MovieChat Forums > Nymphomaniac: Vol. I (2014) Discussion > A mediocre film that hides behind 'Sex a...

A mediocre film that hides behind 'Sex as art' as a defense mechanism

posted 10 years ago by A_Concerned_Critic
107 replies | jump to latest

I love how it seems to be impossible to dislike or criticize this movie without being labeled a "prude" or some other blanket term, such as a religious fundamentalist, all for showing a distaste for this film.

I'd love for Von Trier's lapdogs to please explain to me how a film like "The Wolf of Wall Street" can be lauded so heavily despite its graphic and consistent sexual imagery--especially in a nation as apparently prudish and puritan as America--while The Nymphomaniac doesn't seem to be fairing nearly as well. I can only wonder.

I'm frankly tired of Von Trier and his pretentious, pseudo-intellectual euro art house drivel, using graphic sexuality and shock tactics to hide his crap behind the guise of "art", making it look as though anybody who finds distaste in his films are simply "offended" by the provocative nature of it, not by the quality of the film itself.

This film provides zero intellectual sustenance. It is shock for the sake of shock. Gratuitous sexuality for the sake of gratuitous sexuality. Reminds me so much of "anti-christ", but then again, what can one expect from such a one-note director.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ghfgjkbnklbj 10 years ago

Reminds me so much of "anti-christ", but then again, what can one expect from such a one-note director.

So I'm assuming you've never seen any of his other movies? Dancer in the Dark? Dogville? Manderlay? Melancholia?

[–] ZaZeus 10 years ago

The film is barely in any theaters, of course it won't "do well."

Melancholia is in my top 10 films I've ever seen; it's a beautiful film.

I do agree on the sex in that I do not see a reason for showing the literal sex acts on camera, other than wanting the reality of certain situations to sink in more (and as far as I've seen in Vol. 1 it was unnecessary) The nudity in general is fine, but I do not see a need to show an actual blowjob, Shia Lebeouf actually penetrating the actress, etc. This is not coming from a prude perspective because I don't really care one way or the other, but I don't understand why some directors think "real sex" on camera is so integral to the film that they sequester their films from a larger audience as a result of showing it. Just because the film is about a nymphomaniac doesn't mean we need to see Lebeouf's erect penis penetrating her to get the point across.

[–] A_Concerned_Critic 10 years ago

The film is barely in any theaters, of course it won't "do well."

I was referring to its reception, not box office sales.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] KennethWasHere 10 years ago

I was referring to its reception, not box office sales.

Good point; seventy-seven percent (and "certified fresh") on Rotten Tomatoes and a 7.4/10 on IMDb. Whoa, nelly, this movie got torn apart.

The bitter thinkers buy their tickets to go find God like a piggy in a fair

[–] ShroudOfFrost 9 years ago

IMDb ratings are stupid (look at their top 25 for an example). As for the rottentomatoes, that is on a good or bad scale, not full out weighing averages. Look at metacritic for that, which is at a 64 which isn't bad, but also not great.

[–] DangerManTX 10 years ago

Dude, Melancholia was the worse film I have ever seen. I fell asleep twice watching it, in the end I pulled the plug on it. Over-rated Garbage, same as this movie (both Volumes.)

[–] DangerManTX 10 years ago

You nailed it my friend. Main difference is of course The Wolf of Wall Street was actually a good movie... This isn't...

[–] Stay_away_from_the_Metropol 10 years ago

Sounds like you just don't get it, brah.
I learned more about actual history, science, and unique life parallels to ponder through this film's digressions than I have in years.
I found this film to be EXTREMELY intellectual, genius in fact.
Apparently it's just not for you.

[–] Harry_Skywalker 10 years ago

This movie... "intellectual"?

ROFLCOPTER!

I always tell the truth, even when I lie.

[–] max7171 10 years ago

Why do people like you always have to sit there and act like some douchy film snob. You have this self-righteous and holier-than thou mentality, who thinks his/her taste is superior to everyone elses.....yet none of you ever have the balls to provide a list of the movies you consider to be good or movies that meet your standards. You just wanna sit there and turn your noses up. Then when asked for any proof or examples of what falls in line with your taste, you show nothing!

[–] A_Concerned_Critic 10 years ago

Is this post being ironic on purpose?

My post is in direct reaction to the douchey film snobs who see pretentious drivel like this and use whatever excuse they can to condescend and deflect the criticisms of anyone who doesn't like it. In the case of this film, people are simply prudes because they couldn't see how "artful" full on penetrative sex apparently is. I'm perfectly fine with anybody enjoying this film, it is when they get some air of superiority over the fact that they enjoy it is where I become bothered.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] oldcapecod-425-966198 10 years ago

I've seen the word, pretentious, several times in discussions of these two latest Lars films. I'm still not sure why. Specifically, how is Lars pretentious with Nymphomaniac?

I cringed when I learned of this new project, because I figured Lars would be gratuitous and it would feel like overkill and I would hate it as much as I lacked fondness for Antichrist. But I was pleasantly surprised. Despite its expected graphic nature, these scenes are not without purpose. They go a long way in letting us into Joe's mind and see life through her one-track eyes. They are atypical. That is, they are not usually sexy, as a perfectly "normal" Hollywood film would do it. Sometimes, they're downright ugly and passionless. Sometimes, they are actually boring. I think this an important point. What Joe craves doesn't seem the least bit appealing.

Eventually, the graphic sex scenes seem to disappear into the background, kind of like the soundstage film technique of Dogville. They are not the draw of the movie. They are a device as we explore a woman's life and mind. And each time she tries to say she's a horrible person, here's this kind, well-educated older bachelor who can find parallels in the most random-yet-intriguing ways. He simply refuses to let her be a bad person....

In short, this definitely wasn't about the sex. It was about the psychology. Lots of layers to it. And that's the reason I'm compelled to re-watch it in the future.

[–] decadent_sympozium 10 years ago

Never go full retard, mate.

[–] kidjay83 10 years ago

Very well put ,its one thing if he actually made quality films be he doesn't .There is no quality at all or substance to this guy whatever ideas he try's to convey in his films are ;held together mainly with chewed bubble gum and paper clips .

Only when society changes will the culture change "

[–] lazarillo 10 years ago

That's your opinion. Obviously many people disagree.

The reason I MIGHT (I don't think I actually have) call people "prudes" is THEY keep bringing up the sex. They erroneously call this a "porn" film, which it isn't it if you've ever seen one. And Von Triers is a generally accepted arthouse director. He doesn't have to "disguise" sex as art. And if he wanted to make to make porn, he'd make porn--and he wouldn't spend this kind of money do it. And if I wanted to watch porn, I'd watch porn 'cause good luck trying to masturbate to this!

My interest is actually not art films, though I watch them now and then, but horror, exploitation, and cult films, and also--I'll freely admit--softcore pornography. There's nothing wrong with making an INTERESTING sex film. They should do it more these days. But Americans have to compartmentalize everything, so they spew moral outrage about stuff like this while they secretly watch the dirtiest XXX stuff imaginable, which I actually don't because it's fricking BORING.

You're making a big straw-man argument about what kind of people watch movies like this when you have no idea really.