https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/...5,1000_AL_.jpg
IMDb
Printable View
Bottom line is that this is a film worth seeing. It doesn't reach the heights of Trier's best work. Not by a long shot. But it does function on at least a few different levels that make it worthwhile.
Unfortunately, the surface level is the least interesting aspect of the film. As a thriller/horror movie, it doesn't have much palpable tension. The victims are not fully-formed characters and you'll have little doubt about what is about to happen. The film self-criticizes itself for this, which doesn't really help the viewer who's just into seeing a tense, scary movie. This viewer will likely be disappointed. Some in my audience found dark humor in the appalling actions of the protagonist. I didn't. But if you're someone who likes American Psycho (I don't), then who knows? Maybe you will too.
Somewhat more interesting is the level that functions as a kind of critique on American apathy towards the violence that surrounds them. It's as if Lars finally completed his America trilogy after all, although this film does not resemble Dogville or Manderlay in the slightest in terms of form. Perhaps the film's most insightful observation (and to be honest, it could use more) is that Jack doesn't really need to be that cautious in getting away with murder because it's already an accepted part of the environment. That stuck with me.
The film is perhaps most effective as a reflection on Trier's career and his attempts to create provocative art. This is also the level that is probably going to be least interesting to the casual viewer, I grant. It's really only at this level of metaphor and self-critical in-jokes that the movie actually becomes somewhat clever, referencing his tendency to create naive female protagonists that are subsequently put through a wringer ... referencing his own cruel, meticulous approach to directing ... and in the film's climax, [] Much like M.I.A. created a hyperbolic version of her own persona in her hit "Paper Planes", it seems that Jack is at least partially an avatar for Trier himself - an absurd exaggeration of his worst excesses given fictional life.
Though the film occasionally veers into patience-testing tedium, it ends with its strongest sequence. The epilogue is highly metaphorical and visually pleasing. And though I will not reveal what happens, it must be said that the film would make the most sense if it was the last of Trier's career - with the director agreeing with critics that, in the final verdict, he's quite honestly an insufferable bastard.
Your words here have made me significantly more interested in it all than I was before. Really eloquent and intriguing.
The question is when/how I will now get to see the Director's Cut that I presume you did for its "one night only" screenings.
I'll be curious to see what gets cut, although I doubt it will have to be much. The worst moments of violence are mostly quite quick and certainly not much worse than something like Hereditary, for example. To be honest, the goddamn nail in A Quiet Place bugged me more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Gale
However ... he does break a couple of taboos.
[]
Where does this take place?
Washington. But in the same way Dancer in the Dark takes place in Washington.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pop Trash
If this article is any indication, it seems very likely that this will indeed be Trier's last feature. It kind of bums me out.
"Wasn't there something about building a house? Wasn't Jack going to build a house?" Still ruminating this, but I think I borderline loved it.
Makes sense. Washington has a history of serial killers hiding out up there. Anthony Bourdain's Seattle episode goes into this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinal