USA in the 1970s. We follow the highly intelligent Jack over a span of 12 years and are introduced to the murders that define Jack's development as a serial killer. We experience the story from Jack's point of view, while he postulates each murder is an artwork in itself. As the inevitable police intervention is drawing nearer, he is taking greater and greater risks in his attempt to create the ultimate artwork. Along the way we experience Jack's descriptions of his personal condition, problems and thoughts through a recurring conversation with the unknown Verge - a grotesque mixture of sophistry mixed with an almost childlike self-pity and psychopathic explanations. The House That Jack Built is a dark and sinister story, yet presented through a philosophical and occasional humorous tale.
Matt Dillon To Play Serial Killer In Lars Von Trier's 'The House That Jack Built
Lars von Trier has never been short on ambition, but even he must've wondered what he could possibly do next after his two-part, button-pushing epic "Nymphomaniac." Well, he's decided to turn from sex to death. First announced in 2015, "The House That Jack Built" was originally pitched as an 8-part TV series, but along the way, it has been retooled into a feature film, with Von Trier's producer saying earlier this year that it's structurally in line with "Nymphomaniac." Either way, it sounds like yet another effort that will see the director take audiences to the edge. And with production slated to begin soon, he's starting to put his cast together.
Matt Dillon has signed up to play the lead role in the film as a serial killer, with legendary actor Bruno Ganz as Verge who will be a sounding board of sorts for the murderer. It actually sounds not unlike the relationship Charlotte Gainsbourg's character in "Nymphomaniac" had with Stellan Skarsgård, and the format of 'Jack' does sound similar.
Set in Washington during the '70s and '80s, and stretching out across twelve years, the story will be told from Jack's point of view as he develops into a serial killer, and tries to create his grand work of "art" as the police draw closer to capturing him.
"[Von Trier] calls it the five incidents, which is the murder cases and then he has a lot of digressions in between to connect the story, in a similar way as in 'Nymphomaniac,' " producer Louise Vesth said in the spring. "It will be a serial killer movie like you've never seen before."
There's much more casting to come including four prominent female roles, and cameras will roll soon in Denmark and Sweden. [Deadline]
http://theplaylist.net/matt-dillon-play-jack-ripper-lars-von-triers-house-jack-built-20161102/
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjMwNTExMTUzMF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNTIzMjExNzE@._V1_UY1200_CR90,0,630,1200_AL_.jpg)
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BOTM3NDQ5M2YtNTI3Mi00ZmJjLWFjN2EtOWVhNGRmZTA4MzVmXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNDkyNjk4ODI@._V1_SX1173_CR0,0,1173,999_AL_.jpg)
Also, some other stuff:
-He has talked to the people at Cannes and there's a chance that the film will premier there.
-It's apparently his most expensive film to date.
-Riley Keough, that chick from american honey is casted as one of the girls!
I guess I can post this as well, i'm just thirsting news.
On the creative process, roughly translated:
"It's hell. I have so much anxiety. I think i'm starting to get too old to figure out how I will shot a film or work with actors...it's a challenge of dimensions. I don't think I will survive another film after this."
(https://i.imgur.com/XpTBmqm.jpg)
(https://cdn.flickeringmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/House-That-Jack-Built-1-600x338.jpg)
(https://cdn.flickeringmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/House-That-Jack-Built-2-600x338.jpg)
(https://cdn.flickeringmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/House-That-Jack-Built-3-600x338.jpg)
I have a feeling Matt Dillon will be surprisingly good in this.
oh fuck yes
do anyone know if films outside competition usually do press conferences and all that?
because trier at cannes is always exciting, and some of his funniest moments was born there... "I am the best director in the world", the press conference with kidman, etc.
He's hilarious: "What can I say? I understand Hitler. He did some wrong things, absolutely, but I can see him sitting there in his bunker at the end ... I sympathise with him, yes, a little bit."
"I am very much for Jews; well not too much because Israel is a pain in the ass. But still, how can I get out of this sentence ... OK I'm a Nazi."
it's hard to tell if you are being sarcastic or not...
if someone is interested, he talks about the hitler comment in this recent interview (from 17:00).
trailer
https://vimeo.com/269485725
Looks fantastic!
