Nymph()maniac (Lars von Trier, 2013)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Zot!
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 am

Re: Nymph()maniac (Lars von Trier, 2013)

#101 Post by Zot! » Fri Apr 25, 2014 8:23 am

criterion10 wrote:
swo17 wrote:It could also be the case that von Trier likes the pacing better in the cut version, that he considers the uncut version to be a rough, early cut, and that it will never again see the light of day.
If I'm not mistaken though, Von Trier hasn't even supervised nor watched the cut version (this is the main reason I'm rather reluctant to watch the current version and instead wait for the eventual director's cut).
I would call it theatrical and not "cut", as it has his blessing, and is the release that was released in all territories. I've not heard much about a wider release for the extended edit, and the home video releases are already scheduled, or out in the case of Denmark. So I would not recommend waiting, unless you find that it heightens your pleasure.

criterion10

Re: Nymph()maniac (Lars von Trier, 2013)

#102 Post by criterion10 » Sat Apr 26, 2014 5:20 pm

Zot! wrote:I've not heard much about a wider release for the extended edit, and the home video releases are already scheduled, or out in the case of Denmark. So I would not recommend waiting, unless you find that it heightens your pleasure.
To be honest, I'm afraid I'm going to cave in and eventually watch the international cut. That being said, if the director's cut was to eventually receive a release, who would the rights reside with? Would it be Magnolia, since they already own the U.S. rights for the international version, or would another company (like Criterion) have to acquire them separately?

User avatar
rockysds
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 11:25 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Nymph()maniac (Lars von Trier, 2013)

#103 Post by rockysds » Wed Aug 20, 2014 9:12 am

Magnolia releasing the director's cut (325 min.) on blu-ray this year. November 25th.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Nymph()maniac (Lars von Trier, 2013)

#104 Post by mfunk9786 » Wed Aug 20, 2014 4:16 pm

Blerg. I knew I'd come to regret buying the cut version, I just didn't know it'd be so soon.

User avatar
Jean-Luc Garbo
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:55 am
Contact:

Re: Nymph()maniac (Lars von Trier, 2013)

#105 Post by Jean-Luc Garbo » Wed Aug 20, 2014 5:00 pm

The director's cut is supposed to better? Incidentally, the theatrical cuts are both streaming on Netflix now.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Nymph()maniac (Lars von Trier, 2013)

#106 Post by domino harvey » Wed Aug 20, 2014 5:03 pm

Well, it'll be almost an hour and a half longer if that time's correct

criterion10

Re: Nymph()maniac (Lars von Trier, 2013)

#107 Post by criterion10 » Wed Aug 20, 2014 9:13 pm

Glad I waited -- I am a little surprised to see this coming out so soon though, almost like it's too good to be true, and that at any minute, Magnolia is going to release an official statement saying this was some sort of marketing error.

User avatar
dustybooks
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:52 am
Location: Wilmington, NC

Re: Nymph()maniac (Lars von Trier, 2013)

#108 Post by dustybooks » Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:58 am

I'm surprised to find myself saying this, but the film in its current state seems the perfect length, to the extent that it's difficult to imagine any further material being much of an improvement. (The exception, as was already pointed out on this thread, would be if the extended version elaborates considerably on
SpoilerShow
the final chapter, which merely touched on and rushed through a lot of things that could have been really interesting.
But I trust Lars von Trier and I'm of course genuinely curious.

Incidentally, I thought the movie was insightful and quite funny, and that some chapters were brilliant, but I couldn't help feeling it was on the whole a bit slight when compared to Antichrist and Melancholia. Especially since the finale
SpoilerShow
makes the whole film feel a little like a four-hour joke. (I did like the ending, I hasten to add.)

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Nymph()maniac (Lars von Trier, 2013)

#109 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu Aug 21, 2014 11:35 am

The film was originally imagined as something way more sexy in terms of actual penetrative sex being shown on screen, and most of that hour and a half will likely be pornographic in nature. Which surely will have a mixed value level to some, but I'm very curious to see von Trier's original vision. The cut that was released theatrically and on DVD/Blu-ray in the US earlier this year is already one of the finest films of 2014 so far and I wouldn't discourage anyone from watching it - you're not going to have some sort of compromised experience by seeing it first to the point that you'll be kicking yourself - it's not as if it's incomprehensible by any stretch.

User avatar
kidc85
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:15 pm

Re: Nymph()maniac (Lars von Trier, 2013)

#110 Post by kidc85 » Thu Aug 21, 2014 4:21 pm

I remember reading a report saying that Trier wanted to keep the content of the film balanced, so although the DC will contain more explicit sex, it should contain equal(ish) amounts of additional dialogue, etc.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Nymph()maniac (Lars von Trier, 2013)

#111 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu Aug 21, 2014 5:46 pm

That being said though, the film is already quite lengthy and very little of it is actual explicit sex. Perhaps the other part of that balance he was referring to is what's being added back in.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Nymph()maniac (Lars von Trier, 2013)

#112 Post by domino harvey » Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:01 am

SpoilerShow
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)

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Nymph()maniac (Lars von Trier, 2013)

#113 Post by swo17 » Mon Sep 01, 2014 3:10 am

SpoilerShow
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."

