Yes, No, Maybe So: Nymphomaniac
Sunday, November 24, 2013 at 1:41AM 
I have been remiss in my Von Trier worshipping duties. He was once basically vying for Nathaniel's Favorite Working Director since I loved everything he made from 1996 through 2004. But in roughly those same years Almodóvar was peaking and Lars lost the Battle of the Auteurs. In the past nine years I have gone off Lars a little though Melancholia (2011) came thisclose to reginiting the passion. If it had only been tighter! I've tried to rewatch it a few times because I think it's a near masterpiece but the padding and wandering repetitions really undermine its potency and actively make me angry since it could have been one for the all time lists!
Which brings us to Nymphomaniac which is NOT keeping it tight as if to spite me. It's the story of a very loose woman, played by glutton for punishment Charlotte Gainsbourg (3 films with LVT now), and it's reportedly 5 hours long. (One wonders what it is that editors actually do on an LvT picture beyond lining up the scenes and calling it a day.)
So let's do a Yes No Maybe So on the very very very NSFW trailer so don't click on the "click to read more" link if nudity offends you since there will be screen captures... Okay, prudes and whores, let's do this!
YES
Sex is still one of the only great underexplored topics of the movies due to all the taboo busting that has only recently occurred. It'll be interesting to see how filmmakers navigate the ... uh... promiscuous terrain. Not just Von Trier. The image with the fox makes me smile and the image with the blow job makes me wonder about prosthetics and all the did they or didn't they talk that always surrounds movies like this. And why am I wondering about i? Are filmmakers and actors lying to us about how far they did or didn't go? And why do I/we care so much? Prurient Nation! And I am a citizen.
Which is part of why I LOLed at the support group correcting Joe when she announces she's a nymphomaniac. 'sex addict' geez., woman. Have some respect for yourself!
The cast that I'm familiar with is pretty terrific from the lead on down to weirdo Udo. It's nice to see Jens Albinus (The Idiots) back with Lars. And Shanti Roney alert! It's okay not to know who he is but I thought he was pretty special in his role in Applause opposite Paprika Steen.
"Would it be alright if I showed them the whoring bed?" - can't wait to see Uma Thurman in an auteur piece again.
"That's not how it works" - can't wait to see Jamie Bell in anything again.
Charlotte Gainsbourg is a damn fine actress. And that voice! It's perfect for dialogue as prose over provocative images like this one where "Joe" apparently gets aroused by a man (Christian Slater) on a gurney... Obviously this juxtaposition is only for the trailer but it works wonders in this context.
Perhaps the only difference between me and other people is that I always demanded more from the sunset. More spectacular colors when the sun hit the horizon. Perhaps that's my only sin.
NO
What's that angry pitiable line from Thelma & Louise "in the future... when a woman's crying like that? She ain't havin' any fun!" If this movie is 5 hours of Charlotte Gainsbourg being miserable it's going to be really sex-negative and super hard to sit through.
Frankly, a lot of this looks like it's going to be just that. Misery.
I am not a fan of shifting aspect ratios during movies. Just saying. I don't care if it's a new chapter or not. There had better be an aesthetic point to be made.
This image...
...reminds me so much of one particular section of Madonna's "Sex" book. I hope it doesn't signal really banal fantasies. Not that all fantasies aren't banal in some way. There are too many human begins for any of them to be original. (Oh hey, Udo Kier is also in the "Sex" book so we're coming full circle with Madonna having paid the way again)
If you're going to put Jamie Bell in a sex movie can't he be doing something that turns me on instead of sadomasochism? Did I just say that out loud? Redact! Redact!
I fear this is going to be one of those movies -- like Antichrist come to think about it -- where we hear so much about it before we see it that it loses its power to shock and disturb (from familiarity) and ends up feeling kind of cheaply provocative
MAYBE SO
The trailer opens with flash cuts to an eye and a vagina followed by a molotov cocktail. That is just so hilariously on the nose.
I still find his work valuable in its provocations. Sure its enfant terrible cinema from a now 57 year old auteur but despite skirting the line with efforts like Antichrist (easily my least favorite von Trier) he rarely does provocation solely for its own sake. There's a boldness and impster joy to his vision that is hard to shrug off even when you don't click with a certain film.
The NSFW Trailer in Question
Are you a Yes, No, or Maybe So... ? and would that answer change if it wasn't 5 hours long?
Reader Comments (28)
I'm a Maybe So, if only because I'm a little tired of the constant theme of Women Suffering Greatly, Unjustly and Graphically that's a mainstay of his work. Wonderful performances within all of them and certainly great opportunities for the actresses brave enough to tackle them, but a certain predictability certainly sets in: how will the heroine be made to suffer this time around?
Oh my god no. Just no. Big old no. I'll probably be the only no here, but I don't care. Looks like the most sex-negative woman-negative film I never wanted to imagine possible. That it comes from LVT only makes me more confident that my initial impression is correct.
YES
PS I will be PISSED if after all of the fits that were thrown over Blue Is The Warmest Color, no one calls out Von Trier for exploitation in this film.
I think his interest in women led you to believe he was the "auteur" for you. Of course he's a fucking charlatan—"enfant terrible"—white Lee Daniels. But he's foreign, did it first, and actually understands something about cinema, this is a never was for me.
I would watch a new film of his if it were The Drowning of Meryl Streep as played by several different actors: men, women, children, minorities. It would be a Kaufman meta-exercise where Lars plays himself announcing to the world that he wants to "torture" Streep in what he promises to be his most perverse film centered on female suffering. Of course Streep fans insist she's up for any challenge and would deny him the privilege of participation. So Lars sets out to cast everyone who's not Streep.
