Via Montages.no

Exclusive: 10 revelations about Lars von Trier’s erotic drama Nymphomaniac

A whole world of cinephiles are waiting with bated breath for Lars von Trier‘s ambitious and sure-to-be-controversial Nymphomaniac. From reliable sources, Montages has gained access to exclusive information containing new details previously not known about the film.
Nymphomaniac was not finalised in time for this spring’s Cannes festival (where von Trier has long ago been welcome again after the 2011 scandal). There has since been much speculation about when and how the film will be released. In von Trier’s home country of Denmark, the premiere will take place on Christmas Day 2013 (a gala premiere in Copenhagen will be organised earlier in December), and the film will be theatrically released in Norway in early 2014.

Nymphomaniac is about one woman’s erotic journey through life, from birth until almost the age of 50. The story is told by the nymphomaniac Joe (Stacy Martin, Charlotte Gainsbourg) through eight flashbacks. When a charming bachelor named Seligman (Stellan Skarsgård) finds Joe laying in the street, beaten black and blue, he takes her home to care for her. Soon she starts to talk openly about a life that has been eventful, to put it mildly.


The ten items below reveal details of the film, but not the story itself – thus this article must be said to be spoiler-free.


1. At present Nymphomaniac is five hours long, and according to plan it will consist of two volumes, each two and a half hours long. The intention is to release them simultaneously – they are not meant to be experienced as two films. The material is massive, however, and it is still in the cards to add a TV series to the theatrically released films.

2. As already announced, Nymphomaniac consists of eight chapters. Each part has its own stylistic approach, dictated by content and tone. Some parts have a relatively ordinary formal language, but others are more experimental. One of the chapters is shot in black-and-white. The film is shot in Cinemascope, except for one chapter in 1.85:1.

3. The last chapter is clearly inspired by Andrei Tarkovsky (to whom Antichrist was dedicated). In contrast to Antichrist and Melancholia, Nymphomaniac does not have any slow motion. «What is that about? It is so gay!», von Trier is said to have joked to his crew.

4. One chapter is exclusively shot with a static camera. This is not done in a tableau-like aesthetic approach, of the type one can find in Roy Andersson‘s films, but in an almost documentary approach, with the camera resting on faces and bodies, as rigid as a surveillance camera, but much closer to the objects.

5. The film’s title card is not written with chalk on a board, like in the two previous films. Due to the (seemingly) thematic similarity between these three films, one might have thought that Nymphomaniac would be the last part of a trilogy. This could have been achieved by presenting the title in the same way as the two previous films, but this is not the case. The opening credits are described as being in the style of Woody Allen.

6. Von Trier’s approach has been improvisational and the result is almost «like a student film». Contrary to the proclamations of producer Peter Aalbæk Jensen, the film is said to be much less marked by virtuosity than von Trier’s two previous films. It can be described as big and visionary in the sense of being an epic story containing many themes, places and characters, but its visual expression is mainly muted. Nymphomaniac is described as some sort of summation of Lars von Trier’s career – and not least his interest in and identification with women.

7. The film contains extensive archive footage, which helps loosen up the film and drag it into unexpected directions. These elements are mainly videos that von Trier has found on YouTube. As part of the promotion of Nymphomaniac, Von Trier has said that he is launching a new genre called “digressionism”, and consequently we are now one step closer to understanding what this means.

8. As announced, the film has a framing story, where Charlotte Gainsbourg‘s character Joe tells her erotic life story to Stellan Skarsgård. All eight chapters are flashbacks from Joe’s life, and the story starts in the late 1960s until today.

9. Since the story of Nymphomaniac is unfolding over six decades, the film must necessarily be marked by the various periods. This dimension is said to be toned down, however, and is mainly expressed through the costumes (the first chapter is supposed to be less timeless than the others, as also indicated by the teaser).

10. The film is said to be very funny – at times closer to pure comedy than anything von Trier has made since The Idiots and The Boss of It All. Its black humour is mostly present in the film’s first half, however, since the story gradually grows darker and more tragic.

