Medéia

Wow, this is an inspired film. It takes the myth of Jason written by Euripedes and a script by Carl Th. Dreyer, boths testimony has been proved by the test of time and makes a fantastic low budget masterpiece epic of it. Some people think that its production values spoils the experience, but I would like to ask them this: would Claude Monets paintings look better if they were polished? We see into the fabric of film here and I think that only heightens the realism or it makes me believe it the more as a film, if the focus was on making it look real several other things would get lost.

How big the debt to Dreyers movies are I cant tell as I haven't seen any of his work yet due to poor availability, but as huge it seems it actually makes me a big fan of Dreyer himself, which von Trier also is and don't try to hide.

Metaphors are a plenty here and somehow it works, experiments with filming, post production and so on is evident and really made this a wonderful testimony to an inspired mind. Respect to Lars! Especially for the water scenes, the wind, the golden fleece ...

Art direction may not be 100% historically correct, but it looks very good, Medea herself must have inspired 'Orbital' for their 'The Box' music video some years later.

The revenge she gets are the most raw and brutal I have seen by the way.

Watching this makes me lament Trier. It's good work. It's more than that, in fact. Beautiful pictures are not uncommon in film. In fact, they are getting so banal, say a postcard-perfect sunset, that we (both viewers and makers) often actively seek ugliness, some imperfection that conveys flawed - human - intimacy. Trier has flitted between the two notions (his Dogme entirely devoted to the latter), mixing and matching in a variety of projects down to his recent Melancholia.

But there are really few makers who can consistently furnish the sunsets, and link between them, that reveal something of planets in their orbits. Tarkovsky is king of that close vision from faraway. Watching this makes me lament Trier, because he could have been our current Tarkovsky, much more than either Tarr or Kusturica, who both flirted with carrying the mantle of that cosmogonic art.

This one lacks that orbital vision in different narrative planes (we only have one thread), and is mostly, rapturously devoted to tone poetry of elemental intimacy. It was very early in Trier's career anyway, but it's still a better and more visual third film than most directors ever managed. It's beautiful, but not in the clean sense of a David Lean epic. I prefer it this way.

That is partly because he's working from a barebones story that is ancient myth as interpreted by Euripides (and written into a script by Carl Dreyer): Medea has fled to Corinth promised marriage by the Argonaut Jason, who reneges on that promise when offered the hand of the daughter of the local king. Medea together with her two children is banished from the city.

It is a simple story of injustice. You are going to anticipate every turn, including (probably) the most tragic finale. It is the conventional Medea of myth, betrayed mother, woman, vengeful enchantress of cthonic witchcraft.

But the visual bell boom of this Rublev stretches far and wide, as he rings into being a gauzy world of untime, last fires, and first voyages out to cloudy sea. If only he hadn't lost himself in anger and cynical pessimism.. Tarr has followed suit. I think about the only thing that can keep an intelligent mind sane, is finding rhyme and music in unreason.

. . . though he might have preferred black and white. But that's no criticism. This film evokes The Passion of Joan of Arc, with its stark intimacy; and Vampyr, with its trancelike movement and strange lighting. If ever there were a film that could capture tragic Greek myth, it's this one.

Fascinating film which was filled with wonderful experimental cinematic effects. I'd love to have a 4K version of it. What spoilt for me it was that Lars Von Trier doesn't know that there is NO TIDE in the Mediterranean!

"Medea" is a truly haunting film, but you have to be a true lover of cinema to appreciate this gem.

The cinematography is ground-breaking, and at times it's hard to figure out exactly how the images are being filmed. Sometimes it appears that the film was shot, then filmed again off of a television screen. That's not to say that the images aren't beautiful and breathtaking, just that they're a little unorthodox.

I won't go into the storyline, as you can read the synopsis above, but rest assured, if you're a film buff who truly appreciates a fluid film that rewards the eyes, mind, ears, and heart, this film will leave you very satisfied.

On the other hand, if you're a high school girl who is more interested in checking the text messages on her cell phone than watching the required film in class, then you'd better go down to the multi-plex real quick.