{Isabelle Huppert is the supreme goddess who lives. Thank you for embracing her in your banner's panel.}
I'm siding with TB.
Very clear no, as Lars really isn't my type (I hated Antichrist and disliked Melancholia and Breaking the Waves) and this looks horrible.
I'm a Yes. Actually I'm going to see it on Christmas Day. I just can't think of a better plan.
no - i''ll be at muppets most wanted
As with every film that LVT makes, I'm intrigued if nothing else. I'm particularly excited by the cast (sans Shia Lebeouf). I've heard they are releasing NC17 and R rated versions. I will be interested to see how this all plays out. I'm hoping there is good stuff for Uma in this, even though she obviously isn't the focal point.
I'm 100% YES.
Ugh. no. LVT + UT = run from the cinema screaming.
If I want to see women abused and hated for being sexual, I could, I dunno, be in the world. Von Trier is just gilding the lily.
IN OTHER WORDS, I think Von Trier hates women and uses his movies to abuse them. He makes Hitchcock's most misogynist outings look like they were written my Kate Millet.
NO NO NO NO
Paul Outlaw: LOL. UT + LVT for me = start counting down the days. I can't wait!
Melancholia was actually my 2nd favorite LVT, so I'm hoping he can get a little streak going. Obviously no one knows quite what the tone here will be, but if it's dealing with sexual shame (or slut shaming, for that matter) it's bound to present sex-negative images. I'm all for more sex-positive image in film, but I still think there are important things to be said about the origins of shame. We should be able to have both.
Par1382: I read the rumor that LVT is ghost-directing Muppets Most Wanted, so you won't be able to escape him there. ;)
Absolutely No! I could barely make it through the trailer without thinking it looked boring, ugly and cruel.
YES, NO, MAYBE SO at everything in this all at once.
I oscillate on what to consider Lars. He is like a predecessor to internet trolls on 4chan on one hand and on the other hand it always feels like his films are an exorcism on his only fears, anxieties, and depression through his actresses.
This whole troller feels like a troll job. He has a sense of humor. He knows exactly what he is doing.
I wouldn't be surprised if this character portrait of Charlotte Gainsbourg is actually not sex-negative. Maybe it is simply just, like with Justine in Melancholia, that the movie's tension is more about the others around her that cannot deal with her behavior.
I've cooled on the misogynist accusations. He seems to know whatever personal dealings and demons he applies to his characters that it is much more interesting to have a woman at the center than a man.
I agree and with misgivings galore can't even pretend I'll be seeing this in the theater. It's the same territory as Catherine Breillat has been wondering around in, the "it's not pornography if no one is enjoying themselves" art pretension. I liked Melancholia but frankly think MAndelay was better and anyway haven't been able to watch any of his films more than once. They never stop playing in my head anyhow.... but is he out of ideas? He needs to up his meds, take Charlotte G. out for a nice steak and watch Breillat's films so there's no accidental imitations.
Erich: "it's not pornography if no one is enjoying themselves" is a beautiful phrase. The perfect crystallization of everything that pisses me off with European cinema about sex over the last 20+ years.
Anyway, the only LVT film I haven't mostly disliked is Melancholia, so even though I'll be seeing this for "critics need to have opinions" reasons, in my heart, I'm a great big blood-red NO in 72 pt.
Sex is the best part of European cinema, Tim. Which makes me confused by Nathaniel's desire to see more sex in American movies. America has pornography and European cinema has a matter of fact humanist approach to sex. And we're given it in abundance from them.
Edit: I said troller instead of trailer but that seems like a Freudian slip. Troller might be a perfect way to describe it.
YES. This will be the best 5 hours in cinema next year. Obviously. Von Trier doesn't make movies that aren't worth watching.
von Trier is a giant and this will either be a masterpiece of a disasterpiece of epic proportions and either way I am there.
euhh euhh i don't know ?
This cannot possibly stay at five hours. What theaters would present a movie with a maximum of two showings a screen per day?
Yes. If only because I am intrigued by the possibility of "Masterpiece of a Disasterpiece." (Great slip there).
I also liked Dancer in the Dark and I'm not so sure his films are just about women suffering...thats only the vehicle he uses to sell his message.
Jamie Bell smiling for once.
i'm really excited. it's obviously going to be controversial, that's just how he likes his movies to be, but maybe in a good way. maybe it's going to be controversial because of the uncomfortable truths it'll try to bring to light. it's like Nathaniel said: sex is chokingly still very much a forbidden topic, unless when presented in this conservative, domesticated language.
what bothers me the most is the news that it's going to be so lengthy - like a 5-hour piece or something... editing is important. nevertheless, i'll attend the screening with a great deal of enthusiasm and an open heart.
I can't believe you!
Saying no to a Lars von Trier film? ---
and you call yourselves Cinema connoisseurs? you should be ashamed of yourselves!
Lars von Trier is one of the very few filmmakers, who actually tries to push the art form that is Cinema in new directions--- you might not like where he takes you, but you should applaud and respect a filmmaker who DOESN'T play it safe and who tries to do something new and different with his movies.
And to answer your question, Nathaniel--- big YES!
@ulrich--Not to pick on you, but that's the kind of perspective that continues to marginalize non-white non-male non-straight voices in film. You may appreciate his filmmaking, but different people have different experiences. When I watch his films, and I know I'm not alone in this, I feel demeaned and degraded. I don't care how beautiful the cinematography is, why should I have to divorce myself from my personhood to laud a filmmaker who has nothing but contempt for me as an audience member and as a woman?