"I've never seen anything like this at a film festival. More than 100 people have walked out of Lars von Trier's 'The House That Jack Built,' which depicts the mutilation of women and children. "It's disgusting," one woman said on her way out.", "Lars has gone too far this time", "should not have been made." etc, etc
from twitter
That tweet made me laugh:
"so so soooooo many walkouts during THE HOUSE THAT JACK BUILT but jeez louise the people that stayed launch into massive applause at the end. I smoked my first ever cigarette after lol"
I can't wait to dramatically walk out my living room while watching this. like, I just watched maps to the stars, and could barely stomach the violence in that film.
Could not be more hyped for this. The ridiculous outrage that seems to accompany every von Trier release only intensifies my excitement!
Lars von Trier's Serial Killer Epic Is Horrifying, Sadistic, Possibly Brilliant [Indiewire] (http://www.indiewire.com/2018/05/the-house-that-jack-built-review-lars-von-trier-1201964207/)
Lars Von Trier's 'The House That Jack Built' Is Repulsive, Toxic Trash [ThePlaylist] (https://theplaylist.net/lars-von-trier-house-jack-built-review-20180514/)
Okay, the apparent structural and tonal similarities to Nymphomaniac (especially Vol. 2) now have me checking my excitement a bit. Pretty lukewarm on those films.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYF2tfdD1fA
Lars Von Trier Film Triggers Outrage at Cannes...Or So Twitter Would Have You Believe
http://observer.com/2018/05/was-cannes-really-shocked-by-lars-von-trier-movie-the-house-that-jack-built/
I had a hard time with this, not really because of any of the supposedly shocking things (that are really only shocking in the context of an arthouse film), but mostly I was just bored. 80% of the film was pretty blandly constructed thriller scenes amounting to little more than "how will he do it this time?". It's at it's best when it's funny (and it's occasionally hilarious) and baroque, but mostly it consists of pretty worn out serial killer tropes. The contextualizing of these do add something, but not enough, I feel.
The film is basically a big confession from von Trier, "this is who I am and there's worth in portraying it". But it adds little new that he hasn't already shown in the other films, except pushing his imagery to new bombastic/pompous/ridiculous/funny heights towards the end, and a feeling that wanting to shock is really a compulsion for him. This both worked for the film (when the compulsion is so blatant it's just funny) and against it (when it wasn't bombastic enough to be interesting and ended up being merely trope'y).
At it's best it's von Trier at his best, at it's worst it's just boring.
Kinda how I feel about Nymphomaniac. And the trailer makes the whole thing seem stylistically very much in that vein. It's kind of a shame - pre-Nymphomaniac, von Trier was really on a roll. He'd likely blame sobriety.
What a buncha pearl-clutching pussies that stormed out of this at Cannes! This was not that bad, I feel like you see worse in your average Walking Dead episode. I really enjoyed this film, and so did the audience I saw it with. It's a very funny movie - self-depracating and reflexive, with a grandiose horror finale that stands as one of von Trier's great set pieces. Seriously, fuck anyone that rails against von Trier because he "hates women." You're clearly not watching closely enough if you come away from any of his films convinced he's anything but a humanist.
So yeah, I loved it.
Comedy masterpiece. Everything up until Virgil had me rolling, Riley Keough's bit exempted. Uma Thurman as a salmon that just won't stop rubbing herself with honey before a grizzly bear (to steal from Patrice) was an absurd stroke of genius: forget the tropey play on thriller/horror expectations, let's have Matt Dillon perform a clown inside our collective comic tragedy, making sherioush statements whilst wearing a red nose he can't see. Personally thought it was the funniest movie I've watched in years.
Film Review: Lars von Trier Delivers His Divine Comedy With The House That Jack Built
Matt Dillon is stunning in this Dantesque meditation on art, life, and carnal desires
By Michael Roffman
SPOILERS WITHIN:
The Pitch: Tearing a page or two from Dante's Inferno — okay, a deliberate handful — Lars von Trier offers up an unnerving parable about an obsessive-compulsive architect-turned-serial killer named Jack (Matt Dillon), who torturously stalks the state of Washington during the '70s and '80s. Over the course of 12 years and through five harrowing incidents, we watch Jack spiral deeper into madness as he meticulously talks through his reasoning and carnal desires with an off-screen accomplice named Virge.
