and these characters as microcosmic representations of humanity, then we run into the problem you did, which is, basically, that these people are too limited in imagination and spirit to encompass "everything (or even, to be more realistic, a few key important things) that makind is capable of", as you point out.

That said, I do think there is a microcosmic element to the family, no doubt. They are very special people, but they are also who we watch as the world comes to an end and, as such, ithey do somewhat become stand-ins for everyone else, since everyone else is excluded from this depiction of the apocalypse.

Still, I don't think the film works for me very well this way, mostly because the characters are so stuck in their individual neuroses and in the disconnection that has settled between them, that I keep returning to their uniqueness. The only way they can claim macro/microcosmic relevance is if we believe the following: "Every family is both unique and like every other family". That might work: von Trier portrays both how special and particular this family is and, also, how general and universal. I might jive with that, except that this family doesn't have much in the way of variety or breadth of scope and passion. And many of its members only serve to portray Justine's dilemma. Most of the family members that appear in the first half and vanish in the second have no other purpose other than giving Justine a reason to complete her character arc and transition from a young succesful woman to an antisocial and depressed rebel with magical powers.

The only relationship that is deepened in any appreciable way is that between Justine and Claire. You can say they represent humanity in that they portray two kinds of people: one has given up on the comforts of social structures and the other believes in them until the last. So, to moderate my argument a bit, I can admit the film has some elements of the "famly as microcosm", but it works much better as a character portrait of two sisters. This might be because I felt no weight in Justine's search for truth. Had she been more like a successful Tarkovsky character, had her existential search had the power to become also our search, and all of humanity's search, instead of just playing out like a protracted and really bad mood, then maybe I could have seen her journey as parallel to humanity's. I don't know if the absence of this weight and power is due to Dunst's performance or von Trier's direction or both. The elements are in place for a hefty existential journey, but I don't feel it. I just see a more personal, intimate struggle between a peculiar woman and the conventional mould she refuses to conform to, as well as the bewilderment and depression that follows this refusal. This could also be our journey, I see in her predicament something that involves all of us, but I never felt involved, she never looks out to find a general problem, only inwards, into her own dissatisfaction. Which is great, I respect that, but it does make her drama more her own and less relevant to everyone else.

[Dillard]

Well Beau, I think you both honored my perspective on the film (very generously) and successfully advanced your own view of how the film "worked" for you. I'm still musing over whether I have anything to add. Either way, I appreciate the back and forth.

[Ezee E]

This is good, but not without some problems. I'll probably like it more with some reflection, and curious to read through this thread and see everyone's opinions.

The first act is near masterful, and really hurts the second half when it's scaled down to the primary characters. With that, I'm going to say that the second half of the movie is very indicative of how the first half can possibly happen.

I figure many question the possibility of that kind of wedding happening? While certainly outlandish, I wouldn't say it's impossible. Also outlandish, is the idea of another planet hitting ours. We may ignore it, play cute or distract ourselves, or fake it until it's inevitable. I see this as what happened in the first half. And then it all blew up at the wedding. Even at the wedding, participants tried to ignore the fact of what was happening. While waiting for the flower toss, people continued to clap and play a good time.
The sex scene on the lawn is a little overthetop though. For one, I don't think she was doing anything but humping as there's no way that guy was aroused yet...

And did anyone mention that this might be the longest wedding reception since The Deer Hunter?

The second half now, is just not nearly as interesting to me. Justine seems to have accepted death, while Claire is understandably terrified. I don't know, that seems to be as far as the second half goes, except that Justine tries to at least keep the young boy from getting to their type of level of depression or anxiety.

There's some fantastic shots throughout the movie. Most will like the opening/closing shots, but the shots of the sisters in the yard as birds fly over, cottonwood (?) dropping on them is wonderful. Dunst's artfully constructed nude shot, and pretty much anytime Von Trier goes with an aerial shot is noteworthy.

Let's see if you all have something more to say about the second half.

