Note: this review is about the 4-hour-cut (two parts with 2 hours each) of NYMPHOMANIAC, that is shown in German cinemas.
"Forget about pleasure" – that could have been the tag line of NYMPHOMANIAC instead of "Forget about love", as we are never allowed to see, or feel, real pleasure on the actor's faces while they are having (simulated) sex; ironically, the only scene where something like pleasure can be felt is a shot of two little girls playing in the bathroom early on in the picture. Could this be called a "failure" on the part of the director or the actors considering that this is supposed to be the story of a sex addict on a never-ending quest for ecstasy? Or did Von Trier want it to be that way?
Regardless of this "failure", NYMPHOMANIAC is not a bad film, on the contrary: It is often very funny, often very beautiful, sometimes moving, sometimes provocative, and always entertaining, but it is also an uneven film. Take, for example, the opening sequence: Great production design and delicate sound design work together to create a mesmerizing atmosphere for several minutes, then suddenly a deafening Rammstein song starts playing. Is this a stroke of genius or is it simply the worst possible choice of music in this place, brutally destroying the carefully built atmosphere?
There are more strange directorial choices: Throughout the film we get ugly, pointless inserts (nature shots, animals, choir boys etc.) that are derived from low-quality, low-resolution video material. Then there are some lines that seem to have no connection to the characters and are only there because Von Trier wanted to say something important, and instead of saying it in an interview, he decided to put it in his film. This is always a bad choice; when Joe and Seligman are discussing topics like political correctness and pedophilia, I hear Von Trier talking, where it should be the characters I hear talking.
The whole film, despite its length, to me felt like a puzzle with too many parts missing: so many things left unexplained (for example, how exactly did Joe find that "K" character?), so many scenes that I would have liked to see. The non-chronological structure of the film with its flashbacks, inserts and captions didn't help to tie the whole thing together either.
The ending (the "moral" and the closing "punch line") I found to be extremely stupid and it left me sorely disappointed, it felt like a bad joke. I'll refrain from discussing it here, see it for yourself and decide for yourself.
Von Triers previous films ANTICHRIST and MELANCHOLIA were masterpieces, securing him and his unique style of filmmaking a place in the pantheon. NYMPHOMANIAC is no such masterpiece. I will recommend it as it is very entertaining, but it is also quite shallow and it didn't tell me anything interesting about sexuality or society. The important matters that the film brings up would have deserved to be dealt with more seriously. And by that I don't mean to imply that the film should have been less funny; in the past there have been funny and charming sex comedies (for example, Sunday IN NEW YORK, 1963), that have dealt with sexuality and hypocrisy in a decidedly serious and thought-provoking way.
"Forget about pleasure" – that could have been the tag line of NYMPHOMANIAC instead of "Forget about love", as we are never allowed to see, or feel, real pleasure on the actor's faces while they are having (simulated) sex; ironically, the only scene where something like pleasure can be felt is a shot of two little girls playing in the bathroom early on in the picture. Could this be called a "failure" on the part of the director or the actors considering that this is supposed to be the story of a sex addict on a never-ending quest for ecstasy? Or did Von Trier want it to be that way?
Regardless of this "failure", NYMPHOMANIAC is not a bad film, on the contrary: It is often very funny, often very beautiful, sometimes moving, sometimes provocative, and always entertaining, but it is also an uneven film. Take, for example, the opening sequence: Great production design and delicate sound design work together to create a mesmerizing atmosphere for several minutes, then suddenly a deafening Rammstein song starts playing. Is this a stroke of genius or is it simply the worst possible choice of music in this place, brutally destroying the carefully built atmosphere?
There are more strange directorial choices: Throughout the film we get ugly, pointless inserts (nature shots, animals, choir boys etc.) that are derived from low-quality, low-resolution video material. Then there are some lines that seem to have no connection to the characters and are only there because Von Trier wanted to say something important, and instead of saying it in an interview, he decided to put it in his film. This is always a bad choice; when Joe and Seligman are discussing topics like political correctness and pedophilia, I hear Von Trier talking, where it should be the characters I hear talking.
The whole film, despite its length, to me felt like a puzzle with too many parts missing: so many things left unexplained (for example, how exactly did Joe find that "K" character?), so many scenes that I would have liked to see. The non-chronological structure of the film with its flashbacks, inserts and captions didn't help to tie the whole thing together either.
The ending (the "moral" and the closing "punch line") I found to be extremely stupid and it left me sorely disappointed, it felt like a bad joke. I'll refrain from discussing it here, see it for yourself and decide for yourself.
Von Triers previous films ANTICHRIST and MELANCHOLIA were masterpieces, securing him and his unique style of filmmaking a place in the pantheon. NYMPHOMANIAC is no such masterpiece. I will recommend it as it is very entertaining, but it is also quite shallow and it didn't tell me anything interesting about sexuality or society. The important matters that the film brings up would have deserved to be dealt with more seriously. And by that I don't mean to imply that the film should have been less funny; in the past there have been funny and charming sex comedies (for example, Sunday IN NEW YORK, 1963), that have dealt with sexuality and hypocrisy in a decidedly serious and thought-provoking way.