Nymphomaniac - Vol. II

Lars von Trier's second film about the life story of a female nymphomaniac goes down increasingly dark alleyways compared to VOL. I, but at the same time I found it the lesser movie. This film just doesn't have the drive or vitality that made the first film so interesting, and there are some odd plot decisions - especially towards the climax - that don't ring true.

There are still some oddly gripping moments here, but they're more disturbing than ever. Jamie Bell is a real surprise, playing a completely different character to that than you'd expect and doing very well with it too. I'm surprised that I found Charlotte Gainsbourg less sympathetic than the actress playing the younger version of her character. By the time Willem Dafoe enters the frame, the movie seems to have lost its way and become a bizarre, slow-paced thriller instead. And don't get me started on the Mia Goth stuff.

As before, this is a beautifully shot movie with a lot of fragility and artiness contained within its shots. But Lars von Trier can only keep the audience's interest for so long, and by now his tale is beginning to drag, leaving a film that is only so-so rather than profound. And that 'twist' ending is ludicrous more than anything else.

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.

I finally got to see the second part of Lars von Trier's Nymphomaniac last night. As you might remember, I didn't really like the first part – it was mostly pretentious artsy stuff that couldn't keep me interested, and also I didn't come to the theater to masturbate, as some people seem to be doing. And seriously, how can they? I admit that this movie can make you horny, but every sex scene is coated with depression and isn't really sexy, which ultimately ruins the mood. But I digress. Nymphomaniac vol. II turned out to be quite surprising. It was better than the first part, and more interesting, as it focused more on the main character's relationship with society and how her 'condition' affected it – and therefore, it was much darker and heartfelt.

Note: skip this paragraph if you plan to see the movie as a whole, as it reveals some important plot points from the first volume. In this part, Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg) is still telling her story to Seligman (Stellan Skarsgard), but his role is minor as he mostly listens and doesn't have many witty, maths-related remarks – which I thought was positive, and I liked that Joe asked him how could he possibly be thinking about mathematical formulas while she's talking about sex. My thoughts exactly, but this gets explained, too: Seligman is an asexual virgin. For the sake of drama, could he really have been anything else if not Joe's exact opposite? Also, this part shows us Joe ruining her monogamous life with Jerôme (Shia LaBeouf) because of her addiction, and we can finally see and understand the pain her addiction causes her.

I like to think this part of the movie is more Trier-like: there is less pretentious crap and less oh-so-shocking sex, but more is said about the main character and the story actually goes somewhere (while the first part was mostly about young Joe having sex). Volume II finally tackles the subject of nymphomania as a serious addiction. Just like a junkie, Joe gives up everything for her daily dose, even her loving husband who just can't satisfy her need. And even when she, in one scene, claims she loves herself as she is – a sex addict – it's hard not to smile and feel pity for a person that tries, in every possible way, to justify her behavior, while being aware of the lies she's feeding herself with. Still, I understand why the first part of the movie is lighter and focused on Joe's sexual adventures: every addiction feels awesome at first, just like youth is a much easier life period than all that comes after. Because of this needed transition, it's much better to watch the movie as a whole, if you can manage to sit through its 4 hour entirety.

It was also easier to concentrate on the actors' performances in this part of the movie. Stacy Martin is finally gone, thank God, except for a small part in the beginning that doesn't really show her bad acting. You can now really appreciate Charlotte Gainsbourg as an actress, as she does more than just sit on a bed and talk. Mia Goth is really good as P, even though this is her first role in a movie ever. Willem Dafoe got too little screen time to be really impressive, although he wasn't bad, but Jamie Bell as the sadistic K was great – so naturally intimidating, even his facial expressions make you shiver. There are still some scenes that make you cringe, the pretentiousness isn't completely gone and the movie is tedious from time to time, but I'd suggest you see it, preferably as a whole. It's not perfect, but it's definitely an interesting experience.

Rating: 7/10 Read more at http://passpopcorn.com/

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.