NYMPHOMANIAC: VOLUME 2

When last we left Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg) at the end of “Volume 1”, she was screaming at the shock and realization that she could no longer feel anything, much less enjoyment during the act of sex.  During her continuation of her story to Seligman (Stellan Skarsgard), she admits to the irony that in her greatest moment of domestic bliss, she was totally unsatisfied sexually and because of this her relationship with Jerome was always doomed.  Her story continues as she explains that she sort out the company of “dangerous man” in an attempt to find pleasure through sex once more, and to again achieve an orgasm.  She ends up getting mixed up in the world of BDSM and with the sadistic “K” (wonderfully played by an against-type Jamie Bell).  It is through her involvement in this world that her skills as a mother are questioned by Jerome, who ultimately leaves Joe and takes their child away with him, leaving Joe alone in the world and more in a state of depression and self-hate.  As a way to reject society (and thus inversely, being rejected herself again), she turns to a more violent way of life, full of aggression and angst, as she starts up her own debt collection (aka extortion) business with the help of the mysterious “L”, using her knowledge of men and their secrets for leverage in getting what she wants for her clients.  After being very successful for a number of years doing this job, Joe and “L” decide that they need to train a successor for the business which is where “P” comes in.  “P” is the daughter of a dead junkie mother and a jailed for life father, and is the perfect target for Joe to get close to and manipulate in becoming part of her business.  This reprehensible act is the final piece of the puzzle that will finally lead to us learning how Joe became to be that bloodied and bruised mess that Seligman found unconscious in the alley at the beginning of “Volume 1”.

As predicted, “Nymphomaniac: Volume 2” is a much darker film than its predecessor and a lot less fun.  However, like the earlier film, it does move at such a quick pace, that it is never a chore to sit through.  Joe continually goes towards darker territory during her journey and meets up with the shadiest of characters in this volume.  Her experiments with BDSM are probably the most interesting but are also the most confronting.  The scenes of Joe being tied up, whipped, slapped or punched are shot in such are manner that it is so disturbing and violent to watch, that you cannot imagine what it was like for the actors to shoot.  The scenes are so realistic that you can see welts appear after each crack of the whip on poor Joe’s bottom, and yet Gainsbourg is such a talented actress that she is still able to convey that she is receiving sexual pleasure from these violent acts, through all the pain.  As I alluded to above, Jamie Bell is magnificent in the role of “K”, the man who beats Joe as per her wish.  He makes “K” seem like an average guy with this exception of his “perversion” which he does not explain or even attempt to defend.  He is sure within himself of who he is and doesn’t ever question what he is doing, which ultimately makes him one of the most honest characters within this film.

Speaking of honest characters, the character of Seligman is much less prominent in this volume of “Nymphomaniac”, as are his digressions in regards to Joe’s story, which I think is a shame because his analytical responses were my favourite parts of “Volume 1”.  While he plays less of a role in the film, we do get to learn a little more about Seligman himself, particularly when Joe accuses him of not listening properly.  She determines he cannot be listening because he hasn’t become aroused with her “dirty little” stories except when it comes to the mathematical or theoretical points to them.  Seligman explains that he is asexual and a virgin as well, and as such he is the perfect person to listen to Joe’s story because with never having sex or sexual feelings before, he can listen without judgment.  This revelation is a bit of a shock and actually reduces Seligman’s effectiveness as the character becomes emasculated at least in terms of the gentlemanly way he has treated Joe up to this point.  Interestingly as Joe’s story continues you can feel Seligman getting frustrated with it and with her, as she starts to do some quite reprehensible things.

I mentioned above that “Nymphomaniac: Volume 2” is a lot less fun, and this is true particularly in Von Trier’s handling of the material.  All the cinematic fun he seemed to be having in the first volume is almost gone here, but I want to make mention of one self-referential scene that I thought was brilliant.  During Joe’s experiments with BDSM, she starts neglecting her toddler, frequently leaving him alone at home without a babysitter so she can visit “K”.  Von Trier then tricks the audience into thinking tragedy is about to happen by evoking a scene from his “Antichrist”.  The snow begins to fall, the child gets out of his crib and moves towards the open window.  The exact same piece of music that plays over the scene in “Antichrist” is reprised here, so viewers familiar with that film immediately feel sick in the pit of their stomach because they know that in the earlier film, the child falls to his death.  Personally I was devastated by this and felt it again as soon as the music kicked in with “Nymphomaniac”, but Von Trier ends up subverting the scene this time around, with the boy being saved in time by Jerome.  The audience is relieved but angry with Von Trier, as we know he has deliberately played us for fools.  This is the fun Von Trier has in “Volume 2”.  The other self-referential point in the film is during a very brief moment when Joe attacks political correctness and particularly those that condemn people for using the wrong language even when those people’s intentions and comments were pure.  In light of Von Trier’s comments about Hitler and the way he was treated soon after, I couldn’t help but think this was his way of shaming his attackers.

