[Persona]

Just wanted to weigh in and defend von Trier's earliest available work. Someone here once called it a "yellow tinged piece of crap," to which i ask, "When was the last time you took a look?" Sure, it's slow, and yellow, but there's a reason for that. The whole story is being relayed from a policeman under hypnosis, and there are plays on this hypnosis that are superior to Lynch's continual toying with dual realities. The fact that it's being revealed to a psychiatrist from one under the spell of his trance gives everything a brainwashed feel. If there were ever a film that one has to assign a predeterminist theme to, this would be it. We are taken step by step thru every event in the story with no hope for a different outcome. The character himself is forced to go thru it with us and carefully study, in present tense, his own actions of the past. The only problem is that the character is dealing with his own experiences and beliefs, and the logic he sometimes comes to is flawed, as if trying to figure out his own nightmarish dream.

Von Trier creates a European film noir, in which everyone speaks English, all are tortured by flooding and decay, and an immoral police force has to come to terms with the return of a serial killer from years ago. He uses mirrors to great effect, narration, overlapping frames, and a host of other tricks that he would have shot himself for in the wake of Dogme '95. The "yellow tinge" you were referring to, i have no explanation for. Perhaps it's to give a general feel of desolation, or perhaps this is post-apocalypse Europe, or perhaps it's because we're in someone's memory cells the whole time. It did bring a certain Humphrey Bogart feel to the film, without making the more modern-day gruesome images of violence stand out as they would in, say, black and white. I found every image disturbing and enlightening, all at once. I found every second a complete success in original and visionary storytelling.

In the opening shot there is a direct nod to Andrei Rublev. von Trier knew what he was attempting to do and he was proud of it. He wanted to stand out from the beginning of his career as a filmmaker in the likes of Tarkovsky and Dreyer. The documentary i watched last week said that when von Trier went to his first Cannes, he actually bought Dreyer's old tuxedo to wear. This is not someone who is aiming to make a few million and retire to a condo in Florida. I believe von Trier will film until he dies, and i suspect that the more he ages, the greater his films are going to become. The Element of Crime is at times a hard film to watch, but i believe that's because the director threw everything he'd bottled up at the unsuspecting audience all at once. Over the years he's learned to save his tricks and to savor the moment. His first is well worth the rental, if only to see him functioning in an opposite approach than Breaking the Waves or Idiots.

If you saw this on tape years ago i would highly recommend picking up a DVD and finding a large screen -- check it out in a format worth checking it out in. I'll also add that you should use subtitles to enhance the experience. They're not a part of the Menu, but they worked when i hit the subtitles button on my remote control. While the film is in English, the main character is in a trance, and he speaks cryptically in hushed murmurs. They're hard to understand, so the subtitles really are appreciated here.

Two quick questions:

1. Has anyone here seen Epidemic? Anyone know how i can get my hands on a copy?

2. Anyone here seen Dogville? I believe it has a scheduled release date in the fall, with about an hour cut from the original that showed at Cannes.

-s.

[Ron Reed]

Quote

Just wanted to weigh in and defend von Trier's earliest available work....policeman under hypnosis...Lynch's continual toying with dual realities...Von Trier creates a European film noir...an immoral police force has to come to terms with the return of a serial killer from years ago....mirrors...narration, overlapping frames...perhaps this is post-apocalypse Europe... a certain Humphrey Bogart feel...a direct nod to Andrei Rublev....not someone who is aiming to make a few million and retire to a condo in Florida.

Well, you've sold me! I have another friend (my Main Movie Recommender Who Never Steers Me Wrong) whose Hot 100 includes Dancer In The Dark, The Idiots and The Kingdom, and I've had Breaking The Waves on my Movies Every Christian Movie Person Has Seen Except You list forever. And the stills from Dogville have completely captured my interest. So now I'll add another title to that list - maybe even start there, and do the chronological thing, in prep for Dogville's release (presumably) later this year.

Thanks for the run-down.

Ron

[M. Dale Prins]

: Just wanted to weigh in and defend von Trier's earliest available work.

You are insane in the membrane. Insane in the brain.

: Someone here once called it a "yellow tinged piece of crap"...

Hi. That was almost certainly me, given the reaction to the film and the phrasing.

: ...to which i ask, "When was the last time you took a look?"

Two years ago. I gave it a C-; each of the other three von Triers I've seen got either a B+ or an A-.