"See? It's OK. He Saw It On the Television": Originally, von Trier intended for The House That Jack Built to be a television series, and you can see the roots of that idea in this sprawling, 155-minute feature. (Mind you, this writer is reviewing the director's cut that was originally screened at Cannes and released for a single night on November 28th.) It's episodic by design as we pivot from one major incident in Jack's life to another, which affords new locales for each chapter — from hunting grounds to neighborhoods to skid row — that construct an expansive yet self-contained world.
In many ways, it's a spiritual descendent of his last film, 2013's two-part feature Nymphomaniac, which similarly focused on a character spiraling out of control in an episodic manner. Whereas that film absolutely needed to be broken down into two parts, The House That Jack Built feels completely at whole with itself, and von Trier never cracks the foundation that keeps the story together, no pun intended. Even when he shifts into tangential meditations on chaos and creation, it never feels as if he's veering off course. Like Jack, there's an obsessive finesse to the madness.
Cannes Stop the Feeling: The House That Jack Built marked von Trier's epic return to the Cannes Film Festival earlier this year, and the film certainly anticipates that comeback. If you recall, the festival declared von Trier a "persona non grata" in 2011 after he made some controversial remarks about his German heritage and the Nazi party while promoting Melancholia. True to his rebellious heart, von Trier punches even harder on that subject, chewing loudly on the artistic merits of fascist iconography and their wartime efforts, while also calling his own works into question.
Yes, there's an entire meta-digression that involves his entire oeuvre — Dogville, Antichrist, Melancholia, it's all there — as Jack and Virge continue to break down the divisive nature of art. Depending on where you stand, it can be seen as either repentance for his own work, or a major fuck you to his critics, the latter of which wouldn't be too surprising given the Dantesque parallels and allusions. After all, Dante Alighieri was hardly above the idea of throwing his enemies into his own picturesque hell, and one could argue that's exactly what von Trier does with The House That Jack Built.
So, it's not surprising he was both derided and applauded this year.
The House of Dillon: After toiling away in bad comedies and forgettable dramas, Dillon has finally returned, delivering a performance that topples over his string of greatest hits, from The Outsiders to Drugstore Cowboy to Singles to The Saint of Fort Washington. This is tough work, too, as Dillon shoulders von Trier's entire vision by being tasked to narrate and lead each scene through a range of personalities.
Dillon never falters, not once, indulging in his own eclectic palette by thumbing through his rich back catalogue. From reclusive creeps to would-be drill sergeants, dickhead boyfriends to ticking time bombs, Dillon nails every turn, exuding an energy that's at once both addictive and revolting. It's easy to hate a killer, but it's harder to love one, and while he doesn't warrant Valentines, Dillon's Jack demands your heart. And that's exactly what von Trier needs from you.
The Jack That We Built: It's a strange world we live in, where murderers, rapists, and predators are a source of entertainment. Blame it on Thomas Harris, blame it on a 24-hour news cycle, or simply blame it on the human condition, but murder-death-kill is something that tickles everyone's fancy. Yes, even those who cluck their tongues at the subject and say, "It's not for me" We're human; life and death are a universal virtues that fascinate us from our first breath in this world to our very last dying gasp. And really, nobody knows this better than von Trier.
Prior to production, von Trier spent years researching the psychology of serial killers, and his work is all over The House That Jack Built. While some may dismiss the back and forths between Jack and Virge as pedantic and too scholastic, they would be writing off some of the most compelling rhetoric on the topic to ever hit the screen. The dialogue that von Trier wields between the incidents is not only deeply fascinating, but downright stunning in its comprehension of the source material, particularly the psychology of killers in the context of obsession and ego.
It helps that von Trier knows his audience too well, as evidenced by his framing device of the five incidents. It's essentially a "one for you, one for me" compromise that has the film oscillating between Jack's violent exploits and von Trier's visual essays, the latter of which eventually take on a sinister tone that might make Herzog blush. On paper this might sound quite exhausting, but onscreen, von Trier glides through each medium with an enticing scrapbook of historical artifacts and a dizzying array of animation that all flows with sophistication and grace.