Back to the story of Joe, and I must say that once Joe rejects society and becomes a debt collector, I think the film became a little ridiculous.  While there is nothing wrong with the scenes themselves, I just could not buy into the fact that Joe’s life would ever head down this path.  It seems so unrealistic and more of a fantasy than the truth.  Again, the scenes are all well acted (it’s nice to see Willem Dafoe in the small role of “L”) but nothing rings true.  It is during this chapter that I think Von Trier loses his way with his film for a bit, and continues to do so with the inclusion of the character named “P”.  When the relationship between Joe and “P” (a much younger woman) becomes sexual in nature, it felt wrong and very uncomfortable and again, I did not believe the emotion behind it at all.  I didn’t understand why “P” felt as close to Joe as she did, but more so, if everything before it was true (emotionally speaking), the way this story arc ends is puzzling to say the least, and frustratingly so; not least because it relies on huge coincidence (due to spoilers I cannot talk deeper about this issue, sadly).

However the film picks itself up towards the end, as Joe finishes her story and Seligman delivers his retort and it soon becomes apparent that “Nymphomaniac” is a call for tolerance and acceptance for all people but particularly for women, who sometimes get an unfair shake in the world.  Seligman explains that if Joe were a man and that man did everything that Joe did, no one would bat an eyelid, but because Joe is a woman she has to suffer and feel shame for embracing her sexual nature, and it is because of this shame that Joe reacted so negatively towards the world and not because she is a terrible person.  This is the moment Joe can look at her life and let go of all unnecessary shame and accept who she is and start her life afresh.  It is a beautiful moment and a fitting end to the story, but being a Lars Von Trier film, he has one more kick in his tale to make sure that the ending is not a completely happy one.  I will not go into detail about this final moment except to say that while I understand what Von Trier is saying here, I was not a fan of this part at all and thought he should have ended the film thirty seconds prior to when he did.  That would have been the perfect ending.

Overall, after viewing “Nymphomaniac” as a whole now, I can say that it is an up and down affair (no pun intended).  Even though the second volume has more problems than the first, I did actually enjoy it more than the first.  This I am sure has to do with my personal preference of watching darker themes and stories, which “Volume 2” admittedly has, but the fact that Charlotte Gainsbourg plays the role of Joe almost entirely here also adds to the fact greatly.  She is a phenomenal actress, and so incredibly brave.  She is also surrounded by a number of great performers this time around, the likes of Willem Dafoe and Jamie Bell (you will never look at “Billy Elliot” the same way again) and even a couple of cameos from the great Udo Kier and Jean-Marc Barr.  Be warned though, the moments of violence and brutality in the BDSM scenes are incredibly confronting and graphic, and are sure to affect certain viewers in a negative way.  While Lars Von Trier’s latest film is no masterpiece, it is a very interesting film that starts to lose its way before coming back strong for its finale.

3.5 Stars.  

NYMPHOMANIAC: VOLUME 1

Whether you like the man or not, there is no denying that Lars Von Trier is a master at getting the maximum amount of exposure he can for his films.  As regrettable and insensitive as his Hitler comments may have been, because of them and the resulting press he got, everyone was well aware that Von Trier had a new film at Cannes that year and that it was named “Melancholia”.  If these comments were indeed premeditated (which I do not believe they were), then he should be congratulated for this brilliance in marketing which saw his film suddenly become known to people who normally wouldn’t be interested in his cinema.  Von Trier has a habit when describing his new films to either mention the most controversial element of the film or downplay them to their lowest common denominator like when he described “Antichrist”, for example, as just a horror film.  History shows that “Antichrist” was that and a whole lot more, so when he expressed interest in making a porn film next after “Melancholia”, which became the resulting “Nymphomaniac”, it makes me wonder why anyone took that comment at face value.  He was always going to tackle the subject in a much deeper way than he promoted it, and as far as the film being porn, that couldn’t be further from the truth.  So what is “Nymphomaniac” about then?  Let’s take a look, shall we?

