Nymphomaniac: Vol. One and Two
dir: Lars Von Trier, Denmark/Germany, 2013
Rating: 9.0
The bottom line: as my man Nick Fraccaro says, it’s “Kill Bill directed by Andrei Tarkovsky.” Whatever impression the sound of such an incongruous mash-up makes on you will probably be a good indicator of how you feel about this batshit-crazy movie.
Now playing at Landmark’s Century Centre Cinema in Chicago as exclusive engagements — as well as via video on demand — are both parts of Lars Von Trier’s controversial four-hour epic Nymphomaniac. While the film generated positive critical notices in Von Trier’s native Denmark last year (where both volumes opened on Christmas Day), as well as at the Berlin International Film Festival in February (the site of the official world premiere of the full five-and-a-half-hour version), the response by both American critics and audiences alike has been strangely muted; the trade papers here have even referred to it as a “flop.” (Don’t blame me. I took a large class of college students on two separate field trips to see both parts.) Whether this has anything to do with prudish Americans being uneasy about the marriage of explicit sex and commercial narrative movies, as some commentators have speculated — at least as a theatrical experience; I have a hunch that the VOD returns on this are probably quite robust — the way the film has been curiously ignored in the U.S. is unfortunate: Nymphomaniac is, for my money, Von Trier’s best work since at least Dancer in the Dark in 2000. Among its many virtues, intellectual as well as visceral, Nymphomaniac is frequently hilarious. Well, at least the first volume is.
The premise: in an unnamed European country (let’s call it International Co-productionland), a middle-aged sad-sack named Seligman (Stellan Skarsgaard) finds a bruised and battered middle-aged woman named Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg) lying unconscious in an alley and brings her to his home to recuperate. After Seligman has provided her with a bed and served her a cup of tea, Joe recounts to him her sad and sordid life story, which Von Trier presents as a series of flashback vignettes revolving around her sex addiction (Volume One is broken into five “chapters” and Volume Two is broken into three). While Joe feels that each of these episodes illustrates that she is a “bad person,” Seligman, a seemingly asexual bibliophile, frequently rejects her claims by using his vast storehouse of knowledge to pose counterarguments. These framing sequences allow Von Trier to, among other things, draw correlations between sex and fly fishing and explore concepts relating to everything from math to botany to the polyphonic music of Johann Sebastian Bach to the delirium tremens experienced by Edgar Allan Poe in his final days. Amusingly, Nymphomaniac is not so much about sex then as it is about finding patterns in the universe, the nature of storytelling, and the need the human mind has to impose order and meaning. Seligman’s disbelief at a coincidence that occurs in Joe’s story towards the end of the first volume is very clever — and self-reflexive — in this respect: she actually asks him if her story would be better or worse without such a narrative contrivance.
Of course, this being a Lars Von Trier film, the second volume ends up meting out much punishment upon the already long-suffering heroine. (Neither those who claim Von Trier’s obsessive focus on female martyrdom marks him as a misogynist nor those who claim the same quality makes him a feminist are likely to change their mind about what he’s up to here.) But Volume Two also initially feels like an anti-climax (pun intended), largely because the surprising humor of the first part is gone: there is nothing in Volume Two, for instance, to compare with Uma Thurman’s hilariously melodramatic monologue as a housewife dealing with an unfaithful husband. (Was Thurman channeling some leftover/repressed rage from when former husband Ethan Hawke strayed? It’s certainly the best work she’s ever done.) Also, it must be said that it feels as though something in the film dies when the effervescent Stacy Martin, a British actress who plays young Joe in Volume One‘s flashback sequences, abruptly departs near the beginning of Volume Two, only to be replaced by the more dour persona of La Gainsbourg. And yet, in the days following my viewing of Volume Two, my appreciation for the achievement as a whole and its provocations has only increased. Have you ever heard a dirty joke with a very long set-up that leads to a very short, sick punchline? Nymphomaniac is a lot like that — only it gets funnier the more you think about it. The critic Keith Uhlich has rightly compared the denouement to that of Philip Roth’s Portnoy’s Complaint.
In spite of all of Nymphomaniac’s excesses, and its deliberately sprawling and messy nature (Von Trier here is going Tolstoy-wide instead of his usual Dostoevsky-deep), neither volume ever feels overly long. This is perhaps because the film’s form, not just its nonlinear structure but its cornucopia of different visual styles, seems to take its cues from the unbridled and overindulgent personality of its protagonist. But what finally makes Nymphomaniac feel substantial, and not just an empty provocation like, say, Manderlay, is its obviously highly personal nature. While watching Volume One, I felt as if Von Trier had split his personality between Seligman and Joe and was having a long and brutally honest dialogue with himself about his sometimes-dubious status as Europe’s reigning provocateur-auteur. After watching Volume Two, however, I revised this opinion: the most fruitful way to approach Nymphomaniac, I think, is to view Joe as the stand-in for Von Trier and Seligman as a stand-in for Von Trier’s critics. (The tip-off, for me, came in the dialogue exchange about Joe’s use of the word “negro,” which Seligman cautions her is “politically incorrect.”) When viewed in this light, Volume Two‘s inevitably “shocking” conclusion resonates as more than a cynical twist: Seligman reveals himself to be a faux-intellectual wolf-in-sheep’s clothing — like the critic who feigns an air of fairness and objectivity but only to better position himself to fuck you in the end. I’m still chuckling just thinking about it.