Of course, this all feeds into the unnerving notion that what we're seeing is what we want to be seeing. So much of the film centers around the divide between lions and sheep in the context of predators and victims, but in the end, we're the sheep to von Trier's salivating lion. Again, we're a society preternaturally intrigued by the macabre, whether we want to admit it or not, and von Trier capitalizes on those feeling by subverting our relationships to them, flicking on the lights to the dark rooms inside our minds that we traditionally keep locked and bordered up.
It's in that sense that the film is deeply disturbing.
The Verdict: The House That Jack Built is an audacious and divisive film, sure, but only because of the context surrounding the film. The gore! The violence! The subject material! Oh my! At its core, though, von Trier has actually assembled his most accessible work to date. It's a digestible watch at 155 minutes that doesn't fuss around with what it wants to say, getting from point A to point Hell without having to make any sacrifices on the creative front. No, this is peak von Trier — von Trier at his most von Trieriest, if you will — and yet it's downright enjoyable.
If anything, that's perhaps the most disturbing takeaway from the entire experience. With all due respect to von Trier, he isn't exactly a comedic mastermind, and yet somehow The House That Jack Built is one of the funniest films of 2018. No kidding! From the film's stark, humble beginnings to its fiery, hellish end, von Trier always has his tongue planted firmly in his cheek, as if he's standing in the corner giggling from behind a marked-up copy of either The Canterbury Tales or Dante's Inferno.
It's darkly comical stuff that gets in your bones, which, of course, is the point. It's all part of von Trier's rich subversion, stemming from the conceit that this is entertainment, that these awful atrocities are as equally eternal as anything we may put in museums or celebrate in history books. How you respectively stomach those thoughts and feelings is where the terror truly begins, and where the power of The House That Jack Built ultimately takes over. Because in the end, we're all spiraling out of control.
Such is life.
https://www.slashfilm.com/house-that-jack-built-directors-cut-release/?fbclid=IwAR08OEx8PL2HwKop4mDKepmT2mAy1v-eZ4muKNppWP0dXVeqBBOO81z1iWQ
'House That Jack Built' Director's Cut Release Pushed to 2019 Because IFC Dared to Defy the MPAA
Posted on Sunday, December 9th, 2018 by Chris Evangelista
Oh, IFC Films. Now you've gone and done it. After failing to get the appropriate waiver to screen the unrated The House That Jack Built director's cut last week, IFC Films is now pushing the official release date back a few months. The House That Jack Built director's cut release was originally set for next week, but this MPAA kerfuffle has bumped Lars von Trier's controversial serial killer flick into June of 2019.
A quick recap: last week, IFC Films made headlines by screening the unrated director's cut of Lars von Trier's The House That Jack Built in select theaters for one night only. IFC then planned to release the director's cut, along with an R-rated cut, On-Demand next week, December 14. The R-rated cut would also play in select theaters. Here's the problem: the MPAA doesn't take kindly to screening an unrated cut of a movie so close to an R-rated cut. IFC could have done this smoothly had they acquired an appropriate waiver from the MPAA. But they didn't. And the MPAA wasn't happy.
The MPAA threatened sanctions against IFC if they went ahead with their planned release, leading to IFC to change course. Now, The House That Jack Built director's cut won't arrive until June 2019. That date is tentative, so it might change. But if you managed to catch the director's cut in theaters last week, you're among a privileged few to witness it long before most people will have the chance.
The R-rated cut release will continue as planned, arriving in select theaters and On-Demand December 14, 2018. For what it's worth, I've heard from credible sources that the unrated cut and R-rated cut are almost identical. Indeed, the different in runtime between the two is only about four minutes. Sure, a lot could happen in four minutes, but nothing too detrimental. In other words, the version you'll be able to watch next week won't be much different than the version that arrives in June of 2019.
In The House That Jack Built, director Lars von Trier follows Jack (Matt Dillon), a "failed architect and vicious sociopath" through five acts as he "recounts his elaborately orchestrated murders — each, as he views them, a towering work of art that defines his life's work as a serial killer in the Pacific Northwest." Also starring Bruno Ganz, Uma Thurman, Siobhan Fallon Hogan, Sofie Gråbøl, Riley Keough, and Jeremy Davies, the film premiered at Cannes, where it was met with a negative reaction (although since then, many have praised the film).
