Nymphomaniac: Volume I &:Volume II

Just as advertised great value

The four hours in which the reels of Nymphomaniac I and II spin out Lars Von Trier's take on sexual appetites are a study in realism with just a touch of hypocrisy thrown in--which, in at least one way of viewing it, only adds to the realism. The tale involves three main characters played by four actors: eponymous Joe played by Charlotte Gainsbourg as an adult and by Stacy Martin as a juvenile, her lover/husband/tormentor played by Shia LeBoeuf, and the older bachelor Seligman who takes in a beaten Joe, nurses her and both listens to and comments on her story, played by Stellan Skarsgard. The supporting cast includes recognizable stars doing cameos here and there: Uma Thurman, Connie Nielsen, Christian Slater, Willem Dafoe, Jamie Bell and others. And there is a cadre of unnamed porn stars who do all the 'wet works'. And it is of course this latter group which brings the charge of hypocrisy to the fore, though exactly where that charge should be laid is open to debate. In one of the special features Stacy Martin reveals her discomfort with all the rampant sex being performed by the porn actors on the set and her difficulties of performing her role (staying in character) with all the care that must be taken to match her movements with those of the porn stars. One is reminded of the tongue in cheek scene from Brian De Palma's Body Double in which Dennis Franz directs his male lead (CraigWasson) through the intricacies of clutching the right breast of the blonde in the shower just before she is replaced by her body double for the really sexy parts of the scene. Martin's comments about how she felt when a fake vagina was being glued on over her own, compared with Skarsgard's comments in the same feature about how silly it is for people to by shy about 'body parts' really focus one's thoughts on this issue. The question becomes, if this movie or pair of movies if you like, is designed as a challenge to those blue noses who wield the censor's brush why was it necessary to fake most of the skin and all of the sex?That issue aside Von Trier presents a great deal of poignant and thought-provoking moments in this piece, some of it 'in your face' and others parts more subtly offered. Uma Thurman's character, for example, whose husband has just announced he is leaving her and their three young boys for his lover politely asks the young Joe for permission to show the boys "the whoring bed". In another scene Skarsgard expresses disbelief that the elder Joe gave the confessed pedophile a blow job to ease the physical pain of his erection and Joe points out the man never acted on his impulses, then states that '95% of pedophiles never do anything about their urges so why should they have to suffer for the 5% who do?' Not so obvious are the scenes in which Joe's parents (Christian Slater and Connie Nielsen) are featured. Could it be the cold, interfering bitch of a mother and/or the warm, tender and encouraging father paired to lead Joe into this hunger? Or is it just coincidence? Von Trier doesn't spell it out here as he did elsewhere and even when he does spell it out there's a great deal of ambiguity around it. Joe's little speech to her sexual therapy group could be called a statement, I suppose, or it could also be read as a self-defense mechanism. And maybe the utterly unexpected and shocking end to the film could be called a statement. Of course this is all guesswork because Von Trier does not appear in any of the features, even the one labeled "The Director", which is, in itself, a statement of sorts, isn't it? And I need here to insert one final comment. I discussed my review with a friend who had also seen the movie and his remarks reminded me that not everyone is as 'worldly wise' as myself (at least in this respect) and that for them this movie can be viewed as a kind of voyeuristic look at a world they might not have believed actually existed. Of course given no one but porn stars were willing to 'show the skin', engage in the sexual acts presented, perhaps that world doesn't exist outside of the porn movie industry. Certainly gives one plenty of fodder for discussion and in that regard I have to admit it is well worth the candle. I won't say it's 'better' or 'worse' than The Sessions or Better Than Chocolate, or Naked Fear or Dangerous Beauty...it just belongs on the same shelf.

I saw Lars Von Trier's melancholy year's ago and liked it,but then people told me of his most legendary movie and holly guacamole I had to see it.So I found and ordered the extended directors cut and it was graphic,story stars a woman called Joe who's a nymphomaniac and you see her life story over volume 1 & 2 which is over 5 hours and has a all star cast of well known actor's.Movie doesn't hold back I mean you've got porn stars and props used as stand ins but the stories graphic on many of the check mark boxes.Theres violence,abuse,tourture,crime,death,guns,strong sexual content,graphic nudity and more all brought together to tell a well crafted story,worth the over $20 price.

My only fault with the DVD was the beginning of disk one there was a few minutes of black screen and only audio and the same happened with the second and at the very end of the movie. You hear what happens but don't see it. Was that intentional and part of the movie? All in all very different, very explicit and disturbing at parts. You can't remain neutral with this movie, you'll either love it or hate it. The acting is superb.

Love it or hate it Lars Von Trier's epic masterworks on sexuality will illicit a reaction. Von Trier is quite adept at garnishing reactions from his art and I sense that he doesn't mind either way if this reaction is love or hate, just as long as there is a reaction. That being said this movie is not for the faint of heart, although the title itself implies what it documents without reservation thus the more prudish among us have been warned and if not, if sensitive eyes still look upon the explicit chronicles of a nymphomaniac, then impunity will not be given and complaints of its salaciousness from such peoples shall be null and void. Nymphomaniac is not an exploitation film. The sexual acts portrayed are filmed with clinical objectivity rather than utilizing the sensuality of eroticization. Nymphomaniac approaches its coital interplay with an anatomical eye that is often more jarring than stimulating. Von Trier uses pornographic actors as body doubles and editing technology to create a vivid reality to the sex, keeping it clear of becoming pornography but certainly remaining unabashedly authentic. I can imagine the intent display of sex as an animalistic bodily function is too remove the viewers own sexuality providing more insight into the ideas Trier introduces through the story of Charlotte Gainsbourg's character Joe. It also strips sex of any romanticized inclinations, dissecting it sternly without prejudice. The Nymphomaniac in question here, Joe, is found at the beginning of the film by Seligman played by Stellan Skarsgard in an alley beaten and abandoned. He rescues her to his apartment where he lives alone and over the course of the night she episodically relates her sordid past shown in a series flashbacks to specific periods of her life extending all the way back to her childhood. Each chapter is connected to some piece of knowledge Seligman brings up in his analytic response to the events of Joe's sexual addiction that has ultimately lead her to their meeting in the ally. Von Trier really gets to speak through these moments between Joe and Seligman and he fearlessly delivers some thought provoking exchanges and ideas that resonate far after the film is over. This is where Nymphomaniac really shines, in these enlightening pockets that encompass anything and everything along the way so that the film becomes bigger than just sexual identity. It isn't to say Von Trier is using the film to convince the audience to see things a certain way but, rather, exploring some heavy themes from an intellectually gifted perspective rich in historical, philosophical and scientific comprehension. Nymphomaniac is the third film in Von Trier's aptly titled "Depression" Trilogy preceded by Antichrist and Meloncholia and in my opinion his best, or should I say my favorite. Always daring, bold and creative Von Trier brings all of his talents and wisdom to Nymphomaniac, a dangerous film in its obstinate determination to challenge its audience with expansive ideas that extend forth from the films core like a tree or some living thing. An absolute Triumph of cinema that I would recommend only to souls with an understanding of Lar Von Trier's pervious films or fans of "dangerous cinema". This would not be the movie I would recommend to someone who has never seen his films before.