Via Montages.no

Exclusive: Nymphomaniac to be theatrically released without pornographic scenes – Lars von Trier possibly returns to Cannes with hardcore version in 2014
 
Last week Montages.no reported 10 exclusive new details about Lars von Trier‘s erotic epic Nymphomaniac. Today we can bring even more previously unknown news about the film. Sources close to the production whom we regard as reliable claim that the film that will be theatrically released in Denmark and Norway – respectively in December and January – will not be the already infamous hardcore version with pornographic sex scenes, but a milder softcore version. According to our sources, the hardcore version shall be «saved» for next year’s Cannes festival.

Having screened all of Lars von Trier‘s feature films (except The Boss of It All), the Cannes festival is reportedly very eager to show Nymphomaniac. It is already known that von Trier is welcome back after the unfortunate Melancholia press conference in 2011, after which the director was declared persona non grata. The festival organisers were probably very disappointed when von Trier and his team earlier this year announced that the film would not be ready for Cannes, although this was a stated goal.

Now sources say that the already controversial hardcore version, where the lower part of the actors is said to be digitally substituted with bodies of pornographic performers, will not be theatrically released in Denmark and Norway. This is quite sensational, since many have taken it for granted that the softcore version was exclusively intended for markets outside Europe – which is generally quite liberal in regards to sexual explicit material in films.

This is where the Cannes film festival enters the picture. The desire with them to screen the film there is obviously strong, and it is reportedly probable that the premiere of the “uncensored” hardcore version will take place during next year’s festival. Whether it will be screened in competition is unknown, but this is less likely since it has already been theatrically released in several countries, albeit not in the same version.

Everyone who has looked forward to see the auteur go completely berserk with graphic presentations of sex consequently has to be a bit more patient. It is not inconceivable that the hardcore version ultimately has to be experienced on DVD and Blu-ray – and possibly in a Cinematheque for the Nordic audience – for those who are unable to catch it in Cannes (given that this plan will be confirmed – it is still possible that the producers or the festival changes their mind).

In any case, we look forward, as unreservedly as before, to experience Lars von Trier‘s new work – also in more modest form. Even though the Danish enfant terrible always wants to provoke, it is the content itself – the groundbreaking concepts, the instruction of actors and the visuality – which make him live up to his own words: «The best director in the world».

I'm one of the few people here who will say you shouldn't feel embarrassed by it. You're not missing much.

I'm one of the few people here who will say you shouldn't feel embarrassed by it. You're not missing much.

If your post gets any more likes, we're going to have to consider a temporary ban.

But in all seriousness, what's wrong with LVT?

I can understand if someone is squeamish or doesn't enjoy a punishing viewing experience, but the dismissive "not missing much" would never occur to me. He's hard to beat for sheer impact and profundity. I think I was unable to close my jaw for several weeks after seeing Dancer in the Dark.

y'all be trippin, he's one of the best ever! he started his own film movement for christ's sake.

i think he thinks of cinema in terms unlike anyone else working today.. which could be said about anyone of course, but you SEE the results of his experimentation in all his films. people go on about the controversial content of his films or the way he treats the actors but many of those same actors have given the performances of their careers in his films.

that's quite the opposite of "not missing much".. just in that aspect, performances, you are missing a lot in terms of raw power on screen by never seeing Emily Watson expose her soul on breaking the waves.

OK, OK, I think my statement was probably gratuitous and deserves an explanation but I was mostly trying to start a discussion.

- First of all, Pubrick is right. If you're missing anything about Lars von Trier films, you're mostly missing great performances. Every actor in every film of his that I've seen is forced to give it all, and they do, and it shows.

- I really like Dancer in the Dark. Probably because it was the first of his that I saw and wasn't prepared at all to being punched so hard in the stomach. Bjork is awesome in it. Awesome! But then...

- then I started to see other LVT movies and yes, to me, these movies feel like nothing else but exploration of human suffering. There's no other way I can describe this, but it started rubbing me the wrong way, so much so that I've never seen Dancer in the Dark again. I'm scared I'll feel the same way about it. It mostly started with Dogville. I was watching the movie and gradually started to feel von Trier was shocking for shock's sake. To him, human beings are mostly terrible, and should suffer for it. A lot. And I'm not against that point of view. I mean, Kubrick didn't really seem to like other people either, but in his films they were treated like human beings, not complete hate machines. That's what I've mostly come to take from these pictures: disdain. Characters are mean because they're mean. I started to feel Lars von Trier behind the camera trying to be a smart-ass, like a kid shouting in my ears: "Hey! Look at me! I'm really gross!"

- When I watched and loved Dancer in the Dark, I was also taken aback by the visual approach to the material. The "real" scenes shot in a very handheld documentary style fashion, and her musical fantasies almost like an MGM classic. When I heard his next would be a brechtian experience I was curious and excited by it. It all felt underwhelming to me. It didn't have the impact I thought it would and it felt again like he was trying to say "look, I'm so radical with my filmmaking!" and in the end I felt he could have done it with regular sets and achieve the same results. And whereas I've always seen brechtian theatre as a way to distance myself from what I'm watching, I felt like here my head was being forced to look at certain things, and I was constantly being shout at "see how fucking horrible everyone is?". All of those feelings confirmed once more in the final minutes. People like to compare it to Barry Lyndon, but I can't find any of the genuine emotion I found in Kubrick's film. People remind me Paul loves the dude, well, Paul loves his characters even more and it shows - I think Paul makes movies out of love and Trier makes them out of frustration and anger. Plus Barry Lyndon or The Master look gorgeous and not a video shot picture with black backgrounds all over. In the first minutes of Melancholia I was rolling my eyes at the CG-heavy images and thinking how fake and terrible it looked, and I came to the conclusion that he just can't find beauty anywhere anymore, and even if he thinks he does, it still looks fake.

- Right now, I'll still watch his movies, I'm looking forward to the Nymph mostly because he's good at concepts. I'll give him this: the dude takes chances and is always goings places. The problem with me is that in the end they are mere exercises, usually dull and overlong and unsubtle. I don't feel anything from his movies, I don't think they look that great, I don't share his point of view on the world. He may have started a cinematic movement, but one I don't particularly care for. And it's funny to think about Dogme 95, because I've recently watched Thomas Vinterberg's "The Hunt" and it felt much more complex and moving than anything Trier has ever done since Dancer in the Dark.

Well, I know many will completely disagree with me but like everything, it comes down to personal taste and I think it mostly tastes really bad.

Yeah, I can see how people like his movies. It's funny because I have a couple of friends who I usually talk to movies with, and one of them loved everything von Trier has ever done, and the other hates all of his movies -- if I remember correctly he gave up on him after Dogville and hasn't seen anything since. I am somewhat in the middle, even though I have only liked one, I'll still see them and appreciate some of its merits. But his movies are so extreme they turn out to be quite divisive.

I may not have explained myself very well when I said I didn't like how his movies made me feel. It's not because I feel bad while watching them, because I love a lot of movies that make me feel shitty afterwards, it's just that I always feel with von Trier that he wanted to make me feel bad just for the sake of it. I think this is the point where people will divide themselves in relation to his movies. Everything feels fake and manipulative to me, while to others it feels genuine. That may be the reason why I loved Dancer when I saw it. Because Selma is just naive but at the same time she truly loves her kid, and when the movies ends, I really feel for her. At least that's the way I remember the movie.

By the way, I haven't seen Antichrist. I'll see if I can do that this weekend and come back for more discussion.

But his movies are so extreme they turn out to be quite divisive . . . I always feel with von Trier that he wanted to make me feel bad just for the sake of it.

I don't want to suggest you're misinterpreting LVT's films, but you might be misinterpreting LVT's films. I think they would make a lot more sense once you see more of them.

They are morally confrontational. This is beyond aesthetics, beyond "making you feel bad." They have a depth that's rarely seen in any medium. If you let them in, they are mindblowing.

Dealing with horrible people as your subjects, or exploring how humanity is corrupted, doesn't make you a misanthrope.

See Antichrist, then read our discussion of it in that thread. It might illuminate how humane LVT actually is. I know it's counterintuitive, but trust me, it's there, and it's really at the core of his movies. I recommend Antichrist because some especially surprising things are happening beneath the surface of that film, and hopefully that would open one's mind to the subtext of his other work, especially his other corruption-themed movies, like Dogville and Manderlay.