Hello everyone!
Last week I posted a generally favorable review of the first 'volume' of Danish director Lars Von Trier's latest film opus "Nymphomaniac". I finally caught Volume Two last night On Demand. And while I realize that Volumes 1 & 2 comprise one film (like, for example, Quentin Tarentino's "Kill Bill" Parts One and Two"), given the episodic structure of their presentation and the fact that several days passed between my viewings of the two parts, it is hard to review them as one cohesive whole.
While I admired Volume One's fearless audacity, Volume Two struck me as almost banal, if not downright clinical, in its determination to shock. Yes, Joe the Nymphomaniac's story takes a much darker turn in the second film. As Volume One ended, Joe confessed that she had lost the ability to feel anything sexual or otherwise. Volume Two picks up right where the previous film left off with Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg) visiting I guess what one might call a sex therapist known merely by the initial K (played with stony reticence by Jamie Bell). K's therapy, if it can be called that, comprises of little more than pain and humiliation...and from the viewer's standpoint, it is painful to watch.
Nothing seems to work for Joe. She is driven mad by her nymphomania. It threatens everything that she might consider good in her life -- specifically, her husband Jerome (Shia Le Boeuf) and the child she has with him. She can't even enjoy sex anymore and her body seems to be breaking down. (It's pretty gross actually).
In the film's final chapter, she is employed by a shady gentleman played by Willem Dafoe who uses her to force delinquent insurance account holders to pay up using fear and sexual humiliation. Joe becomes enamored with a young girl named B whom she seems to fall in love with while training the girl as her apprentice. Suffice to say that nothing here ends well.
As before, the three 'chapters' that make up Volume Two are strung together with scenes of Joe narrating her story to Seligman (Stellan Skarsgard) after he has 'rescued' her from the alley outside his house where she had been brutally beaten. We see the beating, its perpetrator, and while I have a feeling we are supposed to be surprised or feel at least some degree of sympathy for Joe, like Joe herself I suppose, by this point in the film I was relatively numb to it.
And yes there is much discussion toward the end of what it all means and what it says about a woman's place in society and the hypocrisy that men can be these primal sexual beings but when women act on their sexuality they are branded as essentially deviant monsters and yes this is a compelling argument and a compelling subject for a film. Unfortunately, because the character of Joe is portrayed as being somewhat empty from the start, we never really feel for her. And while Volume One can be interpreted I suppose as a celebration of sex, Volume Two is quite the opposite, but it is so relentlessly grim that it fails to have much effect.
Yes, one day I may take a Saturday afternoon and watch Volumes One and Two back-to-back as a single viewing experience. I think the film deserves it. And while there is much to admire here -- particularly in Volume One -- I think Mr. Von Trier may have made a more compelling case for his thesis if we were given a central character that allowed the audience to feel at least something for her. As portrayed by Stacy Martin and Charlotte Gainsbourg, Joe inspires little emotion from us because she displays so little emotion herself.
No comments:
Post a Comment