While returning home after buying some groceries, Seligman notices the bloody and bruised body of a woman lying in an alleyway.  The girl is Joe, and after she regains consciousness Seligman offers to take her back to his place which is nearby, so he can clean her up and dress her wounds (Joe refuses his initial offer to be taken to a hospital).  Whilst patching Joe up, Seligman questions her on how she found herself in such a state.  Joe explains that it is the result of her being a nymphomaniac and for him to fully understand, she would have to tell him her entire life story.  Seligman agrees to this, and is soon the audience to Joe’s recount of her life’s erotic experiences from her earliest memories right up to the present.

Before we start, a little background on how this project came to be is needed.  “Nymphomaniac” was originally conceived as one film; an epic four to five hour film that was to be sexually explicit to the point that real sex was going to occur on screen.  Understanding that such an explicit version would struggle to get released, Von Trier planned to shoot a “clean” version of the film as well that would likely be released around the world.  However once shooting began and it became apparent just how long the film was going to be, producers stepped in and made Von Trier cut the film into two “volumes”.  Apparently the director was unhappy with this, but had no choice in the matter, as investors wanted a return on their money which they were not going to get with the four hour explicit version.  He eventually compromised and he split the film in two, as long as his explicit and longer version was to be released at a later date.  The version that I am reviewing is the shorter version and has a running time of 118 minutes (the director’s cut version runs 145 minutes).

Right off the bat, let’s get this out of the way: “Nymphomaniac” is NOT a porn film.  While it is true that the film contains sex scenes of an explicit nature, I would argue that these scenes are never titillating and actually serve to explain what is going on in our protagonist’s head at that given moment.  They have been shot and edited in such a cold and direct manner which fits the material because Joe herself sees the act of sex as just a function of her addiction.  She cannot help herself, she just has to have it to survive.

While the story within “Nymphomaniac” is not a light one, it is immediately noticeable that Von Trier is having fun with the material.  In fact, after both the depressing “Antichrist” and “Melancholia”, this is the most fun Von Trier has had in a film for a long time.  It is not that he is making light of the story he is telling, rather it is in the way that he is telling his story that his fun and energy becomes so obvious.  He splits the screen regularly, superimposes numbers over his images, he juxtaposes images with other images, uses both colour and black and white; Lars is having a good time here.  The film is also amusing at certain times, particularly in the deadpan way Joe tells her extreme story and the way Seligman reacts.  Joe is convinced that she is a bad person, and as such seems to skew her stories towards the negative, particularly in the way she presents herself.  Seligman will have none of it, as he only sees the traits of humanity within her story and even goes so far as to create allusions with her nymphomania with the likes of fly-fishing or the classical music of Bach, in an attempt to prove that her actions are just part of human nature; to an extreme level indeed, but none the less human.  This analytical approach to sex and nymphomania is another reason that “Nymphomaniac” should not be labelled as porn.  The sex scenes are not of a titillating nature, rather they are truthful representations of the story Joe is telling.  One thing that I liked about the conversations between Joe and Seligman is that Joe, even though she thinks herself as a bad person, makes no apologies for who she is and for her actions, and at the same time Seligman makes no judgements.  While he may disagree with her  perception of her involvement of the events, he never judges her for anything she did, instead he just listens.  Some of the things are reprehensible too: sleeping with as many man as she can during a train ride all for a competition with her friend, choosing which men to see again via a dice, and destroying a marriage because of this dice for which she shows no emotion over doing.