You can check out the red-band trailer for Nymphomaniac via YouTube below. But first, just because I think it’s hilarious, I invite you to admire this poster of Udo Kier’s awesome “O face”:
White City Cinema 
April 15th, 2014 at 5:52 pm
I agree with a lot of what you say in your entry, but Nymphomaniacs Volumes 1 and 2 (* * * 1/2 out of * * * *) are on par with his last film Melancholia (2011) (* * * 1/2 out of * * * *). This is just my opinion though. What I found interesting here is that Nymphomaniac (at least volume 1) has Von Trier injecting a fair share of wit in the proceedings as you said. Usually, his films can be either little more than an endurance test (Antichrist- * * 1/2 out of * * * *) or strangely leave a lot to be desired (Dogville- * * * out of * * * * and Manderlay- * * * out of * * * *). While these two volumes are slightly off from his best films (Breaking the Waves- * * * * out of * * * * and Medea- * * * * out of * * * *), these do rank up there with Dancer in the Dark, The Boss of It All and the aforementioned Melancholia as * * * 1/2 star very good ones. To put it in other words, his strongest works (a second best category If you will). As far as humor goes, Nymphomaniac Volume 1 is similar to The Boss of It All cause it is witty, but the comparisons end there. Both Volumes 1 and 2 are worthy of his emotional roller coaster works where the protagonist endures so much hell (most notable in Volume 2). Despite the absence of humor in Volume 2, I still thought it worked as a stand alone film. Plus, you just gave me another way of thinking about the conclusion considering your viewing of Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg) as Trier and Seligman (Stellan Skarsgaard) as his critics. A decade ago, Von Trier opened the 2000’s with Dancer in the Dark which as I mentioned before was very good, but with the exceptions of Five Obstructions (a documentary) and The Boss of It All, all of them left a lot to be desired. While Dogville and Manderlay were far from bad films, the fact that he never even set foot in America lessened the credibility of the political drama. I am not saying that it was inaccurate, but it would have been more believable had Von Trier either been a visitor to America or lived there for a while. I know it does sound unfair to judge it by that, but do not forget Von Trier has made it clear that he has a phobia of flying and based on my knowledge, he has never traveled oversees. Cannes of course is in France and Denmark is a part of Europe. They were good films though (at least in my opinion), but the experience would have felt more pure had he visited America or lived there. Antichrist just felt like an endurance test. Unlike the films of John Waters and Alejandro Jodorowsy, Antichrist lacks the broadly comic style of the former to make it bearable or the sheer inventiveness of the latter to make it a truly outrageous work of art. In my opinion, Trier’s Antichrist is closer to Pasolini’s Salo (* * 1/2 out of * * * *) which in that regard means he does not feel an emotional connection to the material and just decides to push someone’s buttons for the sake of it. Their is no denying that they are some truly daring moments, but that alone will not make it work. In this recent decade, he seems to matured slightly with Melancholia (2011) (* * * 1/2 out of * * * *), which for all his usual trademarks (i.e. putting his protagonists through physical and psychological hell) showed a new side of him that I can’t quite put my finger on, but their was something mysterious about it. This same quality also continued in Nymphomaniac Volumes 1 and 2 which I just reviewed. Whatever quality this is I hope he continues to inject it in his future projects. Keep up the great work as always:)
April 15th, 2014 at 8:22 pm
Thanks for the comment, John. My question to you is: is the credibility of CASABLANCA lessened by the fact that neither the writers nor the director had ever been there?
April 15th, 2014 at 9:09 pm
Regarding Casablanca (1942) (* * * * out of * * * *) my answer to that is no not at all. Do not forget though that Dogville and Manderlay were viewed as anti-american even by the late Roger Ebert and former Chicago Reader critic Jonathan Rosenbaum (though he was more baffled about the issue). Personally, I feel that they just accuse it of anti-americanism because of that fact alone about Von Trier (he has never been in the U.S.A.). Unlike Dogville and Manderlay, Casablanca is not a message movie, it is a romantic drama with quotable dialogue. Dogville and Manderlay deal with historical injustices in America (heavier themes) and it requires one to do the hard job of visiting America (I do not know If Von Trier has ever read books on American History). I probably should have stated this better in my comment above, I just figured that since a critic like Rosenbaum stated that, I would get a free pass cause I know you are a huge fan of film critic Jonathan Rosenbaum though I do not know If you read his Dogville review. As for Casablanca, that is a great film (* * * * out of * * * *) and as I said before nothing is lessened because the crew of that film were never there (the title of the film). The themes of that film were not historical minded (at least concerning injustices) like they are in Dogville and Manderlay. I hope this clears things up for you:)
April 15th, 2014 at 9:57 pm
I was partly teasing with the CASABLANCA remark, which I believe Von Trier himself made at the Cannes press conference for DOGVILLE. I think his point-of-view is that America has been so aggressive about exporting its culture all over the world that “America” is more of an idea than a place — one that he has as much of a right to make a movie about as anyone.
April 16th, 2014 at 12:34 am
You are correct on that point and I am not sure what your opinion of Dogville is, but I think I should probably re-watch it again. I stand corrected in his point. I will admit though that out of Dogville and Manderlay, Dogville is by far the superior film. So I will watch it again tomorrow, (I do not own Manderaly, but I was mixed between giving that film a * * * or a * * 1/2). Make no mistake, he has just as much a right to make a film like Dogville and Manderlay as an American does and now I see your point. I proudly stand corrected. One thing though, Considering Nymphomaniac Volume II, I am confused as to whether or now I should give it * * * 1/2 or * * * because I was so intrigued by Volume 1 considering the sense of humor on display that watching Volume 2, I found wishing their was more of it. Great post as usual:)
April 16th, 2014 at 6:14 am
Interesting review, I need to see these films as they’re getting a hell of a lot of attention at the minute.
April 16th, 2014 at 8:24 am
Thanks, Vinnie. What’s funny is I had fallen off the Von Trier bandwagon after MANDERLAY, which I hated, and nothing I’ve seen since has convinced me to get back on — until now. I probably would have not even seen NYMPHOMANIAC (I had a negative preconception of it based on the title and plot description) but I had coincidentally shown DANCER IN THE DARK to a class earlier in the semester and felt practically obligated to take them on a field trip to see the new film by the same director. I’m glad I did.
June 30th, 2014 at 6:55 am
[…] “Among its many virtues, intellectual as well as visceral, Nymphomaniac is frequently hilarious”: https://whitecitycinema.com/2014/04/14/now-playing-nymphomaniac-volumes-one-and-two/ […]
December 29th, 2014 at 11:25 am
[…] 13. Nymphomaniac Vol. 1/Vol. 2 (Von Trier, Denmark/Germany/UK) – Landmark. Rating: 9.0. Full review here. […]
May 5th, 2015 at 1:38 pm
In this crazy movie you have love, sex, and horror and certainly not in that order. It seems all over the place and yet has some order to it. I love it! We follow this girls wild ride through life in awe and almost disbelief. I love the Von Trier gritty feel to it. He definitely pulled off another great film. I also see your point where Americans come off prude with a film like this. There is nothing even close to this film in our main stream today. I prepared myself going into it and actually it was not as bad as I thought. I would like to see more films like this integrated into American films and honestly I’m kind of shocked there isn’t already with how our society is today.
May 5th, 2015 at 7:44 pm
I have to admit I had a lot of mixed thoughts about this film. I approached the movie as being an independent art film as it is not a film that would be accepted by the mass population in this day and age. I do think Von Trier was really looking to push the envelope at times with some of the content. I cringed at the scenes of the abortion on the floor, pleasuring the man who was turned on by children, Joe being urinated on by her apprentice, and the violent welting during one of her last S&M sessions. I appreciated the normal natural sexual situations in part one, the story related visuals, and the reality of an addiction taking such a strong hold over someone (with Joe giving up her child). Despite some of my disgust and teeth gritting at times, I have to really give Von Trier credit. Why give him credit? Because after the movie was over, he made me the viewer really think. Do I have the right to look at those things so repulsively simply because I have not been exposed to them, don’t understand them, and general society has branded them as evil? Professor Smith – I have to really agree with your analysis in class that this movie truly points out the hypocrisy of the human race. We can continue to ridicule and turn away from these things branded as bad and ugly, but as they say people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, and the people living in glass houses are us as a human race. Your concept of Von Trier using the characters as a homage to himself and his critics is quite interesting and very well may be what he was trying to accomplish. Nonetheless, I have to credit a movie that makes the viewer never forget what they watched. This film will truly be etched in my mind forever with being such an out of the box, thought provoking, and fascinating view of human behavior and emotion. With this film, Von Trier has truly established himself as an original, groundbreaking filmmaker auteur. Whether this style of movie is ever accepted by the general public or not does not diminish this in my opinion.
