Review of Nymphomaniac: Vol. I (2013) by Redowlreviews — 24 Apr 2014

Nymphomaniac, the third and final installment of Lars von Trier's "depression trilogy" following Antichrist and Melancholia, has been broken up into two separate films. And so far, Vol I has to be the weakest of the trilogy. That is not to say, however, that the film isn't an absolute pleasure to watch. It's difficult for a von Trier film to displease me because he consistently proves that, despite having an apparent mastery of the basics that comprise successful film, he will always go out of his way to topple those prevailing conventions and prove that smart and wholesome entertainment can exist outside of the educated norm and standard procedure. And what makes this film uniquely enjoyable is that von Trier has so many ideas to tackle, which are all thrown indiscriminately onto the screen like a carnival of concepts. To pause and take a minute to dissect each one and its structural and thematic relevance is a small and uncelebrated joy (one of the main reasons, among more apparent others, why this film should be rented electronically and not watched in theaters).

However, it's difficult to approach a topic as taboo and culturally stigmatized as nymphomania, even if you are Lars von Trier. Thus, the approach requires clarification, definition, and most importantly, a firm grip on the stance you are trying to put across. And unfortunately, in multiple scenarios von Trier seems just as lost as we, often wavering in his stance. To address such a hard-to-treat topic as a variation in normative sexual behavior, von Trier must be prepared to produce answers, not just more questions. Because without answers, we are left without a definitive characterization and an base to stand the film on. On a similar note (and this is just a warning, not a direct criticism), films are a reflection of their society and culture. The live, thrive, and are rooted in the norms of the worlds they are born out of. Thus, von Trier cannot parade around flaunting his intellectual superiority while his film is nestled in a society where conceptual iconoclasm has already become relatively conventional. He was hot stuff for doing it in the nineties. However, he'll have to rely on a little more than brashness and ideological shock value to remain relevant in the years to come.

Nymphomaniac's greatest success thus far has been its lead. In Joe, von Trier creates a new kind of antihero, a female who is burdened by and misrepresented by her sexual addiction and is painfully aware of it. We already knew von Trier is a genius when if comes to handling female leads (prime example, his most recent work Melancholia). What we didn't know is that he was capable of inventing a new kind of female lead that may morph and adapt as cinema becomes more focused on the complex female protagonist. In Vol I, we see Joe failing to fight the battle against both her detrimental sexual cravings and the significant real-world consequences they produce, both towards others (refer to Uma Thurman's deliciously wonderful performance) and towards herself (refer to Shia LaBoeuf's recurring character). In Vol II I hope to see how this lead progresses in her frequently misunderstood battle and ends up down on the ground, bruised and helpless as in the beginning of Vol I.

Technicality-wise, the film is generally great. The acting is all around superlative, beginning with the impressive scenes with Stellan Skarsgård and Charlotte Gainsbourg (who I hope to see a lot more of in the sequel) and continuing with dramatic and skillfully un-erotic but gracefully natural performances from talented up-and-coming screen whore Stacy Martin, Shia LaBoeuf, and many other men. The cinematography is fresh, and the editing is clever and creative and reflects a more visual than spoken narrative (perfect for von Trier's directing style). Apart from its subject, Nymphomaniac: Vol I is a solidly produced work of art that is distinctly Lars von Trier. It's the kind of film that feels like it should be watched multiple times in order to get the most bang for your buck, but you'd be much more comfortable jumping immediately into Vol II and then casting this two-part work away for purely academic analysis. However, it's an essential experience for anyone who has any remote interest in the more unconventional, avant-garde side of the cinema of this decade.

FINAL SCORE: 77.