Melancholia

This is not an easy movie to watch. It's tough from the very beginning - a prologue prequel with music by Wagner and an apocalyptic perspective. Any movie in which dead birds fall from the sky in the first three minutes is not going to be light and fluffy.

But this movie, about deep melancholia experienced by Justine (Kirstin Dunst), the principal character, and the melancholia of the potential end of life itself, is an artistic triumph. Great acting, great cinematography, great music. Even the sometimes puzzling plot - the post-prologue movie comes in two halves - is engrossing and pregnant with underlying meaning. The three principal characters all represent a point on the compass of human feelings: Depression, anxiety, and something resembling nice normalcy. How each deals with the apocalypse is a well-threaded effort.

While the movie is dark, it is by no means humorless. The wedding that occupies the first half of the movie has a great deal of fun alongside the depression.

Not a movie for everyone, and a bit too long, but if you watch it, stick with it. You may not want to see it twice but you could be glad you saw it once.

This movie completely freaked me out. It was SO well done, but if you've ever suffered from serious depression it really gets under your skin.

People I know who watched this movie thought it was boring and didn't understand it. I understood it very well. I have never seen a better metaphor for depression, and the seductiveness of "giving in."

If you're very depressed, don't watch this movie alone.

I don't like this film, nor do I love it. I won't watch it again. But it is a 10/10 movie for making me feel things so intense I haven't felt in a long time.

This movie is about depression, and it's portrayed in a beautiful way. Sometimes it's achingly slow, other times a ton of things happen all at once. But the dread remains.

The movie is divided in two parts; Justine and Claire. And their ways of dealing with life is really different. I won't spoil anything but do know that both sections intertwine but don't necessarily deal with each other very directly.

Lars von Trier is a master at making movies that are both equally beautiful and destructive. I finished watching it two hours ago but the pain in my chest hasn't gone away. And that to me is quite the accomplishment. He knows how to portray pain in a way that is so accurate it's scary.

No one probably working today can imbue the image of a bride pissing in the middle of a golf course with the afterglow of existential soul-searching like Trier does here - well, there was Peter Greenaway at one point but I haven't kept track. Side by side the romantic, the visceral, the transcendent, each one perversely subverting the others. But, having searched and yearned, eventually with Trier we arrive at nothing. Nothing in the predominantly Western, post-enlightenment worldview that has pushed god to the side and seated the mind in his place. Nothing is too much for Trier then, because nothing satisfies the mind; everything that is touched by humanity is shown to be randomly bubbling up from some cold, infertile void.

But this is the thing with Trier, why it's so troubling to dismiss him; even though he makes art about a meaningless world - and so why pay attention? - he remains a powerful poet of cinema. So he is an anti-Tarkovsky, which perhaps explains why he opens the film with The Hunters in the Snow - a painting used in Solyaris - burning, and why horses are forced to kneel in the face of petulant violence. Whereas Tarkovsky understood the universe to be centered inside, and used that to sculpt space and metaphor from that center, Trier is grounded nowhere; so he resolves to orbit from one periphery to the next, nicely framing for us anxieties that we can relate to but with no deeper insight of their mechanism.

But now and then he works from a powerful set of ideas. Here it is the mirrored metaphor; the pain and suffering of life on earth as mirrored on the cosmic level, and our hope that this suffering looming above will just pass us by. It is not sci-fi in any way you may recognize, or anymore than Tree of Life is.

It does not work like that, of course, that is a given. So we are placed in the shoes of the woman - the bride in her wedding reception, where life is ritually supposed to become orderly, assuring, meaningful - and forced to make our way for the occasion wearing a forced smile, and hoping the pain will just pass us by. Yes, it does not work like that. The mother is haughty and domineering, the father sloppy and indiscreet. Everyone else is busy performing their roles, going through motions, speeches, confrontations which are often funny but always grueling to see. So,with the soul unsupervised, the perfect occasion for happiness inexplicably crumbles from inside.