[TGM]

^ Huh, I actually didn't make that same connection with your comparisons of the two parts. I personally wasn't as big a fan of the first half as the second half, though thinking about it that way does offer a different perspective that almost makes me appreciate it a little more.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Is nobody talking about how incredibly erotic THAT sex scene is? Because it was. Too bad it was with a total putz of a guy.

I thought this was pretty great in any case. Loved the minor moments of elegance in the first half (balloons in the sky, mise en scene of the wedding itself), coupled with the big, crushing moments of madness and mayhem (the opening sequence, and the hysteria of the second half of part 2). Charlotte is beautiful and captivating as always. Such a great actress. Dunst did her Dunst thing I guess. I appreciate the breasts but I can't take her too seriously as an actress. She always has the same voice, same eyes, etc...

[Pop Trash]

Is nobody talking about how incredibly erotic THAT sex scene is? Because it was. Too bad it was with a total putz of a guy.


I thought it was un-erotic to the point of hilarity (probably intentional). Dunst naked under the light of Melancholia on the other hand...

[Spaceman Spiff]

I thought it was un-erotic to the point of hilarity (probably intentional). Dunst naked under the light of Melancholia on the other hand...

Nah, few things are sexier than totally unexpected sex. I did think it was pretty fake though (as in, I'm sure he wasn't instantly hard and able to, um... penetrate her that quickly without any service). Could have lingered on the scene a bit more so that it would have been more realistic.

Ahem.

And yeah, for some reason I really dislike that guy's face. Something about him annoys me. He annoyed me here, and he annoyed me again in Martha Marcie May Marlene.

[Raiders]

Is nobody talking about how incredibly erotic THAT sex scene is? Because it was. Too bad it was with a total putz of a guy.

I think nobody is talking about it because it was the opposite of erotic. Rather intentionally so, too.

[Spinal]

I think nobody is talking about it because it was the opposite of erotic. Rather intentionally so, too.

This.

I think the fact that it is shot at a distance is intended to emphasize the futility of the gesture.

[Ezee E]

This was basically the opposite of what we see in Dunst.

Dunst was only her usual self in that opening scene, which was quite delightful really.

[Dukefrukem]

This skyrocketed to the top of my rankings this year. LOVED THIS. The prologue was absolutely the best visual scene I think I’ve ever seen since the Fountain. As for the first half; I was aggravated. I was thinking to myself no one would act like this during a wedding reception. But of course, there was a point to it all and I agreed with Ezee’s problem with the sex scene, but as you begin to watch the second half, it begins to make more sense. Justine has completely accepted the world is about to end and her depression is just beginning to deepen. She cheats on her husband, quits her job, tries to reunite with her father and attempts to relate to her mother. Time is running out and she’s desperate. When she falls into a deeper depression in the second half, I thought Dunst as at her BEST.

I loved how the movie was narrated, first from Justine’s POV and then Claire’s. The biggest problem I had with the movie was Claire’s husbands’ suicide. I realize what point was trying to be made here, but was he really that much of a coward? Apparently so, but it didn’t fit his personality during the first half. Then there’s the score, which will be getting a nod from me in the MCies.
Great movie. Better than Anti-Christ.

[Lucky]

The score is indeed great, but not original. It's from a Wagner opera.

[Qrazy]

This film has a lot going for it but unfortunately it falls apart at certain key dramatic moments. The sex scene on the golf course followed by the next few minutes of the husband leaving ring entirely false. The closing shot of the planets colliding was also a mistake. Trier's script lacks the ability to successfully probe the relationship between the sisters. They receive no real reconciliation, understanding or redemption by the film's end which is really what the film should have been about in my opinion. A lot of the characters here unfortunately start as fully formed individuals and then devolve into cyphers as the narrative marches along. This has always been a major problem with Trier's cinema.

This is Trier riffing/inverting Takovsky's The Sacrifice but without any sacrifice or real clarity of vision. Faith in hope is replaced by faith in the inevitability of destruction. The thing is for someone to go to the effort to make a film to convey that seems disingenuous given how difficult and involved filmmaking always is. I have to agree with those who say the film over endorses Justine's perspective by making her clairvoyant. The film would have had much more negative capability without that endorsement.