Idioti

This misunderstood and wildly underappreciated film is up there with Riget and Zentropa in the Von Trier canon, and in my opinion better than Breaking the Waves. Critics focussed on the film's perceived cruel attitude towards the mentally handicapped. Idioterne is actually a very personal film about revolution, healing and Danish society's attitude towards the 'retarded'. It is an incredibly brave and moving film that will have you dabbing your eyes by the end.

Whoever decided that American filmgoers could not be exposed to the sight of penises, however, needs to lose their job. The absurdity of being exposed to full frontal female nudity--while being protected by big black floating boxes whenever a John Thomas is on screen--is an outrage. Did someone REALLY think this film would break through at the box office if these appendages were obscured? Were they concerned that Joe Six Pack was going to take the wife and kids to that new movie by that famed Danish director that's such a big hit with the arthouse crowd? The mind boggles.

Idioterne / The idiots has great similarity to Breaking the waves and Dancer in the dark: A naïve girl falls victim to the circumstances and pays too high a price. Nearly all von Trier's movies are about idealism, and so is this one. Stoffer as the group leader at first seems the binding factor, but as all others have different reasons than idealism to enter the group he establishes his leadership with increasing emphasis on psychological force and less on convincing arguments. As all members have a desire to stay in the group (again for different reasons) he then demands that they go to extreme lengths to show their commitment to the cause and indirectly to him. Hence the orgy scene (as viewers we end up with more seating comfort in the cinema after that). Then all thresholds are passed; the outsider (father) steps in to bring them back to reality and diminish their renewed established group bond. Stoffer then demands the ultimate sacrifice. Only the naïve Karen is able to be an idiot in real life in one of the most painful and harrowing scenes ever put on screen.

It feels somewhat rushed in writing and making which is odd because von Trier is known as a perfectionist. All his directing efforts seem to be put here in the actors so there is good acting across the board. The Dogme-rules only contribute to greater intensity. Von Trier interviews the actors in the movie so there is a parallel between the movie's group dynamics and the actor's group dynamics.

Breaking the waves was in my opinion overlong. Dancer in the dark was placed too much in the fantasy screen world and had therefore less dramatic impact. From the Golden Hearts-trilogy I personally like this the most.

While not quite at the same level as _Breaking the Waves_, the only other Lars von Trier I have seen (his films are quite hard to come by in Midwestern American video stores, you understand), _The Idiots_ is still a great film, and, in some ways, is just as important.

I have to comment on a lot of the reviews I've seen for this movie. A lot of viewers judge the film by the theories and views about the group's existence (particularly the view spoken by the most outspoken of the Idiots, Stoffer). This is surely not the way von Trier meant his audience to take the film. If you paid any attention to the film, you'll notice that the Idiots' lifestyle is never glamorized. Everyone's experience in the group ends in embarrassment and despair. You should also note that none of the Idiots has the same opinion of why they like to act the idiot. Stoffer might say that they do it to upset the bourgeosie (I don't pretend to know how to spell that word), but the next person might be doing it just to play around. The artist (whose name escapes me at the moment) is doing it to become a better artist, and the doctor is doing it almost for experiment. There is never a reason for the groups' existence that the entire group agrees upon. This is extremely important for understanding this film.

The way _The Idiots_ particularly hit me was in the characterizations. The actors are so great in this film that they hit the level of: "Is this really acting, or is it just being?" von Trier hit the same level in _Breaking the Waves_. These actors were so good, their characters just jumped out of the script. There are many characters, and only a few of them are characterized in the script extensively. Stoffer, although not the main character, is the most prominent character in the script. Many of the characters don't have all that many lines or screen time, but I felt I knew them all well.

I also appreciated that it actually entertained me. I wasn't expecting to enjoy it so much. It is often very, very funny (if offensive). It also gripped me emotionally. I did not particularly comprehend the ending's meaning, but it left me with a powerful emotion. I did have tears in my eyes when I left the theater, and a lot of thoughts in my head. When a man outside the theater stopped me to ask me how I liked it, my lips and my brain were too dry to actually answer anything but, "I liked it. I liked it a lot." 9/10

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

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.