Since his latest film Nymphomaniac is coming (no pun intended) soon, I woul like to post this homage to one of the most wonderful and yet horrific film makers of our time.
Lars von Trier
Prologue
More oftent than not, he is criticized by both regular movie goers and critics alike as a pretentious snob who exploits violent imagery and aesthetics to say a certain message that could nonetheless be said in a simpler and gentler way...
And they are RIGHT.
Lars von Trier is Ridiculous, he is a snob, he is arrogant, selfish, prententious, a hypocrite, violent and all in all a disaster...and that is the very reason I both admire and enjoy his works. He has both defined and destroyed the sacredness of cinema by pushing elements which were considered taboo in society right in front of the silver screen. Whether or not he does this for his own selfish desire for fame or popularity, orw hether he is a majestic guru riding on a white horse sent to enlighten the world on the beauty of Cinema (Ha! i doubt it), it doesn't matter, why? Well...because....
He is Lars Von Trier.
Lars von Trier: The snake in the Garden of Eden
To push the limits of humanity’s constructed ideals and ideologies, becoming almost unrecognizable, utterly disgusting or horrifyingly disturbing. As a person, I have always been fascinated with disturbing films. Early in my teen years I have fallen in Love with the “Saw” series with all its blood and gore, however as time progressed and my taste developed, I came to realize that what attracted me to the “Saw” series was not just the blood, the gore nor the “twists” in the story, but rather the disturbing reality of a villain portrayed as the misunderstood genius in the world. That although his methods may not be “acceptable” or “moral” as the world deems it to be, I came to appreciate and love the character of Jigsaw as a Messianic Genius who is a visionary in terms of human survival and psychological evolution. Before I came to know of Lars Von Trier films, or any (non-mainstream) films for that matter, I have been a fan of Hollywood cinema like any other teenager during my time, but being a fan of the saw series was the first step in the journey that got me into appreciating the horrifying beauty of dark reality that is portrayed in many of Lars Von Trier’s films
Before I became a film student, I was an idealistic person who is full of optimism with rainbows of hope shooting out of everyone’s asses. Where in every story, there is a moral that could inspire human beings to become better, and that film is a medium that could show beauty that could make people smile. When I was 4th year during my High School years, I was asked by my dad what I course I wanted to pursue, and I was dumbfounded because there was really nothing specific in my mind that I wanted to pursue as a career. I was not attracted to prestigious careers where you could earn a lot of money, though sure it would be nice, it was not what made me satisfied. But I do know one thing, I wanted to create something “beautiful”, something that I could share to the world, that people would be able to see and appreciate my work, little did I know that it was film making.
As a film maker, as you could see in my stories above, I was a bit too idealistic. I envisioned great films as “blockbuster hits” or films that would allow the audience to leave the cinema “smiling and happy.” My perception on what “beautiful” is was distorted, although deep inside...within myself and when I am with my closest peers I often reveal to them what attracts me the most in movies and that is the villain. Ever since, deep inside I always cheer for the villain of the story, I have this guilty pleasure of watching people being tortured in the silver screen; I am amused and excited whenever I see a murder being planned meticulously and effectively. I idolized Jigsaw as a genius who was sadly reduced into a lunatic by the end of the series due to the writers’ stupidity. I saw the great potential of criminal master minds or “psychopaths” as visionaries for their craft of murder. These were the “forbidden” realizations in my conservative family and upbringing. These were the taboos in our society that has been portrayed by the state, religious and even many academic institutions as “evil and ugly.”
That was when I discovered Lars Von Trier’s first film through Ma’am Sari Dalena’s Class. She showed us a clip of “Anti-Christ”, although I was already watching disturbing films before Ma’am Sari’s class, I was shocked...I was shocked on how the opening sequence of the Anti-Christ appealed to me as a poem. A saw the prologue of his film as an artistic poetry unveiling itself arrogantly as a musical portraying the passion of sexual intercourse, the ugliness and dirtiness of it...the violent death of the child in painstakingly slow motion juxtaposed with the couples achievement of an orgasm. It was horrifying...
It was beautiful...
From then on, I started watching Lars Von Triers’ recent films and I saw how indeed he is intent on portraying on film taboos and “forbidden realizations” that are a reflection of the dark realities of the world. The orchestration of his films, wherein he usually introduces a lead character who is often filled with idealism and hope. A character that seems intent on transforming the world around him/her therefore making it a better place (ex. Europa, The Idiots and Manderly). It starts with their idealism, and ends with that ideology being crushed and spitted upon. The type of idealism that seems hopeful and bent on affecting the people around them to make a statement that in the end falls short, flat on their face. The idealistic character i the end is frustrated with the reality that he/she encounters.
Von Trier’s personality and style in film making is an example of this arrogant display of idealism that falls flat on his face. He is one of the founders of the film movement of Dogme 95. This movement has, at first, an idealistic vision that would enable the films within it to break many “traditional” techniques often associated with film making. The rules, listed as the “Vow of Chastity” such as:
1) Shooting must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found).
Or
6) The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.) (Hahahaha! LOL!)
And
10) The director must not be credited.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogme_95
These sets of tenets that are to be obeyed by Dogme 95 proponents, at the end were not followed by Lars Von Trier. Of all his Dogme 95 films, only the “The Idiots” could be “almost” accepted as a strict Dogme 95 film. Thus his idealistic vision of a Dogme 95 movement was far too arrogant and became pretentious in the end, to the point of absurdity as having a “checklist” to view whether a film is to be considered as a Dogme 95 film or not.
One particular characteristic that Von Trier breaks with the Dogme 95 rules is the prohibition of violence or “superficial actions.” As we can see with many of his acclaimed Dogme 95 films, this certain rule is usually broken with his films, leading me to reflect and ask the question, if violence in post-modernist films is inevitable. That if we truly want to shock and provoke the modern man, we cannot help but portray one form of violence or another, as it is only through these violent acts that man would be able to question himself and be forced to reflect on the implications of these disturbing films. Is it only through violence that man would understand and appreciate the beautythat lies underneath it?
Lars Von Trier is a film maker that provokes. I see his films as films that want to provoke the audience that wants to force the audience to feel certain emotions and let those emotions linger within them. He is the type of film maker that wants to affect the audience emotionally, and allows his films, through the sequences, shots, situations and actions, to taunt the audience into physically manifesting their emotions while watching the film. Whether it may be to shout out in disdain for the film, to throw objects against the screen, to be disgusted or to be sexually aroused. I see his films as an attempt, to challenge the audience to think about the “unthinkable” things and the feel the “forbidden” feelings.
All in all, I see myself with Lars Von Trier, I do not see myself as a genius nor do I see him as a visionary. I merely see him as a film maker that wants to create something that is beautiful, beautiful in the subjective sense. Beauty that provokes, that shocks, that disgusts and vomits in your face. I see his films and statements as an attempt to comment on the realities of the world, and the portrayal of taboos in our present society. I see him and myself as socio-paths, as the snakes in the Garden of Eden that tempts man to think of the unthinkable, feel the “forbidden feelings and act upon those feelings, for the greater beauty in society.
-DGQ
Pamilya Ordinaryo is a film that tried to be edgy and rough at its presentation of the everyday realities that many Filipinos endure and encounter. Though I have to give props to the acting of the Leads and the Production Design of the film, for me it falls flat and fails to achieve that "edginess" it wanted. It felt melodramatic and at some point artificial due to loose script writing, confusing cinematography and sometimes bad directorial decisions. It's not a bad film, but it's not an excellent one either.
