Lars Von Trier Spills Some More Details On 'Melancholia,' Will Start Film With The Earth Being Crushed
Source: The Playlist
Here's what we know so far: Lars Von Trier's next film, "Melancholia," is an ambitious psychological disaster film about two sisters (Kirsten Dunst and Charlotte Gainsbourg) who deal with a planet that is looming dangerously close to Earth. Dunst's character is set to get married to Alexander Skarsgaard with his father Stellan playing the best man, while John Hurt is slotted as Dunst's father. But, in a book about the director titled simply, "Genius" by Politiken journalist Nils Thorsen, Von Trier fills in more details on what is easily one of our most anticipated films of next year. And he'll be starting in a spectacular fashion, with the end. "In 'Melancholia' I start with the end. Because what is interesting is not what happens but how it happens! So we begin by seeing the world being crushed, then we can tell the story afterwards," he said. "In this way you don't have to sit and form theories about what will happen, but can delve down into some other levels and become interested in the pictures and the universe –that's what I imagine." So, Von Trier is gonna get the explosions out of the way first and then presumably flashback so we can focus on character and how things got to where they were. A fascinating way to structure the picture and in typical Von Trier fashion, it won't be an easy ride for the women in the film and he describes the sisters and their take on the upcoming disaster. One sister will calmly accept her fate, while the other will be positively freaking out. "And there are beautiful pictures as she is just standing there looking at the planet that comes closer and closer and accepts it. The other woman, on the other hand, becomes increasingly panicky," von Trier says. No word if that panic ends with genitals being mutilated or babies falling out of windows. Other details revealed that Dunst's character, after her marriage, will slowly pull away from her husband and work, slowing down her pace of life, while Gainsbourg's character, upon learning of her young 6 year-old nephew's fear about the world coming to an end, "positions herself in between the disaster and the boy and tells him about a special cave where he can be safe." And of course, Von Trier's well documented own anxieties from his own life will play out on screen. When he was a kid he apparently built pretend bomb shelters under the kitchen table to calm his nerves. The film went in front of cameras late this summer and we think it's a safe bet to assume Lars Von Trier will once again drive his mobile home to Cannes next year to premiere the film. Any new Von Trier film is pretty much an event and we can't wait to see what he has in store next.
Trailer here. (http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/watch_beautiful_nsfw_trailer_for_lars_von_triers_melancholia/)
BOOBIES!!!
We're slipping if this hasn't reached 2 pages by the end of the weekend. Lars Von Trier making an end of the world flick is the best thing ever.
Trailer was a bit vague, but the basis is there and I'll give anything LVT does a chance. He's been that good forever. I remember when Penelope Cruz was on for this before she split to do Pirates. I wonder what role she was set for. I'd buy her and Gainsbourg more as sisters than I would Dunst and Gainsbourg but as much as I have bashed Dunst's face and teeth and also her teeth over the years, I gotta give her props for taking a role in this movie. All smiles for her.
I don't think there's a more exciting filmmaker than Lars Von Trier right now. He just does whatever the eff he wants. It's awesome. And he pulls it off. I hope he does here too.
I need to update my critical thought process on Von Trier. I still base most of my feelings on Breaking the Waves, Dancer in the Dark, and Dogma. I don't know if Von Trier has significantly improved since or was much better before, but you can't get a trio of films I detest more than those three. It's hyperbole to just say that, but those films represent a lot of things I dislike in film and I don't mind going into more detail why. I have before and I'm sure I will revisit my feelings and thoughts again with those three Von Trier films, but I'm not going drag out critical explanation with my every post. I'm just replying to generics here.
I just wonder, has he developed much since? He's establishment now so all of films are getting critical love. Even though I remember Andrei Tarkovsky slamming The Element of the Crime when it was originally released, I know that film and others of his get easy acceptance from others. It's hard to wade through the critical slosh, but I also like this quote about Von Trier. Written before Anti-Christ was made, it perfectly sums up (for me) the perfect idea of his self as a filmmaker,
"Where Andrei [Tarkovsky] found beauty in nature, Lars finds evil. While Andrei will hold imagery of religious artwork in his films, Lars focuses on images of torture and genocide. In the method of perfection that Tarkovsky strived for, Von Trier relishes in controlled chaos. And in the way that Andrei searches for Christ in his films, Lars reveals to us the Anti-Christ inherent in our own human nature."