User avatar
rspaight
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:18 am

Re: Nymph()maniac (Lars von Trier, 2013)

#114 Post by rspaight » Mon Sep 01, 2014 10:02 pm

Interesting conversation regarding the ending. At the moment (having just watched it) my feelings are very close to Domino's.
SpoilerShow
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.)

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Nymph()maniac (Lars von Trier, 2013)

#115 Post by domino harvey » Mon Sep 01, 2014 10:22 pm

SpoilerShow
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.

User avatar
djproject
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:41 pm
Location: Framingham, MA
Contact:

Re: Nymph()maniac (Lars von Trier, 2013)

#116 Post by djproject » Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:43 pm

Seeing large spoiler tags makes me think you all are covering a naughty magazine cover :wink: :lol:

jmj713
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 10:47 pm

Re: Nymph()maniac (Lars von Trier, 2013)

#117 Post by jmj713 » Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:07 am

Director's Cut's extremely graphic teaser: http://thefilmstage.com/news/lars-von-t ... r-release/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
EddieLarkin
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am

Re: Nymph()maniac (Lars von Trier, 2013)

#118 Post by EddieLarkin » Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:19 am

I wonder what the odds are of the BBFC giving that an 18.

User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: Nymph()maniac (Lars von Trier, 2013)

#119 Post by TMDaines » Thu Oct 16, 2014 9:32 am

I suspect it will be easier to import from abroad than to buy in England. Hard to see how that can be given an 18. Silly, silly regulations.

User avatar
Thornycroft
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:23 pm

Re: Nymph()maniac (Lars von Trier, 2013)

#120 Post by Thornycroft » Thu Oct 16, 2014 9:19 pm

I actually wouldn't be too surprised if it scraped through with an 18, particularly seeing as the 18 category can accept material that would be considered illegal at R18. The shot of unsimulated rape in Baise-Moi was passed last year. Despite being created purely as pornography and containing some strong BDSM material The Erotic Films of Peter de Rome was considered to have enough artistic merit to warrant an 18. As long as the BBFC doesn't consider the explicit content to exist for the sole purpose of the viewer's sexual gratification then I think it has a good chance.

User avatar
EddieLarkin
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am

Re: Nymph()maniac (Lars von Trier, 2013)

#121 Post by EddieLarkin » Wed Oct 29, 2014 3:51 pm

Artificial Eye will release the hardcore version in the UK in January. Doesn't look like they've submitted it to the BBFC yet.

kekid
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:55 pm

Re: Nymph()maniac (Lars von Trier, 2013)

#122 Post by kekid » Tue Nov 25, 2014 10:01 pm

Is there any review comparing the image quality of the Director's Cut on Magnolia with that of the theatrical version issued on AE blu ray?

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Nymph()maniac (Lars von Trier, 2013)

#123 Post by mfunk9786 » Wed Nov 26, 2014 2:00 am

Considering that the film is brand new and shot in digital, the difference would likely be very negligible

Zot!
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 am

Re: Nymph()maniac (Lars von Trier, 2013)

#124 Post by Zot! » Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:33 pm

There is something funky about aspect ratios between the US and UK versions. The Mrs. H section is cropped on the US. Perhaps someone could elucidate me, because i'm not quite clear. I don't know if this occurs on the director's cut.

User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

Re: Nymph()maniac (Lars von Trier, 2013)

#125 Post by Tommaso » Wed Nov 26, 2014 7:24 pm

In the German release of the Director's Cut, the aspect ratio changes occasionally to 1.85 (letterboxed, so the screen isn't filled) from the prevalent 2.35. I didn't really notice this in the cinema when I saw the theatrical cut of Pt.1 only, but it may well have been there nevertheless.

Has anyone got an opinion about the Director's Cut vs the theatrical version, btw? I only saw Pt.1 of the theatrical version in the cinema and didn't buy the release of that shortened version so I can't comment on the whole of the film in this respect, but seeing the full version now I had the feeling that the pacing was much, much better for Pt.1, characters are much 'rounder' and the whole story much more convincing, even though in the case of Pt.1 there are only about 30 minutes added. This changes with Pt.2, which seems to be a full 60 min. longer, and if I interpret the summary at wikipedia correctly, the theatrical version is missing one of the most crucial - and hardest to endure - sequences of the whole film,
SpoilerShow
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.
So, yes, great film, and I also liked how LvT takes up what to me looked clearly like some elements derived from Greenaway in the very funny way in which he inserts on-screen writing and 'scientific' references occasionally. I'm not quite convinced about the extortioners sub-plot in the very final chapter; this seemed to me to open another can of worms somewhat unrelated to the central questions of the film, and as such it would have probably worked better in a film of its own.

But there's one thing that as a German I have to say: it is definitely NOT cool to use Rammstein on the soundtrack. David Lynch made the same mistake with "Lost Highway". So once and for all: these guys are really laughable and nobody except their fanbase takes them in any way seriously in my country; and if you want that kind of sound, please go straight to Laibach and ask them to do it instead of their pale imitators.

Post Reply