80 of 84 people found the following review helpful
- Published on Amazon.com
"Nymphomaniac," a two-part drama from director Lars von Trier, tackles the issue of sex addiction as brutally and unapologetically as "Requiem for a Dream" did with drug addiction. And while this film is unlikely to receive the kind of accolades that "Requiem" did upon its release, it is still a deeply moving film that explores a very real and very disturbing problem. The film boasts a number of well-known actors, including Charlotte Gainsbourg (Antichrist), Uma Thurman (Pulp Fiction), Shia LaBeouf (Transformers) and Christian Slater (True Romance), who each bring the film to life with all-around solid performances.
The film, right from the opening scene, lets you know pretty quickly what you're in for. It opens in England on a snowy evening where a woman (Gainsbourg) lies beaten and unconscious in an alleyway, where she is helped by a lonely older man named Seligman (Stellan Skarsgard). After she refuses to let him call the police, he takes her back to his apartment, where of course, he asks to know what happened to her. The woman, named Joe, reveals to him that she is a nymphomaniac and explains that in order for him to truly understand how she ended up in the alley, she would have to start from the very beginning. This is where the story really begins, and through extended flashbacks, we are transported to the earlier days of Joe's life (the younger Joe is played by Stacy Martin), beginning with her childhood where she was raised by her cold, distant mother (Connie Nielson) and her devoted father (Christian Slater). Troubled by her parents' dysfunctional relationship, Joe has gone through life with an antagonistic view of love. She also finds it difficult to feel emotionally connected to anyone or anything. In fact, the only means she has of filling this void is through sex. She goes from having sex just to try it to engaging in a contest with her friend over who can have sex with the most men on a train, all for a bag of chocolates. It's not too long before Joe's social and emotional fulfillment consist entirely of sex, reaching a point to where she has so many lovers that she can't even tell them apart and must resort to listing them as letters of the alphabet. Her addiction is such that even after being confronted by the heartbroken wife of one her lovers, played with great intensity by Uma Thurman, she continues on with her lifestyle despite the toll her actions are taking on her.
Suffice it to say, this film is not for everyone, and it certainly isn't trying to be. The film is very explicit in its language and depictions of sex, and therefore it's not going to appeal to people who find such content offensive. Now, on the other hand, if you're going into this hoping for "50 Shades of Grey: the Movie," then this is not the film you're looking for. There may be numerous sex scenes in the film and they are indeed graphic, but only because of how realistic they feel. They are not meant to be gratuitous or sexy. In fact, quite the opposite. During these scenes, you feel the kind of discomfort that you would with a film about a drug addict in that you are witnessing a person destroy themselves. As an audience member, you want to reach out to Joe and tell her to stop but of course, you can't, making it all the more distressing to watch. This is not what you'd call "a light at the end of the tunnel" kind of movie, another reason why it's definitely not for everybody.
That said, to anyone who truly appreciates the kind of great filmmaking that this is, then I would daresay this is a must-see. On a visual level, this has to be one of the most beautifully shot films I've seen in a long time. In the beginning scene alone, there's a shot of snow falling in an alleyway and it's done in a way where the snow looks like it's popping right off the screen.
The performances are really what make this film work as well as it does. Charlotte Gainsbourg, who, despite not being in the film all that much, is captivating whenever she's onscreen. She deftly captures Joe's despair and self-hatred so that despite her wrongdoings, we still feel sympathy towards her. Stacy Martin as young Joe likewise captures the character's lack of social confidence. I can see many young actresses being intimidated to take on a role as physically demanding as this, but Martin handles her numerous sex scenes very professionally. Stellan Skarsgard is completely charming and funny as Joe's seemingly nonjudgmental savior who continually tries to justify her actions to her, even going so far as to compare her condition to fly-fishing. I would say that Shia LaBeouf is the weakest link here, who just kind of mumbles his way through his lines, probably to hide his atrocious attempt at a cockney accent. He's not bad in the film, but compared to the performances of his fellow cast members, his feels the least inspired. On the other hand, a performance that does feel very inspired comes from Christian Slater as Joe's father. Seriously, how long has it been since you could say that? Slater, in the limited screen time he is given, proves that he can do much more than a decent Jack Nicholson impersonation and has a much wider range than he gets credit for. The relationship between his character and Joe is beautiful and heartwarming and it makes you want to see more of Slater again. Hopefully this film will help to put him back on the map and that he'll get some more films worth his talent. Fingers crossed.
"Nymphomaniac" is very bold in how it addresses sex addiction. It does not point fingers or try to vilify sex addicts but rather explores the psychology of someone driven to this kind of lifestyle. Despite how disturbing and gloomy this film is, I still greatly look forward to Volume Two (which comes out this April)and am curious to see how this fascinating story concludes. I give this film five stars and only hope that the second part of the film is just as impressive.