I very much doubt LVT is saying "everyone is evil," and I'm sure even the person you quoted understands that. In fact, most of LVT's protagonists have been emphatically good. He even gave one of them a crucifixion. He does explore inner darkness, but that's certainly not all he does.
LVT is one of my three favorite filmmakers, and I'm really excited about the path he's on right now. It's not just the "he does whatever he wants" thing. I love the way his movies are confrontational on such a deep level. It's rare that any kind of art can do that. LVT is like a companion to Lynch or a more evolved version of Solondz.
not sure i see where lvt and lynch meet, and the todd solondz likening is just bizarre but sort of apt, i guess. maybe a venn diagram of the two would come up with something resembling lvt but... doesn't matter.
gt i'm assuming you meant dogville, not dogma? if you find yourself fundamentally opposed to a filmmaker and his style/thematic preoccupations then i guess all you can really do is watch his shit again in a few years and see if anything's changed. this movie however doesn't seem like it's going to change anything. antichrist is horrendous but so entertaining as a work that represents lars's beating heart and twitching brain on a platter that's put up on a pedestal that he erected. lars's attempt with every film seems to be to make the best movie in the history of cinema, and there's something to be admired about that kind of insanity. melancholia however... i don't know, some of it looks fantastic but when considering it all as one film combined with those god-awful sound bites of dialogue... navel-gazing title... more bill viola slow-mo... whatever. i'll see it but it's going to be bad, and not enjoyably so this time.
as for stefen's claim about lvt being an exciting filmmaker, i don't buy it. who saw the boss of it all besides mod? any buzz around antichrist was about it being a shit show and a pretty forgettable one once it passed by. as of now the only thing i feel like he's known for if anything is being severely mentally and emotionally unstable. he was once great, though. the idiots, breaking the waves, dancer in the dark, and dogville are masterpieces. he once sucked a lot too. maybe i'm in the minority here but i really couldn't stand the element of crime and zentropa. it seems like he's going back to that version of himself except with the added bonus of his deluded, depression-battered pontificating. thank goodness though he hasn't gotten charlotte gainsbourg to swear off acting, because i love her.
Quote from: samsong on April 09, 2011, 11:58:35 AMas for stefen's claim about lvt being an exciting filmmaker, i don't buy it. who saw the boss of it all besides mod?
I saw it, and it was good. Clearly not intended to be a serious movie, though. There's a reason LVT actually puts himself in the movie and basically says to the audience, "So yeah, I needed a break from serious movies, so here you go. This is a crappy little movie I threw together in an afternoon. It's basically worthless as art, but it's somewhat entertaining." And it turned out to be a very good fun little movie. To attempt to place that somewhere on his actual artistic trajectory (if that's what you're doing) is a little absurd, and maybe even disingenuous.
Quote from: samsong on April 09, 2011, 11:58:35 AM
not sure i see where lvt and lynch meet,
The whole "exploration of inner darkness" thing.
Quote from: samsong on April 09, 2011, 11:58:35 AMand the todd solondz likening is just bizarre but sort of apt, i guess.
The only filmmaker I can think of that approaches LVT's level of confrontation (especially moral/ethical confrontation) is Solondz. For example, I got the same feeling from Palindromes that I got from Manderlay.
Which reminds me. I guess it sort of stands in the shadow of Dogville, but I think Manderlay is actually a little better. Love that movie so much.
I also don't understand the hate for Antichrist. Okay, I do, but I think it might be misguided. Reinhold had a fantastic explanation of Antichrist's meanings, and my thoughts are here (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=9224.msg283813#msg283813). I think it's one of LVT's very best. In fact, Antichrist is mostly what has me excited for Melancholia, because it looks to be on the same path.
Von Trier is an immature Haneke. I think he's shown us his 1 trick and now he's just going in circles.
Wow, couldn't disagree more...
Quote from: modage on April 09, 2011, 01:03:44 PM
Von Trier is an immature Haneke. I think he's shown us his 1 trick and now he's just going in circles.
No, mod. But out of curiosity, what's the one trick you're referring to?
At least we still have directors who are polarizing.
Quote from: samsong on April 09, 2011, 11:58:35 AM
not sure i see where lvt and lynch meet, and the todd solondz likening is just bizarre but sort of apt, i guess. maybe a venn diagram of the two would come up with something resembling lvt but... doesn't matter.
gt i'm assuming you meant dogville, not dogma?
