Ninfomaníaca: Volume 1

All the one star reviews on this website that are calling the film a "porn documentary" are obviously written by a group of religious nuts offended by intellectualism and sexuality. Ignore them.

Von Trier has crafted what may be his magnum opus. He goes further into his often explored themes of suffering, femininity and the breaking of social norms. Indeed, this may be one of the most intense inquisitions into the female mind ever put to film. And it has a refreshingly feminist, sex positive tonal undercurrent. The drama really gets going in the second volume which I enjoyed much more than the first. Incredible acting from all involved but Jamie Bell, Charlotte Gainsbourg and Uma Thurman especially. For anyone cultured there is nothing outrageous or controversial here, just a solid thought provoking film from a master of the art form.

Lets be clear, I am not especially a fan of Von Trier's work, either I am an artistic cinephile. But lately I am looking a bit further then the mainstream movies, which can be as well very good. That's why I was interested in seeing Nymphomaniac, in the same way that I saw Shame with Fassbender. These movies are not comparable due to the different objective, but treat the same problem experienced by a man or a woman. It is difficult to review the first part of a movie, which exists of 2 parts making 4 hours together. Even then, it is the censored version, NOT due to the sex scenes, but rather for the length of 5:30 hours, which is not THAT standard in theaters. I am sure I will go for the second part and I am as well sure that it will of the same level or better. Therefor the rate of 8/10. It is for sure not porno, even not erotic. Not be mistaken in that. There is no excitement possible. All sex scenes are more or less mechanical, short duration and treated as if it was a documentary. In fact, the movie is like a documentary, where a father type figure Seligman ( Skarsgard ) is the interviewer of the nymphomaniac Joe ( Gainsbourg ) in a way that she can tell her history from when she was 8 years old and onwards. The discussions between Joe and Seligman are metaphors between her sexual behavior and for example fly-fishing, music, etc … and they are sometimes quiet comic. So a laugh is possible. But don't be mistaken, this is a drama. We see how Joe's sexual life conditions her from child onwards, as well as all involved "partners". She is someone who does not feel anything and will do everything to satisfy herself independent of the pain that she will cause around her. A good example is the Miss H chapter, where an astonishing Thurman enters the screen. The situation caused could be like a Veaudeville one, but here it develops as a dramatic absurd situation. Different moods are created, sometimes you feel pity for Joe, then unbelief like with the train adventure, very dramatical situations like Miss H or the with her father causes sadness and anger, even a tip of the love issue … a different movie to see. If I have to mention a negative topic, then it is the cold atmosphere in the movie with only the Seligman metaphors and the sex life of Joe, not more. But don't misunderstand this, it is quiet a lot to handle. And even more, if you have 15 partners a day I suppose there is not that much time for other things to do then having a walk in the park like she does. Stacy Martin is the star of this part, as well as the discussions by Starsgard. Finally, I am certainly going for the second part of this movie. It is a very tricky subject to bring it on the big screen and Von Trier has had the guts to do it. The result is fine, a drama, a documentary about an illness ( as far it is an illness and when it is considered as one ), not a porno or sex movie like we understand it, showing us how it conditions a complete life and sometimes with a comic hint. Of course there is nudity and sex scenes in the movie, a warning for those who have problems with that ...

I thought this movie was absolutely superb.

I am quite surprised by the number of very, very negative comments written about this movie when I came on here directly after having seen the two-parter at the cinema. I think perhaps that these people should not have seen this movie. I do think that people should be acutely aware of their own taste, standards and limits when watching movies and those who saw this as 'pornography' were mistaken. Their judgment appears to stem from a prudish incapability to see past the graphical sexual scenes. The film has a very solid plot, by which I mean, it is a film that begins with its end and details the pathways in which the protagonist ended up in that situation and the path of her normatively perverse sexuality.

I agree that there are definitely scenes in the movie which were hard to stomach - but come on, this is Lars Von Trier - what the hell were you expecting? But the scenes all had a point and purpose.

If you are of a delicate nature then this film is not for you. If you are a prude then this film is not for you. If you are uncomfortable with dark subject matter then this film is not for you. But for everyone else (provided that you are of the legally required age of eighteen), this movie is a witty, funny, imaginative, clever and unique exploration in the the proclivities of the human psyche and in years to come, I will look back on this movie fondly and reflect on its progressiveness in exploring subject matter that we are often to bashful to face and yet perhaps should. From me, it comes highly recommended.

Denmark's notorious infant terrible, who used despair and unflinching self-mutilation as his canvas in his last few films, had already sparked a great deal of controversy and intrigue when the title of his next venture was announced. Nymphomaniac would deal with the bare-it-all, spare-no-details chronicle of a woman's sexual awakening, adventuring, and ultimate degradation. Lars von Trier, who some have accused of misogyny and making movies purely to shock, caught a good bit of flak for daring to make a movie that can be considered a woman's sexual autobiography, and most expected it to be a truly explicit film that could be considered little more than pornography.

