|
The_Rob posted:I dunno man I'm seeing dick go into mouth so it really doesn't seem like this glamorous now watch me act naked thing. Lars really isn't a subtle person so I'm not sure what you are expecting. Mustach posted:I'm in total agreement on the trite dialogue. I become more certain that I'll hate this movie every time I think of the "my only sin" mini-monologue.
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:53 |
|
|
Keanu Grieves posted:I thought all penetration was achieved using CGI and porn stand-ins, which proves my point. Here are actors who only go halfway towards completing their art. It's not art unless you're willing to suck a dick on camera. What? It's fine if you find the little tiny bits of dialogue in the trailer off-putting, but this whole tangent is weird.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:It's not art unless you're willing to suck a dick on camera. What? So, in addition to the trailer, I dislike the hype surrounding the trailer. Nothing in this movie should be really shocking in 2013. Catherine Breillat was doing this poo poo a decade ago. Other directors did it before her. But apparently this movie's edginess comes from high-paid and well-known actors engaging in simulated sex acts. I don't see what the big deal is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
Keanu Grieves posted:I'm saying, these actors are getting or demanding respect because of how far they're willing to go in service of art, but that performance artists have been doing way more graphic poo poo for decades. This is what I mean by, like, artistic narcissism. Thanks for the clarification. It seems from the responses even in this thread (which I'd expect not only to be familiar with Lars von Trier, but also somewhat steeled to his sometimes abrasive style), that even people who have more than a passing familiarity to his work aren't sure if they would want to see this due to the content. I still don't see why a movie that features sex in its story requires the actors to do anything they don't want to do in order to earn your "respect"- it strikes me as pretty odd that anyone would discredit an actor for their reluctance perform sex acts on camera. No actor has ever been excoriated for not doing their own stunts, so I don't understand why this is so dramatically different. That you think this movie is garnering attention because Sofia Coppola is a "high-paid and well-known actor" who is debasing herself for the camera is bizarre. Certainly film critics were all in a fit when they found out that Antichrist had genital mutilation in it, but no one worth their salt accused Von Trier of being "10 years behind the times", or that Antichrist was "edgy" for the sake of being edgy, I think he's earned a little bit more credit than that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
He's a provocateur. Usually I like that aspect, much as I like transgressive cinema. I don't think people were as shocked by the sex in Antichrist as they were by the sexual violence. This time around, it seems like actors are trying to earn edge-cred by simulating penetration? Frankly, I don't think that's a big deal and if your film needs penetration, hire actors willing to do it without doubles. As for the parallel you draw to stunt work, I do respect actors more who are willing to do their own stunts. But even the productions with Jackie Chan and Jason Statham, to name a couple, have problems when it comes to insurance. That's a monetary consideration, beyond the actors' control. I think it sets up this artificial class system in which actors expect porn doubles to do that which they are unwilling to do. And it's kind of bunk. That's a minor gripe though. My main beef is with the dialogue, the length and the tone of the trailer. And those goddamn parentheses. Nothing about this film seems as shocking as Von Trier or film magazines want it to be. That's all I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:Certainly film critics were all in a fit when they found out that Antichrist had genital mutilation in it, but no one worth their salt accused Von Trier of being "10 years behind the times", or that Antichrist was "edgy" for the sake of being edgy, I think he's earned a little bit more credit than that. People have been accusing Von Trier of being edgy for the sake of edgy for his entire career.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:People have been accusing Von Trier of being edgy for the sake of edgy for his entire career. Von Trier comparing himself to Hitler was the marketing campaign for Melancholia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Von Trier comparing himself to Hitler was the marketing campaign for Melancholia. Oh I'm definitely not saying it's baseless. Manderlay is the most "LOOK AT HOW SHOCKING THIS IS" bullshit I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
I was agreeing, just adding that it's something he cultivates to keep interest in his work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
All the marketing and buzz around Von Trier's work is about how edgy and controversial and shocking it and he is, sure. But the actual films, from what I've seen, are not really about that at all. And it's really a drat shame that they get tarred with that brush. Like when Antichrist came out all I saw critics and commenters focusing on were the two extremely brief genital mutilation scenes (and now, me too). But there was so much more going on in that film, and both those scenes were played as honest character moments rather than desperate, lurid shock value. At least, as much as graphic genital mutilation scenes can be. I'd go so far as to say that from what I've seen from Von Trier maybe his biggest strength is taking ideas that would be cheap edgy bullshit from anyone else and exploring them with the appropriate seriousness and panache. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Dec 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Yeah did people not get that was supposed to be a vagina? It's a double reference. It's both the vagina and the punctuation marks of Joe's life story that's she's telling to Seligman.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 09:52
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:All the marketing and buzz around Von Trier's work is about how edgy and controversial and shocking it and he is, sure. But the actual films, from what I've seen, are not really about that at all. And it's really a drat shame that they get tarred with that brush. I suppose with a personality as big as Von Trier's it's unrealistic to expect discussion of his work won't entail discussion of the man as a provocateur. But I agree, the reason I'd want to see this is because I really liked Antichrist and Melancholia. Von Trier himself seems kind of insufferable but meh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