May 6th, 2015 at 8:41 am
Not many movies have the effect on the viewers that after watching it makes you think about it for days, but Nymphomaniac vol I and II is definitely one of them. It is crazy, shockingly raw, but in the mean time with a twisted humor which gives the viewer a little “space to breath”.
Lars von Trier by presenting Joe’s rollercoaster story of her life and her sex addiction I’m sure created a lot of contradiction all over the world not just in America. The story in my opinion is not about the explicit sex, it is way more than that, it is how sex is discussed and how it is understood. Few movies are out there that presents in such detail the struggle, the pain and pleasure of a sex addict. Von Trier’s approach on how judgmental Joe talks about herself and Saligman, a complete stranger, on the other hand without any judgement listens to her story and tries to convince her the opposite. I completely agree with your conclusion above. And yes, Trier mapped very well for us how our society works. If you share your weaknesses to the world, they would know from where they can “attack” you successfully.
May 6th, 2015 at 11:47 am
I think Eniko really hits the nail on the head by saying this isn’t a film about sex. I don’t think what is really shocking for most is seeing the sex happen on screen as much as the idea of a woman doing all of these things and living this story is whats really shocking. I also think its important that we do see all the escapades she is sharing with us, seeing it makes it real somehow. If she had just describe the encounters we as viewers wouldn’t have believed it, but somehow seeing them unfold before us with all the details we could ever want (and then some) on a giant screen makes it real.
I don’t know that Von Trier is a woman hater…I wouldn’t go so far as to say he is fond of them either. I think the effect this movie has on us that we are appalled by it because it is a woman. She picks us random men and has sex with them and its shocking exactly how many there are, but I bet if we counted up how many women Barney picks up in HIMYM the numbers would be similar and that’s a freaking sitcom. Von Trier really uses this ingrained prejudice against the sexuality of women to point out to us how natural it is and that no matter what society says, women as well as men can be sexual beings.
May 6th, 2015 at 10:40 pm
This movie was trip. I never knew what to think of it, because so much was going on. Sex aside the movie made the viewer think non stop. It made the viewer be put into a state of just thinking what this movie is trying to say not just on the surface, but as a whole. Yes on the surface people would say it is a sex film with nothing to say. I told my friends that I was watching this and they were like “Oh, isn’t that the sex film?” As a viewer, your responsibility is not just to watch the film beginning to end, but always get something out of it. With all the other films watched in this class, there was always something that stood out if you looked hard enough. With Nymphomaniac you had to look really hard. I do agree that Seligman and Jo represented two different parts of something. I thought to myself that they could not just Von Triers mind, but everyones. Think of it like this. At the time you are trying to do something, there are two sides in your mind saying “Do it” and “Don’t do it”, or another way being “This is right” or “This is wrong”. Let us take the “Negro” scene for example. Seligman says it is wrong to say that, but Jo counteracts that and says it is right in its own way. Just like the human mind saying one thing may be really wrong, but as the human mind works, it will find a way to say it is right. In the end, I see this film mostly about how our minds work against each other and not about just sex.
May 6th, 2015 at 11:28 pm
There aren’t many films that are made like Nymphomaniac Vol. I and II. Most american films don’t show as much nudity as foreign films. Lars Von Trier had done a great job directing the movie. The mise-en-scene was spectacular. The stories that Joe had to tell were wild but intriguing. It really made me want to watch the film more because it was just so chaotic and foreign to me. I did see how Lars Von Trier really does want to make women suffer in his films. In the beginning of volume I Joe was beaten and passed out in the middle of an alleyway. Another example is in volume II of Joe getting beaten by Jerome because she attempted to kill him. The last example is also n volume II and it’s of Joe having herself do a self-induced abortion. That scene really was so gory but that scene had to be part of the film. Without it I don’t think I’d enjoy the movie as much. But It really wasn’t like any film I have watched before. Every film I was used to since my childhood were the cartoon films with the princesses and the princes fall in love and have a happy ending. I mostly watched all the hollywood films that had all the cliques but that had to change. Lars Von Trier are one of the directors that changed that for me and now I want to watch more of his films. He is one of my favorite directors. Great choice of film Mr. Smith! Show another one of his films he directed in some of your classes. He will blow everybody’s mind!
May 6th, 2015 at 11:37 pm
At first when you said that this film is 5+ hrs long I thought holly crap!!!! But I agree with you that due to the style of how the film was directed it did not seem very long at all. I feel if the film was in a linear structure then it would have dragged on forever but the flashbacks to different times made it very enjoyable to watch and to guess of what was going to happen next. Also Lars Von Trier is a genius when referring to the title that goes along with this movie. Nymph representing a goddess or beautiful deity one with nature which kind of represents Joe with always being in the forest with her dad and trying to find her “soul tree” and also that crazy orgasm scene which she was levitating in the grass. Maniac for her just being crazy with doing whatever it takes to reach an orgasm by getting whipped by ropes and chains. And then the () which we all know what that stands for… Put it all together and you have a Nymph()maniac.
May 6th, 2015 at 11:46 pm
After watching the first volume, I did not know what to think about the film. I thought the explicit sex was necessary and refreshing. However, I did not see it as a film about sex. I found it refreshing to see male full frontal nudity even though it mostly turned me off. I loved how realistic and honest the sex was. American media glorifies sex; it does it in a negative and unrealistic way that does not benefit anyone. Nymphomaniac had so much more to say about the world than just to talk about sex. I agree that the first volume was very comical. Although I did not fully understand the movie in its entirety yet, I found it funny, refreshing, insightful, and honest. Even though it was very long, I did not feel like it dragged. The second volume was very hard to watch at times. The abortion scene in particular was one of the hardest scenes that I have ever watched. I am pro-life and had no problem viewing an abortion. However, the self-inflicted pain that Joe put herself through to perform the abortion was unbearable. I found the subsequent discussion about abortion and eating meat very interesting. I love eating meat, but the thought about where that meat comes from makes me sick and the images they showed/other images I have seen from slaughter houses were almost as hard to view as the abortion scene. Von Trier is excellent at tapping into the emotions of a person and making them feel a certain way. That is what I think makes his films so gripping. He also has a great insight into woman and I believe he is a feminist. Throughout the movie, I had a very difficult time forgiving Joe for abandoning her son. My reason for forgiving her was because of her nymphomania. However, the dialogue at the end really put in my place. Just because I am a very nurturing and maternal woman does not mean that all woman feel or have to feel that way. I did not judge Jerome as harshly as I judged Joe for abandoning Marcel. There is nothing wrong with a male or female not wanting to have children/not feeling maternal or paternal. However, society judges a woman much more harshly than a male in regards to that. Overall, I thought it was a very thought-provoking and emotional film with a lot to say about humanity.