Fuck the MPAA. Seeing the R-Rated cut Thursday night, will let y'all know what the differences are.
Saw the R-Rated version (it played very well with the IFC audience) and the changes were predictably cosmetic:
SPOILERS
After Uma Thurman's murder, they cut to a CU of her severely battered face - the R-Rated version shows a portion of her face still intact, whereas in the unrated cut it's pretty much smashed all the way through.
In the scene where he shoots the kids and their mother, in the unrated cut you see the children's injuries (a leg blown off, a bullet-pierced forehead) inflicted in detail, whereas in the r-rated version they cut away right at the moment of impact.
The Riley Keough scene, in the unrated cut we see the first slash of the now notorious mastectomy, whereas in the r-rated version they just cut to a CU of Riley Keough screaming in agony (more effective, I thought).
END SPOILERS
If there were any other differences, I either didn't notice or have forgotten. Was great to see it a second time, and Matt Dillon made an appearance beforehand, spouting the same answers to the same general questions he's been asked in all the other publicity bits that are out there.
Eager to see how you guys respond now that it's out.
Quote from: eward on November 28, 2018, 11:12:30 PM
What a buncha pearl-clutching pussies that stormed out of this at Cannes!
Quote from: eward on November 28, 2018, 11:12:30 PMSeriously, fuck anyone that rails against von Trier because he "hates women." You're clearly not watching closely enough if you come away from any of his films convinced he's anything but a humanist.
You hear that ladies? Don't be such pussies! Let me mansplain this so you understand, and if you don't, fuck you.
Sheesh, and we wonder why our female membership isn't skyrocketing.
As for this flick, does it make a point? Most of these reviews are saying it's hysterical and not as disgustingly violent as critics say, but that's pretty much it. Post-Melancholia Von Trier wallows in filth and provocation without saying much of anything.
Quote from: ©brad on December 15, 2018, 02:29:19 PM
You hear that ladies? Don't be such pussies! Let me mansplain this so you understand, and if you don't, fuck you.
Sheesh, and we wonder why our female membership isn't skyrocketing.
Oh please. My point is that the controversy surrounding his films, particularly nowadays, is click-baity and overblown and I suspect largely fashionable, and it is my opinion that he's responsible for, along with his consistently brilliant leading ladies, some of the most luminous, loving, and enduring portrayals of females in all of cinema, regardless of the darkness or torment surrounding them. In no way did I direct my comments at "ladies", nor did I "mansplain". I think his films are unfairly maligned, and for very shallow reasons. And incidentally, some of the most ardent von Trier supporters I know are incredibly strong, brilliant, sharply opinionated women.
Calling people pussies and telling anyone who disagrees with you to fuck off isn't a great look. You could have worded your point differently is all.
I agree that LVT is a feminist. I'm not sure how unpopular that view is, but I wholeheartedly believe it. How could you not after watching Dogville? The argument usually goes that he enjoys punishing female protagonists... engaging in sadism because he hates women. Which is just absurd and simple-minded. I don't know how you can watch a movie like Dancer In The Dark and not see the humanity in his protagonist. LVT is clearly and unequivocally on her side.
Not a fan of Nymphomaniac, but even that movie has a clear-cut (and even radical) feminist message.
I think he's a humanist with female protagonists, personally. but that's another topic and phrasing isn't always easy, there's no fight here
There's definitely room for argument. I'm not sure Dancer is specifically feminist... just not anti-female in the way some people think. Dogville, though, is absolutely feminist. And we even made the case for Antichrist in that thread.
from a social perspective he is absolutely a feminist. but that's the easy fight. and my point was none of us are meaning to fight
zentropa made porn with exclusively female directors, and he has worked with jenle hallund who has researched feminist themes for his last three films. not even sure if it's an unpopular opinion to think that his films are feminist anymore
Quote from: ©brad on December 15, 2018, 08:53:29 PM
Calling people pussies and telling anyone who disagrees with you to fuck off isn't a great look. You could have worded your point differently is all.
