L'Élément du crime

Von Trier has created some masterpieces, but also some beautiful and very flawed films. Still, as far as his style The Element of Crime is the first of his without the Dogme shaky-cam style. Let's get this out of the way. It reminds me a lot of Lynch's Eraserhead and Aronofsky's Pi in how technically brilliant, but also how surreal and how cold they are. But unlike those, this one really tested my patience at times. It has some brilliant sound design, and some really amazing lighting and cinematography. There's quite a few shots here that will linger in the mind, but as a whole the plot is quite messy and not very comprehendable. Some could say it fits as a Lynch film in a way, but I found this to be much more of a mixed bag than many of Lynch's works. Overall, as a journey through avant-garde territory with really surreal, stylized, and just unsettling and odd moments, it's recommended, but as a whole you may feel yourself checking the clock one too many times.

How to describe a film so avant-garde that Dirk Bogarde threatened to quit the Cannes jury if it got an award? A film that references Blade runner, with a burned-out cop (Michael Elphick) brought back into a futuristic Europe to find a serial killer. A film that has been described by some as "The Silence of the Lambs" meets "Delicatessen".

Fans of David Lynch may thrill at this futuristic film noir. Many will run for the exits, as it takes quite a bit of time to develop.

It is Lars von Trier's first English-language film, and it is in a sepia-tone that adds to the feeling that Europe is crumbling. Water is an element that flows throughout, again adding to the feeling that something is rotten.

Elphick hooks up with Me Me Lai in her last film. She had done a lot of cannibal work before this - an interesting combination of actors.

Elphick goes into a experimental drug-induced hypnotic state to try and recreate the crimes and catch the killer. Things get really surreal from here.

Cinematography, sound, and special effects were all superb in this very strange film.

This is yet another film that easily conforms to my theory of Subjective Reality (see Kafka), to be honest it may not even be my theory, but whose ever it was, it has been distorted to my own way of thinking. The Element of Crime begins with a burnt-out cop (Fisher, played by Michael Elphick) who has found his way back to Cairo (after a strenuous case in Europe), being placed under hypnosis by a therapist so the root of Fisher's problems can be discovered. From the first frame Lars von Trier and cinematographer Tom Elling set up the haunting atmosphere, from the shot of the donkey rolling in the dirt, to the drab, blurry images of Egypt. But after Fisher has been placed under hypnosis the world we see is a world of constant darkness, and where the only light is the sludgy yellow sepia. This is not a stylish decision, merely a way of highlighting the murkiness of Fisher's memory, as he digs deeper into the mystery of Harry Grey we soon see the odd flash of a blue police light, von Trier's way of pointing out significant moments in Fisher's recollection.

The pull of The Element of Crime (the film) is that part of Fisher's training refers to The Element of Crime (the book), a journal for catching criminals that involves the pursuer putting themselves into the shoes of the criminal, to live, sleep and breath their lives until they are almost one with them. And that is what leads Fisher on his path, as he is soon recreating the crime scenes and scenarios that Grey might have gone through. Now this all sounds very conventional, but no. Von Trier deliberately paces the film slowly, allowing all the characters to be set-up and, even if they are not really there for any other purpose than to drive the plot. The character of Kim for example, her function is nothing more than plot devise (or to take her clothes off as one reviewer put it). These are all hallmarks of subjective reality, that none of the characters other than Fisher possesses any force in the outcome of their world.

This being von Trier's first film, and me being aware that his cinematic style has changed somewhat over the years, I was expecting the film to look nothing like his other work, but there wasn't too much of a difference, there may have been more attention to mise-en-scene and sound design (most obvious in the excellent sequence where Fisher and Kim recreate the night when Grey met his mistress on the bus), but the film looked so much like the Kingdom that it was familiar, I was more shocked when I saw the drastically different Europa. Now that is a major difference, where as Europa looked like the work of a master film-maker continuing his evolution, The Element of Crime looked like the film of a young director, trying out new techniques, referencing his hero's and gleefully deconstructing the role of film-noir (again handled in Europa).

But the fact that the film looks small scale does not devalue it one bit, as a first film it's an accomplished piece that shows the growing talent that would be nurtured into Breaking the Waves. If at times too complicated and too self knowing for its own good, it's best to allow the film to wash over you, putting yourself, much like Fisher into a dream-like state. The acting is good, but not as good as von Trier would later wrangle out of actors, and for a British audience it's a bit disconcerting to see the star of Boon performing sex scenes and slipping further into his own insanity. So, Part art-house thriller, part film-noir pastiche and part eighties pop video, The Element of Crime is by no mean as easy film to categorise or to understand. It is however a film that deserves to be studied and interpreted, if you are to get the most out of it, a true work of cinematic art. 10/10

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.

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