Nymphomaniac - Vol. II

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.

After having enjoyed the superb first part of 'Nymphomaniac', I felt a little bit disappointed by the second part of this film. It is less imaginative, less playful and less exuberant.

What's missing most is the interaction between the two lead characters: sex addict Joe and her asexual rescuer Seligman. In the first part, their conversation was like ping pong: they exchanged stories and experiences - hers of a sexual nature, his about all kinds of things. The links and similarities between their seemingly different lives made the film so original and attractive.

In the second part however, it's mostly Joe who tells the stories. Seligman is reduced to a minor part, that of the patient listener. Only at a few occasions he really contributes something to the conversation, but after one of his stories, Joe remarks: 'I think this is one of your weakest digressions'. After that, he lets her do the talking.

Even more than in the first part, Von Trier explores all kinds of (sexual) taboos. There's paedophilia (on which Joe has rather original but very wise views), interracial sex, sado-masochism, and all kinds of humiliation. In between, Von Trier also gives us his unorthodox thoughts on motherhood and feminism.

At several occasions, it's clear how we hear Von Trier speak through the words of his protagonist. There's a nice exchange of arguments about political correctness between Joe and Seligman. He thinks the word Negro shouldn't be used, out of respect for a part of society. She thinks that not allowing the use of certain words, is equal to forbidding certain thoughts. Political correctness is hypocrisy, she thinks. Coming from a man like Von Trier, who has committed his life to the combat against political correctness, this is a clear statement. The same goes for the scene where Joe, after having decided to attend a self help group for sex addicts, accuses the group leader of being a member of some sort of obscenity police. This is a clear message to all narrow-minded people who described 'Nymphomaniac' as porn, before having seen one second of it.

Because Von Trier so clearly has no respect for what society considers decent or proper, I was amazed by Seligmans feminist speech at the end of the film. He comforts Joe by pointing out that her behaviour as a nymphomaniac would probably be applauded if she had been a man. That a woman cannot dedicate her life to limitless sex, is proof of society's double standards. Of course this is true, but it sounds strange after so much scenes in which women are being degraded.

After having seen Nymphomaniac part 1 and part 2, I am really curious about the director's cut. Is it just more explicit sex? I hope not, because showing genitals is clearly not what makes this film great. It's everything else that should make you want to go and see it.

Joe continues to tell to Seligman the story of her life. Joe lives with Jerôme (Shia LaBeouf) and their son Marcel and out of the blue, she loses sexual sensation in intercourse, feeling her vagina numb. Joe seeks kinky sex, perversions and sadomasochism expecting to retrieve her sex drive. Jerôme leaves home with Marcel and gives his son to a foster house for adoption.

Then Joe is sent to therapy by her gynecologist but she does not admit that she is addicted in sex. Meanwhile Seligman tells to Joe that he is virgin and helps her to understand her actions. Joe believes that Seligman is her friend, but is he?

"Nymphomaniac: Vol. II" is a darker sequel of the volume 1. Joe now is in an adult and her sexual experiences are more perverted and without humor. The conclusion is unexpected and without redemption. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Ninfomaníaca: Volume 2" ("Nymphomaniac: Volume 2")

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.

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.