Lynch, Von Trier, and Solonds each seem perennially concerned with women in peril, fractured identity, and the relationship between violence and male narration of female experience. There's also a case for how all three have employed musical scenes as a cynical comment on escapism... In their films it's more of an acceptance of insanity than a coping exercise for the characters.
Also, re: gt, I think it's more likely that he was referring to Dogme 95.
edit: acceptance is the wrong word. It's more that it represents a real shift in the logic of the characters than a temporary distraction.
I was referring to Dogville. Just haven't thought about the movie in a long time so I got something small wrong. I may have second thoughts if I watched the films again, but it would seem dumb to say that stands as a decent chance. Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark I have seen and wrote about relatively recent and my distaste for both films was stronger than ever. Dogville is a bigger mystery.
What I said now doesn't matter and I blogged about Dancer in the Dark in the past year, but a piece about the films may be due to fully update my feelings.
Quote from: samsong on April 09, 2011, 11:58:35 AMas for stefen's claim about lvt being an exciting filmmaker, i don't buy it. as of now the only thing i feel like he's known for if anything is being severely mentally and emotionally unstable.
That's exactly what makes him so exciting to me. I haven't seen all of his films, but everything I have seen of his has left me feeling SOMETHING after it was over. Good or bad, his films always left an impression on me. Dancer in the Dark and Breaking the Waves are certified masterpieces. I need to revisit Dogma, but I really liked that one too. Say what you will about Antichrist, but it's definitely not forgettable.
I kind of do agree with Mod that's he an immature Haneke, but I don't agree that he's a one-trick pony. I actually don't think being an immature Haneke is really a knock since Haneke is pretty much the man.
If you're the light your own farts on fire version of Mike Haneke, is that such a bad thing?
And we're not slipping since this made it to page 2 by the end of the weekend. JUST BARELY.
Since Lumet is now gone, LVT is one of the only good ones who pushes the boundaries still alive. I can't wait to see this film.
Quote from: socketlevel on April 11, 2011, 05:58:49 PM
Since Lumet is now gone, LVT is one of the only good ones who pushes the boundaries still alive. I can't wait to see this film.
haha what the fuck? i love early lumet as much as the next guy but you make him sound like he was Von Trier's contemporary. not only that, i can't think of any list that would place LVT and lumet in the same category or conceptualization of cinema that would group them together. they stood/stand for completely different things.. i mean really, what an irrelevant shout out.
and stefen and anyone else making the same mistake.. VON TRIER HAS NEVER MADE A MOVIE CALLED DOGMA... that's a kevin smith movie (another of lumet's contemporaries??????? LOL) .. the movie von trier made under the dogme 95 manifesto is THE IDIOTS.. and later he made another movie called DOGVILLE. i can see how it gets mixed up but it's so wrong it really bears repeating.
anyway, on the subject of this movie.. i think LVT peaked at breaking the waves/dancer in the dark in terms of ambition and single minded direction. he definitely had something in mind with those films, and even the idiots. i think since then he entered his barry lyndon phase which hit him hard.. he basically admits this with the blatant Lyndon influence in Dogville. so he entered a deep depression where he just couldn't find his way out.. even his films reflected a lack of external imagination (manderlay) which he addressed with an experimental internalisation of film itself.
and now what we're seeing with antichrist (ignoring the boss of it all which as JB correctly pointed out is not a serious movie.. it doesn't even have a director half the time) is a gradual re emergence into a new post-tragic direction. knowing how melancholia and antichrist begin we can begin to understand the current phase of his films are framed in a post-tragic narrative.. is melancholia going to be pre-apocalyptic or post-apocalyptic?
i don't know if he expects to really find any meaning in anything like it seems he did with breaking the waves/dancer but he is definitely moving again in a legitimate artistic direction.
