Spuren eines Verbrechens

Some called it the kick in the pants cinema needed, the savior of cinema and work of genius. Others find Lars von Trier's debut feature unbearably pretentious and consider this a beautiful but utterly empty work of art. Whatever your opinion will be after seeing this film, you're almost guaranteed to have strong feelings about it afterwards and will almost force you to reconsider the possibilities of the medium of film once again.

Shot in English, ELEMENT OF CRIME was the first film in the Europe-trilogy, followed by EPIDEMIC (1987) and ZENTROPA (1991) and is best described as a futuristic neo-noir crime thriller. Von Trier never intended this film to be part of a trilogy. He only came up with that concept right before filming on ZENTROPA started. Actually, the three films are all very different and the only thing they have in common is a vaguely defined theme of "Europe" (practically all the films made in Europe deal with the subject in some way) and that they all start with the letter E. It's a practical joke to give his films some extra cachet, just as he's doing with his America-trilogies now. Set in the near future, the film gives an apocalyptic view of a decayed and demonic Europe, stunningly photographed in yellow and sepia colours with a vision of constant darkness (no ray of light whatsoever in the film), abandoned buildings and almost constant rain. Police detective Fisher is called in to solve a series of murders of small girls. In the process he gradually comes to realize that he must follow in the footsteps of the assumed murderer, finally completing the murderous pattern himself.

Von Trier's passion about Europe is almost exclusively a deep and long-going fascination with Germany, the catalyst of modern history, that has been the defining factor in Europe's faith for most of the twentieth century. This film, as ZENTROPA and to a lesser extent EPIDEMIC, paint the apocalyptic picture of a world, resemblant of post-war Germany, with not just the physical damage involved, but with people who were emotionally battered as well. It's one thing to lose your belongings, even your relatives, but they didn't just lose everything they had, they lost morally as well. Von Trier presents to us a sort of neitherworld where morals are discarded and people are merely trying to survive.

Not an easy film, to be sure. It was rewarded with a technical prize at Cannes in 1984, but was denied the grand jury prize, mainly because of Dirk Bogarde, who headed the jury, and reportedly was appalled by the film. He thought von Trier wanted to put an end to cinema and destroy the medium of film altogether. He threatened to pull out of the jury, if the film got any prizes. Apparently, they somehow managed to give the film this award for technical achievements. Relatively harmless and who would notice anyway? In interviews Von Trier blatantly claims that his film was historically by far the most important that year and this claim can arguably be protracted for a considerable longer period of time.

Could this film be recommended for your enjoyment or regular entertainment value? No, it can't. But most movies can't. Historically however, this film is important, if there ever was one. This one of the few examples of a film that poses real questions about the way we judge film. Perhaps it's best enjoyed, and I don't want to sound pretentious myself here, by the more experienced moviegoer and for me the film worked best the second or third time I saw it. Upon it's first release in Denmark, half the people - even ardent cinema lovers - were running for the exits within the first half hour.

To the horror of many and delight of some, it's already a staple for students at many film academies, and understandably so. The film is an innovative panache of cinematic styles and expressions, gorgeous sets, the yellow lighting (they used very powerful natrium lights) and stuffed with references and allusions to earlier cinema, like Andrei Tarkovsky and BLADE RUNNER. Any reference to Tarkovsky will probably have the other half still watching running for the exits as well, but cinematic literacy is easily misunderstood.

Not my favorite or the most enjoyable in any sense, so one star off because of the silly detective story and the sometimes over-pretentiousness, otherwise a stunning work of visual art. I think everyone with an interest in cinema should see this film.

Camera Obscura --- 9/10

Lars Von Trier's feature début is a stylish, extremely bizarre and intriguing tapestry about an ex-cop (Michael Elphick) who obsessively pursues a serial killer. Playing with different film genres and supported by a fantastic production design, "The Element of Crime" was very different from what I expected, but not in a bad way. This is the first film in Lars' 'Europe trilogy', followed by "Epidemic" (1987) and "Zentropa" (1991). Influenced by Fritz Lang, Terry Gilliam and many others, the film also has a voice of its own (Von Trier's raging verve); I'd call it "The Silence of the Lambs" meets "Delicatessen", so you can have an idea of how bizarre it is. If that sounds interesting to you, you should check it; even if you're not into the likes of "Dogville" or "Breaking the Waves", you may still appreciate it. Interesting for Von Trier fans and admirers of puzzles alike. 8/10.

Hypnosis and criminology get the once over in this highly disturbing first entry from maverick film-maker Von Trier. A washed up profiler returns home to a post-apocalyptic Europe from Cairo to investigate "The Lotto Girl" murders and becomes determined to prove the methods of his mentor (who has since gone mad) in catching the serial killer. Odes to Hitchcock and other classic film noir abound.

