I don’t think anyone has posted on Lars von Trier’s latest film yet, though I see at least one of us has expressed an interest in it. Has anyone seen it? We watched it last night and I’m still not sure what to say about it. I do know that what moved me the most, what I enjoyed most was the wedding reception which makes up Part I, entitled “Justine” who is played by Kirstin Dunst. Justine has just married Michael (Alexander SkarsgÃ¥rd), who is a well-meaning, very likeable, but very boring young man. He’s a bit thick, too. After a splendid opening (I’m not counting the over-indulgent special effects prologue, with nods to 2001: A Space Odyssey and Powaqqatsi) in which we see Justine and Michael trying to get a stretch limo up a very narrow, winding dirt road, we spend the next hour or more at a wedding reception being held at a remote estate owned by Justine’s brother-in-law, John (played by Kiefer Sutherland).
We learn, over time, that Justine’s parents are divorced. Her father (John Hurt) is a hopeless philanderer who calls every attractive young woman he encounters “Betty.” Her mother (Charlotte Rampling) is a bitter, cold, and utterly isolated woman. Her sister (Claire, played by Charlotte Gainsbourg) has planned the reception and is doing her damnedest to make sure everything goes as planned. Two things she cannot control: Justine, who descends deeper and deeper into despair and remorse; and the rogue planet Melancholia, which experts say will pass safely by the Earth but everyone else says is in a “dance of death” with Earth and will surely collide with it.
SPOILER
I’m still debating this, but I think I would have been quite happy with the film without Part II (which is entitled “Claire” and focuses exclusively on the impending collision of two worlds) and without the doomsday scenario in the background. Although I was touched by the last few moments of the film, in which Justine rebukes Claire’s sentimental request that the two sisters share a final glass of wine on the terrace and instead builds the “magic cave” she has promised to build for her nephew, I am just not convinced the collision of planets adds anything to the overall feeling of doom and emptiness already established by the characters. There are touches of the absurd I like, such as when Justine’s boss–who fears he may lose his most talented employee–dispatches an idiot boy to follow Justine everywhere in order to extract from her a precious tagline to her latest ad image. And the performances are quite good. But, and I return again to Kubrick’s film, I feel that when a film is trying too hard to confound me, I lose interest. Kubrick’s 2001 confounds in the most beautiful and expressive way. Melancholia does not.
Still, there are several moments where the viewer is rewarded and I do recommend this film
I picked it as one of my three favorite films of the year in Mike’s “best of” post. I too like the first half better than the second (shades of Thomas Vinterberg’s Festen) . . . but the ending was very moving. The destruction of Earth had a kind of sublime beauty to it that seems fitting. I’ve read Von Trier suffers from some serious clinical depression, and in this film I see him working through those concerns with precision and empathy and, yes, humor. The CW on Von Trier is that he is a misogynist, but instead of poking and prodding his female characters from a somewhat cruel, ostensibly objective distance, I really believe he is working in reverse with Melanchiolia. Short Charlotte Rampling’s crotchety matriarch, the women in this film are smart to resist the idiotic males whose actions and desires shape their lives, offering the viewer portraits of strong, conflicted women cast adrift in a world of imbecilic, petulant boys wearing big suits.
I also wanted to challenge your take on Michael (Alexander SkarsgÃ¥rd), who you describe as “a well-meaning, very likeable, but very boring young man.” For me he is not so much boring as he is a goofy, charming puppy-dog who demands his marital privileges once the rituals have been exhausted. Recognizing the mental condition of his betrothed (or did he?), Michael still wanted his “first night” experience of marital bliss (depression be damned). Though naive and, well, boyish, Michael’s initial likability is subverted by his total unwillingness to empathically respond to his wife’s oppressive, burdensome melancoly. He just wants to fuck, gently. It really is a painful scene to watch. But then there is the scene on the putting green (or, maybe, the 18th hole) where Justine takes control of her own masochistic pleasures. So, yeah.
I think we’re meant to see him as a thicky. Not worthy of Justine (intellectually), and yes boring. Did you listen to that toast? For his own wedding reception? I had to side with his mother-in-law on that one. I think he’s an interesting character, in that he clearly has to overcompensate for being boring–but in ways I don’t really find charming. Goofy at best, maybe. And I didn’t read that conjugal scene the way you did. I agree it’s painful, but my sympathies are not with Michael.
I didn’t articulate myself well. Justine’s melancholy is oppressive and burdensome for her. She’s deeply depressed, but she is trying very hard to make the night work. Michael wanting to make sweet love to Justine on the night of their wedding is painful because, like you, my sympathies lie with Justine. As gentle as he may be, that scene felt like a violation. Initially, Michael seemed affable enough even though he was way over his head with that brood. He was quite charming in the limo, and, for a while, I’d say he was the one male I was willing to like (well, John Hurt is funny but you can imagine he was once a raging asshole), but the conjugal scene was the last straw. The death of Claire’s husband might very well be my favorite moment in the entire film, but I digress.