MovieChat Forums > Nymphomaniac: Vol. I (2014) Discussion > Is it just me or did Christian Slater at...

Is it just me or did Christian Slater at first seem...


...like a lurking sinister presence who probably will eventually molest the daughter--setting her off on a path of nymphomania? I enjoyed the film. It's not porn; it's art. But my random and admittedly silly post is about Christian Slater. He seems strangely too short and creepy-looking with his facial hair and receding hairline for me to initially believe him as a sensitive caring father. I eventually got over it. That's a shallow statement, but I am also short with facial hair and a receding hairline, though I shaved my head. So it's not intended to be mean-spirited, but rather a perception when viewing the movie.

At first, I found it impossible for me to not see anyone other than "Hey! It's Christian Slater!" Fine actor, but his whole vibe as a character actor is creepy, and so it made it sometimes uncomfortable before I understood his character whenever he was around his daughter in this movie. I kept expecting that his character would do something inappropriate to the daughter during one of their creepy alone time encounters--him laying on the ground next to the daughter, caressing her, etc. Due to the nature of the film and hype surrounding its controversial themes and content. I was tensed up and expecting something cringeworthy between the father and daughter. Thankfully, that was not the case. Perhaps this discomfort was intentional by the director, as he artfully shocks in all of his movies; or maybe it was just that I've seen way too many movies and expected the worst. However, I suspect that this was just a matter of my personal limitations and restricted ability to see beyond Christian Slater's Heathers-era creepy guy persona. His Jack Nicholson voice and mannerisms--scaled back in this movie--have only accentuated the creepy factor to the point that even looking at his daughter transforms into the possibility of him leering and then pouncing.

Again, none of this occurs in the movie. But I'm curious if others initially had a similar impression BEFORE or DURING watching. After seeing the movie, there's nothing about his performance or the script that would suggest any of this, and he was solid in the role. I'm just interested in the psychology behind whether it's the observer, the actor, or the combination of both clashing into sexually-charged expectations for the film. Though Slater is perfectly fine and innocent in this film, as a casting director, I probably would've chosen someone else.

reply

I saw you didn't have any replies so I just wanted to say that you were not alone! I also thought something was going to happen, in fact I was almost sure it was going to be when he was delirious in the hospital. Perhaps he would confuse her with his wife, and maybe she would play along to calm him or something like that. I also agree that I was really happy the director didn't end up going that direction because, although it wouldn't have been a shocker, it would have maybe been a bit too depressing, perhaps even too easy of an emotional blow for the audience.

I really love his work, it is incredibly moving and thought provoking. I still haven't seen Antichrist, but I plan to soon!

reply

I am glad they didn't go that route with his character because Christian Slater was hands down the best character in the movies. Plus I never liked Christian Slater I never cared for his films but after watching this I found a new respect and now because a actor I look out for if I am bargin shopping DVDs.

reply

He was excellent in this film and brought a range of emotion and tone unlike anything else he's done.

Now ask me how I really feel, I'm just here for the comments.

reply

Funny you should say that, I was thinking the exact same thing during "Delirium". It would have been predictable in a way, so I'm glad she remained a spectator.

I, for one, did not get the impression that he was a malicious creep or paedophile. I agree that there was a weird atmosphere in some of the scenes, but I suppose it's because of the nature of the film. You'd expect something like that to happen. Imho he seemed to genuinely care for her, even more so since his wife was a "cold-hearted bitch" and probably shared few interests with him. It was quite sweet to see him being happy about Joe's early interest in female anatomy and (later) medicine.

reply

[deleted]

Christian Slater IS kind of creepy and he gets typecast that way most of the time.

But his character isn't a creep. I don't know whether VonTrier cast Slater in this role because of his inherent weirdness, or whether the viewer keeps expecting Joe's father to end up being an incestuous pedophile because - let's face it - most of the characters in this film are rather malevolent. Very, very few (any?) of the main characters are redeeming. Hell, even Seligman *SPOILER* turns out to be a creep! That is the norm for the characters in this film. So Slater - naturally creepy - is, instead, a good man.

VonTrier loves screwing with your head - not just your body.

reply

I was so glad that the movie did not take this route. I get your feeling of uneasiness, as so much of what is shown of Joe's relationships involve the extremes of sexuality. I feel like this would have diminished Joe's character, as if we could have just been given the easy out of forgiving her actions because, "oh, I get it, she was molested".

Instead we are forced to face the much harder question of what makes people becoming addicted to anything? Is this really just something one is born with? And is that a justification for such cold, callous actions?

reply

I didn't see that at all. I had only watched the first 45 minutes of the movie when I read your post. I went back last night to watch the rest and even with your comment in my head, I didn't see Joe's father as being creepy. He seemed like a loving, doting father.


My memory foam pillow says it can't remember my face. I can tell its lying.

reply

I was concerned it was going to take that incestuous pedophile route too! ****POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD****

When he sees her reading the medical terms for the clitoris I was glad he did not molest/rape her. I was relieved when he just taught her about trees. And like another poster said I was expecting it even more when he was delirious and calling his daughter by his wife's name. I also thought she would have taken pity on him and at least kissed him on the lips or had sex with her father to make him think her mother had cared enough to be there for him at the hospital! I was so very grateful that did not happen. When viewing a movie with such a sexual premise it is hard to know what to expect or what dark alley we would be taken down--literally and/or morally.

reply

Yes, because it makes sense. A friend of mine who had sex with men at very little provocation and who later became a prostitute, had been molested by her father. And another friend of mine, male, who was molested as a child by a choir director has had sex mostly with prostitutes. Most people (men and women), I've met, who have constant sex with strangers have had sexual trauma in their past.

I don't understand why this is a difficult concept for people.

reply

You are not alone. I thought the same thing. I still do. There was some sort of deeper than father daughter connection between them but it wasn't shown on film. It was implied.

Can this really be the end..to be stuck inside of mobile
with the Memphis blues again.

reply