“If I asked you to take my virginity, would that be a problem?”
This also happened to be my first thought as I sat down to watch my first Lars Von Trier film, and it wasn’t long before I got my answer; “No, I don’t see a problem”, and it was right. It didn’t. However these weren’t just fleeting thoughts that passed through my mind as I contemplated whether mentally scarring myself for the sake of a film was one of my better ideas, these were also the words that marked the first interaction between Joe (Stacy Martin) and Jerome (Shia LaBeouf), whose relationship forms the backbone to the plotline of the film, with LaBeouf popping in and out – no pun intended – every time the film felt as if it was starting to lose speed. The whole film is told in flashbacks by an older Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg) who is recounting the story of her life to Seligman (Stellan Skarsgard) and trying her hardest to present herself as a ‘bad person’ – which she does so quite successfully – much to Seligman’s protests. Although we’re never quite sure whether Seligman is just your standard; find-a-beaten-girl-in-an-alley-and-decide-to-help-her Samaritan, or something a bit more sinister. It doesn’t help when he starts to daydream about Joe’s possible ‘extra-curricular activities’ (I’m pretty sure that’s not how you’re really meant to use a ruler). But the conversations between Joe and Seligman happen to be the more interesting sections of the film. Yeah, I just said that. Every time we cut back to that dark and dingy room we get excited for another piece of titillating information that will further unravel the mystery that is Seligman – although this mystery doesn’t last long into the second film, where we find out the most interesting thing about Seligman and his entire life is laid out painfully bare.
Talking of painful, we come to Shia LaBeouf, the primary love interest. In his part as Jerome, I considered him to give the best performance of his career – although if you consider he’s most well known for his part in Michael Bay films, that wasn’t ever going to be particularly hard – even if his character had to act like a pre-pubescent girl who hadn’t gotten her own way, half the time. Towards the end of the first volume, however, he really shows the range of his acting talents, suddenly becoming a mature and grown-up version of the character, giving us the happiest 10 minutes of the film. But there is one thing about his performance that’s far worse than any Michael Bay film – Side note: I’m not really a huge Bay fan – his accent. He’s almost like a confused impressionist, jumping from Australian, to South African, to full-blown Dick Van Dyke Cockney. Every time he speaks you want to reach into the screen and beat the Australian out of him in an attempt to make him sound like a normal human being – that isn’t a dig at the Australians, I love the Australians, who doesn’t? Why they didn’t just have him play an American character, I don’t know. But it’s the biggest let- down of the film. But what I do know is that the film had a wealth of other acting talent in the rest of the cast. Ranging from Von Trier regulars such as Gainsbourg; Skarsgard; and Dafoe – it would have been good to have seen more of Dafoe though – to Von Trier newcomers like Christian Slater, Stacy Martin and Jamie Bell – considering Bell started off playing Billy Elliot, this role isn’t, I’m sure, what people expected of him. However I think this sort of role suits him perfectly, and he plays it with an air of professionalism not seen in many actors his age. Which is no mean feat when you’re portraying a polite, mild-mannered sadist. However, the biggest surprise was from first time actress Stacy Martin with her portrayal of the younger Joe (mostly in Volume I). Martin threw herself into the role with apparent vigour and determination. And it works. She really goes above and beyond to fulfil the role – even giving oral sex to a man on a train, yeah…that happened. It must have been daunting for the newcomer, working with the likes of Uma Thurman and Stellan Skarsgard on her first feature film, and she gives a performance that will mark her down as someone to watch– although let’s hope she isn’t typecast into this role, that could become tedious – and I have no doubt that we’ll be seeing a lot more of her in time to come.
The film itself is somehow charming with its dark, dry wit causing it to be both slightly funny and completely terrifying, in a very subtle and implied way. The reason you laugh is out of sheer awkwardness, and not being sure what else to do other than break-down and cry in the nearest corner. The terrifying moments stem from what you’re sure is about to happen. The whole film has Von Trier toying with your every thought and emotion; he rips a hole into you, and then tenderly kisses and nurtures it until you feel safe again, to then tear you apart even more brutally than the first time. But for some inexplicable reason this keeps drawing us back in and leaving us hungry for the next part of the story. Immediately after finishing Volume I you want to throw yourself into Volume II and gorge yourself on the story again.
Whenever you tell someone about Nymphomaniac they give one of two reactions; the first is complete and utter disgust that such a film exists. The second is intrigue as to the content of the films, and how much of a ‘shock factor’ they can gain from watching it. Both of these obviously stem from the film being entirely about sex, and in my opinion both of these reactions are wrong. The film is beautiful in it’s own way, from its depiction of sex to the long and meaningful conversations that happen between Joe and Seligman. And yes, the film IS all about sex, but not about the pleasures of sex, it is instead about how sex has the power to ruin lives. About how sex can cause a person to see themselves as a ‘bad human being’. So when watching the film you are placed in two very interesting positions simultaneously; is Joe a bad person? Or do we go with Seligman’s thinking?
“If you have wings, then why not fly?”
In Focus Reviews 