Most people underestimate Lars von Trier. While he does have his peculiarities, he is first and foremost an artist. And Nymphomaniac, his third outing with his muse Charlotte Gainsbourg, is perhaps his most expansive work to date. Split into two films and covering several decades, von Trier has concocted a Homeric tale of sound and fury and all sorts of sexual depravity. But this film is not designed to arouse, to titillate. Far from it; the sex is clinical, detached, almost boring at times.

As I said, this is a woman's odyssey. This woman is Joe (Gainsbourg), who is discovered beaten within an inch of her life in a back alley by a lonely bachelor named Seligman (Stellan Skarsgard). Joe demands Seligman not call for assistance, instead accompanying the man back to his apartment for a cup of tea. And after she gets patched up, Joe finds Seligman a willing listener, a father confessor of sorts, and begins to spin a tale of promiscuity that would drive most men wild but intrigues Seligman in a much more philosophical manner. Joe's story starts from her discovery of her own sexuality at the age of two, and by the time she came to barely legal age (here played by Stacy Martin) and how she begins exploring her hypersensual nature. She abandons her virginity by bedding a motorhead (a curiously accented Shia LaBeouf), then even playing games of one-upmanship with her best friend and fellow sex addict (one scene features the girls competing to see who can bang the most guys on a train to win a bag of chocolates). As Gainsbourg's present-day Joe explains herself, Seligman picks out details and compares her sexual deviancy to the most obscure things, from fishing lures to baroque tritones. Von Trier is a very distinct writer, always seeming to verge on the arcane in his observations on the human condition, and here he gives an interesting perversion on, well, perversion. Is Seligman a truly insightful man when it comes to the human condition, or is he just the most hopelessly awkward fool imaginable?

While Gainsbourg brings a great deal of gravitas to the role, it is her most subdued of the three films she's done with von Trier. And yet it is her most accessible, and she narrates the events of the film with such matter-of-fact certainty, her throaty voice describing the life she's led with all of the care and calm of a woman describing the weather. But in the first half of the saga's four-hour run time, it is Stacy Martin who does the heavy lifting, and she does it with remarkable skill, carefully balancing between naiveté and calculation. As Joe matures and sinks further into her addiction (a term she despises), more and more familiar faces start showing up. Her parents are briefly played by Christian Slater and Connie Nielsen, the former having an excellent "money scene" while the latter has maybe thirty seconds of screen time. Shia LaBeouf, who zigzags between admirable and awkward (sometimes in the course of the same scene), returns as Joe's first employer and ultimately her husband. And mention must be made of Uma Thurman's haughtily fiery scene-stealer of a performance that blazes on-screen as a jilted wife whose husband has abandoned her for what he expected to be a life with Joe. She follows her husband to Joe's apartment with their three tykes in tow, and in the span of seven minutes she frays and has a complete emotional meltdown.

As the first half of the film segues in to the second, Gainsbourg takes the fore, as Joe stops seeking sexual release for joy and instead out of a desperate need to feel something. As the film goes on, she explores different fetishes and outlets, including but not limited to interracial threesomes, bondage, humiliation of all sorts. In one notable case, Gainsbourg's character submits herself to the whims of a young man who specializes in intense BDSM. The fact that this rather devious fellow is played by Jamie Bell is a bit of a shock to anyone who's seen Billy Elliot recently. But if anyone was stimulated by the first act of Joe's saga, the second act dashes it away with cold realism.

As with all of von Trier's films, the ending is unforgettable. I confess that when I sensed the film drawing to a close, I was pleasantly surprised at how von Trier handled it, and that perhaps the Danish prince of melancholia had decided to serve up a happy ending for once. Of course, I forgot this is Lars von Trier we're talking about, and the final minute of the film may send audience members in a tizzy. It's part of the reason why I've taken so long to write my thoughts on it. But as I write this, I do think Nymphomaniac is a terrific entry in his canon, and a worthy closer to his trilogy.

This is the best movie I've seen from Lars Von Trier. Brilliantly constructed, well directed, with lot of imagination and using many techniques (although I'm not a specialist). I include in my review the volume II as well. After watching the first one, yesterday, didn't have patience for see the second part. The idea of a Sheherezada tail, nowadays, makes the background. I loved the way the chapters telling Joe's life are separated by the intermezzos: her dialogs with Seligman, his erudition, her intelligence shadowed only by the all pervasive guilt feeling... I found the explicit key of the movie in the second part... in one of their dialogs. I try to remember it, it might not be 100% accurate: "Do you know what is characterizing our age? - Hypocrisy! People who tell beautiful lies are acclaimed and accepted, they form the majority; the few ones who tell the truth, often uncomfortable, are rejected!" Von Trier plays with two opposite characters: a nymphomaniac (probably more a being desperate to understand life meaning and get out of the beaten track than anything else), who never finds happiness in her search, so she goes further and further, and a 60 years old virgin who lives alone and finds his happiness in books. He plays as well with religion, with the concepts of purity and sin, with plenty of symbols amassed cleverly together. He shows us, in fact, our obsession with sex, with human bodies, with chair, making fun of the ones who will refuse his movie, scandalized. In our world which sells mainly with the help of sex, rejecting this movie is a huge hypocrisy. The only disappointment for me was the end of the second part... I don't see why he chose it, but probably will find later on the answer.