By Chlotrudis Independent Film Society
Rating: 4.4
Director: Lars Von Trier
Starring: Alexander Skarsgård | Brady Corbet | Cameron Spurr | Charlotte Gainsbourg | Kirsten Dunst | Udo Kier
Country: denmark, france, germany, sweden
Year: 2011
Running time: 136
IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1527186/
Jason says: “As hooks go, it’s tough to beat the one Lars von Trier uses to start MELANCHOLIA: The world ends in such slow motion that time almost seems to be standing still. It’s a fantastic scene of planetary destruction, and also gives the audience a close enough look at the family who will be the film’s focus for the next two hours to assure them that even though this may be it for visual effects until the end, there’s still plenty of opportunity for catastrophe on a smaller scale.
“The next image is actually almost as memorable: A stretch limousine that is too long to navigate a bend in the road. That limo carries newlyweds Justine (Kirsten Dunst) and Michael (Alexander Skarsgård) to their wedding reception, where Justine’s sister Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and her husband John (Kiefer Sutherland) await at the mansion (large enough for the back yard to be an eighteen-hole golf course). The reception is the type that would be a test of endurance even without the baggage being brought by the guests: Justine’s father (John Hurt) and mother (Charlotte Rampling) use a captive audience to belittle each other and the institution of marriage; her boss (Stellan Skarsgård) announces that she’s been promoted and then has his nephew (Brady Corbet) hound her for one last thing before the honeymoon; and Claire feels the need to remind Justine not to make a scene. And then, in the aftermath, Justine notices that Antares seems to have disappeared from the sky. It’s being transited by a previously unknown planet, which will be named ‘Melancholia’ and pass by Earth a few months later.
“Rather a pessimistic name for a new world, but one which gives us more than a hint to Justine’s true disposition early on. The exact pathology of her mental illness is not spelled out, but though her issues can remain hidden, they are large and have a tremendous gravitational pull of their own. This is apparently something that von Trier has personal experience with, and his script does an excellent job of using the wedding to smother his heroine: Everything is too big, there are arbitrary demands being made of her constantly, and even the family members who know her condition don’t really understand. Even in the middle of what should be a joyous occasion and with the best efforts of her new husband, true happiness seems hard or impossible, and later, welll, it’s really going to just be too much.
“While von Trier pours all of that into the script, Kirsten Dunst is the one tasked with getting most of it out, and she’s just fantastic. Sure, in the second half, she’s given a change in costume and cosmetics that reinforces just how worn-down and haggard she feels, but it’s almost like she’s fighting the almost-comically sexy wedding dress in the first half: Without being too broad or winking a contrast, there’s a palpable conflict between Justine and the person she’s expected to be – although it’s pretty easy to tell when she’s genuinely enjoying a moment and when she’s trying to put on a happy face. There’s exhaustion and resignation when she speaks, but never in excess.
“With Justine relatively passive at points, the rest of the cast does get a chance to shine. Charlotte Gainsbourg has a less showy role, but she anchors a great deal of the movie as the sister who, while perhaps not as luminous as her sister, is practical and loving. Gainsbourg plays her as able to defend Justine as sick but barely holding back her frustration in adjacent moments. Kiefer Sutherland makes an interesting contrast to her, in that John’s most notable characteristic is a short temper, but he does very well
with making the moments where we see John’s better nature count.
“Indeed, for all that the supporting cast is filled with minor monsters while even the main characters have prominent ugly streaks not very far below the surface, Trier seems less interested in tormenting the audience than usual. Sure, the opening is so gaudily slow that it’s only the music that keeps the audience from wondering if there’s something wrong with the projector, and there’s a moment toward the end which seems to exist only to make Claire and Justine seem shallower and meaner than the rest of the film implies, but they’re isolated moments. For a long movie that consists of two scenarios where not a lot happens, it’s smooth enough sailing for even this notoriously impatient viewer, and Manuel Alberto Claro’s photography is often downright gorgeous. And while the script has some needlessly dumb science, its ambiguities are well-constructed enough that to work however the audience is inclined to interpret them.
