criterionforum.org

the final chapter, which merely touched on and rushed through a lot of things that could have been really interesting.

makes the whole film feel a little like a four-hour joke. (I did like the ending, I hasten to add.)

At some point in dating a beautiful girl, you will be asked the innocent sounding but not innocent at all question, "What do you like about me?" And I can tell you from experience, you need a good answer that doesn't just start with variations of "Well, you're gorgeous." Joe in this film is the living embodiment of the wrong answer: a total cypher who is not talented, smart, witty, or creative outside of the very limited perimeters of the only thing that defines her, her sexuality. It is the lowest form of differentiation, the gift given to all of us inherently regardless of societal hangups we acquire or acquiesce to, the ultimate shallowness. Joe is completely uninteresting as a character/prospective human being and her only appeal lies in being a physically attractive woman willing to give it up. And it's absolutely her or anyone else's right to exercise their sexuality in any manner of their choosing so long as it harms no one else, which as we can see in the film isn't so-- but I digress from my central point, which is that Von Trier has not, to my eyes, even remotely made a sex-positive film. Rather, he's made the wanton pursuit of sexuality seem as empty as all the holes Joe keeps begging to be filled. Joe is patently uninteresting, single-minded in her drives like an insect or the tree's branches growing towards the sun. That may be an accurate portrayal of the character Von Trier has conjured up, but it doesn't make her myriad excursions much more than a freak show-- one presented colorfully and with much entertainment, but how anyone reads the majority of these encounters as positive is beyond me. And it doesn't make me a prude or repressed or repressive for that matter to find empty sexual depiction removed from the erotic neither erotic (obv) nor meaningful. I don't judge these encounters other than to find them just a little tired. Which is why I appreciated Seligman's constant interruptions. Now, Von Trier has had a noticeable string of anti-intellectualism in his last few films-- Gainsbourg's grad student getting so inundated with her studies into the hatred of women that she internalizes in inward against herself; Sutherland's educated, calm professional offing himself when he can't handle the reality of the thing he's placidly explaining away-- and I thought perhaps Von Trier, while making some of his extrapolations comically recurrent, had finally found a way to channel his distaste in academia into a mildly comic figure who helpfully moves the story along and provides a guiding teacher's hand (and an ironic one since he claims to have no direct experience in the things he's guiding his "pupil" through extrapolating). But then we get that ending. I have defended Von Trier on here before from those who have lobbed "provocateur" as a slur at him, but here he truly does tip his hand and reveal this entire endeavor to be one long, potentially interesting but ultimately unfunny and infuriating sick joke. There could not possibly be a worse ending for this film. I defy anyone to come up with anything that so obnoxiously upends all gains made for the sake of a cheap jolt. It's every dumb horror movie ending all these cineastes praising this film would roll their eyes at as like soooooo cheap. And more pointedly, it's the wrong answer to the question posed. Von Trier was only in it for the most base reasons. What a shame, he had me and now he doesn't. (My loss / his loss) depending on how you come down on this!

Reservations aside (and I am struggling at the moment to think of a film with an ending I hated more, though I may have blocked out a worse one), I look forward to revisiting the film again in Von Trier's extended cut. Several of the scenes here have noticeable, jarring jump cuts within moments of extended dialogue, and I'm curious to see how these play out. I suppose, as with War of the Worlds, I will have to start the process of just ignoring the ending in order to appreciate the rest, but this one is way more problematic than the most depressing summer blockbuster of all time getting some unlikely happiness shoehorned in.

swo17 wrote:• Loved the fakeout reference to the child's death in Antichrist and the Tarkovsky-esque spontaneous snowfall.

I thought this was probably too cute, but in retrospect I am smiling about it, so I guess I like it more now than I did while it played out. Maybe.

swo17 wrote:• I'm completely unconvinced that someone would leave a marriage with Uma Thurman under any circumstances, but she does steal the show in that role, so I suppose I'll let that point slide.