25 of 31 people found the following review helpful
- Published on Amazon.com
There are a handful of directors who have created such buzz surrounding their distinct voices that there is talk about them, their films and their methods with every film, before, after and even long after he’s moved on to something else. Lars von Trier is probably the king of this. Since his start in the early 90’s, von Trier has graced audiences (small audiences, but audiences) with his perverse and often shocking depictions of sexuality, sexism and masochism. Sometimes, he finds ways to shade his own ideas, philosophies, theories and musings with enough style and depth to make them feel warranted, making the shock of it all carry the weight it needs to sit on our palate.
And then other times he just shows us a lot of pictures of genitals and expects us to feel something other than repulsion.
Now, I’ve been a longstanding champion of von Trier and his vision. While others have tossed many disparaging remarks his way and have taken arms against some of his more recent films, I’ve stood my ground and played devil’s advocate in his favor. ‘Antichrist’ was a pretty disturbing film, but when all was said and done there was an underlying purpose to von Trier’s madness, and while it didn’t all translate how he would have liked (or at least how the audience would have liked) there is no denying that von Trier had a pretty bold narrative and some pretty confident points to entertain, and the core performance from Charlotte Gainsbourg was astonishingly grounded in the context of the film (such a fearless performance, through and through).
I can’t defend this.
‘Nymphomaniac: Vol. 1 & 2’ is basically a four hour film that recounts a young woman’s many, many, many sexual trysts. Pretending to exploit (here we go again with exploitation in film) the double standard that abounds within the treatment of men and women, especially in a sexual context, ‘Nymphomaniac’ confuses all of its own ideals in a strange hodgepodge of ‘chapters’ that drone on and on and ultimately take us nowhere. Opening with a beaten young woman named Joe being helped off the street by the neighborhood psychiatrist, Seligman, and then delving into the depths of carnal lusting and abuse, ‘Nymphomaniac’ is probably one of the most self-absorbed and self-indulgent films I’ve ever had the displeasure of seeing.
I think that Lars von Trier has a deep-seated interest in uncovering the depths of a woman’s psyche. I don’t think that he is a misogynist at all. In fact, I tend to side with Uma Thurman on this subject:
“He’s a very provocative filmmaker, but he writes women with more depth and respect and complexity than most writers. The idea that people debate whether he’s a misogynist? People should debate whether people who don’t even write women are misogynist. The fact is, he’s dedicated a large portion of his artistic life to the exploration of the female psyche—good and bad, light and dark, shadows, textures. The fact that he’s dedicated a huge part of his talents to that, to me, defies the concept that he doesn’t have respect, interest, and genuine compassion in women. People should question writers that don’t even give a d*** about a female character. They are the misogynists.”
Sadly, this respect and intrigue isn’t seen very well here at all. Instead, ‘Nymphomaniac’ feels about as misogynist as they come, and at the end of the day it’s even worse than that; the film feels just plain trashy. Lars von Trier has built a career out of shock value, but his shocking contributions to film have always felt grounded in a linier plot or at least in an idea that has sprouted into madness, but a clear idea at the core. Most of ‘Nymphomaniac’ feels nonsensical and devoid of rational narrative, and while he tries to find some footing in the film’s final throws, he never establishes anything concrete within Joe’s story to hook us to her, to latch onto us and so it all winds up feeling rather misguided.
There is a point here, but von Trier doesn’t know what it is.
Instead, von Trier treats us to a young girl’s dissention into depravity. She prostitutes herself for sexual pleasure at a very young age, playing games with her best friend and even forming a club that’s primary focus was to rack up sexual partners, never forming a lasting relationship with anyone (no one lay to be repeated), and Joe recounts her story with absolutely no emotion, as if none of it matters (because it doesn’t) and Seligman tries to liken her whorish behavior to numbers and fish while she relates it all to her dying father and an ash tree; and while Joe is pretending she’s falling in love with Shia LaBeouf (because that could never happen for real), volume 1 ends and volume 2 begins and this is where things get dicey. Sexual pleasure is lost, which leads to Joe finding her own personal Fight Club and hiring translators to hook her up with Africans and before we know it, Joe has become a Soprano and is grooming a freaky eared nymph to take her place, and her man.
And then Seligman takes off his pants.
There is so much going on here and yet none of it ever feels necessary. It is all just there to make your eyes hurt (they will hurt) and the film’s primary point seems to center on how Joe’s disturbing actions are all validated because men are disgusting pigs and she is living in the repressed guilt of her of desires, but it’s not that simple and yet von Trier never steps back from his own visual shockfest long enough to try and actually develop these themes. Instead he’d rather show us a bunch of genitalia and sexual acts and then force feed us a finale that feels appropriate ONLY because the film pretty much sets us up for a cop-out ending.
There is such a thing as being bold and fearless, and ‘Nymphomaniac’ is both of those things, but it is also soulless and hollow, and when you are both of THOSE things, bold and fearless will only harm you.