Von Trier manipulates every aspect of every shot (the use of color tones is especially alarming) to create a totally fantasized vision of psychological torture. This, much like his follow up masterpiece, "Zentropa" is the polar opposite of his "no frills" Dogma classics of more recent years "Breaking the Waves" and "Dancer in the Dark." Love them or loathe them, you can't deny the talent and thought that went into making these drastically different works or film art.

Unfortunately, by setting "The Element of Crime" in such a vaguely distant future (I can only guess this is Europe in nuclear winter) and pacing the film to be so hypnotically listless, there really is no heart to this film. "Zentropa" had historical context and better executed tension, and is thus far superior. The only context "The Element of Crime" has is someone else's nightmare.

The screenplay seems to be ahead of its time, as there are many depressingly cynical one-liners that David Fincher wish he had put in "Fight Club." That is the only hint of humor at all to break the oppressive feel of this film, and it is very very dark and nihilistic humor at that. Alas, while you can study and find value in the technical aspects of this film, there is no "joy" to be found, and we, much like the protagonist must awaken from this film nightmare by screaming "I believe in joy!"

Side Notes: ala Hitchcock, Von Trier has a cameo as "the schmuck of ages."

Lars von Trier's debut film is really remarkable. Monochromatic sepia tone, always night, water everywhere, voice-over throughout - all these elements help in creating an eerie dystopian atmosphere where a serial killer has been killing young girls. The lead protagonist Fisher is narrating the events to his therapist by recollecting his memories under hypnosis, so we can't be sure whether the place was actually like that, or this is how Fisher perceives and remembers it, or maybe the hypnosis has taken him into his memories in a dreamlike fashion. It doesn't really matter which one it is; it essentially creates an intriguing environment to investigate the murder case.

How getting into the shoes and path of a serial killer can drive one mad is shown in an intriguing way, but I wish they had explored the motives and life of the killer a little more.

von Trier shows such talent and promise in his first film itself. The case, the storytelling style, the cinematography, everything really works for this film and makes it one of a kind. I was transported into this dreamlike dystopian place trying to solve the murder along with Fisher, and the credit for that goes to von Trier. There are few brilliantly shot and uniquely lit scenes which are really captivating and memorable.

Though supposedly taking place somewhere in West Germany, I cannot imagine a world such as this, with the exceptions of perhaps a Mad Max movie, or maybe Waterworld. Water seems to be the dominant element in the film; the entire piece is saturated. In one early scene in police headquarters, our hero, Fisher, visits the archives by climbing a rope down to a flooded basement. He wades in waist high water, searching through damp and waterlogged files encased in plastic baggies. He searches for clues to the elusive Harry Gray. This world has definitely suffered some apocalypse, though details are sketchy.

Finding a long forgotten surveillance report, he tracks the movements of Mr. Gray through the muddy streets and towns. He tries to put himself into the shoes of his prey, perhaps too much so. Who is Harry Gray, anyway? Is there such a person? Will the hunter cross the line and identify too closely with the hunted?

Lars von Trier's directorial debut definitely foreshadows some of his later works. All of the lotto girls bear a striking resemblance to "The Kingdom's" poor Mary Jensen. And much of the camera work is reminiscent of "The Kingdom" and "Europa". Although the film is somewhat slow, especially if you've been bred on a diet of standard American cinema, it's dreamy, somber tone is nothing if not original. Shot entirely in shades of sepia, with startling blasts of blue color that remind you that this is not a black and white film of the Fritz Lang era, you wonder if the entire movie is but a dream, conjured in our protaganist's mind and surfaced under hypnosis. Why is he in Cairo being hypnotized, anyway? Was he the killer all along, murdering the lotto girls and mutilating them with broken bottles? Does he really not remember? And am I the only one who sees the similarity between Harry Gray and "The Usual Suspects'" Kaiser Soze. The classic red herring that leads you... where?

More than likely, you will only see this film if you purchase the Criterion Collection Edition (at least in the USA), or borrow it from someone who has. So, is it worth the fourty bucks to add to your collection? If you are a Michael Bay, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, shoot-em-up action guy, then probably not. But if you enjoy something completely different, then this may well be for you. By the way, the Criterion release includes a documentary about the life and work of von Trier, including some of his first adolescent films shot with his mom's 8mm camera. If you are a fan of "The Kingdom", as I am, or of any of von Trier's works, it may well be worth the asking price for this alone; and you can consider the feature a quirky bonus, showing his singular genius at such an early stage.