Los idiotas

At the close of Cannes 2011; Lars Von Trier's reputation as one of the most gifted yet controversial film makers around was firmly intact hitting new levels of outrageousness; however, it wasn't the first time he has managed to get the crowd at arguably the world's most prestigious film festival talking. In 1998 The Idiots aka Dogme #2 made its debut causing mass controversy; mass criticism; and mass discussion.

Naturally for a film which caused such a stir it's an unusual watch. It's a strange sensation to be made to feel uncomfortable yet totally engrossed in a film and stranger still, feeling guilty for enjoying it. The term "guilty pleasure" is usually used to hide embarrassment e.g. captain of the school sports team loves a chick flick; yet here the term really is applicable.

Credit to the cast who participated largely unaware of what the script would demand of them. We are introduced to Karen (Bodil Jørgensen, playing the films and our conscience) who is then caught up in an anti- middle class gang who spend their time in public 'spassing' out; in other words, pretending to be disabled (PC alarm bells ringing from the off then) in order to release their inner "idiots". Rule three of Dogme 95; a hand-held camera, works particularly well; from the off we are thrown right into the heart of the group, we might as well be made to feel as if we are documenting it.

The film certainly makes an interesting comment on how social behaviour can restrict us and, for lack of a better word, the "licence" given to those struggling with mental illnesses to behave more outlandishly. The character's main release is to pose as those without social confinements in public; however the gang eventually do away with only doing it in view of the public eye; is it a hobby or an addiction? Certainly different members of the group enter into it with different motifs and levels of seriousness.

The Dogme 95 movement on the whole polarised audiences so to say that The Idiots; one of the most famous of all Dogme films, will not be to everyone's tastes is an understatement. The actual subject matter will be off putting to some; a topic such as this being played for laughs in certain parts makes for uncomfortable viewing; even more so due to the fact that it is funny. The film also asks the question of how disabled citizens are treated by society; nearly fifteen years on and it isn't hard to imagine people still being perturbed at the thought of allowing mentally disabled yet completely harmless people to walk around their garden.

Throughout the film Von Trier gives us uncomfortable laughs; mocks the middle class attitude to the disabled; and manages to throw in a shockingly graphic orgy. All of this building up to a real emotional sucker punch of a climax. It isn't until the closing scenes that the film stops trying to provoke the audience's brain and instead aims straight for the heart. If nothing else, The Idiots will get you talking; as if Von Trier would have it any other way.

8/10

I'm surprised that no one commented on the pseudo documentary's shaky reality as mirroring the problematic reality of the Idiots in the movie. Their attempts to be real idiots so as to appreciate their "inner idiots" parallels the feature film's attempt to mimic the documentary format so as to achieve credibility. By showing the overacting and crew shots in the movie, perhaps it was the director's way of commenting on the the shaky reality of the Idiots existence.

But even though we know that it's a feature film trying to be a documentary, we are still drawn to the vicarious experience of the movie - we still enjoy it as a movie. Perhaps another statement about finding happiness in a fake reality?

Like Idiots, the audience goes into an escaped reality when they go to the cinema, hoping to experience what the protagonists feel on screen. But like the idiots, the denial is only temporary. The final fate of Karen seems to warn the the audience that at the end of the day, this escaped formed of reality is no match to the "real" world that is out there.

As a Dane it may be easier to see where Lars Von Trier is coming from with this social criticism (satire of social criticism!) movie.

First of all he comes from a country that prides itself in two traditions:

1. a state that takes care of and cares for everyone

2. a country that has a long tradition of social-criticism in literature and movies

For more than ten years it seemed that every big film project in Denmark had a social agenda...That was probably the only way to get financial support for your film project - which was most of the time, if not all of the time - supplied by the state.

This film is poking fun - primarily - at this social criticism tradition, while it also renews it.

But how much should we take seriously - Lars Von Trier would probably laugh at anyone, who takes this movie at face value - as a bona fide social criticism (which it is not!) and - of course - it fails as traditional "social criticism", just look at it - this is not a film like Pelle the Conquerer, there are no drunken, heavy-set men seducing their underage nieces and abusing the working man sadistically.

In short this movie wasn't meant to succeed in the genre in a traditional sense.

It has a more profound agenda - I have a hard time putting words to it, because what the movie says is so very Danish. Certain scenes are simply great: When they visit the factory and "the idiots" are allowed to turn the machines on and off...I can't explain why that is so intensely funny, but I'm pretty sure it's a Danish thing.

This film is funny, sad, sentimental, wonderfully-acted... It comments on a social-democratic tradition and state that embraces you for better and for worse...It also talks about capitalism in this system...Maybe it's really all about the compromise inherent in a social-democratic tradition existing parallel with a capitalist system. Such a compromise could be viewed as hypocrisy from a philosophical standpoint.

Central to this movie is the theme of honesty and sincerity...And all the while you don't want to take it too seriously, because you have a feeling that the director isn't all that serious about it himself...

In short I find the movie and it's intention irresistibly confusing.

I think Lars Von Trier ranks among the best filmmakers as I found his 'Breaking The Waves', 'Dancer In The Dark' and 'Dogville' to be exceptional films of a class apart. Then, I saw 'Idioterne'. I liked the story idea where a group of people form a cult and disobey social rules. However, the telling of it failed to impress me on any level. The execution is very amateur. While the intention of the shaky camera was to give the viewer a feel of being a voyeuristic outsider, in some shots you could actually see the microphone. There are some very explicit and pointless pornographic scenes merely put for shock value. I don't mind shock value as long as it's relevant to the story but what was the need to show a penis or sexual intercourse (where you can actually see penetration)? The acting is quite bad with the exception of Bodil Jørgensen who is terrific as the tormented Karen. Many seem to like the film because of the provocative theme and because it's 'different'. But is that all that makes a movie good?

In Epidemic, one of his previous films, Lars von Trier noted that "a film must be like a stone in the shoe". Eleven years after Epidemic, Lars von Trier is famous, his budgets grew larger and so do the stones he puts in the spectators shoes. No, reality is never what you think it is. It stops moving when you expect it to rush, and than it rushes in a way that makes you dizzy. People that you considered to be serious collapse when it comes to testing their intentions in reality, and people that you never took a note of will prove to be the real heroes of life. At the same time Lars von Trier and his excellent actor ensemble try to explain why (non violent) social experiments always fail, in spite of what we learn at school and watch on TV. They fail for three main reasons. First, the intentions of the hardcore of every movement of this kind are different that the ones they declare on. Second, the few who take a social project seriously will remain outside the hardcore group in a lonely, non-influential position. And third: the external conditions for running an experiment of this kind are such, that it's impact is limited up front to zero, often without the acting persons realize it. A brilliant movie of a brilliant filmmaker, who revolutionized the cinema in the last generation. A must for every thinking person.