May 7th, 2015 at 8:42 am
I’m pro-choice* wrote this when I was really tired…
May 7th, 2015 at 1:49 am
Knowing that Nymphomaniac was on the syllabus for this semester I can honestly say I wasn’t all that excited about watching a 4 hour porn film. However, surprisingly nymphomaniac isn’t an overtly crude and crass sex film but rather a film about addiction and a females struggle. Because the film is telling Joe’s story in the raw, certain aspects of the film are difficult to watch but these raw, unedited scenes are vital in depicting an honest story from Joe’s point of view. I have to agree with your earlier point of not enjoying Volume II as much. The humor of the first one let the audience breath with a comical tone rather than have one bad thing happen to Joe over and over again or see the pain of Joe regaining her sexual pleasure for over an hour and half. Also I really disliked Stellan’s character from the get-go. He always was a creepy pervert who basically collapsed when Joe started unraveling her life story. The dynamic relationship between Jerome and Young Joe I thought was the best part of the film. (Side note Shia’s accent was epic fail!) The banter and chemistry I felt was a strong suit of defining who Joe really was. Because she felt love for Jerome. The mood of the film changed when Jerome and Joe had sex during the end of volume I you could sense what I think Joe was searching for with the other guys which was the missing ingredient to sex which is love as pointed out by her friend in the cult. I feel as thought after watching these two films its become less awkward for me to see sex scenes at the movies because of what you said about sex not being a hidden away societal thing but rather an embraced humanly interaction. Overall these films are not about sex in the way one would think but rather a story of pain and in essence shame because of Joe repeatedly shaming herself by saying she’s a bad person when sex isn’t something to be shameful about. I’m so glad Von Trier did these films from a women’s point of view because especially with women, society places a lot of shame and pressure on women and their pureness and sexuality as opposed to men. I don’t think I’ll watch these films again because I can’t watch a 5 hour film and not fall asleep. but i can appreciate the overall message of the films.
May 7th, 2015 at 4:21 am
As a first impression from watching Nymphomaniac the relationship between Seligman and Joe comes off as one that makes the statement that humanity itself is a walking contradiction. The two dualistic characters offering a different stance at Joe’s past actions, showing the subjectivity of people in general, including Lars Von Trier’s input on the subject of how much of our moral virtues are just based on who you ask. Joe and Seligman in a way take the form of the human psyche fighting against itself, without definite assurance of what is right and wrong, which itself brings up how morals seem to be dependent on perspective. The very powerful ending when both characters decide to drop what they come off to represent in their lives, with Joe vowing to end her sexual lifestyle and Seligman dropping his asexual act. In my opinion Seligman was still an asexual man, who falls in love with Joe’s life story and attempts to break his sexual inquiry (his not so successful attempt to get an erect penis made me believe that he is an asexual man that is trying to break his bond). Just as Seligman states Joe’s attempt to shoot Jerome was possibly her subconscious keeping her from committing the act, but is later refuted with Seligman’s death, which further reinstates how we as people are unpredictable.The same connection can be made on how people fit in within the rest of the universe, which to seems to be a contradiction within itself, emphasizing nature. Nature in itself seems to be portrayed as organized with its seasons, but yet chaotic with the trees and their withered barks/souls.
May 7th, 2015 at 9:15 am
Just reading this review gave me flashbacks of coat hanger abortions and blood knots. This film definitely etched images in your head that are not so easy to shake loose, but overall I really did enjoy it. I think the comparison of Von Trier to his critics, represented in the relationship between Joe and Seligman, is an excellent point of view on what this film is actually about. Over and over Von Trier showed us how we are essentially hypocrites on issues like sex, abortion, love and even our carnivorous nature and the slaughtering of animals. He shows us how we often confuse lust with love. He compares the loosing of Joe’s virginity to the Fibonacci sequence and then duplicates this scene at the end of the film as if to emphasize the cruel patterns in life. He shows us a beautiful bond between Joe and her father and then counters that with his gradual mental decline and a vividly depressing death. It was quite an emotional rollercoaster with appropriate uses of comedy along the way. A very unique film!
May 7th, 2015 at 11:04 am
I’m actually quite surprised at how much I enjoyed this film. Living in American society has instilled certain principles and taboos on sexuality and violence, which I believe “Nymphomaniac” has successfully brought to light. Truthfully I was more shocked by the ruthless gang violence in “Menace II Society” than I was from the explicit sex in “Nymphomaniac”, and I find that interesting because most people my age would disagree. Perhaps that we as a culture are more exposed to graphic violence versus graphic sex, and somehow one has dominated the other in shock value, BUT that does not imply that this movie wasn’t shocking. I found the film to be emotionally draining at times but also very eloquent and prophetic. I enjoyed the sequences with Joe and her father in the forest, as it made me realize that Joe was closest with her father; a concept that puzzled me due to the fact that in American society it is believed that a girl with a strong male figure in her life would have a much smaller chance of acting out on her sexual desires in irresponsible ways, versus a girl who grew up with no male figure present at all. I was even more shocked by Joe’s complete apathy and disregard for her physical safety and emotional wellbeing after having sex with countless strangers in hopes of winning a bag of chocolates. This idea of reckless spontaneity and disregard for self respect completely baffled and disturbed me. I found Joe continuously disrespecting herself throughout the film, and it made me question if she was doing this out of self hate or simply because she was powerless over her addiction. I would agree that, “‘Nymphomaniac’ is not so much about sex then as it is about finding patterns in the universe, the nature of storytelling, and the need the human mind has to impose order and meaning”. Overall this was a really great and thought provoking film.
May 7th, 2015 at 12:07 pm
I don’t know. This film has been messing with me for the past couple of weeks, definitely a Von Trier intention. Usually after each film I have a revelation and I am able to somewhat understand the director’s artistic expression. But with “Nymphomaniac vol.1&2”, maybe because it is so long and deep, I have yet to have that revelation. So through this screening report I shall try.