The actress playing Joe in the scenes set in the present is Charlotte Gainsbourg, and this is the third consecutive film she has made with Von Trier.  She is suitably cold (emotionally speaking) as Joe, as if she is distanced with the story she is telling.  She shows little to no emotion whilst talking of her past, but you can feel that this may be a façade and that she could breakdown in the future.  There is something behind Gainsbourg’s eyes that seem to confirm this.  Newcomer Stacy Martin plays the younger version of Joe, and while she isn’t bad, she doesn’t quite stack up to Gainsbourg’s portrayal.  Martin has a number of controversial scenes that are of a sexual nature and she handles these quite well and doesn’t appear to be overwhelmed by them.  Where Martin does come unstuck a little bit is when she needs to display genuine emotion particularly during the chapter when she is bedside her father as he lays there waiting to die.  She is a little awkward in these scenes and doesn’t naturally impress as you can feel her acting.  Speaking of Joe’s father, he is played by Christian Slater, who really surprised me at how good he was and at how sensitive a portrayal he gave.  The role is small but he in no way embarrassed himself.  The embarrassment of “Nymphomaniac” though is Shia LeBeouf and his performance as Jerome, Joe’s “love” interest.  He is an important character in Joe’s life, reoccurring a number of times over the years, but LeBeouf’s performance is too lightweight to showcase this.  He makes the character feel small and gives Jerome no gravitas, but worst of all is the fact that LeBeouf constantly slips in and out of his non-descript accent.  His casting raised eyebrows at the time, and they seem to be warranted.  This leaves me with StellanSkarsgard who plays the role of Seligman and does so brilliantly.  He probably gives my favourite performance of the film, mainly because he comes across as a character with no agenda.  He is only there to listen to Joe and hear her story.  Skarsgard gives the man a stoic presence; he is quiet and comes across as educated but never shows off this intellect in an attempt to belittle anyone else.  It appears he genuinely cares but it also seems that he enjoys Joe’s company so it would not be a stretch to determine that Seligman is a lonely man.

From a visual standpoint, “Nymphomaniac” is also very cold and has quite an impersonal feel to it all.  Von Trier’s now trademark handheld jerky camerawork is in full effect here, which would normally bother me but I guess I am just used to or expect it from a film from the Danish director.  His equally jerky editing style is once again used here, and this is something that still bugs me a bit.  I know the point of it is to get to the point quickly but personally I feel it comes across as unprofessional and cheap.  As I mentioned above, Von Trier uses a lot of different visual techniques to differentiate certain chapters (the film is told in five chapters), with the biggest departure being the black and white segment which is when Joe keeps a bedside vigil with her father.  Unfortunately this segment does not have the same lushness to it that the black and white start to “Antichrist” did.  

Overall, “Nymphomaniac: Volume 1” is a hard film to rate on its own.  It definitely feels unfinished and the ending of the film is particularly unsatisfying.  This is no doubt due to the fact that the film was initially conceived as one film.  Personally I think after watching “Volume 2” and thus finishing the film as a whole, will we really be able to see just how good or bad “Volume 1” is, in regards to how it fits in with the rest of the story.  That said, “Volume 1” is a very easy watch, the film flies by at a rapid pace, thanks to the interesting characters and the story being told.  For a Lars Von Trier film it does feel a little light (we are so used to him taking us to the depths of darkness), but looking at the teaser clips that played during the credits, it seems safe to assume that “Volume 2” is going to be a much darker experience.  I look forward to seeing the conclusion to Joe’s story and seeing how she came to be the way she was at the beginning of “Volume 1”.

3.5 Stars.

 

WADJDA

“Wadjda” will always be etched in cinema history for the fact that it was the very first feature film made in Saudi Arabia (a country that has no cinemas whatsoever), but an even more remarkable fact is that the film has been directed by a woman.  Haifaa Al-Mansour has created a little gem with “Wadjda”; it is a beautiful film filled with wonderful characters that has ensured that it will be remembered for its quality and not only its significance in history.

“Wadjda” is a simple tale of a young girl and her attempts to secure the money she needs to purchase a new bicycle.  To succeed in her task, Wadjda enters a Koran recital competition at her school where the winner is awarded 1000 riyal, which easily accounts for the 800 riyal she needs for her bike.  However, it doesn’t take long for Wadjda to release that winning is going to be a lot harder than she initially thought, not only due to the fact that she knows little in regards to religious studies, but she is also fighting against her country’s beliefs in regards to what activities are deemed proper for a girl her age to partake in.

This film was such an eye opener and very entertaining.  What I loved about it is that its simplicity and economy of plot actually hides within its story a deeper look at modern life in Saudi Arabia, with particular focus on what it is like to be a woman in that society.  Thankfully, Haifaa Al-Mansour has presented her story in the most positive light, and she uses the lightest of touches to expose and explain some serious issues within her country.  Surprisingly (at least for me), “Wadjda” is also very funny at times.  So while the main plot really is about a young girl trying to buy herself a bike, Al-Mansour is able to use her story to explain just what it is like to be a woman living in today’s Saudi Arabia.  What I found most surprising was just how “normal” (at least in Western terms) their home life was.  They would wear normal, everyday clothes like jeans, t-shirts and long dresses, have their hair down, even wear a little make-up and yet, as soon as they leave the confines of their home, the girls have to cover themselves from head to toe, exposing nothing but their eyes.  Also the kind of activities they do at home are the same things we would do like sit around watching television, play on the playstation, or listen to rock music.  I was totally unaware that this was the case and am glad that the film was able to show me all of this.

