sebbastiann

Poor Glenn. She's trying but to what use when the film is so dour, so flat-wood lifeless and so on-the nose; Not much is left to the viewer's imagination. Everything is so cutesly packeged, from the aerial shots of stockholm, to the multitude of useless close-ups of all characters, terrible editing, and terrible use of actors' faces who are made to look worse than they really are. Zero chemistry, idiotic dialogue that none of the actors believed for one second when they were uttering, such two-dimensional representation of pryce's character, nothing organic, nothing raw. It reminds me of the current trend of French movies, like Marguerite and others of the kinf, where technically everything is great and where everything that is about the heart and magic and just simply life is totally absent. The director totally out of his depth. Poor godard, lynch, cassavetes, malick what must they be thinking watching this?

Try watching a film like breaking the waves and than this. It's just soul-crushing.

Melancholia is an imperfect film. And as it's the case with most masterpieces they are perfect in their imperfection. I believe that a great work of art is one that transcends, one that defies rules, one that is both modern and conservative in it's approach. Melancholia is one of those.

What separates the greatest films from the good or the average is that when they tackle themes like depression, cosmic influences, death, hope, they manage to take the viewer to the extremes just like a shrink would probably make you face your worst fears before you can feel liberated.Most films do only the first part, lacking the cathartic feel at the end. But the again that is the most difficult thing to achieve. In Psychology, doctors have techniques. In Art though, this is not an easy task. As an artist not only do you need to find the right tone, but also to find the rhythm of your narrative and that develops through work and work and work. And I think this is where most artists fail. They become too preoccupied with their obsession, their fears, and fail to give it a value when they translate it into art. Sometimes you need to distance yourself from things to get a better view. For many years I thought Von trier was in the latter category, too self indulgent, having great ideas, great themes, and yet not getting the technique right. In Melancholia he is bang on.

And even if the first half is slightly over the place and not in the same category with second chapter, I would still rate this film a 10 because sometimes these things are not important. When you see someone has a heart, you forgive that person all their clumsiness. I thought for long if the first part, the wedding, was necessary. Probably not, but I am not the director of this film. However, what I do think that was needed, was the introduction of Kirsten Dunst's character outside the larger context presented in the second chapter. Her performance is one of the best of 2011. And even if the first chapter is uneven, without it, her understated performance in the second part of the film would never pack a punch as it does now.

This film reminds me a lot of Bergman's 'Cries and Whispers' or Tarkovsky's Stalker which employ the same techniques as this one. If you like this one, check Bergman's and Tarkovsky's films too. Also check my list 'My favorite movies, recommend others' for other films in the same vein.

Other films I enjoyed in 2011 are: The Tree of Life, The Skin I live In, Certified Copy and Poupoupidou.