Jonathan Glazer’s “Under The Skin” prepared me for Von Trier’s film. I thought both female protagonists have similar mindset’s on sex and human relationships, even though Scarlett Johannson in “Under The Skin” is an alien. This leads me back to Joe, the lead character in “Nymphomaniac”. Her lifestyle and emotional expression were actually appealing to me. I loved her lonely but enchanting personality that makes her dirty lustful mind okay. Joe is a contradiction, especially in her relationship with Seligman. In this way, I do have to agree with you that Joe and Seligman’s discussion represents Von Trier’s imagination restrained (yet unrestrained) by film critics. It seems like Von Trier wants to do what he wants, without remarks from anyone else, especially critics. Through the sexscapades told by Joe, Von Trier lets his expression rage. Von Trier actually brings in the whole spectrum of life through this film, like damn. He rejects the artificial division between the sciences through objective truth on one end and emotion and perception on the other. As Joe gets deeper in her emotional story telling perception, Seligman is on the other end. Seligman’s responds to Joe through an unbiased logical perception evidence of life.
We see so many unbalances in Joe’s lifestyle, we are perplexed by her mind, and are lost by the meaning of this film at the end. Although, one thing that Von Trier does not fail at is breaking all the rules through strict confined ones. Von Trier’s unpredictability makes us uncomfortable because inconsistency in the mind and thoughts is unbearable. How does he make this imbalanced discomfort work? Much like the ongoing 3+5 motif that haunts Joe her whole life. The numbers shown are odd and imbalanced, although when added together creates the number 8. The number 8 also equals the amount of chapters in the film and in Kabbalistic tradition the number 8 means “higher than nature, the one beyond perfection.” Just like the ending of “Nymphomaniac”, couldn’t have been more perfect.
May 7th, 2015 at 1:04 pm
To me, the entire movie revolves around the concept of elevating those who say right but do wrong , and demeaning those who say wrong but do right, which is stated by Seligman. We’ve mentioned the situation that America is in, concerning sex and violence and how we are more comfortable watching someone blow another persons head off than we are watching an intimate sex scene; which proves that this film is a representation of that. I think I might’ve actually related more to Seligman than Joe in the beginning of the first volume, just because he is the more “normal” one out of the two, considering she was bruised, beat, and telling her sex stories like they are walks in the park. However, as time passed and we got to know Joe a little better, I began to feel relatable to Joe and less to Seligman. She eased us into her chaotic world, had revelations and seemed more honest or human, while the white man, also referring to the “white man” of America, remained narrow sighted and unable to comprehend. There is only so much you can learn without living and experiencing different things in life. In a sense, he knew numbers, but she knew the real world, and to him, he thought having sex with just one more person would just be another number.
May 7th, 2015 at 2:25 pm
Nymphomaniac strikes me as more of an art or an expose type of film. As ridiculous as it sounds, it reminds of Bad Granpa as far as figuring out the concept of the film. It is not so much about the content but the reactions it garners from the viewers. I believe that is in Lars Von Trier’s intention to strip the audience off of all the pretense and inhibitions until we are down to the most integral part of our being. I agree with everyone that this film is not about sex and as you say, he actually killed it here. Honestly, I find the sex scenes forgettable and almost non-erotic which I believe is what Von Trier is going for. His genius is that even though his focus is not on the narrative but on capturing the rawest emotions of his characters, somehow the plot connects together so beautifully in a way as though they weren’t done on purpose. He deceitfully adorns his films with conventional trimmings when they are not what they seem to be and not for the purposes conceived by many. There are so many facets in this film that we can chew on and I think that’s the brilliance of it all. One of the themes that I find very insightful are the trees with their trunks and branches exposed in the winter being compared to our souls. There’s a lot of truth in that as we all are crooked and bent in the inside… no one is righteous. I also find some connections throughout the movie that are quite thrilling for me to analyze. For example, when Joe’s father died and she lubricated, I really examined that. And what I came up with is that her sex addiction is her coping mechanism to escape from her painful reality. As Caroline pointed out, it is a little bit of a puzzle how Joe turned out the way she did when her relationship with her father was portrayed as a wonderful one. But then we also have to recognize that although it was made subtle in the film, Joe’s disdain for her mother was apparent and I believe that has a lot to do with how unhappy she was even though she had a good relationship with her father. So when she finally succumbed to her love for Jerome, she became numb because perhaps instinctively, yearning for her orgasm would negate the happiness that she has found because all her life her desire to climax was motivated by her desire to drown out her pain (kind of like getting drunk to forget your problems). And consequently, as she has been a nymphomaniac for so long, she feels incomplete without experiencing the old sensation she’s always had. Thus, she turns to self-inflicting pain in the form of masochism by K. Another thing that I really contemplated on is that scene with Mrs. H. We had a discussion about how strongly society react on how Joe broke up a home and how she chose her own sexual pursuit over her son and Jerome and how less condemning it would be if it happened the other way around. But it also made me think, if we would have the same exact sympathy that we had for Mrs. H. if she had been a man breaking down in front of his children and his wife’s lover. Or if we would somehow offer the same kind of consideration if Joe happened to be a father instead -saying goodbye to his son as he chooses to satisfy his own sexual needs over him. And one last thing… I think I got the “Cinderella” scene (I think). I believe it’s one of Von Trier’s “tricks” as a challenge to the conventions of commitment in relationships in our society. To cut it short – our society’s perception on a guy being with a woman for so long without offering any commitment whatsoever vs. a woman being offered one and disregards it. In regards to your take on what this film is about, I do agree but I also think that Seligman not only represents Von Trier’s critics but the general audience.
May 7th, 2015 at 3:05 pm
I can honestly say that I was pleasantly surprised by Nymphomaniac vols 1 and 2. I really didn’t know what to expect going into the film, but Von Trier would have exceeded all my expectations. Nymphomaniac is unlike anything I have ever seen. Past all the sex and nudity are two very intriguing characters (in Seligman and Joe) that oddly compliment one another despite being complete opposites. After reading your review of the films, I found the idea of Von Trier’s split personality between the characters to be extremely fascinating. I would have never thought to look at Seligman and Joe in such a way, but it makes complete sense. Joe represents the impulsive and rash tendencies we have as humans, while Seligman serves as the intellectual moral compass. I really enjoyed both Von Trier films we’ve seen in the class, and can’t wait to see more from him for my final!
May 7th, 2015 at 3:14 pm
This film solidified, in my mind, what exactly constitutes as Von Trier’s unique Auteur stylization. I enjoy Von Trier’s tendency to trapse around in the gray area of social morality and challeng your stance on certain topics … or, at the very least, give you a different perpsective.
Speaking of perspective, the story-telling for his movies seem to have an effortless flow to them and made even Nymphomaniac breeze by. I enjoy the, what may seem to be erratic, nature of the scenes that gives a non-linear feel to the story that seem to coincide with the hectic life that Joe has led.
