The Ultimate Feminist Film (an interpretation)
Keep in mind that though I would consider myself a feminist, I'm a male. And that I'm writing this, not with the movie in front of me, but from memory of having watched the Director's Cut. So there will be a lot of generalizing.
This really is the ultimate feminist film, though. It's not about sex addiction. It's about being a woman (something I think is literally discussed). It is Von Trier, though, so everything is extreme and in your face, and it's easy to miss the point. In addition, a lot of what I'm going to discuss is unfortunately literally related through Seligman's dialogue, when he talks about how the story would be different if genders were swapped. I think Von Trier was way too indulgent by having that character explain everything, as if audiences couldn't figure it out for themselves.
There was nothing wrong with Joe. She became aware of her sexuality at an early age, like most females. She and her friends played sexual games. All of this is normal. But society often looks down on this behavior from females and tells them to repress it.
She's not a sex addict. She's a nymphomaniac. She has an extremely high sex drive. I don't know why, but society is still coming to terms with the fact that females can have such a sex drive. Just as it would be any male's fantasy to have as many sex partners as possible- maybe even one or more a night, every night- many females have that same desire. To sleep with as many guys as possible to fulfill their needs. I can't help but get bleeped, but females want to F-, not get F-ed. This doesn't make them "sluts" or promiscuous. They're people, too. It's okay for males to have such a high sex drive, but society tells women that they're not allowed to.
Society also tells women that they're to be love objects. That they need to seek Love in the sense that Hollywood films have defined it. That they need to get married and have children. It's frowned upon for women to maintain such a high sex drive throughout their life without eventually falling in love and settling down. Women are told (as one female says to Joe early in the film) that Love is the secret component to sex.
Which can be true, for some women. But, really, sex and monogamous love are realistically often opposed to each other. Think of men. Think of Shia LeBeouf, for example. Not his character in the film, but him. I think it probably goes without saying that he can probably have sex with any female he wants. Any time he wants. For men, that's probably a fantasy. And it's probably great for him. To be able to express himself sexually whenever he wants. But if LaBeouf ever got married, this ability to express himself sexually with any number of partners would go away. He'd be confined to sleeping with one person for the rest of his life, under the pretense of "love." That may work out for him, but he'd probably miss the days when he could sleep around.
The seemingly infinite amount of sexual partners Joe has shouldn't be taken literally when viewing the movie as a whole. It just represents her normal hypersexuality. She knows that her sexuality gives her power over men, which is a right women can exercise. She has no emotional attachment to the guys, so she's able to flippantly tell them off or lie and tell them she loves them, for her own amusement. It keeps things interesting.
She's hired, not for her credentials, but because Jerome thinks he'll have control over her. But she immediately shuts him down, and the role of power shifts back and forth. Eventually this power game gets to the point that Joe falls in love with him when she happens upon him in the park. This is a real feeling. But society tells her that, to express her love, she needs to adopt the norm of being in a nuclear family. They both feel it's a given that they have to move in with each other. But that's just a model that the patriarchal system has established. There are other ways for two people to express their love to each other, without moving in, having a monogamous relationship, and having a child.
The limitations that the nuclear family model of love pose become immediately apparent when the two have a child and seem to completely settle down. Suddenly, she's lost all sensation in her vagina. It's symbolic for how this societal model completely goes against a female's natural sex drive. In most cases, they can't co-exist.
Joe realizes this. When Jerome gives her a ring, she throws it in the fire, knowing that, by accepting the ring, she will never be able to have her sexual desires fulfilled again. It's Feminism to the extreme.
In addition, she's unwilling to accept the expected role of 'mother.' She has a child accidentally with Jerome, but has no interest in being a mother. Her sexual desires and ability to express herself as a woman come first. Von Trier could easily have her behavior punished by allowing Marcel to fall out of the window. But Marcel doesn't fall out of the window. Von Trier is showing us that women shouldn't have to be mothers. The only reason Joe is technically one is because, in the name of love, she mechanically settled for the nuclear family with a child. Jerome is involved in some sort of illegal job. Apart from saving Marcel from the window, we never see him adopting the role of a father. He relies on Joe to take care of the child. Because she's a woman, and therefore must be a mother. It's not his job.
When Jerome gives Joe the ultimatum, she leaves without hesitation to renew her ability to experience pleasure.
She goes on to experiment with all sorts of sexual perversions- looking for the one that will get her off the most. Regular sex was fine before it was tainted by having love enter the equation. Now she needs sexual experiences that are the furthest removed from love as possible.