: Sure, it's slow, and yellow, but there's a reason for that.

[Long explanation removed, because I do not remember the film well enough to respond to the interpretation.]

Um, how does one verbally shrug? I mean, perhaps you're right, and I'd love to love the only von Trier I've seen that I hate, but I was bored beyond bored. Sorry, dude. After I've caught up with The Kingdom and Medea, perhaps I'll try watching the film again. But I doubt it.

: 2. Anyone here seen Dogville? I believe it has a scheduled release
: date in the fall, with about an hour cut from the original that showed at
: Cannes.

Change o' plan: Spring '04 (boo!), but uncut (yay!).

Dale

[Persona]

Prins,

I actually knew it was you, but didn't want to single you out, y'know, just in case everyone started ganging up and throttling the "von Trier basher." Now you're on your own.

Where did you get your info for the Dogville release date and the fact (hope) that it will be released uncut?

-s.

[M. Dale Prins]

: I actually knew it was you, but didn't want to single you out, y'know, just
: in case everyone started ganging up and throttling the "von Trier
: basher."

Um, thanks. I'm bipolar on von Trier; I suspect there are no other people on this board who put The Idiots on their 2000 top five lists.

: Where did you get your info for the Dogville release date and the
: fact (hope) that it will be released uncut?

I don't remember where I saw/heard this information (it was within the past two weeks), but here's some more confirmation that it's been pushed to '04.

Dale

[Christian]

STef, you crack me up. Am I misremembering, or was there a point a year or two ago when you mocked frequent references on this board to foreign films? Maybe it was just to films from an earlier era.

If it's the former, though, your latest rave is a real mindbender. I've been a fan of von Trier's stuff since "Zentropa" and was eager to see a film that predates that film and von Trier's shift to tales about vicitimized females, but "Element of Crime" was deadly. I think it's a film that von Trier fans should see only to appreciate how he would develop those themes in the much more accomplished "Zentropa." I, too, would like to see the second film in his "Europe trilogy." I hadn't known of it before watching the documentary.

Ah, the documentary. It redeems the disc! I'm not all the way through it yet, but it's educational. Plus, it has letterboxed clips of "Zentropa." I don't know if that's been released on DVD, but my laserdisc was, infuriatingly, panned-and-scanned. I bought it because it was either that or nothing. I hope whichever company has the rights to that film does right by it on the DVD release.

[Persona]

You people wouldn't recognize greatness if it tap-danced across your noses.

QUOTE

STef, you crack me up. Am I misremembering, or was there a point a year or two ago when you mocked frequent references on this board to foreign films? Maybe it was just to films from an earlier era.

You are misremembering. As far back as when i changed using the phrase "Let's go to the movies" (pre-1996) to "Let's take in a film" (post-1996), i have LOVED foreign film. Two things happened in '96 that changed me forever: 1. I met Armand Petri, a music producer film-buff, who introduced me to things i previously never knew. And 2. I saw The Double Life of Veronique on TV in England. This event shook the very core of my being. It challenged me to give up my Pulp Fictions and seek out my Fanny and Alexanders, if you know what i mean. Check out my movie journal. I think i have more foreigns than anyone else.

What you might be referring to would be my rickety reaction to the Sight and Sound Top 100
Number Three: Rules of the Game. I HATED that film. HATED IT!
Not for it's content, though, more because it made me very bored. And i do not like being bored. I, however, am a very clever person, and always leave room for the fact that i may have missed something (in fact, knowing the gaps in my head, i probably did miss something) and can at least admit that perhaps the timing was off, and that maybe 5 or 10 years from now i will come to appreciate this boredom as art.

Or maybe not. But at least i'm leaving room for it.

You could also be getting me confused with Dan. I'm the one with hair.

QUOTE

Your latest rave is a real mindbender. I've been a fan of von Trier's stuff since \"Zentropa\"

As have i. In fact i saw Zentropa years before my shift to "Let's take in a film."

QUOTE

and was eager to see a film that predates that film and von Trier's shift to tales about vicitimized females, but \"Element of Crime\" was deadly. I think it's a film that von Trier fans should see only to appreciate how he would develop those themes in the much more accomplished \"Zentropa.\"

You are not getting it. Sure, they had similar themes, and the hypnotic style was intoxicating, to say the least, but The Element has about 100 more tricks in the bag than Zentropa. Think about the scenery alone, and compare the two films. Think about all of the backgrounds in The Element. Think about all of that water! Think about the total wasted landscape, the destruction of Europe. Think about the constant barrage of desolate imagery on display!

