Denmark/Sweden/France/Germany
2011/35mm/136mins
WEDNESDAY 12 OCTOBER 6.30 PM – BUY!
TUESDAY 1 NOVEMBER 8.30 PM – BUY!
Two sisters clash at a wedding party as a huge planet threatens to destroy the earth.
Always controversial, director Lars Von Trier turns his hand to science fiction drama in this apocalyptic study of how individuals respond differently to impending doom. Opening with a highly stylised vision of how the world might end, Von Trier then takes us to a lush wedding where melancholic Justine (Kirsten Dunst) clashes with her highly strung sister as a rogue planet looms in the sky. Enigmatic, moody and visionary – it’s another unforgettable Von Trier experience.
Screenings at Cannes, Moscow, Melbourne International Film Festivals
Best Actress (Kirsten Dunst) – Cannes Film Festival
“brings spectacle to the arthouse, sure to inspire discussion and debate” Peter Debruge, Variety
“Dunst is exceptional, so utterly convincing in the lead role.” Sukhdev Sandhu, The Daily Telegraph
Writer/Director Lars Von Trier Producers Meta Louise Foldager, Louise Vesth
Cast Kirsten Dunst, Charlotte Gainsburg, Kiefer Sutherland, Charlotte Rampling, John Hurt, Alexander Skarsgard
Print Source Madman Entertainment
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
My mother once told me, “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”
Therefore, I will remain silent when it comes to ‘Melancholia’.
This is the first film I have walked out of in 2011, and I sat through ‘Transformers: Dark of the Moon’ and that was a horrible experience.
Enter at your own risk and have an exit strategy.
Fantastic film, the threat of melancholia destroying everything is all too real for many of us. It hides, lurking in the darkness behind the “sun” or times of happiness but it is always there, even if you can’t see it. Not so much a film about a planetary apocalypse but the devastating grip of depression and anxiety on the human mind. The slow drawn out, crippling way the story played out was a bit too close to home.
Avoid this film if you can’t stand hand held camera work, and primarily because of that this film gets a 1 from me.
When something as devastating as the end of the world is imminent there’s not a lot anyone can do about it. You can’t hop onto a flying saucer and take off to another planet. You can’t attach a giant rocket booster to the earth and push our world out of the way of impending doom. The sections of the film which portrayed the catastrophe were very well done – top marks. No one knows what might happen in such an event. The director attempted to capture the unusual and unexpected that might coincide with such an occurrence. This was done exceptionally well.
So what can you do while this astronomical phenomenon is approaching? Astronomers often build up their announcements to more than they appear on the day. Remember how Halley was such a letdown event. It might not happen anyway. Life will go on, surely. Nothing much can be done anyway so why not carry on as usual? The film featured a wedding reception which provided the background in the film, and if you wanted to get married you might as well despite the uncertain future. Scientists have been wrong in the past. They might be wrong again. The actors all did a good job – top marks.
The hand held camera work was annoying and ruined the majority of the entertainment value the film might have had. I initially thought it would be confined to the activity of the wedding reception to impart a mood of excitement, but it continued throughout the film. There was so much unnecessary camera movement I wonder if the camera operators were drunk. They must have been out of breath at times; you could see the image moving move up and down with their breathing. One of them lost their footing, I’m sure, as the scene dropped suddenly and then recovered. I also have the suspicion the camera operators were tennis players, and bringing their tennis experience to the studio. Tennis players when waiting for a serve will sway left and right and left and right, not sure whether they should return the ball with a backhand or forehand hit. This was the action in the movie. Aimless movement without any apparent reason. It was as though they didn’t know where the next bit of dialogue was coming from and had to guess. They tried to anticipate, and often got it wrong. Swinging to one person who has no dialogue and then swinging back to someone else. I thought in the making of the movie every scene was planned in detail. Obviously the camera operators missed those sessions. Home movies are done better than this. There was never a straight bit of filming without some sort of unnecessary camera movement. Have you ever watched any of these reality TV shows like Bargain Hunt, or Homes Under the Hammer for example. The camera operators often try to film the auction. Rather than using a wide angle shot to cover the audience, they attempt close ups. They swing the camera wildly as they try to capture the individuals in the act of bidding at the auction. They usually pick up the individual too late, or stop on the wrong person and have to swing the camera back, and what you get is this mad swinging around and zooming in and out that is incredibly annoying. Getting the idea – this was Melancholia. Sure, they often got it right and pointed the camera at the actors who had dialogue, though sometimes when obscured by someone else, and on a few times they didn’t have the subject in focus. Come on, didn’t anyone review the film the shot at the end of the day, and see that it was filmed poorly. Why didn’t anyone say this is rubbish let’s get a tripod and shoot it again. Well, apparently not.
The cinematography in this film was outstanding. The dogma ‘esque’ style of filming lent a certain unpolished feel to the film giving the viewer an inside window to what was going on. The cast were excellent, Charlotte Gainsbourg was particularly good in this film and the supporting actors brought a substantial amount of credibility. Despite the excellent storyline, the unique narrative and the mesmerizing use of music and visuals, I left the film feeling somewhat dissatisfied. The character played by Kirsten Dunst left me perplexed. She did not invoke emotion in me, I was not drawn into her storyline and did not feel as though I was on a journey with this character. What was it about her that I so disliked? The acting seemed good and in fact Kirsten Dunst has received wide acclaim for this role. But the character offered little explanation, feeble apology and no hope for the future. There was little to be admired in her, no noble actions, promise of integrity, or depth of character. But maybe that was the point. ‘Melancholia’ was not just a planet, or topic, or theme of the film, but something to impart to the viewer.
Definitely kept me thinking about it for days, and well worth another viewing.
A better film, that kind of, has a similar theme to Melancholia is Another Earth. Not as spectacular but with a better plot gets 4 stars from me. The camera was still hand held, but in this film they try to keep it from bobbing around. It draws to a brilliant conclusion and is a film that gets you thinking. So if you thought Melancholia had potential, or even if you liked it consider having a look at Another Earth.
{ 1 trackback }