We can't even really talk about this film much because it hasn't been seen by us. I think his track record proves that it deserves a view without any preconceived ideas of what we are walking into.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
Jst0rm posted:We can't even really talk about this film much because it hasn't been seen by us. I think his track record proves that it deserves a view without any preconceived ideas of what we are walking into. I sort of suspect that von Trier wants to encourage this sort of pre-watching discussion.for as long as possible. Because at 5 hours worth of uncomfortable sex scenes this is a movie which at least for me will require some breaks. And for that, you're talking about not seeing it in a theater.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
Will they be uncomfortable? Isn't that kind of the point. Why is it we can all watch death and feel normal but sex makes us uncomfortable unless we are alone watching it on the Internet? If I feel uncomfortable watching sex then I want to not feel that way because sex is an amazing part of life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
There's also the assumption that the film is literally going to be five hours of nonstop uncomfortable sex scenes, which is a bit like people talking dismissively about Blue is the Warmest Color as being three hours of lesbian sex.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:There's also the assumption that the film is literally going to be five hours of nonstop uncomfortable sex scenes, which is a bit like people talking dismissively about Blue is the Warmest Color as being three hours of lesbian sex. Well considering the marketing so far has been SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX LOOK AT THESE PEOPLE loving AND HAVING ORGASMS SEX SEX SEX, it's not hard to see where people have gotten that idea. I'm sure the movie will at least try to be deeper than that, but that's not really how it's been selling itself. vvvvv I don't think the people criticizing it are attacking the ones excited for it, or vice versa- you're free to stop following the thread until the movie comes out if speculating bothers you that much! Nikaer Drekin fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Dec 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
Just close this thread until the movie is released. Otherwise we're due for 10 more pages of morons judging a 5-hour film based on a 2-minute trailer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
Jst0rm posted:Will they be uncomfortable? Isn't that kind of the point. Why is it we can all watch death and feel normal but sex makes us uncomfortable unless we are alone watching it on the Internet? If I feel uncomfortable watching sex then I want to not feel that way because sex is an amazing part of life. But from the trailer it appears to be particularly violent, disturbing, unsettling sex and Von Trier is a director with a history of depicting that. Not to mention that his second-to-most recent movie, which he's said this forms the third part of a thematic trilogy with, contained multiple graphic scenes of genital mutilation. Uncle Boogeyman fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Dec 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:But from the trailer it appears to be... ^^^ We should stop right there. I dont normally watch trailers (unless I'm at the theater) and I dont normally like being showed parts of a film by the marketing department. I mean even if all your worst fears come true. It's violent and sexual and violent sexual and you projectile vomit from simply viewing it. Film doesn't have to be easy, it can be challenging and uncomfortable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
Jst0rm posted:I mean even if all your worst fears come true. It's violent and sexual and violent sexual and you projectile vomit from simply viewing it. Film doesn't have to be easy, it can be challenging and uncomfortable. I don't think anyone said that wasn't the case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:I don't think anyone said that wasn't the case. Then we are in agreement  Whatever happens with this thing it will certainly be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 01:33
|
|
|
Just the way I see it... any movie that sparks this much discussion is a movie worth seeing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
Monkeyseesaw posted:I suppose with a personality as big as Von Trier's it's unrealistic to expect discussion of his work won't entail discussion of the man as a provocateur. But I agree, the reason I'd want to see this is because I really liked Antichrist and Melancholia. Von Trier himself seems kind of insufferable but meh. I expect the media to talk about him, yeah, but can't critics and commenters talk about his work too? As films, I mean, not a couple of shock moments taken out of their context and tone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
So, this happenedquote:A cinema audience of children waiting to view the hit Disney animation Frozen were accidentally shown a trailer for explicit art house sex epic Nymphomaniac.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 04:59
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:I expect the media to talk about him, yeah, but can't critics and commenters talk about his work too? As films, I mean, not a couple of shock moments taken out of their context and tone. I'm sure the good ones do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
Well that's pretty hilarious, and also potentially very damaging to those kids. That's even worse than when the first part of The Hills Have Eyes 2 was shown to an audience full of kids and their parents who went to see The Last Mimzy 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 06:41
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:Well that's pretty hilarious, and also potentially very damaging to those kids. It probably isn't that much worse than playing CoD with their older siblings all day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
Charlotte Gainsbourg must be a masochist to keep working with this director.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
Highly Unnecessary posted:Charlotte Gainsbourg must be a masochist to keep working with this director.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
Of course that is what I meant 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
Even in Jane Eyre she's really raw, she's like a less polished Cate Blanchett.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
