Alright, so I saw this last night and I kind of have mixed feelings. First off, like many of you said, the acting (by Dafoe AND Gainsbourg) and cinematography were both fantastic, no doubt about it. But I had trouble with what von Trier was trying to say. I felt like he was throwing a bunch of imagery and symbolism at the audience without putting it in any context or providing any explanation. I felt like the movie made/makes much more sense to him than it does anyone viewing it. I applaud it for it's consistently dark/disturbing tone, the dedicated acting and the beautiful visuals, but I can't say much more than that. The characters themselves weren't even all that likable. Lars von Trier has a tendency to take an extremely likable/sympathetic character (ie Dancer in the Dark) and make him or her suffer endlessly, which evokes emotion obviously. When the characters suffered in this movie, I found myself less affected by it. I was very sympathetic toward the woman throughout the first half hour or so until she got a bit too crazy for me to care.
Anyway, this movie was worth watching once for me, but I don't think I'll return to it, I didn't get much out of it unfortunately.
Do you think Gainsbourg has a chance at the Best Actress Oscar next year? or too much for the Oscars. Or I'm totally out of the time frame for Oscar nominations... I hope she is nominated.
The purpose of putting symbolism in movies isn't to hand it on a plate to the audience though. You'll either recognise it as symbolism but be unsure of what it means and need to look it up or you'll know what it means and it's purpose in the movie or you'll not even notice it.
All I know is that the fox, deer and crow are in some Native American allegory.
It could also be a simple reference to spiritual meanings.
I never looked into it myself as I didn't think it would change my opinion of the movie for the better or worse.
KMC Community Forums
Oct 27th, 2009 01:21 AM
Is this movie worth buying?