“Of course, Lars van Trier is still Lars van Trier, and even though this is, for him, a fairly accessible film, there’s still a number of potentially off-putting ingredients. He’s still the sort of guy who fills a movie with miserable people for the express purpose of making the end of the world not entirely a downer ending. But there is something hopeful and positive underneath all that, and it’s
worth finding. 4 1/2 cats
“Seen 6 November 2011 in Coolidge Corner Theatre #2 (Talk Cinema)”
Thom says: “After seeing this great film at TIFF I felt revived and outrageously convinced I’d seen my FILM-OF-THE-YEAR for 2011 & I’m certain nothing will dissuade me of that pronouncement. For von Trier it’s been a long time coming and richly deserved. This following list of his films were all included in my TOP 10 of their years: ANTICHRIST (2009), DANCER IN THE DARK (2000), DOGVILLE (2003), MANDERLAY (2005), BREAKING THE WAVES (1996), & MEDEA (1988). Many of the reviews of this film are going to give way too much away because I had no idea what I was in for when I entered the screening room. The film is divided up into two very distinct segments although the three main characters in the 2nd segment are all well-included in the 1st subdivision. The first part is the wedding reception of Justine & Michael (Dunst, fresh from a breast augmentation apparently as I’ve certainly never seen her so busty, & A. Skarsgård). They’ve arrived hours late to the reception as the rest of the wedding party lay wait in concern and frustration. It is apparent very quickly that something is not quite right with the bride. It’s not just the insults hurled back & forth between the bride’s divorced parents, or the strange pall that hangs over the crowd, or even Justine’s startling reaction to her boss’ proclamation that she’s getting an enormous position boost in their company. Jack, the boss, (S. Skarsgård) is also the father of the groom (just like in real life) and he’s assigned a factotum to observe Justine to assume duties at her old position. No, it’s more than that. Early on we know she has major bi-polar problems. How they had manifested themselves in the past is never clear to the viewer but with what follows it must be related to her precognition of the future. She leaves the reception for long periods of time to wander the vast grounds of the estate where the soirée is being held (bringing back moody meanderings of LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD), or to take a bath, or to have a long, disparaging talk with her mother (Rampling), a woman of unusual cynicism. While the poor groom wants a quick sexual intercourse she keeps rejecting him while finally getting it on with the perplexed factotum which in effect ends the pretense of the marriage as all the guests rush off in confusion. In the second half Justine’s sister Claire (Gainsbourg, a perfect actress) brings the disgraced Justine back to the huge plantation where the reception was held and where she lives with her husband John (Sutherland) who’s furious with Justine for ruining the ultra-expensive wedding party. But something much darker is starting to take place which will put the melodramatic concerns of the failed marriage far into the shade. A newly discovered planet named Melancholia is moving towards Earth and while scientists claim that it will bypass our surface concerns remain that original calculations might be wrong. Dunst, who won the Best Actress award at Cannes this year, does her most outstanding work here and certainly justifies von Trier’s choice of leads. All previous von Trier films are brought into play for this amazingly mature and terrifying masterpiece. I, for one, will be waiting with bated breath to see what this virtuoso filmmaker comes up with next. This one deserves a surfeit of awards. 5 cats”
Diane says: “Don’t wait for the small screen, folks! This has to be seen big. I was completely absorbed by it.
“Took a bye on Von Trier’s last one because I was sick of women as victims. But here, the women are all depressed and negative, the men are proud and happy–and it turns out the women have a better grasp of reality. (Thank goodness the little boy is able to sleep through most of it.)
“Very similar in themes to TAKE SHELTER–characters here just have bigger financial portfolios. But I understood the reasons for despair in the first; I have no idea what’s behind the despair in MELANCHOLIA. 4 cats”
Michael says: “Lars von Trier takes a science fiction setting and turns it into a metaphor on pessimism vs. optimism in a visually lush fable about the end of the world. In part one, Justine (Dunst) tries her best to rise to the occasion at her grand wedding, but is nearly incapacitated by a clinical depression. Her sister Claire (Gainsbourg) plans everything carefully, but Justine’s world still comes crashing down. In Part two, von Trier takes the world crashing down literally as a new planet appears in space that may be on a collision course with the earth. It all works well except for a a heavy-handed shortcut or two. The first 10 minutes or so, and the unforgettable final scene are true cinematic experiences to behold. Charlotte Gainsbourg is exceptional, and a hilarious supporting turn by Udo Kier is almost worth the 2+ hour running time. 4 cats”