You're right. I could have been less brash and crude. Forgive me, I was a few Proseccos deep, and feeling jesty. Also, I think I was spurred to excess by the sheer excitement of having finally seen the film and realizing that it was not nearly as bad as the Cannes coverage suggested and that the much-publicized outrage was predictably over-the-top. But such a display of ostensible arrogance on my part runs the risk of undercutting anything of substance I might have to add in future. Point taken.
Look, I totally get not being into his films. They're polarizing by design. But so much of what I hear bandied about (largely in the twittersphere) regarding him and specifically his work I find irritatingly reductive and rarely strikes me as being the result of any real critical thinking.
Quote from: eward on December 16, 2018, 10:42:21 AMLook, I totally get not being into his films. They're polarizing by design. But so much of what I hear bandied about (largely in the twittersphere) regarding him and specifically his work I find irritatingly reductive and rarely strikes me as being the result of any real critical thinking.
Yup. That has been maddening to me in the same way for quite a while. Especially when one of my favorite critics or podcasters dismisses his work as "misery porn." There's just a little more to it than that.
I must say...I'm starting to think von Trier maybe pays people to storm out in faux-outrage of large Cannes-style screenings these days. Such great, stirring publicity for him. His marketing campaigns seem ready to spring right on that stuff and use it ironically to their advantage within no time.
Quote from: eward on December 16, 2018, 10:42:21 AM
Quote from: ©brad on December 15, 2018, 08:53:29 PM
Calling people pussies and telling anyone who disagrees with you to fuck off isn't a great look. You could have worded your point differently is all.
You're right. I could have been less brash and crude. Forgive me, I was a few Proseccos deep, and feeling jesty. Also, I think I was spurred to excess by the sheer excitement of having finally seen the film and realizing that it was not nearly as bad as the Cannes coverage suggested and that the much-publicized outrage was predictably over-the-top. But such a display of ostensible arrogance on my part runs the risk of undercutting anything of substance I might have to add in future. Point taken.
Look, I totally get not being into his films. They're polarizing by design. But so much of what I hear bandied about (largely in the twittersphere) regarding him and specifically his work I find irritatingly reductive and rarely strikes me as being the result of any real critical thinking.
All good. I'm certainly not immune to similar posts while buzzed, although I'm sure mine can be far more brazen.
hmm, three posters steamrolling imaginary opposition by bestowing the feminist plaque onto Von Trier. setting aside whether or not it's true (or if in 2018 we're still trying to end debates with "his work can't be misogynistic because he's a FEMINIST") - I also just can't believe that y'all gave him that title so easily because you like his characters, or that somehow it's impossible to consider liking something that IS misery porn or that female characters can have humanity and still exist in misogynistic work or even the idea that a film can be made multiple ways. But no, all that is impossible because Von Trier is a feminist therefore shut up twitter. My lord.
I mean, if you want to discuss the merits, that would be fine.
This managed to be a course correction from Nymphomaniac while still using some of its elements (with its narration and stock footage lectures). So that's impressive. I did feel like I was listening to an audiobook at some points, but in the end it worked. I think Von Trier would do well to set most of that aside, though. Maybe steer back toward Melancholia/Antichrist or do something new.
I agree with wilder. This was a straight-up dark comedy. Not even a horror comedy, really. And not even comic like Funny Games. Just 100% Von Trier. The song choice for the end credits does make that a little too obvious, though, for viewers who might not have known how to interpret the tone.
In the end I'm not totally sure how to feel. I have really high standards for LVT films, especially with my post-Nymphomaniac trepidation. I didn't dislike any of it, and there were some truly marvelous sequences. Whether it's much more than the sum of its parts, I can't say. I'll have to let this sink in a bit.
SPOILERS
So, LVT went out of his way to make Jack a bit of an MRA and a neo-Nazi. Nice. A little on-the-nose, but nice. I think I actually prefer that to moral ambiguity. Jack's house is not a place where subtlety lives. (That's my RT pull quote.) I also enjoyed that Jack's efforts to be high-minded and philosophical are ridiculous and are characterized as such. Direct parallel to Tom Edison in Dogville.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on December 22, 2018, 11:04:05 PM
This managed to be a course correction from Nymphomaniac while still using some of its elements (with its narration and stock footage lectures). So that's impressive. I did feel like I was listening to an audiobook at some points, but in the end it worked. I think Von Trier would do well to set most of that aside, though. Maybe steer back toward Melancholia/Antichrist or do something new.