Von trier always seems to incorporate nature into his movies and they seem to parallel his stories pertaining to human nature. Whether it be shots of the countryside, a bubblinbg brook, fog, or the in your face reference to trees in Nymphomaniac. Of note, was Von Trier’s ability for correlating symbolism with the story through Seligman was great. I would have guessed that Von Trier had written the story, if I didn’t already know.
Also, I felt like Joe was the wolf in sheep’s clothing. It may be a stretch, but I remembered how she managed to seduce that married man on the train (the one trying to have a kid) … she did so by picking out something (the present) that was personal and highlighting it to get him to open up. She acknowledged that as being a common tactic. Then, she meets Seligman and relates to every personal thing she can find in the room to tell her story. She voices her frustration when he shows no sexual interest in her stories and then starts to break through using religion. In her story, she ‘conveniently’ orgasms again while using a stack of books to do so. I think she wanted him to want her. Poor Bibliophile, never had a chance. Not to say he was innocent though.
May 7th, 2015 at 3:27 pm
The truth is I’ve been trying to find some sort of symbolic meaning for Von Triers Nymphomaniac Vol 1 and 2 for the past couple of weeks. However the more I think about the film the less of a grasp I believe I have on it. Lars Von Trier’s film have a tendency to throw you into uncomfortable situations. The only over film that I’ve seen of his was Dancer in the Dark but I have heard of his other films such as Dodgeville. With that said I Von Triers film always put the human mind in a state of discomfort by forcing us the experience the not so pleasant realities of life. Nymphomaniac isn’t just about sex like some people would believe. I believe that Nymphomaniac is meant to ask the question of what is right and what is wrong. Who are you to decide how someone lives there life and do we only frown because they are doing something truly evil or are we simply jealous that we don’t have the courage to express our true feelings because we are worried how others will portray them. That is what Nymphomaniac is about. That is what Lars Von Triers films always ask. In my opinion Lars Von Triers film are and will continue to be a giant middle figure to the average movies and will change your perspective on film.
May 7th, 2015 at 3:40 pm
Just by the title and the cover I thought movie was going to be just about nymphomaniac woman having sex throughout the movie. But I agree with professor Smith that this film is not just about sex. To me, this film was more like studying on the perspectives of sex. In fact, sex and nudity did not bothered me much, it was the ideas and concepts that was most important. The film gets more interesting as Joe starts storytelling into eight chapters. Joe tries to prove that she is evil and Seligman trying to use all his knowledge from the book to convince or comfort her that she is not. I do agree that these interaction of two characters represents or stands for certain person or groups. Joe can be representing Lars Von Trier shouting out to our society and personally I think Seligman can also viewed as our two sided society. We think we could understand someone with our knowledge and try to comfort them, but it’s actually something that we can’t really understand unless we have experienced it. Also in the other hand we have this perspective that it is okay for us to treat her in a way and Joe deserves it for what she have done (What Seligman tries to do in the end). Lars Von Trier just like “Dancer in the Dark” leaves lingering after watching movie. This film left me many thoughts about our society and ourselves.
May 7th, 2015 at 4:06 pm
I’m impressed by Von Trier’s enthusiasm in portraying his female characters as very dynamic, multi-layered characters. All too often in traditional Hollywood films, it is the male character that leads the dramatic, multi-dimensional lives. Even in a sexual film such as nymphomaniac, most directors most likely would tend to cast a male actor. In both Dancer In The Dark, and Nymphomaniac, I can say I appreciate that Von Trier works hard to peel back the layers of his female leads to show the audience the true meaning of what his films and his characters are about. For Nymphomaniac, it is not just a sex film but a true representation of Joe’s life and the struggles she endures. As the viewer, my heart goes out to Joe because she comes from such a sad/dark place. The hardest part for me to watch, and I was only able to see volume one, was the scene on the train with Joe and her friend. The competition of who could sleep with the most men for a freakin’ bag of chocolate blows my mind and broke my heart. There has to be deep rooted issues for young girls to act in this way, I can’t believe at that age, it is simply being a sexual creature, looking to discover herself. The other sad seen was when she convinced or seduced the man on the train who was trying to avoid her and her behavior because he was “devoted” to his wife and was trying to save his sperm for his wife so that they would become pregnant. This also shows how messed up we are as a society that most of us have an easy time saying no, but a very hard time following through with no. This goes for the man on the train as well as many young men and women who feel peer pressure to act or behave in a way that will get them acclaim among their peers, when deep down, they may not truly want to act or behave this way. Overall, I thought Dancer In The Dark was the better Von Trier film, but I do appreciate his use of female characters as it provides the audience with a view we don’t often see with traditional Hollywood films.
May 7th, 2015 at 4:15 pm
That closing paragraph could not bear a deeper truth. When you mentioned how Joe was meant to represent Von Trier himself (possibly why he chose a more masculine name for the character, and how Seligman was meant to be the critics, I immediately thought of how deceptive they are. I thought about how they come across as sincere and active-listening at first. In fact, the entire time up until the end. But then how in the end they try to screw you. I also think it’s really interesting that you called Volume 2 an “anti-climax”. It was really strange to see how different Volumes 1 and 2 were, even while maintaining the same personalities and characteristics of each character. It takes almost this genre turn in volume 2. Yet the story about storytelling theme is still evident. I haven’t seen this movie before, but I feel like the movie would not be the same without the parts I had heard were cut out in the non-director’s cut version. For example, that abortion scene was so brutal and graphic and left me cringing. But in my opinion, anything that can make an audience feel that way is praise-worthy. Especially since that’s the only part of the film that provokes this feeling. Although I’m one of those Americans that hates anything sexual, whether on the big screen or not, it was truly a fantastic film! And I do hate to say it, but I’d watch it again!
May 7th, 2015 at 4:17 pm
Hi Professor,( Please read please ) thank your for showing us this movie really I learned a lot
of lessons from this movie. usually we alway think nagative for others, always nagative comments for others, always native thoughts for others,
always nagative feelings for others the question is why ? for example
when we see this kind of movie or in real life any women act like this we
think she is slut or hooker or bad thinking or bad comments or unrespect
to that person. Now my question is do are we right person or every body
in this world are sinless or never do any kind of sin. After seeing this
movie my thought is that she is not a thirsty of Sex but she has a deasease of which she is very disturb, she is innocent, actually born like
that, she has no control of it although she know that it is wrong and
unappropriate but her sex feelings is not under her control she cant
sleep sometimes she cant feel relex sometimes, she cant be patients
sometimes, she keep scraching her body but there is no relief, she is in
pain so much pain but we think that she feels sex no its not a sex her
pain which we dont understand its a deaseas in which she cant even
cure and she cant even die she has to live in this sexual pain rest of the
life. We have to thank God that we are not in this pain, there is so many
deasease in this world like Cancer, Malaria , skin , bone, blood, and so
many so this is the part of this kind of a deasease but we laugh and a
making fun after seeing this kind of women in real life of or movie, no but
we should learn a lesson from this kind of movie that what would happen
if happen to us what a life after having a sex no satisfaction, no realif
no peace, no happiness no bla bla bla .