Agreed on all counts. If there was any justice, she's be up for an Oscar-- that is what a great supporting role looks like, not a glorified leading role by a lesser name or this year's ingenue but a true barnburner of a performance that literally every viewer and reviewer singles out because it belongs on a different plane than anything else in this film (and her film is the one I'd have rather spent four hours with, admittedly!)

swo17 wrote: But in some sense, at the heart of this philosophy is the thought that "I won't judge you for the regrettable things that you've done, so that you won't be able to judge me for the terrible things that I've done or am planning to do." I feel like this sort of sentiment is what von Trier is criticizing here, and that this is a timely and relevant statement to make in 2014 to the "me" generation.

Now this is really interesting to me swo, because that's more or less the definition of "love" I always give to my students: We forgive/overlook the flaws in others in the hopes that they will forgive/overlook our own. That Von Trier would mock such an emotion is no surprise, but I don't see anything wrong with this unless, like anything, it gets perverted beyond its intended positive use (as it was by Seligman)

domino harvey wrote:

swo17 wrote: But in some sense, at the heart of this philosophy is the thought that "I won't judge you for the regrettable things that you've done, so that you won't be able to judge me for the terrible things that I've done or am planning to do." I feel like this sort of sentiment is what von Trier is criticizing here, and that this is a timely and relevant statement to make in 2014 to the "me" generation.

Now this is really interesting to me swo, because that's more or less the definition of "love" I always give to my students: We forgive/overlook the flaws in others in the hopes that they will forgive/overlook our own. That Von Trier would mock such an emotion is no surprise, but I don't see anything wrong with this unless, like anything, it gets perverted beyond its intended positive use (as it was by Seligman)

It's a fine line to be sure, though I think it mostly has to do with intent--are you rooting for the good in yourself and in another person, even though you know it won't always prevail? Or do you maybe not genuinely care about the other person, and only see excusing their behavior as a free pass for you to be able to do whatever you want? The things that you do that you know that you shouldn't--do you mentally try to keep them behind you (even if you know that you'll likely return to them again) or do you look forward to indulging in them? When someone comes to you like Joe does to Seligman, not sure if they want approval or chastisement, which do you give them? There are both loving and hateful ways to be judgmental of someone else or yourself. And, I think, both loving and hateful (or at least selfish) ways of forgiving/overlooking flaws. There are certain destructive behaviors where at some point the loving thing to do is to step in and say that this really needs to stop. Though there is no easy definition for these "behaviors" or "points." I wish I didn't know this from personal experience.

I guess my definition of "love" would be to put someone else's needs before yours. And sometimes what people need is a (loving) rebuke. This doesn't strike me as a very popular opinion to a generation that's been raised on "The people that matter don't mind, and the people that mind don't matter."

Though I may just be saying that in order to try to get what I want later.

More seriously, though, the question of how much of our kindness is actually selfish mendacity is an interesting one, and I doubt anyone is innocent of giving someone else what (we think) they want, motivated by a hoped-for quid pro quo rather than selflessness or honesty. (The queasy concept so popular among the meme-making set of "being put in the friend zone" is a particularly glaring example of treating this behavior as normal and even sympathetic.)

It's an interesting question, but one that I don't think the ending of Nymphomaniac addresses in any satisfying way. It's just a very von Trierian bit of sadism, the coup de grace after Joe has been beat up and pissed on by the two people that from all appearances mattered most to her in her adult life. (And sadism in the supposed service of illuminating societal injustice is still sadism.)

It's worth noting I frame my definition of "love" in such a way so as to allow students to reexamine the concept apart from the typical romantic notions. I definitely think selfishness is part of any relationship (ideally we pursue and stay with those who like us and who are good for us), but no healthy relationship could possibly be primarily based on it (or the opposite end of the spectrum, wild self-sacrifice). If I were to come up with a pithy definition of romantic love for myself, off the top of my head it'd be something like the right combination of trust, respect, physical attraction, reciprocity, and aligned investment in goals both shared and separate. But that doesn't look very flashy in a Hallmark card.

namely, the abortion that Joe performs on herself. Really, even if you know and admire that Lars von Trier often goes to extremes, this was really tough to watch, and not because it was in any way sensationalist, but because it so strikingly reveals Joe's self-loathing and despair.

Apart from that, like others I was also let down by the ending at the first viewing, but I actually find the Sadean interpretation proposed in this thread quite convincing, and if von Trier really had something like that in mind, that ending almost feels logical in retrospect.