I agree with wilder. This was a straight-up dark comedy. Not even a horror comedy, really. And not even comic like Funny Games. Just 100% Von Trier. The song choice for the end credits does make that a little too obvious, though, for viewers who might not have known how to interpret the tone.
In the end I'm not totally sure how to feel. I have really high standards for LVT films, especially with my post-Nymphomaniac trepidation. I didn't dislike any of it, and there were some truly marvelous sequences. Whether it's much more than the sum of its parts, I can't say. I'll have to let this sink in a bit.
SPOILERS
So, LVT went out of his way to make Jack a bit of an MRA and a neo-Nazi. Nice. A little on-the-nose, but nice. I think I actually prefer that to moral ambiguity. Jack's house is not a place where subtlety lives. (That's my RT pull quote.) I also enjoyed that Jack's efforts to be high-minded and philosophical are ridiculous and are characterized as such. Direct parallel to Tom Edison in Dogville.
Glad you liked it! My ecstatic praise following the first screening of the director's cut has been tempered somewhat by several follow-up viewings of the r-rated cut, so while I still
really like it and admire it, I have to admit it doesn't quite reach the same (ridiculously high) heights of his best work, but then again I'm not sure it's trying to either. And I agree that the digressions are more successfully implemented here than in Nympho (which I think would have worked far better as a whole if they had just kept it confined to Vol. 1 - Vol. 2, aside from the Jamie Bell scenes, which are fascinating, contains probably the worst material of von Trier's career, and I say that as maybe the ultimate von Trier apologist.) But yes, I hope he's got all that more or less out of his system, too. I think he's ready to shake it up again. He says he's planning to do ten successive experimental ten-minute films next, who knows what that will lead to?
Also, is it just me, or does he seem really frail these days? He's only what 62, but he gives the impression of a much older man.
liked this a lot, though i didn't find it nearly as funny as most of you seem to have. as far as von trier goes, i think the idiots is funnier, which is really just to say he's proven himself capable of comedy in the past so i don't necessarily see this as revelatory. anyway, really good, dillon is great, but i'll stand in my corner touting nymphomaniac as the best film of von trier's output since dogville.
This is the follow up to The Early Years: Erik Nietzsche (Part 1) that we all have been waiting for. People who are saying that this might be Trier's last film are wrong. Weren't you all paying attention in the end when Jack (Lars) finally opened the door to a different kind of murder (filmmaking), putting marks on the floor so he could focus his victims. There will be no more handheld camera in future Trier projects! lol
I understand why people walked out of it, some of the build up and actually murders were hard to stomach to me because it felt more real than the surrealism of Antichrist, but he took every incident so far that it became comedy in the end. It wasn't as ambitious as his other films, but like Jack overcoming his OCD in the film, he seems to have reached a point in his career where he isn't as nitpicky about his projects anymore. From the approach he had making Antichrist, to the sprawlingness of Nymphomaniac and now this, it seems to me that he is just doing what he enjoys without overthinking it too much. The result is 100% Trier, as JB said earlier. How you react to the mental image of Trier's smirk facial expression during the end credit song will probably sum up your feelings about this film as well. Even the humor here is mostly Trier poking fun at himself.
It won't win over any new fans, but I liked it a lot. He continues to be a filmmaker who's ambiguity will make people talk. The monologue Jack gave to his girlfriend before cutting of her tits perfectly captured that. That's a weird sentence to write, but Trier is pretty fucking weird filmmaker these days as well.
To the few that have seen both the R-rated version and the Director's Cut:
Is the Director's Cut significantly different enough from, and superior to the R version that it's worth waiting until it's released to see this?
Quote from: The Ultimate Badass on January 05, 2019, 08:35:33 PM
To the few that have seen both the R-rated version and the Director's Cut:
Is the Director's Cut significantly different enough from, and superior to the R version that it's worth waiting until it's released to see this?
eward described the changes as "cosmetic": the movie is mostly more gruesome.
Yeah, as far as I could tell (I was tipsy when I saw the unrated cut and stone sober when I saw the R, so I might have missed some things) it's just gorier and lingers on some of the acts of violence a bit longer. Typically pointless American cuts, I'd say - doesn't make much of a difference in terms of overall impact; which of course begs the question, why include it in the first place? Which in turns begs another question, why *not* include it? Violence is horrible, depict it honestly.