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
- Published on Amazon.com
All right, I will admit right away that I have not seen all of Trier's works. I tried a few times, only I never came to the end because I just got bored, confused and disgusted and still couldn't make head or tail of it. "Nymphomaniac" was not an exception. The story of Joe's sexual excesses could be boiled down to 4 minutes; Trier's "skill" is to draw it to a length of 4 hours. And I shudder remembering that Joe is being interpreted by Charlotte Gainsbourg, the fine actress who, working with Franco Zeffirelli, could touch the viewer only through a slight quiver of her lip, while here she is reduced to "play" the crudest sex scenes which are not even in the least erotic.
Trier's works seem to have always one and the same bottom line: the absolute denial of, or flight from, any kind of human feeling, respectively the eternal struggle of the feeble human mind against the explosive, primal life-force of the libido. (With the possible exception of "Dancer in the Dark", where emotionality is equalled to soppiness, lack of intelligence and self-control as well as reality loss bordering on schizophrenia. And no, I am not being insensitive towards Selma - this is how Trier portrays a feeling person!)
If you ask me, all you can find in Trier's whole so-called filmmaking is the basic idea of "The Emperor's New Clothes": don't admit you don't see what kind of vacuous, futile garbage this is, people may take you for unintelligent! And, in the case of films like "Nymphomaniac", also for inhibited and politically incorrect. The director is NOT trying to make money and success out of the moviegoer's voyeurism, perish the thought! We are dealing with "serious issues" here, as well as with "taboo breaking". This is everybody's favourite topic, so OF COURSE the whole film MUST be eye-opening, innovative and deeply thought through. - Is it a coincidence that "The Emperor's New Clothes" is a tale by Hans Christian Andersen, who was Danish too?
Sorry, but I just don't get it. And I don't want to lose any more time trying to. This whole film is just as pointless and tasteless as the rest of Trier's works I have come across so far, and in my opinion, both his enthusiastic critics and fans just can't accept that there is simply nothing to find in them. Trier's films never get to a point, there is no real development and dynamic, and neither is he good at portraying characters you could like, respect or at least understand; the plots don't have any kind of genuine content and meaning, the characters are stuck in hopelessness and still boring, the storylines sordid and ludicrous. Trier employs pictures and music which are often beautiful, to give him credit, and good actors and / or singers (only I can't understand why they would accept to work with so obviously disturbed a man in the first place); but all of this never leads to anything which would speak of wisdom and / or compassion, or at least be entertaining.
Instead of producing quality, Trier delights in cluttering the moviegoer's environment with seemingly deep and intellectual oeuvres, whose contents are just as fake as the "von" he attached to his last name to lend it a more impressive resonance. We are speaking of a man who pretended, during one of the Cannes festivals, that he is a Nazi; not that he actually is - he was just playing for attention by breaking another taboo. (Or perhaps just wanting to test how many people would be naïve enough to "buy it", the way he obviously does with his films.)
Watching - or at least trying to watch - this or Trier's other films you only get sucked in by an endless depression: being alive is s***, people are s***, the whole world is s***, death and doom may come any minute, nothing can alleviate the overall grey, empty, depressing, senseless taste of life. So let's have plenty of stupid, meaningless f***s in the meantime, hoping to speed up the impending disaster. Woman is the devil's own self, hell resides within her vagina (nothing new here since "Antichrist"). Joe calls herself "evil": the act of love, which ought to connect two individuals in mutual joy and trust, is degraded here to hurt, humiliation and ugliness for everyone involved.
I can't understand why there are no restrictions against producing films which portray so much inhumanness, obsession with everything that is cruel and wicked as well as abhorrence against mankind, in particular females. All right, Trier is going to hell as fast as he can. Thank you for the information. But nobody is compelled to follow him.
I may be too dumb to understand Trier's attitude and works, but I prefer being dumb to pretending that I can gain the least kind of gratification or knowledge by watching this pseudo-intellectual, dismal and most of all perfectly USELESS stuff. Trier may delight in pretending that he is the "world's greatest director", but to me, all he produces is rubbish. It may be craftily told and intelligently wrapped up; but it's still rubbish. Trier probably can't find a therapist who would be willing to work with him - no wonder at that -, so he shares his disturbance, misery and hatred with as many unfortunate viewers as he can find, fooling them that his films have some kind of wisdom and insight to offer.
The truth is that the viewer, overburdened with stimuli, watching in horrified fascination and believing that he is expected to waste time and thought over these films so he won't be taken for daft, gets blinded to the fact that the oeuvre does not convey the smallest message, either intellectually or emotionally, or even make the least sense. All you get is confused, revolted, saddened and slowly drained of all of your positive energies.
If you still want to be happy and enjoy yourself and your life and be a compassionate and human individual, stay away from this man's works: all they do is contaminate your mind in the most horrid way. Spend enough time with them and you will lose your belief in anything except wickedness and desolation.
If you want to see a well-made made film which actually makes the subject of sex addiction understandable, try Steve McQueen's "Shame".