Melancolia

I didn't really want to go but I did. I got dressed up, went to a nice dinner, sat nicely for a couple hours, clapped when others clapped, and in the end, I felt nothing.

Don't get me wrong, I had an appreciation for what I witnessed. The skill to execute what they did and the years of practice to achieve those skills is amazing. But still nothing.

That is how I felt after watching this movie. I was appreciative of what it took to accomplish the movie but I felt nothing towards it. I guess I should reiterate my point because IMDb wants 600 characters but I thought my review was quite good with 112 to spare.

No one probably working today can imbue the image of a bride pissing in the middle of a golf course with the afterglow of existential soul-searching like Trier does here - well, there was Peter Greenaway at one point but I haven't kept track. Side by side the romantic, the visceral, the transcendent, each one perversely subverting the others. But, having searched and yearned, eventually with Trier we arrive at nothing. Nothing in the predominantly Western, post-enlightenment worldview that has pushed god to the side and seated the mind in his place. Nothing is too much for Trier then, because nothing satisfies the mind; everything that is touched by humanity is shown to be randomly bubbling up from some cold, infertile void.

But this is the thing with Trier, why it's so troubling to dismiss him; even though he makes art about a meaningless world - and so why pay attention? - he remains a powerful poet of cinema. So he is an anti-Tarkovsky, which perhaps explains why he opens the film with The Hunters in the Snow - a painting used in Solyaris - burning, and why horses are forced to kneel in the face of petulant violence. Whereas Tarkovsky understood the universe to be centered inside, and used that to sculpt space and metaphor from that center, Trier is grounded nowhere; so he resolves to orbit from one periphery to the next, nicely framing for us anxieties that we can relate to but with no deeper insight of their mechanism.

But now and then he works from a powerful set of ideas. Here it is the mirrored metaphor; the pain and suffering of life on earth as mirrored on the cosmic level, and our hope that this suffering looming above will just pass us by. It is not sci-fi in any way you may recognize, or anymore than Tree of Life is.

It does not work like that, of course, that is a given. So we are placed in the shoes of the woman - the bride in her wedding reception, where life is ritually supposed to become orderly, assuring, meaningful - and forced to make our way for the occasion wearing a forced smile, and hoping the pain will just pass us by. Yes, it does not work like that. The mother is haughty and domineering, the father sloppy and indiscreet. Everyone else is busy performing their roles, going through motions, speeches, confrontations which are often funny but always grueling to see. So,with the soul unsupervised, the perfect occasion for happiness inexplicably crumbles from inside.

The second part is about the sister, who already has the perfectly happy life or is supposed to. But again, of course, it doesn't work. Suffering, uncertainty hangs above that we can't simply brush off. So it is the dawning of acceptance that governs this part of the film; but, properly at least for Trier and in a way that should make sense, we're shown the impossibility of that acceptance. Faces are increasingly bewildered, affections grow distant, motions agitated.

A lot of my distaste for what Trier does, is exemplified in a scene where the depressed sister confronts the other; instead of reciprocating the nurture and support, however obligatory it may have seemed at the time, she preys on her weakness. Why drink wine in the veranda and pretend none of this is going to happen? Why not?

But the acceptance is handled with so much nihilism, a sort of comfortable noncommittal, that I want to take a step back. No equanimity flows from Trier's emptiness, and so the vision is useless for me. I want films embedded in a world that matters in some way. Yes, we're all going to face an inscrutable fate, but it's one thing to frame this with compassion, another thing altogether to frame with contempt or cold satisfaction.

So it is apt to compare with Tree of Life on more than just the cosmic level of wheels whirring life into pattern; there is the sense of emptying out, the search for a true face that restores meaning. Malick goes the extra mile though, he reconciles into the impermanence of all things and from there a deep, loving humanity. Trier is simply left aghast at it. Sex is a vice and the mind is unable to cope; so he merely casts the characters away at the precipice. But not before ironically rendering human faith as a magical cave made from fire sticks.

Oh, he captures the drab, grueling unlife of depression well, no wonder as he knows from personal experience. And a google search seems to yield a nod at Filippino filmmaker Lav Diaz, that was pretty unexpected.

There are aesthetically-minded pleasures though that you should see; planets caressing each other like faces below, a bird's eye view of horses galloping. Some of it borders on kitsch when Kirsten Dunst is photographed naked beneath the moonglow, the schadenfreude is so earnestly conceived.