The second part is about the sister, who already has the perfectly happy life or is supposed to. But again, of course, it doesn't work. Suffering, uncertainty hangs above that we can't simply brush off. So it is the dawning of acceptance that governs this part of the film; but, properly at least for Trier and in a way that should make sense, we're shown the impossibility of that acceptance. Faces are increasingly bewildered, affections grow distant, motions agitated.

A lot of my distaste for what Trier does, is exemplified in a scene where the depressed sister confronts the other; instead of reciprocating the nurture and support, however obligatory it may have seemed at the time, she preys on her weakness. Why drink wine in the veranda and pretend none of this is going to happen? Why not?

But the acceptance is handled with so much nihilism, a sort of comfortable noncommittal, that I want to take a step back. No equanimity flows from Trier's emptiness, and so the vision is useless for me. I want films embedded in a world that matters in some way. Yes, we're all going to face an inscrutable fate, but it's one thing to frame this with compassion, another thing altogether to frame with contempt or cold satisfaction.

So it is apt to compare with Tree of Life on more than just the cosmic level of wheels whirring life into pattern; there is the sense of emptying out, the search for a true face that restores meaning. Malick goes the extra mile though, he reconciles into the impermanence of all things and from there a deep, loving humanity. Trier is simply left aghast at it. Sex is a vice and the mind is unable to cope; so he merely casts the characters away at the precipice. But not before ironically rendering human faith as a magical cave made from fire sticks.

Oh, he captures the drab, grueling unlife of depression well, no wonder as he knows from personal experience. And a google search seems to yield a nod at Filippino filmmaker Lav Diaz, that was pretty unexpected.

There are aesthetically-minded pleasures though that you should see; planets caressing each other like faces below, a bird's eye view of horses galloping. Some of it borders on kitsch when Kirsten Dunst is photographed naked beneath the moonglow, the schadenfreude is so earnestly conceived.

And there is the parting image; I don't know how much of it was the theater, technology, but it swell up into the most deafening, soul-crushing crescendo. I could feel particles being dislocated inside of me. But considering what comes before, it's not something I wanted to swim into but let wash. It's fitting for Trier though, the wagnerian sound of the void washing life empty.

It is a powerful work, don't just take it lightly. But I urge you to meditate against it.

Oh yes, it is all going to end sooner or later. But, as a principle, I urge you to never settle for a destructive void in your life: in the midst of blistering destruction, try to see around you what the Eastern mystics knew as the universe of 10,000 beautiful things trampled by god Shiva in his final dance. Let yourself be filled with a profound sadness that is joy for the 10,000 beautiful things around you.

When we think about the end of the world, we usually think about the things we have always wanted to do, but never got the chance to. In whatever way it is that we wish to live our last hours on earth, whether it be by going out with close friends and relatives, or doing the things you never thought you'd do, the feelings of impending doom are the driving force behind our decisions. There have been many films lately that seek a comedic twist to something of this level (which isn't a bad thing), but what Lars Von Trier does with Melancholia is give us a beautifully orchestrated vision about the beauty that comes with the destruction of our planet as well as very realistic and often somber interactions between the characters in this film. One can't help but be mesmerized and terrified by the magnitude of Melancholia and the attention to detail, the science (dear lord!) was easy to understand and though it wasn't the focal point of the film, it was enough to offer the audience an idea as to how something like that was possible. (I would be lying if I said it didn't make me weep.) The film is separated by chapters that focus on the two sisters played by Kirsten Dunst and Charlotte Gainsbourg and their lives before and after they found out about Melancholia. I believe that by taking the time to show us how the sisters were before the end of the world even became a possibility, we understand why they react the way they do to the news. Accepting what is to come instead of fearing it is what separates the sisters and the conversations/arguments that transpire speak a lot about the human condition and forces us to ask ourselves: What will I do with the time I have left? I watched this film about a month ago and I still think about it. It's captivating and absolutely worth your time.