Aman Ebrahim.
May 7th, 2015 at 4:18 pm
After my second time seeing Nymphomaniac vol. 1 and 2, I finally appreciated and understood the second volume. The ending of the second volume, especially, bothered me the first time I saw it and thought it was too random and spontaneous… but after the second time watching it I realized that Von Trier likes having unexpected, or disturbing endings; even the ending of Vol. 1 leaves you at a disturbing cliffhanger. The sudden change in character of Seligman at the end of Vol. 2, and Joe’s extreme reaction, made me realize that Von Trier wanted the audience to feel passionately about the ending and have them wonder what Joe will do after. My favorite aspect of both volumes was how the sex wasn’t over sexualized. It sounds contradictory, but almost every film in Hollywood that contains sex scenes creates unrealistic expectations, and its represented in an over dramaticized way. In Nymphomaniac, the sex scenes aren’t over dramaticized and represented more realistically. This actually made the sex scenes less uncomfortable to watch, and it was refreshing to see equal male nudity as female nudity; female nudity is constantly over used and male nudity is mostly neglected. Overall, Nymphomaniac was a clever and humorous movie and seeing Von Trier’s humor show through the script was great, because its a side of Von Trier that a lot of people aren’t able to see.
May 7th, 2015 at 4:53 pm
Von Trier is a provocateur who loves to push peoples buttons, but he’s too smart to always push them just for the sheer satisfaction of ruffling a few feathers. In the case of Nymphomaniac, he’s saying something powerful: morality is not black and white. This message rings through in a strong way not only because morality is a part of human existence with which we all must cope, but because Von Trier himself has such a complicated relationship with morality in the public eye, making this film clearly a very personal one for him. Sexuality is the perfect lens to examine morality through. Like so many moral issues, it is highly complicated and often difficult for people to deeply process. Many attempt to impose rules for the ”right” or “wrong” way to consume sexual information or engage in sexual activity. It is an inescapable, universal part of human existence that is, ironically, often repressed and blanketed in shame. During Joe and Seligman’s lengthy heart-to-heart they also encounter the topics of abortion, meat eating, parenting methods, and race relations, to name a few. In each of these situations Seligman provides the politically correct perspective, and Joe provides something a little more difficult to digest. Though Seligman’s perspectives are not wrong (and are in fact rooted in intentions of kindness, sympathy, and equality) they are not rooted in the most valuable information of all: experience. Joe’s much more complicated ideas about right and wrong stem from a life of difficult experiences and tough choices, which are the very things that lead to a complex understanding of life. Seligman’s desire to apply order and rules not only to Joe’s story but also to morality in general is an occasionally interesting but ultimately shallow approach to life. And in the end, his logic and knowledge amount to very little, and he turns out to be not so moral after all.
May 7th, 2015 at 5:51 pm
Von Trier completely blew my mind with Nymphomaniac i have never seen anything like this movie before. I can appreciate this film and felt so many emotions watching it. (happy, sad, sick, Intrigued and shocked) Part one did not leave the impression that part two had on me i really enjoyed the comic relief with the angry wife in part one. The only scene i have ever scene in a movie that made me absolutely cringe was the abortion scene, i had to turn my head away from the screen . overall this was a great experience but i was left wondering at the end after Seligman heard joe’s whole story why did he try to rape her? i was relieve when she shot it with the gun he reminded her how to use. was a great ending to an awesome film.
May 7th, 2015 at 5:53 pm
Wow. Could that be enough? Personally I love movies that make you wonder about humanity, and philosophy; films which put our orderly beliefs and hold them up against the light and dare to ask, ‘is this really what is going on?’ Films like these are the ones that challenge a lot of my beliefs weather on society or cinema in general. Christophers Nolans Memento changed how I initially viewed a story through the medium of film while in The Dark Knight I was moved and changed by the characters and their acting and motivation, and then Darren Aronofsky with his unique way of turning tension into legitimate stress in Requiem for a Dream and Noah; and now, Von Triers use of sex symbolically, actually (directing wise) to progress, underscore and contrast a beautiful story about human connection, sexuality, spirituality, and then question one’s own place in this world. A five hour epic that seemed to go everywhere with its content from the taboo, thought provoking, comedic, gut-wrenching, and heartwarming, to the twisted, shocking and despair ridden clusterf*ck of a movie it turned out to be. The problem is that it makes beautiful sense because seeing how this is how life works, it doesn’t make sense! When people look back at their lives through their own memories in the stories they tell and share, they are often surprised most about where they started and the unexpected, topsy-turby life that led them to where they are in the present. I thought that this was the kind of feel and atmosphere that Von Trier tried to accomplish in Dancer in the Dark but I think he beautifully achieved it here. In the end I think it is clear that Von Trier takes it upon himself to show us a story of a ‘real life’, one that could exist in our world and he is going to do it. Outcome Good or bad, he doesn’t care whether you like the result or not this is how it is deal with it. In an interview with Stacy Martin she was asked whether she felt that Von Trier was coming through in his film and she said, that not only that but Von Trier told her exactly which aspects of him she was playing. And I think one line of dialogue can sum up some of Von Triers choices in film making and it is when older Joe tells the group therapist that she will not endure this because it displeases the top part of society, that she will not change what is real to her because it is inconvenient to the illusion that is so desperately clung on to by the aristocratic and socially poise. This is even portrayed in the way Von Trier uses sex in this movie, so explicitly that I am sure producers had to take a second to think about how and to whom they would distribute this film to, especially in America where the backlash could be so bad that people lose all meaning in the film debating things based off the sexual content. It cannot go without mention that the sound design was fantastic, besides the hyper realistic sexual slops, there was that scene where the silence broken only by the innocent baby’s calm breathing throughout the night, or the first time Joe was hit with a glove full of coins. When she got hit I spilled my cereal all over myself because I could have sworn I heard the coins collide with each other, the leather, and then the face it was well done; the scene where Joe is beating someone with a knotted rubber extension cord too surprised me because I didn’t have to think too hard in hearing the rubber on skin sound, and neither did the sound designer make it too obvious. I think what Von Trier does with the silence in his film is brilliant, how well he can use natural noises to convey the depth of the world and emphasize underlying points such as with the baby’s calm sleeping. A clever movie and I think it is hard to argue against Lars Von Triers almost idiosyncratic abuse of his female characters. Although I will cautiously say one thing, despite Seligman (which by the ways was in my opinion some of Stellan Skarsgaards fines performances), some of his words still hold true to their value about human needs and the right to explore and express them for the sake of self-discovery, or the way decisions are not always so easy and clear cut, and neither is their explanation; but what is usually left is the strength and character of the person who has endured.