Listen, i'm a big fan of Zentropa. Have been for years. But it's imagery doesn't touch this.

QUOTE

I, too, would like to see the second film in his \"Europe trilogy.\" I hadn't known of it before watching the documentary.

Let's make a pact that if anyone finds a way for us to see this, we have to come here and tell everyone else. Or maybe MikeH will get it for us and we can do an After Hours Art Film next year!

QUOTE

Ah, the documentary. It redeems the disc!

mumble mumble grunt grunt.

QUOTE

I'm not all the way through it yet, but it's educational. Plus, it has letterboxed clips of \"Zentropa.\" I don't know if that's been released on DVD, but my laserdisc was, infuriatingly, panned-and-scanned. I bought it because it was either that or nothing. I hope whichever company has the rights to that film does right by it on the DVD release.

It is going to come out on DVD. I know this because it's in my Netflix queue. However, there isn't any more information than that -- no date, no specifics on the disc, NUTHIN'.

-s.

[Persona]

QUOTE

I think Netflix will allow you to put any movie in existence (and even some that aren't) in your queue, regardless of whether there's any chance of an eventual DVD release.

waHHHuut!? :x

Please tell me this isn't true. On what do you base this information. I have quite a few things that i've been looking forward to that are in the "Save For DVD Release" section, and why should i bother saving them if they aren't coming out?!

The only real experiences i have with this section that have worked are with Adaptation and Medea. The latter is shipping next.

Currently in my "DVDs Awaiting Release" section is: The Kid Stays in the Picture, Russian Ark, Eureka, Divine Intervention, How I Killed my Father, In the Mirror of Maya Deren, Zentropa, Ten, Morvern Callar and Derrida. I want to see all of these on DVD. And soon, DANG.

-s.

[Christian]

Quote

You are misremembering. As far back as when i changed using the phrase "Let's go to the movies" (pre-1996) to "Let's take in a film" (post-1996), i have LOVED foreign film. Two things happened in '96 that changed me forever: 1. I met Armand Petri, a music producer film-buff, who introduced me to things i previously never knew. And 2. I saw The Double Life of Veronique on TV in England. This event shook the very core of my being. It challenged me to give up my Pulp Fictions and seek out my Fanny and Alexanders, if you know what i mean. Check out my movie journal. I think i have more foreigns than anyone else.

Sorry, dude. You are THE MAN. Just goes to show you that you can post on this board for a few years and *still* not know who's who.

Quote

What you might be referring to would be my rickety reaction to the Sight and Sound Top 100
Number Three: Rules of the Game. I HATED that film. HATED IT!
Not for it's content, though, more because it made me very bored. And i do not like being bored. I, however, am a very clever person, and always leave room for the fact that i may have missed something (in fact, knowing the gaps in my head, i probably did miss something) and can at least admit that perhaps the timing was off, and that maybe 5 or 10 years from now i will come to appreciate this boredom as art.

Or maybe not. But at least i'm leaving room for it.

You might recall that back when Doug was initiating conversations about each film on the S&S list, I chimed in on Rules of the Game, which I thought was quite good. The conversation never really took off, though. Now we know who to blame!

Quote

You are not getting it.

I think I got it. It was very showy and stilted, the work of someone desperate to make an impression through camera tricks and visuals rather than through a well-crafted story with decent dialogue. I do think the English dialogue was a mistake. It sounded like it wasn't the primary language for any of the actors.
But I know, I know ... any such criticism gets chalked up as being part of the "dreamlike" landscape of the film. I simply thought it didn't work.
I also recognize that my criticisms of "Crime" resemble the criticisms of those who didn't like "Zentropa," but I think that film is far more accessible while still being experimental and visually fascinating. Then again, I may respond more to that film because it has an American protagonist, and the film has something (murky, and secondary) to say about American involvement overseas.

Quote

Sure, they had similar themes, and the hypnotic style was intoxicating, to say the least, but The Element has about 100 more tricks in the bag than Zentropa. Think about the scenery alone, and compare the two films. Think about all of the backgrounds in The Element. Think about all of that water! Think about the total wasted landscape, the destruction of Europe. Think about the constant barrage of desolate imagery on display!