I'm sorry, the word boundary doesn't exclusively mean style. what I'm talking about is actually a lack of consistent style that impresses me. It's sad you took that comment to only mean they pushed boundaries in a similar approach... and really i guess they do; a lack of a unified approach within their own work.
the very reason lumet will not be remember as much as HIS contemporaries is the very fact he made vastly stylistic opposed films. sure sure people will remember Scorsese because he's made the same looking film so many times. And i like those films, but to reinvent the wheel over and over again is superior by my checklist. it's not just Scorsese, the same goes for: Spielberg; de palma; aronofsky; tarantino; stone; hitchcock; gasper noe and the majority of other film makers i hate or love.
however, both lumet and LVT never make films that look the same. the way they were/are genius is in their ability to push the boundaries in style. Lumet's classics don't have a common "lumet feel", and neither does LVT's body of work. If i didn't know who Lumet was but had seen his films and someone told me the same guy that directed network also directed 12 angry men, serpico, dog day afternoon, murder on the orient express, before the devil knows your dead etc... I'd probably call him a liar. the same goes for dogville; the 5 obstructions; Antichrist; dancer in the dark; and breaking the waves.
Lumet and LVT have always pushed their own limitations, pushed their own boundries. to my delight they've surprised me with unique masterpieces time and time again.
I would like to think you would know better than think I'd make irrelevant shout outs without the knowledge of doing so. Lumet is tied as the greatest American director by my standards. He is tied with Kubrick, but even a Kubrick film feels like a Kubrick film... but he makes it up in other ways :)
'Melancholia' Goes VOD On October 7th, One Month Before It Hits Theaters On November 11th
via The Playlist
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg27.imageshack.us%2Fimg27%2F5599%2Fmelancholiaf11framegrab.jpg&hash=95fb4b35ac6cfd264c6a9e195773774f5455f2db)
Don't act so surprised. We pretty much figured this might happen when Magnolia picked up the film at the beginning of the year and as is usual for the indie label, one of the biggest arthouse films of the year will be available in your living room first before you can see it on the big screen. That's right, Lars Von Trier's "Melancholia" will go digital on October 7th before getting a limited release on November 11th.
We'll leave the VOD/theatrical debate for others but it's a bit of a mixed bag. On the one hand, if you live in a flyover state that probably wouldn't get "Melancholia" anyway, it means you can watch the movie right away and not long after it hits TIFF and the New York Film Festival. But on the other, it means that most will only experience Von Trier's gorgeously shot film on a small screen, a shame really because this emotionally apocalyptic film might the director's best looking effort in years and certainly deserves to be viewed in a theater. But realistically speaking, "Melancholia" was never going to light up the box office. A two hour plus film that is a metaphor for depression—even with a cast featuring Kirsten Dunst, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Kiefer Sutherland, Charlotte Rampling, John Hurt, Alexander Skarsgård, Stellan Skarsgård and Udo Kier—there weren't going be lines around the block for it.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg807.imageshack.us%2Fimg807%2F9956%2Fa560x830melancholiauspo.jpg&hash=57e168a725c7058fd2f65c7116eb6a04bbc053bd)
Quote from: wilderesque on August 18, 2011, 12:27:44 PM
'Melancholia' Goes VOD On October 7th
That's on my birthday. Idk if I wanna watch a LVT on my bday.
Well, this will be playing at Fantastic Fest in Austin in September. If I can get in, I'll review it. Then you can decide whether or not you want to download it from whoever ripped it from the VOD...
I love the humble tagline.
Quote from: matt35mm on August 18, 2011, 01:55:51 PM
Well, this will be playing at Fantastic Fest in Austin in September. If I can get in, I'll review it. Then you can decide whether or not you want to download it from whoever ripped it from the VOD...
Didn't you see Antichrist before any of us too?
Yeah, because I was in the UK at the time, and it was released there significantly earlier than it was released in the US. Melancholia has been playing since May in some European countries.
New Trailer here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNz_bHw6YgE)
i think lars von trier has been gradually undestating how brilliant his films are since his idol tarkovsky hated Element of Crime.
even though he blames his depression for certain themes in recent times, or even the entire production of antichrist, it doesn't diminish the grandeur of his ideas and even his ability to capture the most elusive concepts.
this is an amazing film from the looks of it, controversy or not.. this is a most amazing idea that he just pulled out of his ass. what is a wedding, a wife, a sister, a mother, a husband -- anything that we know -- when the world is ending. since the film apparently begins with this certainty we are left to linger through the lives of these last few witnesses of end times. what is their worth, their rituals, their interpretation of physical phenomena.. yes even sex (it's von trier the perv as always remember!).. the answer is not even logical, not even liminal. it's inconsequential as the only thing that we are left with for certain is pure human emotions.. which is the title of the film, after all.