Joe gets pregnant again. Why? She hasn't been taking her birth control pills- a responsibility society places on women. It's their job not to get pregnant. When she attempts to have an abortion, she's not allowed to. She's completely in control of her body and knows exactly what she needs, but professionals think they know her body and mind better than she does and do not allow it, forcing her to give herself one. Even when abortion is readily available, there is still a stigma attached, and the woman's decision is always second-guessed. Even those who are pro-choice, such as the abortion clinic therapist, feel the need to condescend and exercise control over the woman's decision. Joe is forced to take matters into her own hands.
Joe loses her job. Without a legitimate reason. We are given no indication that her sexual encounters are interfering with her job performance at all. There are rumors that she sleeps with many men, and this is deemed "unprofessional." Because professional women don't do that. It's so "unprofessional," in fact, that Joe is forced to go to group meetings. Her hypersexuality and normal sex drive is now branded "sex addiction." It's a "disease." An aberration. Now that she's been labeled as such by society, she's forced to atone for it. She knows better, though, and tells everyone off. She is now an outcast from society. Because she likes to have sex. She has become so stigmatized that her vagina becomes deformed and bruised.
When seeking a place on the outskirts of society, she runs into yet another patriarchal position. She's "growing old", and she must find someone to be her "sidekick" and to preserve her legacy- all told to her by Dafoe's character.
As she develops a relationship with P, she comes to understand how love can be expressed in a way other than the nuclear family. When Jerome seduces P, presumably to teach her how love should really be expressed according to him, Joe decides that she must take him out.
She pulls a gun on him, but forgets the most basic of steps. As she tells Seligman, she's seen it done a thousand times in movies. The movie is self-referential. We were expecting Joe to murder Jerome. We've also seen it a thousand times in movies. We've seen the movies where female characters get revenge on the males who have violated them. All of those "feminist" revenge flicks. We were expecting this film to be one, but, if she would have killed him, she would have lost her womanhood and became a male, using anger, revenge, and murder. That's the problem with all of those female revenge flicks. Although we think the movies are empowering the female protagonists, we're really just transforming them into a male stereotype.
Seligman has been listening to this entire story without becoming sexually excited. But, at the same time, he's constantly interjecting with his own opinions. He's mansplaining. He wants to be a feminist, and he succeeds on many levels, but too frequently, he tries to compromise Joe's feminist principles by saying, "Yes, but...", even though Joe is ten steps ahead of him. At the same time, though, it is Seligman who ultimately relieves Joe of all shame.
At the end of the story, Joe goes to sleep and Seligman goes to a different room. Despite his asexual claims (however true they may be), just like every other male, he is ultimately unable to listen to a female talk about her sex life without becoming aroused. He expects that, because she's had sex with everyone else, and because he's listened to her whole story, she's obligated to have sex with him.
Seligman stands in for every male who watches this film. We're being told a story about a woman struggling with societal norms and gender roles interfering with her sexuality, but, as males, we can't help but become aroused at the graphic descriptions or the depictions that we would deem "pornographic." The fact that we would call it "pornographic" in the first place is already a problem. We're unable to understand female sexual expression without becoming titillated. We objectify Martin and Gainsbourg's body. So long as we continue to do this, females will never be able to express themselves sexually in the public discourse. We keep insisting it remain behind closed doors.
We do not know if Joe actually shoots Seligman. If she does, it is out of self-defense- not revenge. Throughout the entire film, we never see her be the victim of rape, until just then. If it is not out of self-defense, it is a shot fired at all males who are watching and are complicit.
As I just stated, Joe is never raped in this film. From the plot, one would expect that, no? The fact is, women who take chances and express themselves in a hypersexual manner have no more of a chance of getting raped than those who do not do so. Every woman is a potential victim. Von Trier purposely does not include a chapter in which Joe gets raped. If he did, he would be condemning her actions. He would be furthering the notion that rape is the inevitable conclusion to expressing one as sexually as Joe.
By being a nymphomaniac, surely Joe must suffer in other facets of life. But she doesn't. It interferes only with societal roles. Her role as a mother. Her role as a professional. Her role as a wife. Nothing else. Her daily life is not affected negatively in any way. It is society who sees it that way, ultimately making her a pariah.
I maintain this is the ultimate feminist film. It shows the inherent evils of men, societal roles, and gender roles. It shows how much, even in 2014, women are not allowed to have a sex drive.
You may think I'm painting Joe as too sympathetic a character, but give it a rewatch, also keeping in mind Von Trier's tendency to go for the extreme and shocking. There has never been a more scathingly indicting film on patriarchal society that I am aware of.