John lived for money... his wife and child were his property. He "kept his cool" as means of manipulating his property into following the path that he decided. The meaning of life, for him, was his ability to determine the path of himself and his family, through means of mental, emotional, and financial control.
A human being dedicating his life to control is an affront to nature, which is beyond control.
Melancholia represented a cosmic fate beyond earthly coin, physical existence was rendered in and of itself meaningless by this "planet", with a path which could not be controlled or predicted.
Justine was a being completely removed from the physical world, adverse to putting on airs to manipulate the paths of those around her, the complete societal antithesis of John.
This is an ideological movie, about people's ability to surrender to forces beyond their control, and about their ability to cope with the ramifications of an insurmountable fate.
It is about what is important to people... the illusion of wealth or the truth of "eternal life", whether one views the concept of eternal life to actually be spiritually eternal, or just a metaphor for the futility of a selfish physical existence on earth (some might say one in the same, as the basis of pure faith).
John "kept his cool" for as long as he viewed a practical physical purpose to do so... as soon as the curtains were pulled, and life was shown to be "meaningless", ending with the collision of Melancholia... John no longer had any purpose to put on airs... and devoid of airs, what was left of the man? Nothing. John was a paper thin facade that was burnt to a crisp in the light of Melancholia. He showed his true selfishness, that as soon as he lost control of "those he loved" (symbolically earth, literally his family and their fates), he was out of the game, for he didn't have true existential love to see things through beyond his control.
He did NOT love life... he did not surrender to being. He feigned love for Melancholia, but as soon as Melancholia surpassed his understanding, and usurped his imagined control, he became nothing, or rather was revealed as the nothing he always was.
You could say a major theme of the movie is ego... ego as an affront to pure being. John is ego and Justine is pure being. Ego only sees the value in perpetuation of the self, and cannot see the value in an existence void of it's own individuality and property. Pure being sees the futility of all existence, and therefore makes no effort to perpetuate the self, seeing the self only as illusion. In pure being is true love, beyond control. In seeing that there is only control of the self and one's own actions, one can begin to achieve symbiosis with the universe outside of their immediate control. Surrender to the fates.
This is a mature and morally ambiguous work... John is likable to an extent just as Justine is condemnable to an extent, although he is the villain and she the hero. It is meant to illustrate the heaviness of our choices, our ability to act or not to act, even in the face of complete futility. It is also completely misanthropic and deriding of wealth for wealth's sake, a human condition. Being a human, you may look at this and say "what's the big deal"? You would be advised to take a much more comical look at yourself.
reply
share
Tremor-Devoid-Clinic
8 years ago
Very well written, and I agree.
I recently watched Melancholia again, and I must say I appreciated it a lot more this time.
Your post really nailed it in terms of how I interpreted the movie as well. In a way, I think it's one of the most straight-forward movies Lars von Trier has done, and I definitely see it as having an existential or existentialistic theme.
People have each their own grand deceptions/delusions to bypass the fear of death and mortality. Everyone has some way to cope with their own mortality or finiteness, and John was the perfect example of someone who builds his delusion of life and meaning on illusion of control, materialism and predictability.
Some people come to terms with the inevitable end, other people don't want to even confront the thought. John was the illustration of those who don't really confront or come to terms with own human condition and mortality. As you pointed out, he was a "paper thin facade", he didn't love life, because he never really got a mature understanding for death - a vital part of the human condition.
Death was almost shoved into his face, with all the existential discomfort it has to offer to someone who has been avoiding the subject altogether. His reality and illusions of control crumbled, and the only thing he was left with was a certain control over his own condition and how he meets life (or in this particular case, how he decided to cope with inevitable death). It must have been terrifying, and it must have been the last thing he desperately clung to - a control over his own death and fear.
The whole clinging to money and finding existential lies and delusions in order to cope with death-aspect, it's pretty common in a lot of modern societies (especially western). It's sort of a stereotype, if you will, of the materialistic and individualistic "self-made" man, who has grown up in a culture that has a very unnatural relation to, and aversion towards death.
I'm just blabbing from the top of my head right now, but I guess my bottom line is that I find your post really well-written and clear.
reply
share