and yet he dedicated antichrist to tarkovsky. why? referring strictly to my opening comment, and remembering that Tarkovsky was also obsessed with end of the world scenarios (see his last film), we can surmise that he has not stopped wanting to emulate his idol. not in a simple level of plot mechanics, visuals, or thematic overlap.. but in the role he has come to play in modern cinema..
i think von trier stopped THINKING about his movies after Dancer in the Dark, and started feeling his way through the uncertain period that followed almost primitively. the dissolution of the dogville/grace trilogy, punctuated by the literally non-thinking directorial effort Boss of it All, marked the beginning of a new solid direction for von trier which is culminating in extremely personal films that do not think, are less concept (no dogme.. DOGMA means DOCTRINE -- a way of thinking) and reach beyond what his conscious abilities (and therefore arguably modern cinema's ability) are willing to attempt.
the way he described the making of antichrist is as if he made it despite himself, and that is the way we will primarily respond to his current output of films.
First, I saw this during Fantastic Fest. It was very good, but definitely not my favorite from LVT. Still, lesser LVT is still a great film.
It made me almost as angry as most of his films do so he's definitely still got it.
Second, this showed before the movie and is definitely worth watching. Very funny Von Trier and he confirms he still thinks he'll be doing Five Obstructions with Scorcese.
http://vimeo.com/30040688 (http://vimeo.com/30040688)
Available On Demand via Amazon - http://tinyurl.com/3hxybda (http://tinyurl.com/3hxybda)
And through other services - http://www.magpictures.com/ondemand (http://www.magpictures.com/ondemand)
watched this on demand. it has some strong moments, the last 20 minutes or so being particularly enveloping, but it's mostly redundant and flat-out silly in its mopey-ness. more often than not it struck me as being whiny and childishly blatant in its attempt to render everything meaningless in the face of apocalypse. p's projections of von trier's ideas and themes in melancholia are far more incisive and poignant than the film even begins to approach. but it's certainly worth seeing. excluding the already hyped prologue, which honestly didn't get me off the way it did some people/critics, there are some really breathtaking moments when sight and sound come together to inexplicably moving effect. i guess wagner's the new go-to for cinematic ecstasy. i'll definitely give it another look when it's in theaters and will happily admit being wrong if it reveals itself to be the masterpiece some have jumped to call it but my initial viewing has left me pretty indifferent.
and i love udo kier. so very much. dunst winning best actress for this is a joke. it's as if the award's become a consolation prize for having dealt with lars. she's fine, good even, but not even close to blown away by her performance.
Moving this to Now Playing. It's "Now Playing" enough for me.
Spoiler-FreeThis was amazing. Absolutely loved it.
Of course it depends what you're expecting. I tried to have no expectations outside of general LVT brilliance. I may have had some faint expectations of morally controversial content, which were not met, but even that didn't matter... at all.
The prologue is more powerful in retrospect or upon second viewing, as all the images are actually crucial/meaningful in the context of the whole film. So just trust in that and enjoy it... and remember it.
I was almost going to say that this is more quiet than other LVT films, but that's not true at all. It's more elegant I guess, and there are more quiet moments, but the powerful scenes are as powerful in their own way as anything LVT has done. This way of doing things is a bit of a departure, but it works. It's more Kubrickian. It actually reminds me of PTA's CMBB shift.
I think I might have appreciated this even more if I had ever experienced depression. If you ever have, prepare to be impressed by the incredible subtlety and realism (and complete lack of cliche) with which the subject is handled.
Also, this movie made me appreciate a Kirsten Dunst performance, which itself is a feat equal to saving the earth from certain destruction.
I'd actually recommend waiting to see this in the theater. I wish I had... it's definitely that kind of movie.
SpoilersTell me if I'm interpreting this correctly. Justine was a depressive person to begin with, but it was kicked into high gear when she noticed that star. I'm assuming she also had serious premonitions about the end of the world. She may not have known what they meant at first, but I think it was there. That seems to be the best explanation for her extra early apocalyptic worldview. By the time the rest of the world (Claire) started to fear the possibilities, Justine had already accepted it, dealt with it, and made peace with it.
I love the way all the wedding cliches were sort of destroyed from the inside out during Part 1. The mother was cast as the villain and Justine was cast as the happy bride, and it's so wonderful how that was flipped. Even the groom, who was initially idealized but turned out to be dopey and naive. I love the way Justine's depression (and the full extent of it) was gradually revealed, too.
Another favorite scene is Kiefer Sutherland's character being flipped before he runs off. It's obviously meant to emphasize the certainty of the doom, and it works. Very much brings us into Claire's panic.
The final scene was pretty glorious, and very satisfying. It felt so real somehow... more frightening and I guess more "doomy" than any other apocalypse I've seen on film.
Quote from: RegularKarate on October 04, 2011, 05:47:35 PMIt made me almost as angry as most of his films do so he's definitely still got it.
Why? I'm curious!
Almost forgot... I'd really like to see a feminist interpretation of this film. All the men are either stupid, arrogant, or cowardly. Every single one of them—Justine's new husband (stupid with a note of cowardly), her dad (stupid—he even calls himself "your stupid dad" in that note), her boss (arrogant with a note of stupid), that kid following her around (stupid), the bean counters (stupid), and finally Claire's husband (arrogant in Part 1, cowardly in Part 2). This brings the real dramatic focus onto the female characters. (Calling Reinhold!)
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on October 18, 2011, 12:18:58 PM
I think I might have appreciated this even more if I had ever experienced depression.
really, never? I guess those people exist. Good review, I think I'll see it now.
SpoilersQuote from: RegularKarate on October 04, 2011, 05:47:35 PMIt made me almost as angry as most of his films do so he's definitely still got it.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on October 18, 2011, 12:18:58 PM
Why? I'm curious!
I have dealt with depression on both sides. I understand how hard it is to be depressed (clinically, not just in a "sad day" kind of way). How you can't accept any answer, everyone is against you and it's useless to fight because everything is bad and only getting worse... the world is going to end.
I also know that it's something you can beat. It's hard, but it can be beat.
Dealing with someone from the other side... someone who is depressed is so frustrating. You can tell them you understand, you can tell them things will get better, you can give them everything they need or want and they won't listen to you. They just fight it and want to live in the dark hole they've created for themselves. All they want to do is pull everyone else in, show them how terrible things are so they can be miserable together.
I hated Justine. She is ruining everything around her because she's gotten so deep into her depression, she can't see how selfish she's become and how much she's hurting everyone around her. She's kind of a terrible person and I think the depression is just making it worse.
Now that I think about it, I disagree with your interpretation. I think that her depression wasn't made worse by the star heading for Earth. I think her depression pulled that star to Earth.
Quote from: Reelist on October 18, 2011, 02:49:15 PM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on October 18, 2011, 12:18:58 PM
I think I might have appreciated this even more if I had ever experienced depression.
really, never? I guess those people exist. Good review, I think I'll see it now.
Yeah, man, those people exist. A lot of them. There's actually a big difference between being legitimately clinically depressed and getting told by your mom to either start paying rent or GTFO, yelling about how you wish you were never born, stomping to your upstairs bedroom with a balcony and crying into a pillow on your king size bed until dinner is ready 5 minutes later.
SpoilersQuote from: RegularKarate on October 18, 2011, 03:06:56 PMNow that I think about it, I disagree with your interpretation. I think that her depression wasn't made worse by the star heading for Earth. I think her depression pulled that star to Earth.
Oh, I think I like that better. The first time she sees the constellation, it's just a normal constellation, right? I suppose she could have pulled that star (planet) right out of that constellation. This would also explain her acceptance of it and lack of fear.
This would be totally consistent with the grand mythical type of thing LVT was doing in Antichrist. I like it.
So when LVT (very strongly) hints at her clairvoyance, is that a red herring, or would that be connected to this?
Quote from: S.R. on October 18, 2011, 03:11:07 PM
Yeah, man, those people exist. A lot of them. There's actually a big difference between being legitimately clinically depressed and getting told by your mom to either start paying rent or GTFO, yelling about how you wish you were never born, stomping to your upstairs bedroom with a balcony and crying into a pillow on your king size bed until dinner is ready 5 minutes later.
Thank you.
and JB, to your last question. I don't know. I guess I wasn't really paying as much attention to that aspect. I'd need to see it again.
Spoilers
Yeah, remember when she tells Claire that she knows the number of beans?
Alright I looked it up...