Highly Unnecessary posted:Charlotte Gainsbourg must be a masochist to keep working with this director. I like to think of these last few films of von Trier's as his "gently caress You, Charlotte Gainsbourg" trilogy
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
Jst0rm posted:Will they be uncomfortable? Isn't that kind of the point. Why is it we can all watch death and feel normal but sex makes us uncomfortable unless we are alone watching it on the Internet? If I feel uncomfortable watching sex then I want to not feel that way because sex is an amazing part of life. Not to be obtuse, but taking a really big poo poo after a big meal is also an amazing, cathartic experience that feels wonderful, but there's a limit to how much of that I want to see in public with other people. Also, I think the reason sex on film is different than violence on film is that sex is generally an intimate act between two (or more) people that hinges a lot on the chaotic emotions leading up to and conjured by the act, as well as the physical sensations. In a lot of ways, sex is much more mysterious and opaque than violence. We understand why people want to kill other people (anger, greed, ideology, etc). We can even identify with that on film: "Wow, that guy's a monster, I hope they kill him. Oh I like her, I hope she doesn't get killed. Eek, the protagonist crossed a line when he did that to that guy!" But we barely understand our own selves sexually. I have no idea why, for example, I find the sexy nurse motif a turn-on but not the French maid. I don't know why I prefer my partner on top, or why dirty talk turns me on, but why strip clubs leave me feeling bored. Why are some people furries? Why are some people swingers? Unlike violence, I just have a harder time putting myself into the sexual parts of films. I rarely find myself saying "Boy, I hope they gently caress. And those two would have some great sex together. Oh but those other people's sex is unhealthy and damaging. Man, why isn't he getting more sex?". You would think this would be ripe soil for a film to help us explore, but my theory is that the sex act, rather than being too taboo to show, is simply too inscrutable to really capture on film for a lot of audiences. So instead, sex scenes in films often end up feeling like sitting next to an arguing couple in a restaurant. You don't know them, you don't know their history or what emotions are bubbling up in them, you just know something intimate and private is happening in public and it's pretty uncomfortable. That's my hesitation with this film; I can appreciate the way LVT used sex artfully in, say, Antichrist, but I don't know about 5(?) hours of that. It really depends for me on how much actually screen-time is sex and what it's used for. I'm sure this isn't going to be a five hour art-house porno, but I'm going to hold out for some reviews first. And you're right that some films should be challenging and difficult and explore tough stuff, but I think even art film buffs have *some* limits. I know I do. (This all begs the question of WHY should sex be private at all... but I think most audiences just have an innate sense that it should.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
This is only going to be five hours long because all the loving is in super-slowmo, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
Anal Surgery posted:Not to be obtuse, but taking a really big poo poo after a big meal is also an amazing, cathartic experience that feels wonderful, but there's a limit to how much of that I want to see in public with other people. You bring up some good points and I appreciate your post. I do think that part of they reason sex on film is shocking is because we don't see it often. Exposure brings normalcy. Sure we see porn but that is just a physical thing only almost automation... Is it difficult to show certain emotions over others? Sure but why is that? Is that that we have grown up being bombard with hate and violence (not that I'm against that) and not love? At any rate I don't think this film is about love and the main character is in a hell. I don't think this film uses sex to get us to watch it but it uses sex to show us the uncomfortableness of being the character he is showing us. Again too early to judge but I would look forward to seeing your opinion on the film after its released as its apparent you are a thinking human.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
Just going off of what I've seen of Von Trier's films, I'm making the assumption that the majority if not all of the sex in this film is not going to be touching upon the intimacy associated with the act. When I hear the term Nymphomaniac i've always associated it with addiction, and nothing rational or positive ever comes of that. I used to have a hard time understanding the concept of sex addiction, but after going through some drug related hell, I can guess that people that suffer from it are not having the time of their lives. If anyone can take sex and make you believe that it can be as horrifying an addiction as heroin, I think Von Trier can pull it off. After seeing Antichrist, I'm starting to think that Nymphomaniac will do for sex what Requiem for a Dream did for drugs, and then some. I could be wrong. The term Nympho isn't a scientific term, and has no measure to decide what is too much sex drive and what isn't I guess this could be a film about how awesome sex is and how wrong it is to judge people for having a lot of it. I doubt it though, Lars is a grim fucker.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
Nikaer Drekin posted:Well considering the marketing so far has been SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX LOOK AT THESE PEOPLE loving AND HAVING ORGASMS SEX SEX SEX, it's not hard to see where people have gotten that idea. I'm sure the movie will at least try to be deeper than that, but that's not really how it's been selling itself. To be fair, if Blue Is The Warmest Colour had been marketed as FRENCH LESBIAN FUCKFEST 2013 it would arguable have done even better. As long as it's provocative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 02:10
|
|
|
I just finished Melancholia. It was the worst thing I have ever seen in my life. Hopefully this'll be a bit more like Antichrist, or at least some super-slow-motion Udo Kier jizzing. Does Trier shoot his movies on film still nowadays?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:53 |
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:I just finished Melancholia. It was the worst thing I have ever seen in my life. Look at how wrong this post is. Why don't you go into more details as to why?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 05:14
|
|
