Nymphomaniac : Volume 1

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 ...

As you would expect from the controversial Lars von Trier and a film called Nymphomaniac, you know in advance that we are not getting a shy, conservative affair and von Trier does not disappoint. The infamous director manages to craft a two-part film which fans of art-house cinema will be salivating from the mouth over. In a ubiquitous British town, Seligman (Stellan Skarsgård) finds Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg) unconscious in an alley way. Seligman takes Joe back to his home where Joe tells him she is a bad person and tells him her story from her childhood, to young adulthood (Stacy Martin), to present day, reflecting on her sexual experiences and major relationships, while the intelligential Seligman and Older Joe philosophising and interpreting her actions. Von Trier does not hold back from showing various sexual activity and Joe's descent into sexual violence, as she looks for more extreme ways to get a thrill as her behaviour and needs take a physical, mental and social toll on Joe. Nymphomaniac is unflinching with its sex scenes, Joe getting hit hard during her sadomasochist sessions and showing of male and female genitalia of all shapes and sizes, including wince inducting moments when showing the harm on Joe's private parts go through. Throughout the film we see Joe's sexual journey, from her fascination as a child to her pleasure herself and seek fulfilment. There are many different aspects of Joe's sexuality during Nymphomaniac, using sex as an escape when her father (Christian Salter) and the indifferent on face when she competes with her friend to seduce as many men as possible during a train journey. Von Trier explores many of the destructive aspects of being a sex addict, destroying friendships, being unable to form any relationships with partners and family, struggle to have emotional attachments and the impact that Joe's actions has on others. Joe is a character who rejects the idea of love and romance and leads to the question, does Joe reject it because of her upbringing, her addiction makes her unable to love or because is it because of her inability to loves makes her a sex addict? The discussions between Older Joe and Seligman are a framing device and allow von Trier to explore the philosophical parts of the story. But this is when von Trier spells out his views and meanings of the film. Both Older Joe and Seligman are used discuss to complex mathematical theorems, religious iconography, the meaning of words and morality. But to be fair, some of the elements do require specific knowledge so some explanation was needed. Nymphomaniac's cast features von Trier regulars, established talent like Jamie Bell and Uma Thurman and new actors with Stacy Martin, Sophie Kennedy Clark and Mia Goth. The performances range from good to excellent and the new young actresses do show real talent, as they give fantastic performances. The let down in the cast is Shia LaBeouf. It is easy to mock LaBeouf because of his recent off screen antics, but his performance was hampered when you can play guess the accent. My own personal guesses were Scottish, Irish, New Zealander and South African and other people's guesses ranged from Cockney, Australian and Scandinavian. Von Trier and his cinematographer Manuel Alberto Claro were able to combine both a grim, kitchen sink realistic aesthetic, while also making sure von Trier adds artistic flourishes, as he uses graphics, text and cross cutting to various images. Despite some of the heavy themes and imagery, von Trier made sure moments dark humour and wit to help lighten the mood and prevent Nymphomaniac from being too depressing as an experience. Nymphomaniac is an interesting, thoughtful film that is more than about controversy and titillation. Filled with a mostly excellent cast, Nymphomaniac should please fans of von Trier and art-house cinema.

this film has only one flaw - its not long enough... its funny and brilliant, its dark and thrilling and its poetic at the same time. Whoever have watched any film by Trier won't be disappointed. Of course don't read previous reviews - this film is not about sex. Its about loneliness between sensations, about being alone among people who suffer from lack of attachment. Its about life that struggles with death by facing death , to the ultimate boundary of pleasure. Just watch it, listen to BACH music and observe the feast for eye and ear and a challenge for heart... Maybe my words seem exaggerated but i have finished watching this film just an hour ago and my impressions are strong. But i believe it will endure and i will take my feelings from this movie with me and carry them through my daydreams...

''Nymphomaniac'' is a film made with huge technical, intellectual and artistic precision and that's the element that differentiates it from Porn films: is not an exercise of pleasure but a vehicle to analyze the role and influence of obsession in human relationships. To watch this film spectators must have knowledge of Von Trier's work and go to the cinema without prejudices about what cinema is and what is not. By the way, I find very interesting sociologically that those IMDb users from the United States who have wrote up a review on the film all of them have been so negative. This is the main difference between European and the American (US) public: Hollywood has always been obvious. It gives to the public all the answers. To have a good time when they come back from work. Are films as a leisure, not films to think about.

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.