Also the Unrated Cut includes a fun video intro by Trier in which he salutes us "Brave Americans" before proceeding to rip Trump.
Hmmm, maybe this isn't the best thing to watch when I'm lying in bed trying to rest and pass the time with the flu -- but hey, I'll give it a go. I've actually never seen an LVT film (thought about watching some of them, but then stepped away).
Flu aside, the film relies on audience familiarity with Von Trier's work and persona to create context for the character of Jack and his story, so making this your first foray into LVT's filmography might be a mistake? Would recommend at least watching Breaking the Waves, Dancer in the Dark, and Dogville, beforehand, which the movie is partially in conversation with.
Quote from: wilder on January 08, 2019, 05:17:21 AM
Flu aside, the film relies on audience familiarity with Von Trier's work and persona to create context for the character of Jack and his story, so making this your first foray into LVT's filmography might be a mistake? Would recommend at least watching Breaking the Waves, Dancer in the Dark, and Dogville, beforehand.
I see .... I'd say I'm no stranger to black comedy or strange humor (the crux of my successfully befriending someone usually relies on my weird jokes or references not going over their head), and I suppose I'm familiar with some of the concepts and controversies of LVT's previous films (Nymphomaniac, the joking Nazi comments, etc.). However, if this one does rely on some more knowledge of his background and work, I'll save it and start with those you mentioned.
That's a lot of it, but in some ways
The House That Jack Built is also the inverse of many of his previous features...
(Inconsequential spoilers):
Quote from: Letterboxd user Eren Odabasi
Most importantly, there is the questioning of the suffering Jack causes for women. This has been the biggest criticism of his work over the years. In Breaking the Waves, Dancer in the Dark, Dogville, Antichrist women are always the ones who are tortured by the men around them.
Here, for the first time, the film is not about the ones who suffer, but it is about the person who makes them suffer. Not a portrayal of the suffering of others, but only of the (troubled, even sick) mind that inflicts that suffering. In this sense, it is the most honest and direct work of Von Trier's career.
And when he realizes that controlling the destinies of others and making them suffer is not as profound or meaningful as he thought it was, Von Trier comes up with a more fascinating question. Is there an artistic sensibility in all this destruction and ugliness? Is art something only associated with beauty and love, or is there something worthy to be found in the process of decay on display?
You can certainly watch the film with theoretical knowledge of this relationship, but what makes it a richer and more fruitful experience IMO is being able to question whether or not you agree -- or to what degree you agree. Because
The House That Jack Built poses the question:
what gives art worth?, having these full feature references in your head, and being able to wrestle with them as this new film is unfolding makes the whole thing that much more dynamic.
Quote from: wilder on January 08, 2019, 05:48:47 AM
Quote from: Letterboxd user Eren Odabasi
Is there an artistic sensibility in all this destruction and ugliness? Is art something only associated with beauty and love, or is there something worthy to be found in the process of decay on display?
OK, now this is really tickling my mind. I have a bit of a fascination with measures of decay and waste (I could get into it, but it's a big topic), and art that draws attention to those things.
I suppose I can watch the others first chronologically and then get to THTJB.
They're all better films too. Much as I like THTJB...
before THTJB I recommend you to watch these in this order;
The Element of Crime
Epidemic
Europa
Breaking the Waves
Riget
The Idiots
Dancer in the Dark
Dogville
Manderlay
Antichrist
Melancholia
Nymphomaniac
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Toss in Medea, The Five Obstructions, and The Boss of It All just to be complete.
If you wanna be REALLY complete, watch Dear Wendy too.
US blu-ray from Shout Factory on February 4, 2020
(https://i.imgur.com/M0FM3eX.jpg)
Yayuh
I'm gettin that
The only difference is the director's cut being slightly more graphic, right?
From what I can remember, yeah, just a little gorier, no significant differences.
I can do without that tbf.
In the States the theatrical cut has been on Hulu for a while, but I didn't want to see the reaction shots instead of the gore. Glad to know this wait was worth it -- Shout's website lists 2-discs and both runtimes.