Nymphomaniac: Vol. II

Nymph()maniac, if I've to describe in a single sentence, is director Lars von Trier trying to sell his bland & banal softcore as a work of art. Divided into 2 volumes, Nymph()maniac is the final chapter in what is now being labeled as Depression Trilogy (preceded by Antichrist & Melancholia) and tells the story of a self-diagnosed nymphomaniac named Joe recounting her life's sexual experiences to Seligman; the man who found her badly-beaten up in some deserted alley plus who later tries to connect & analyze her stories with whatever he has read about.

Volume 2 picks the story right from where Volume 1 signed off and continues Joe's retelling of her erotic endeavors to Seligman & how she ended up in his care. And, if the previous half of Nymph()maniac had Joe engaging in one sex session after another down to the point that it became repetitive & boring, then this half shows her sexual ventures going a little extreme as director Lars von Trier throws in sadomasochism & pedophilia into the tale to amplify its shock value but it actually ends up even more repulsive than it already was.

The story goes downhill from the already ineffective narration that was present in the previous part, the pace is still sluggish, some sequences are disturbing to watch while others are present just to stir more controversies or irk as many viewers as possible. The performances still don't carry any complains unlike the rest of this film's aspects although the characters continue to remain uninteresting like before. Charlotte Gainsbourg takes over the role of Joe from Stacy Martin in her stories & even Skarsgård gets to do more as Seligman than just be a listener to Joe's endless stories.

On an overall scale, the 2nd & final volume of Nymph()maniac has nothing to offer except for few appalling moments & more philosophical bullshit. What's even more absurd or idiotic is the resolution of the Skarsgård character, Seligman, who so far was being reflected as a wise, caring friend only for the film to throw away all that notion of friendship out the window in its final moments. All in all, there is nothing artistic about this pretentious crap & if one tries to approach it as a porn feature, then the overall experience is even worse. Avant-garde of filmmaking, my ass.

Full review at: cinemaclown.wordpress.com

While the first volume of 'Nymphomaniac' served the purpose to build up the character of Joe, this second part is the descent into complete darkness of this woman, who loses any kind of control. Here we see all the negative consequences that her addiction brings into her life. This chapter is tougher to watch, because the images used are very graphic and explicit. The plot is showing Joe slowly but inevitably spiraling down into a very dangerous path and the more we go on, the worse things get. The protagonist is completely detached from reality and the director managed very well to create this sensation of alienation on screen. Some shootings are surreal and I felt a constant feeling of loneliness for a person that basically cannot find any kind of satisfaction anymore. This film hits pretty hard, and it is not for everyone. I watched the director's cut of both chapters, which were rawer and longer compared to the normal cinematic release. I cannot really make a comparison between the two versions, but I feel that despite their length, by the end of the two movies we have a full picture of Joe's story, which is rich with compelling details. So, my recommendation would definitely be to retrieve the extended version.

The cast is composed of many great actors. I loved to see Willem Defoe, even though he had just a small part that granted just a few minutes of screentime. I loved Mia Goth in 'X: A Sexy Horror Story' and 'Pearl', so I was very happy to see her in this film as well. She is good, but unfortunately she appears only in the latest 40 minutes of the film. I liked the interpretation of K by Jamie Bell. Despite being aggressive, he was an interesting character that enabled a part of Joe that was hidden. The photography is amazing, however in terms of creative editing choices, I preferred the first film. This one at times looked a bit flat and boring. I think that some images are just too cruel. In this case, they really do not serve any purpose to the story. I get that Lars Von Trier wanted to create a shock effect, but in my perspective it was unnecessary. Overall my rate for this last chapter is slightly lower than the first one: 7.2. However this is an incredible movie that exposed several controversial topics such as abortion, sex addiction and it questioned many aspects of human relationship back in 2013, where these kinds of topics were taboo for the most part. 'Nymphomaniac' is in my perspective a pioneering film that you should absolutely watch.

Nymphomaniac is a film not easily stomached by most individuals (as are most of Lars von Trier's films) but once one has digested the visual hedonism of its being, then comes the actual dialogue that was unique to this film which added the distinct and flavorful aftertaste... and boy does it linger.

The attributes that the general population will view as 'pornography' is the actual gritty realism of the Joe's life - nymphomania. If one has any sympathy for a type of disease or an insatiable need (an addiction), they will come to understand that this movie seems to explore addiction from the perspective of each character. The addictions that shape life as well as the absence of these needs entirely as one character seems to demonstrate - the question that remains in the end is that how far can one woman allowed to take her needs in a male dominated society?

Each character has their own value in the nymphomaniac's life and changes and shapes her personality to what it becomes in the end. I urge you all before writing distasteful reviews that fuel only some type of parental guidance (this is not a movie for kids obviously) or claiming that this film is porn, to actually take the time to see a deeper meaning within the characters and their dialogue even though it is overshadowed with quite a bit of sex...

Sex is tabu, something shameful. At the same time we praise it and obbses over it. It's all most want to talk about, and do talk about, yet there is so much *hush hush* about it at the same time. We love it and we fear it. It's both extacy and it's also pain. It's such a double edge sword. Yet, in reality, it's one of the most common and fundamental parts of human nature and what we are. It's actually mondane. Still, we make such a big fuss over it.

I think Trier tries to tackle this ambivalent complexities we have about sex, also the fact that we humans function sexually in very different ways, in this very long two part film. Personally, I think he did a good job. I do understand if many hate it though and I wouldn't blame them.

And I would like to add, if you enjoy this movie. I would recommend the directors cut version.

Nymphomaniac Part II is a far darker film than Part I. If the first is the film of innocence then this is of experience and its costs. (Notably the very fine Stacy Martin of Part I disappears early on in this volume with the role being taken over by Gainsbourg). It's also a lot more in keeping with Von Trier's other recent films. Make of that what you will. Personally I found it hard going, but there can be no question that it raises provocative questions about consent and victim hood how those things can transform otherwise identical acts. It briefly flirts with the idea that gender can transform those identical acts too, but in a rushed way that doesn't feel like it really interested the film makers much. Humanist it certainly is and yet, ultimately, somewhat misanthropic too. I doubt I'll need to see this part again, but was glad to have seen it once. If the rumoured Director's Cut of 5+ hours eventually surfaces I'll certainly watch it. Challenging.