And there is the parting image; I don't know how much of it was the theater, technology, but it swell up into the most deafening, soul-crushing crescendo. I could feel particles being dislocated inside of me. But considering what comes before, it's not something I wanted to swim into but let wash. It's fitting for Trier though, the wagnerian sound of the void washing life empty.

It is a powerful work, don't just take it lightly. But I urge you to meditate against it.

Oh yes, it is all going to end sooner or later. But, as a principle, I urge you to never settle for a destructive void in your life: in the midst of blistering destruction, try to see around you what the Eastern mystics knew as the universe of 10,000 beautiful things trampled by god Shiva in his final dance. Let yourself be filled with a profound sadness that is joy for the 10,000 beautiful things around you.

Melancholia is a 2011 film written and directed by the controversial Lars Von Trier and follows two sisters as the end of the world draws near. The film is actually more about the current lives of the two sisters than it is the end of the world; yet the impending doom does heavily influence a series of events. Presently, the film has received mostly positive reviews and was praised for the imagery used throughout the film.

To truly appreciate all that Melancholia has to offer the film must be analyzed by taking a look at its two separate acts. The feel of the first act is much different than the feel and plot of the second act. The first act is titled "Justine", as it focuses on the character Justine (Kirsten Dunst) and her severe depression on her wedding day. The first act doesn't have much to do with the fact that all life on Earth is going to be wiped out. In fact, it doesn't really focus on the impending planet collision at all; it is simply about Justine as a character and all those around her at the time of the wedding. It is clear the Justine suffers from some type of mental illness but it is not made clear exactly what is wrong with her. She does very odd things throughout her entire wedding day including cheating on her husband. She spends a majority of the time away from her party, hiding out either on the golf course located outside or with her nephew, which seems to be the only things she derives joy from. Justine can be a very annoying character to watch as she seems to want to do nothing but ruin her own party, yet the camera shots of her off on her own either on the golf course or in the backyard are some of the best in the film.

The second act of the film titled "Claire" focuses mainly on Justine's sister Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg), and the impending impact of the planets. The first act can be slightly more interesting because as a viewer it is not really explained why Justine is doing all of the things she does, a lot of mystery surrounds her character. The second act picks up slightly after the events of the first, but follows Claire this time. She is worried about the collision yet her husband assures her it will miss Earth and they will be able to gaze upon it with their telescope. Throughout the second act Claire must deal with her Justine's depression as well as her own husband and child, all while constantly worrying about the collision. The second half of the film is much more intense than the first, and the editing reflects that, especially towards the climax. The use of shaky shots gives the viewer a sense of uneasiness and uncertainty as to how it will end.

Perhaps Melancholia's greatest achievement is its cinematography and beautiful sequence of unique shots, most notably in the opening sequence. The first opening sequence takes place entirely in slow- motion, showing many of the main characters, and is one of the highlights of the entire film. The camera work and settings used in this film are really something to talk about. The setting of a mansion is both isolating and elegant, and these two things are reflected within the carefully planned camera work.

My biggest gripe with the film would definitely be its pacing. It will be really engaging one minute and then slow down to a dead halt the next. However, when the film does have its shining moments, they are extremely memorable.

This is not an easy movie to watch. It's tough from the very beginning - a prologue prequel with music by Wagner and an apocalyptic perspective. Any movie in which dead birds fall from the sky in the first three minutes is not going to be light and fluffy.

But this movie, about deep melancholia experienced by Justine (Kirstin Dunst), the principal character, and the melancholia of the potential end of life itself, is an artistic triumph. Great acting, great cinematography, great music. Even the sometimes puzzling plot - the post-prologue movie comes in two halves - is engrossing and pregnant with underlying meaning. The three principal characters all represent a point on the compass of human feelings: Depression, anxiety, and something resembling nice normalcy. How each deals with the apocalypse is a well-threaded effort.

While the movie is dark, it is by no means humorless. The wedding that occupies the first half of the movie has a great deal of fun alongside the depression.

Not a movie for everyone, and a bit too long, but if you watch it, stick with it. You may not want to see it twice but you could be glad you saw it once.

This movie completely freaked me out. It was SO well done, but if you've ever suffered from serious depression it really gets under your skin.

People I know who watched this movie thought it was boring and didn't understand it. I understood it very well. I have never seen a better metaphor for depression, and the seductiveness of "giving in."

If you're very depressed, don't watch this movie alone.