None of it mattered in this case, because the story just wasn't there. But, like you with the Renoir film, I recognize that my impressions change over time, and I may one day like this film. For now, I watched it with detachment and increasing disinterest.

-s.[/quote]

[jrobert]

Quote

Um, thanks. I'm bipolar on von Trier; I suspect there are no other people on this board who put The Idiots on their 2000 top five lists.

Actually, I might. I'd have to go through and see what else qualifies as 2000. And I know that mike h is a huge fan of The Idiots, going so far as to think about how he could show it at Cornerstone. He can't, of course. I find Dancer in the Dark to be von Trier's most powerful movie, but The Idiots is his most intellectually engaging. Both are way up on my list of favorite movies. But I haven't seen this Elements of Crime thing, so I can't speak to its greatness or yellowness.

J Robert

[Persona]

OK, i can't handle it anymore. I can't stay quiet. I don't have time to put a decent arguement together, so i'll just share last night's experience with you. I bought The Idiots on DVD from some guy on ebay, looks like he stole it from someone in China, but most of the subtitles, although mispelled in many places, do seem accurate. I made it about 40 minutes in before beginning to fall asleep. In terms of a von Trier film, it doesn't live up to anything -- anything -- i've ever seen (that includes The Kingdom , a made-for-Scandinavian-TV After-School special). And in terms of a Dogme film, it doesn't live up to anything -- anything -- i've ever seen. I'd go so far as to say that from what i've seen so far, my two best buddies and i could easily have made this film. There is absolutely nothing special about the camerawork, there is nothing engaging about the story, and the way the actors perform is generally how i act most of the time on my day job.

(That is not to say that there isn't anything special about me or my two best buddies, btw.)

Now, somebody please tell me why i should finish this film. The only reason i can think of is because, aside from Medea, Epidemic and Dogville, it will further complete my von Triers.


-s.

[M. Dale Prins]

: Actually, I might. I'd have to go through and see what else qualifies as
: 2000. And I know that mike h is a huge fan of The Idiots, going so
: far as to think about how he could show it at Cornerstone.

Thank you, J. Robert (and mike_h by proxy) for defending the greatness that is The Idiots against the rantings of, um, never mind. The joke's just too easy:

: I bought The Idiots on DVD from some guy on ebay, looks like
: he stole it from someone in China, but most of the subtitles, although
: mispelled in many places...

Tell me your misspelling of “misspelled” is a joke.

: I made it about 40 minutes
: in before beginning to fall asleep.

If the first 40 minutes doesn't act as visual caffeine, then the rest of the film ain't gonna do no more for you; a lot happens in the rest of the film, but the general tenor doesn't change.

As SDG is my antibellwether for children's films, thus are you my antibellwether for von Trier.

Dale

[Persona]

Quote

Tell me your misspelling of “misspelled” is a joke.

wHATEVER.

Quote

Can I borrow yours, stef?

No. I will finish it. Right after i take a spelling class so as not to get chucked from the boards.

-s.

[Christian]

Now this, from the L.A. Times' "Ask the Critic" column (the critic being Manohla Dargis):

Thank you for the interesting and thought-provoking answer to my question (June 25 "Ask the Critic"). In light of your feelings towards Solondz, I was wondering your feelings about von Trier. I find his practice of creating these unbelievably innocent women/child characters who become the "punching bag" of their respective communities (religious, capitalism, America?) particularly problematic. Somehow he always escapes criticism for torturing his protagonists (always women) into these ubervictims. Any thoughts, as I know you have written in a generally positive way about von Trier's work.
— Mike M., Pasadena

As I wrote in my dispatches from Cannes, I have been very up and down with von Trier and his latest, "Dogville," left me thoroughly unhappy. Although the crucible of suffering endured by Emily Watson's character in "Breaking the Waves" (1996) makes narrative sense (she ends up a saint), the abuse rained down on the lead women in "The Idiots" (1998), "Dancer in the Dark" (2000) and now "Dogville" seems unnecessary to the story. Clearly the guy likes to make his female characters suffer, squirm and suffer some more, which is worth thinking about next time you look at one of his movies.

--So, is abuse "rained down" on the female characters in "The Idiots"? Stef? Dale?

[Persona]

I'm only about 45 minutes into it. Next week i'll watch the whole thing from the beginning and then respond. So far it seems as though the entire cast of THE IDIOTS are idiots, regardless of gender.

-s.