May 7th, 2015 at 6:08 pm
Nymphomaniac is a movie that combines graphic sex scenes seamlessly into the central storyline. Although it may make some uneasy, I believe that most of the many sex scenes featured in the film were completely necessary. Much of Joe’s story is the deterioration of her life due to her sex addiction and to try and cut out the risqué nature of the content by merely insinuating the things she experiences would be doing the story and the audience a disservice. I like that you can determine her relationship to other’s through many of these sexual encounters, the moments ranging from beautiful and intimate to obscene and uncomfortable. I think your belief that Joe represents Von Trier and Seligman represents critics adds a new layer to the film. There are many interactions between those two characters that now seem to make even more sense when looking at it that way. It’s hard not to see Von Trier in Joe, her personality seeming to mirror the same unapologetic, provocative and blunt approach Lars Von Trier’s films are known for. And in return Seligman can so clearly be seen to have a similar mindset as a critic, always looking for symbolism or an intellectual message, even when at times it doesn’t exist. However. i also believe this movie had an underlaying feminist message as well. Von Trier consistently shows Joe wielding her sexuality as some kind of power. This is especially clear in the scene where she is on a job as a loan shark. Joe strips the man and uses his own erection to find his darkest secret. Although more examples of this can be seen in Volume 1 than Volume 2, due to the fact that the 2nd volume takes a very dark turn that turns her story into something closer to a tragedy and shows more of the repercussions of her lifestyle. The scene in which Joe is talking to a condescending therapist who is tasked with deeming her fit for an abortion is another feminist moment, Joe reacting with anger over the fact that she had to be given permission to make a decision about her own body. I saw this too as a statement about the feminine experience in our world and the absurdity of that situation. But, one of the things that struck me the most about this film is linked to a quote by Seligman. He comments that many of the things Joe has done in the film would not be deemed as taboo if done by a man. This quote stuck with me when I saw this movie for the third time in class. I was able to look at her experiences and apply them to a male perspective. Seligman was right. Many of the things Joe does would be accepted more readily if she were male. You have to ask that if Joe was a man, whether her story would have ended very differently or if her life would have even been so serious effected at all.
May 14th, 2015 at 2:31 pm
I’ve only seen 3 of Lars Von Trier’s films and I can truly say I will not be watching any more. Not that I don’t like his films, but rather their emotional outcome. Nymphomaniac made me feel sympathetic towards someone who destroyed the chances of a man having a child, just to win a bet on a train. I agree in particularly with one of the comments above stating that Von Trier isn’t afraid to comment on the hypocrisy of society. The ending scene is just a proof of that. The man we all thought as caring and sweet, turns out to be a twisted rapist. It begs the question, who are we to judge?
Von Trier pushes the social norms to a new extent and isn’t afraid to show the brutality of situations, for example when Joe performed her own abortion. Decisions like these make me appreciate him as a director. Not because I want to see scenes like that, but because he isn’t afraid to show it. Other directors would have shied away from this scene because it would repulse audiences and lose money, while Von Trier keeps his integrity and executes the film the way it was written. He isn’t afraid to shine a spotlight on today’s social issues. His films, Melancholia, Dancer in the Dark, and Nymphomaniac, underly the message of feminism. Not only are all the leads female, they’re also strong, and independent, and unafraid of anything. Nymphomaniac has opened my eyes and has made me appreciate independent and artistic films more.
May 14th, 2015 at 2:32 pm
-Tony Stoyanov
May 14th, 2015 at 4:41 pm
Dear Professor,
Since last year I attendent three classes with you Introduction to film,
Globa cinema and Prospective in every classes I learned something
new and better education and more confidence in the life as well as
better lifestyle wow I am proud of you as well as proud of my self too.
I am lucky to have education from you, and the knowledge that you
have in film line its imazine well in this course I learned so many culture
or structure of human life style or problems, comedy, happiness, pain,
dramma, acting, poorty, richness, rudeness, beauty, uglyness,
sympathiness, dance, sing, music and killing.
The one I mention all of these what does it mean that we all see in
our life its not new but the way you giving us knowledge and the movie
the one you showing us is completly different the one we all of us see
in our life I dont know how you get this kind of movie and lessons and
I dont know how many more of of this kind of a knowledgable movie
that you have which we are not an able to see thats make me feel
bad because the courese or semister is over.
In this semister we seen Save the Green Planet, Some came Running,
Dancer in the Dark, Far from Heaven, The Roaring Twenties, Menace
II Society and so on and so on. What I seen all of these movies that
before in 1950″s and 1970’s people and humen being had their life
style they alway having well dress like Man always having Suit, tie and
Weman alway having Well clean dress and some different kind of hair
syle which attract human eye and look decent no matter poor or rich
there was a style and there was peace and respect. For example the
one I want to say may be I am wrong or may be I am right the word that
we talk or the one we do comunication with the other or to anybody
it make difference that what is our culture or growth like some movie
using a very high professional english and some movie there is no
standard of english like a lot of F word using means in each sentence
they using 5 or 6 F word means more F word then the verb or adverb.
So, like I already posted my comments or so many Screening report to
you already you already know that what is my thought is and what
lesson I am getting from you and your movie or cinema. From the whole
semister the only movie that I likeThe Bond Wagon and Nymphomaniac
from The Bond Wagon I learned a life style and healthy and happy
leaving no matter money or not but from The Nymphomaniac movie
I learnd a lot of of lesson like nagative thinking, nagative comments,
and nagative thoughts for others.
always nagative feelings for others the question is why ? for example
when we see this kind of movie or in real life any women act like this we
think she is slut or hooker or bad thinking or bad comments or unrespect
to that person. Now my question is do are we right person or every body
in this world are sinless or never do any kind of sin. After seeing this
movie my thought is that she is not a thirsty of Sex but she has a deasease of which she is very disturb, she is innocent, actually born like
that, she has no control of it although she know that it is wrong and
unappropriate but her sex feelings is not under her control she cant
sleep sometimes she cant feel relex sometimes, she cant be patients
sometimes, she keep scraching her body but there is no relief, she is in
pain so much pain but we think that she feels sex no its not a sex her
pain which we dont understand its a deaseas in which she cant even
cure and she cant even die she has to live in this sexual pain rest of the
life. We have to thank God that we are not in this pain, there is so many
deasease in this world like Cancer, Malaria , skin , bone, blood, and so
many so this is the part of this kind of a deasease but we laugh and a
making fun after seeing this kind of women in real life of or movie, no but
we should learn a lesson from this kind of movie that what would happen
if happen to us what a life after having a sex no satisfaction, no realif
no peace, no happiness no bla bla bla
.
Aman Ebrahim.
May 14th, 2015 at 4:43 pm
Thank you