Ninfomaníaca: Volume 2

Nymph()maniac, if I've to describe in a single sentence, is director Lars von Trier trying to sell his bland & banal softcore as a work of art. Divided into 2 volumes, Nymph()maniac is the final chapter in what is now being labeled as Depression Trilogy (preceded by Antichrist & Melancholia) and tells the story of a self-diagnosed nymphomaniac named Joe recounting her life's sexual experiences to Seligman; the man who found her badly-beaten up in some deserted alley plus who later tries to connect & analyze her stories with whatever he has read about.

Volume 2 picks the story right from where Volume 1 signed off and continues Joe's retelling of her erotic endeavors to Seligman & how she ended up in his care. And, if the previous half of Nymph()maniac had Joe engaging in one sex session after another down to the point that it became repetitive & boring, then this half shows her sexual ventures going a little extreme as director Lars von Trier throws in sadomasochism & pedophilia into the tale to amplify its shock value but it actually ends up even more repulsive than it already was.

The story goes downhill from the already ineffective narration that was present in the previous part, the pace is still sluggish, some sequences are disturbing to watch while others are present just to stir more controversies or irk as many viewers as possible. The performances still don't carry any complains unlike the rest of this film's aspects although the characters continue to remain uninteresting like before. Charlotte Gainsbourg takes over the role of Joe from Stacy Martin in her stories & even Skarsgård gets to do more as Seligman than just be a listener to Joe's endless stories.

On an overall scale, the 2nd & final volume of Nymph()maniac has nothing to offer except for few appalling moments & more philosophical bullshit. What's even more absurd or idiotic is the resolution of the Skarsgård character, Seligman, who so far was being reflected as a wise, caring friend only for the film to throw away all that notion of friendship out the window in its final moments. All in all, there is nothing artistic about this pretentious crap & if one tries to approach it as a porn feature, then the overall experience is even worse. Avant-garde of filmmaking, my ass.

Full review at: cinemaclown.wordpress.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.

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")

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...

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.