The reason why this film is so successful and so entertaining is the character of Wadjda herself.  She is played by Waad Mohammed and she is an absolute delight on screen.  Mohammed gives Wadjda such a cheeky streak; she is always one to fire a quick word back at someone, she plays with the boys in her neighbourhood and she is just so damned sassy and spunky.  She is an absolutely adorable character and one that is easy to fall in love with because she is just so full of life and when she sets her eyes on something, you know she is going to do whatever it takes to get it.  Another thing I loved was Wadjda’s relationship with her mother which is just beautiful to see.  It is a normal mother / daughter relationship but you can feel that there is so much love between them.  Like any child, you see Wadjda push her mother to the limits sometimes, but there is never any doubt that she always wants the best for Wadjda and for her to be always happy.  The mother is wonderfully played by Reem Abdullah who just brings so much warmth to her role, especially when she is at home with her daughter.  When she is outside, you can sense a fear within her due to her husband’s jealous nature which means she is cautious to interact with any male that crosses her path.  Speaking of the mother (who is unnamed in the film), her story forms a subplot within “Wadjda” which sees her wanting to buy a red dress to impress her husband and to stop him from looking at candidates for a second wife that his mother has set up for him.  It is obvious that her marriage with this man is not one of convenience but one of definite love, and it would break her heart to see the man she loves take on a second wife.  While the film is definitely a crowd pleaser, the mother’s story is the place in the film where we witness the harsh realities that life sometimes hands us.

One must not overlook just how hard this film was for director Haifaa Al-Mansour to make and just how significant an achievement it was.  While it is no way illegal for a female to make a film in Saudi Arabia, it would definitely be considered a taboo subject.  Just the fact that Al-Mansour not only made this film, but that she was the first person of any gender to make a feature length film in Saudi Arabia is a stunning achievement of the highest level.  To put it all into perspective, Al-Mansour was not allowed to interact with her mostly male crew on the film and when it came to shooting scenes outside, she had to be hidden in a van streets away, directing her actors via a walkie talkie.  To make any film under these conditions would be something of a miracle, but to also make a film the quality of “Wadjda” is something else entirely.  Al-Mansour obviously has a lot of talent and directs her tale in a very simple style so as to let the drama speak for itself, with her camera work never being intrusive or showy.  That’s not to say the film doesn’t look beautiful, quite the contrary; “Wadjda” is a gorgeously visual film.  The colour palette of the film mainly consists of earthy colours; browns, yellows and oranges, but there are two moments in the film when bright splashes of red blind the screen.  The first moment is significant as it is the colour of the dress Wadjda’s mother wants to buy.  After being stuck in a world of muted autumn colours, the sudden splash of red explodes onto the screen, making sure we take notice.  The other moment the colour red enters the film is during a prayer session that Wadjda and her mother share together.

While Al-Mansour portrays Saudi Arabia without heavy judgement, there were a couple of instances in the film where I felt she portrayed the neighbouring Pakistani’s in rather a more negative light.  From memory, there is only two Pakistani characters in the film, both of them minor (one is actually miniscule) but neither are portrayed as positively as the Saudi characters.  One is the driver for Wadjda’s mother (it is forbidden for females to drive in Saudi Arabia) who is constantly arguing with the poor woman, and another is a perverted construction worker trying to entice young Wadjda up on site to “play”.  Whether or not these portrayals are truthful or not, I cannot judge because I do not know, but I did find it interesting that these characters are the only ones in the film that seem to be judged (particularly because the relationship between the two countries is apparently quite strong and positive).

Overall, I loved “Wadjda”, both the character and the film.  It was such an illuminating experience that taught me so much about the plight of females in today’s Saudi Arabia, but importantly director Al-Mansour was able to do all of this without a heavy-handedness.  The simplicity of the film’s plot reminded me of Iranian director JafarPanahi and his directorial debut, “The White Balloon” which is massive praise as that is a film (and filmmaker) I adore.  Al-Mansour has already created history with “Wadjda” but she has also created a bloody entertaining film at the same time.  This is an absolute crowd pleaser that I wholeheartedly recommend to all.

4 Stars.