This review is for both parts.
One gets the feeling that Trier is out to make the definitive sex drama, and maybe even his own magnum opus. In it he touches on almost every form of sexual desires and deviations, and does so in an honest and explicit way. A lot of these themes are investigated in the light of religion and psychology with refreshing and provocative ideas thrown into the mix. This is a huge film. Not only because it is long but also because it tackles a huge subject and takes its time to investigate each one of them.
I saw the 4 hour short version of the films (it is actually two films, each with end credits and separate names) and even though 4 hours is more than enough time for most films it never felt too long. If anything I felt that the 2nd film could have used more time to develop relationships. It felt a little rushed. So I'm quite sure that the film needs the extra 1 and 1/2 hour we get with the directors cut. The films open with a text saying that this is a "censored" and shortened version of Trier's film, made with his consent but not with his involvement. I believe Trier has not even seen these versions. You can tell that they have been censored. Even though you see genitals in close up they usually cut to faces during intercourse. There are some explicit oral sex scenes (for both men and women) and men are shown getting aroused. So the film does push the envelope but not as much as some had expected. It has been hard getting the film shown in some countries so maybe censoring was the right move. Otherwise it might have gone straight to DVD and Blu Ray.
So is it porn? It has scenes that could have been lifted from a porn film but the focus is never on sexual scenes to get the audience aroused, but rather on the story, so I don't agree with those who call this film porn. The sex scenes serve the story perfectly unlike in porn films where the story serves the sex scenes.
There are a lot of references to Antichrist here. It has the two main actors in the film. Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg) believes she is evil and refers to many religious ideas and imagery to support it (the dangerous evil woman) and there is even a scene from Antichrist with the same music. These films are also an homage to Tarkovsky (like Antichrist was). The first film opens with a borrowed shot from Solaris (maybe because this is going to be the same kind of inner journey). The 2nd part opens with a levitation scene, not unlike the one we see in The Mirror and one of the chapters in the film is even called The Mirror.
I loved the use of music in the film. We get everything from heavy metal to Talking Heads to Bach, with often detailed information about these music masterpieces. It kind of reminded me of the way Lynch uses music in Lost Highway. One can even say that the opening is a homage to that film (where the camera goes into darkness and comes out again).
It goes without saying that the main theme of the film is sex but it is far from being the only theme. There is a lot of religious and psychological themes throughout the film, and the film takes its time to explain art, fly fishing and what not.
I know I have not said anything about the story. I think it is best to go in not knowing. Let's just say that this is an odyssey of a Nympomaniac and she goes to a lot of places on her journey from a 7 year old to a grown up woman (there are 3 actresses that play her throughout these stages of her life).
As always in a Trier film, the film is extremely well acted. It is often self conscious, both in its style and acting. Trier even writes on the film, both numbers and words, and one of the characters in the film explains historical facts to Charlotte Gainsbourg but Trier never hides the fact that these explanations are really there for the audience and maybe even more so for himself as a narrative way into the story.
SPOILERS! Regarding the end of the film. Some might take it as a silly, almost Twilight Zone way of ending the film. I think it fits well with the previous Freud themes discussed. Freud said that suppressing sexual desires (the ID) was unhealthy, and would lead to psychological problems in the end. So the end could be tied into that. But it could also be seen as a confirmation of what Charlotte Gainsbourg's character said all along. She was evil (ala Antichrist), but the man did not takes her warnings seriously and payed the price for that. Maybe I'm just trying to explain away the strangeness of the ending, because it does feel strange. END OF SPOILERS.
I think this is a magnificent film which takes its subject matter very seriously. It is among Trier's best films and it might even be his magnum opus in the uncut version. It is beautiful to look at and definitely a film you want to see at the cinema, even in its shorter version.
One gets the feeling that Trier is out to make the definitive sex drama, and maybe even his own magnum opus. In it he touches on almost every form of sexual desires and deviations, and does so in an honest and explicit way. A lot of these themes are investigated in the light of religion and psychology with refreshing and provocative ideas thrown into the mix. This is a huge film. Not only because it is long but also because it tackles a huge subject and takes its time to investigate each one of them.
I saw the 4 hour short version of the films (it is actually two films, each with end credits and separate names) and even though 4 hours is more than enough time for most films it never felt too long. If anything I felt that the 2nd film could have used more time to develop relationships. It felt a little rushed. So I'm quite sure that the film needs the extra 1 and 1/2 hour we get with the directors cut. The films open with a text saying that this is a "censored" and shortened version of Trier's film, made with his consent but not with his involvement. I believe Trier has not even seen these versions. You can tell that they have been censored. Even though you see genitals in close up they usually cut to faces during intercourse. There are some explicit oral sex scenes (for both men and women) and men are shown getting aroused. So the film does push the envelope but not as much as some had expected. It has been hard getting the film shown in some countries so maybe censoring was the right move. Otherwise it might have gone straight to DVD and Blu Ray.
So is it porn? It has scenes that could have been lifted from a porn film but the focus is never on sexual scenes to get the audience aroused, but rather on the story, so I don't agree with those who call this film porn. The sex scenes serve the story perfectly unlike in porn films where the story serves the sex scenes.
There are a lot of references to Antichrist here. It has the two main actors in the film. Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg) believes she is evil and refers to many religious ideas and imagery to support it (the dangerous evil woman) and there is even a scene from Antichrist with the same music. These films are also an homage to Tarkovsky (like Antichrist was). The first film opens with a borrowed shot from Solaris (maybe because this is going to be the same kind of inner journey). The 2nd part opens with a levitation scene, not unlike the one we see in The Mirror and one of the chapters in the film is even called The Mirror.
I loved the use of music in the film. We get everything from heavy metal to Talking Heads to Bach, with often detailed information about these music masterpieces. It kind of reminded me of the way Lynch uses music in Lost Highway. One can even say that the opening is a homage to that film (where the camera goes into darkness and comes out again).
It goes without saying that the main theme of the film is sex but it is far from being the only theme. There is a lot of religious and psychological themes throughout the film, and the film takes its time to explain art, fly fishing and what not.
I know I have not said anything about the story. I think it is best to go in not knowing. Let's just say that this is an odyssey of a Nympomaniac and she goes to a lot of places on her journey from a 7 year old to a grown up woman (there are 3 actresses that play her throughout these stages of her life).
As always in a Trier film, the film is extremely well acted. It is often self conscious, both in its style and acting. Trier even writes on the film, both numbers and words, and one of the characters in the film explains historical facts to Charlotte Gainsbourg but Trier never hides the fact that these explanations are really there for the audience and maybe even more so for himself as a narrative way into the story.
SPOILERS! Regarding the end of the film. Some might take it as a silly, almost Twilight Zone way of ending the film. I think it fits well with the previous Freud themes discussed. Freud said that suppressing sexual desires (the ID) was unhealthy, and would lead to psychological problems in the end. So the end could be tied into that. But it could also be seen as a confirmation of what Charlotte Gainsbourg's character said all along. She was evil (ala Antichrist), but the man did not takes her warnings seriously and payed the price for that. Maybe I'm just trying to explain away the strangeness of the ending, because it does feel strange. END OF SPOILERS.
I think this is a magnificent film which takes its subject matter very seriously. It is among Trier's best films and it might even be his magnum opus in the uncut version. It is beautiful to look at and definitely a film you want to see at the cinema, even in its shorter version.