After Claire suggests the planet is just going to pass by, Justine says the earth is evil and we don't need to grieve for it. She then claims she knows there is only life on earth and nowhere else... "because I know things." She mentions the bean count, says it proves that show knows things, then the key line: "Life is only on earth... and not for long."
Also, she's definitely the first one to realize what's happening with that planet. Very very early.
Quote from: S.R. on October 18, 2011, 03:11:07 PM
Yeah, man, those people exist. A lot of them. There's actually a big difference between being legitimately clinically depressed and getting told by your mom to either start paying rent or GTFO, yelling about how you wish you were never born, stomping to your upstairs bedroom with a balcony and crying into a pillow on your king size bed until dinner is ready 5 minutes later.
Have you been living next door to me? Sry about the noise..
This. Is. The. Best. Movie. Ever. Made.
Yes, I like to use a dot after every word, once in a while. I feel very creative when I do that.
Seriusly tho, some of the scenes in this film will be stuck in my head til the day I die. This was devastating. Fucking incredible. Holy shit. Fuck you, von Trier.
Pretty much.
After this and Antichrist, I'm not really sure anymore what LVT's best movie is. (I guess Dancer is my default.) What a streak he's on.
this is playing on hdnet movies on 11/9. hdnet movies is part of directv's "hd extra pack," and you can get a free 3 month preview of that package through directv.
fuck that, i need to see this via light, film, and screen.
i need to be overwhelmed by this one.
Quote from: 72teeth on November 03, 2011, 09:19:34 PM
fuck that, i need to see this via light, film, and screen.
i need to be overwhelmed by this one.
I agree. Like I said, I wish I'd seen this first in the theater.
this is really magnificent. the best thing i've seen from von trier in years.
getting to see it in the theater in a couple weeks. Can't fucking wait.
also: Been listening to THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyqTt75B_8s) a lot today because of this movie.
This is out on DVD in a week. Can't wait!
Here is the extras:
-COMMENTARY TRACK WITH TRIER
-About Melancholia
-The Visual Style
-About the Universe VFX featurette
Quote from: KarlJan on November 08, 2011, 06:20:14 AM
This is out on DVD in a week. Can't wait!
Link plz.
I can find no announcement about a North American release and the UK release is set for Jan. 23rd.
edit: sweden release doesn't count unless it's region free.
that was great/sad.. i luff u lars
Saw it today. Don't really know what to make of all of this, but I don't think I liked it very much... Great final shot and acting, though. Need to think more clearly about it to write something actually interesting.
still dying to see this so I didn't read the article.
NY times piece about the music:
http://carpetbagger.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/below-the-line-the-world-ending-sounds-of-melancholia/?hp
this is a great read and analyse of the movie:
FREEDOM IN OBLIVION: POST-FEMINIST POSSIBILITIES
IN LARS VON TRIER'S MELANCHOLIA
http://www.lafuriaumana.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=529:freedom-in-oblivion-post-feminist-possibilities-in-lars-von-triers-melancholia&catid=60:town-talking&Itemid=73
Dead link, homey.
It was working fine when he posted it three months ago.
I don't think anyone can be expected to make sure that every link they've ever posted stays current for the rest of their lives.
rewatched this yesterday
I don't think it's "wow the best movie ever made!" anymore, but I'll still return to it regularly because of Justine and Dunst's performance in the first half
Quote from: Robyn on December 11, 2019, 02:46:43 AM
rewatched this yesterday
I don't think it's "wow the best movie ever made!" anymore, but I'll still return to it regularly because of Justine and Dunst's performance in the first half
It's one of those movies I absolutely love but I'm afraid to rewatch because it's so affecting and sad. Lars is one of the few filmmakers who can do that. Maybe if I get back on Lexapro I'll give it another go.
Quote from: ©brad on December 13, 2019, 11:00:10 AM
Quote from: Robyn on December 11, 2019, 02:46:43 AM
rewatched this yesterday
I don't think it's "wow the best movie ever made!" anymore, but I'll still return to it regularly because of Justine and Dunst's performance in the first half
It's one of those movies I absolutely love but I'm afraid to rewatch because it's so affecting and sad. Lars is one of the few filmmakers who can do that. Maybe if I get back on Lexapro I'll give it another go.
You should absolutely watch it again. The first half of this precipitated a fight between me and my girlfriend which the second half of it resolved. Uniquely powerful movie.