#1  
Old 11-11-2011, 06:40 PM
Lars von Trier's Melancholia

Here's the link to the published version of my review in my column at The Richmond Examiner:

http://www.examiner.com/movie-in-ric...ew-melancholia



http://www.examiner.com/movie-in-ric...ew-melancholia

Melancholia (2011)

Some of you may recall the name Lars von Trier. It was he who merely two years ago directed the worst film of 2009, “Antichrist,” an abhorrent experience best forgotten. This year, he returns with something completely different, a strange and unusual film that encompasses a marriage falling apart on the same day as the wedding as well as the end of the world. You would think that material like this would make for a fascinating film, but unfortunately that doesn’t end up being the case.

Explaining the plot to the film is a little difficult, but I’ll do my best. It’s split into two halves, the first of which concentrates on Justine (Kirsten Dunst) and Michael (Alexander Skarsgard) at their wedding reception. All of their friends and family are there including Justine’s sister, Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourgh), her father (John Hurt), mother (Charlotte Rampling), boss (Stellan Skarsgard), as well as Claire’s husband, John (Kiefer Sutherland). Throughout the reception, we slowly see that something is not quite right with Justine. She appears to go through a quiet, emotional breakdown which continually disrupts the party. Eventually it comes to seem like she regrets her decision to get married.

The second half of the film focuses on Claire and John. After Justine’s strange breakdown, she comes to live with her sister. Meanwhile, John, an astronomer/scientist of sorts, is studying a planet that has been hiding behind the sun and is now set to pass by Earth. Claire worries that the planet, known as Melancholia, will strike Earth, but John continues to assure her that it won’t. The rest of the film deals with them getting ready to witness the planet’s passing.

The main reason that the plot is a little difficult to summarize is because, quite simply, there wasn’t really any plot to the film. Of course, this is not always a bad thing, but in order for a film not to have any plot, it has to have something else to compensate for it, something that will keep the audience engaged for the runtime of the film, but Von Trier never gets around to presenting anything that begins to make up for it.

This detrimental lack of plot also leads to another serious problem for the film. Since there’s nothing there to engage the audience, the pacing begins to suffer quite heavily as we wait for something interesting to happen or for the characters to develop further, which is something else that we end up waiting a long time for, but to no avail.

It was a rather strange decision to break the film up into two halves as the two don’t really have much to do with each other, other than sharing a few of the same characters. Just when we’re supposed to be engaged with Dunst’s character, she is suddenly sidelined in favor of her sister and her sister’s husband. Their characters are not particularly interesting either because all they seem interested in is Melancholia, the planet that is supposed to pass by Earth.

“Melancholia” was shown at Cannes earlier this year where Kirsten Dunst took home Best Actress, which was an odd choice since her character doesn’t really do very much throughout the film except for a bit of moping followed by a small breakdown. It’s not a bad performance though as it gets the job done, but it’s not one that I would go waving awards at. Then again, it was also at Cannes where Gainsbourgh ended up getting Best Actress for her terrible performance in Antichrist. At least this jury did a little better.

Aside from Dunst, we get a very strange performance from Kiefer Sutherland as Claire’s husband. His character seems to be mad throughout the entire movie, first at his ex-wife and Justine at the wedding reception, then at Justine again when she comes to live with him and Claire. There are also small, but interesting, turns from excellent actors John Hurt and Stellan Skarsgard. They only get a small handful of scenes, but they’re always a delight to see.

The best part of “Melancholia” occurs in the first few minutes of the film. We are treated to some gorgeous imagery of things that are to come at the end of the film, some of which spoils the ending, so it’s doubtful Von Trier meant for it to be a surprise. If he had been able to incorporate more of this dream-like imagery into the film, along with a more engaging plot (or any plot at all), Von Trier could have had a far more interesting film on his hands. With the topics presented in both halves of the film, it seemed like it would be hard not to at least have a semi-interesting story, but since he decided not to develop those topics very far, it’s not that big of a surprise that the film suffers for it. In the end, perhaps the nicest compliment that can be paid to Von Trier’s latest film is that it is much, much better than his last. 2/4 stars.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-22-2011, 11:40 AM
I enjoyed it a little more than you did. Here is a link to my review on Way Too Indie.

http://waytooindie.com/reviews/melancholia/
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump