Nymphomaniac: Vol. I

I was amazed to see that there was not a clear 10 rating for this movie . This will be the first . From my point of view, after watching many movies directed by Lars Von Trier, this might be the best one . It is several levels above other movies which will take dozens of prizes and acclamation . The first layer which attracts people is sex , but this is only the fly (see first chapter in the movie) which will try to catch u to see the rest. Sex is only a means to open the box full with human feelings like solitude, emptiness, self hatred, egoism all seasoned with a lot of irony and links to music , poets and manners like eating pastry with a fork . I like to believe all this details are close to Lars Von Trier and like Tarkovky's library they represent a part of his life and feelings

In the end, I consider a piece of work (book , music , movie) a masterpiece when the author puts his feeling inside , when he "writes it with blood". I think here LVT gives us his soul and that makes the difference between a good movie and a 1 in a thousand movies .

Denmark's notorious infant terrible, who used despair and unflinching self-mutilation as his canvas in his last few films, had already sparked a great deal of controversy and intrigue when the title of his next venture was announced. Nymphomaniac would deal with the bare-it-all, spare-no-details chronicle of a woman's sexual awakening, adventuring, and ultimate degradation. Lars von Trier, who some have accused of misogyny and making movies purely to shock, caught a good bit of flak for daring to make a movie that can be considered a woman's sexual autobiography, and most expected it to be a truly explicit film that could be considered little more than pornography.

Most people underestimate Lars von Trier. While he does have his peculiarities, he is first and foremost an artist. And Nymphomaniac, his third outing with his muse Charlotte Gainsbourg, is perhaps his most expansive work to date. Split into two films and covering several decades, von Trier has concocted a Homeric tale of sound and fury and all sorts of sexual depravity. But this film is not designed to arouse, to titillate. Far from it; the sex is clinical, detached, almost boring at times.

As I said, this is a woman's odyssey. This woman is Joe (Gainsbourg), who is discovered beaten within an inch of her life in a back alley by a lonely bachelor named Seligman (Stellan Skarsgard). Joe demands Seligman not call for assistance, instead accompanying the man back to his apartment for a cup of tea. And after she gets patched up, Joe finds Seligman a willing listener, a father confessor of sorts, and begins to spin a tale of promiscuity that would drive most men wild but intrigues Seligman in a much more philosophical manner. Joe's story starts from her discovery of her own sexuality at the age of two, and by the time she came to barely legal age (here played by Stacy Martin) and how she begins exploring her hypersensual nature. She abandons her virginity by bedding a motorhead (a curiously accented Shia LaBeouf), then even playing games of one-upmanship with her best friend and fellow sex addict (one scene features the girls competing to see who can bang the most guys on a train to win a bag of chocolates). As Gainsbourg's present-day Joe explains herself, Seligman picks out details and compares her sexual deviancy to the most obscure things, from fishing lures to baroque tritones. Von Trier is a very distinct writer, always seeming to verge on the arcane in his observations on the human condition, and here he gives an interesting perversion on, well, perversion. Is Seligman a truly insightful man when it comes to the human condition, or is he just the most hopelessly awkward fool imaginable?

While Gainsbourg brings a great deal of gravitas to the role, it is her most subdued of the three films she's done with von Trier. And yet it is her most accessible, and she narrates the events of the film with such matter-of-fact certainty, her throaty voice describing the life she's led with all of the care and calm of a woman describing the weather. But in the first half of the saga's four-hour run time, it is Stacy Martin who does the heavy lifting, and she does it with remarkable skill, carefully balancing between naiveté and calculation. As Joe matures and sinks further into her addiction (a term she despises), more and more familiar faces start showing up. Her parents are briefly played by Christian Slater and Connie Nielsen, the former having an excellent "money scene" while the latter has maybe thirty seconds of screen time. Shia LaBeouf, who zigzags between admirable and awkward (sometimes in the course of the same scene), returns as Joe's first employer and ultimately her husband. And mention must be made of Uma Thurman's haughtily fiery scene-stealer of a performance that blazes on-screen as a jilted wife whose husband has abandoned her for what he expected to be a life with Joe. She follows her husband to Joe's apartment with their three tykes in tow, and in the span of seven minutes she frays and has a complete emotional meltdown.

As the first half of the film segues in to the second, Gainsbourg takes the fore, as Joe stops seeking sexual release for joy and instead out of a desperate need to feel something. As the film goes on, she explores different fetishes and outlets, including but not limited to interracial threesomes, bondage, humiliation of all sorts. In one notable case, Gainsbourg's character submits herself to the whims of a young man who specializes in intense BDSM. The fact that this rather devious fellow is played by Jamie Bell is a bit of a shock to anyone who's seen Billy Elliot recently. But if anyone was stimulated by the first act of Joe's saga, the second act dashes it away with cold realism.

As with all of von Trier's films, the ending is unforgettable. I confess that when I sensed the film drawing to a close, I was pleasantly surprised at how von Trier handled it, and that perhaps the Danish prince of melancholia had decided to serve up a happy ending for once. Of course, I forgot this is Lars von Trier we're talking about, and the final minute of the film may send audience members in a tizzy. It's part of the reason why I've taken so long to write my thoughts on it. But as I write this, I do think Nymphomaniac is a terrific entry in his canon, and a worthy closer to his trilogy.

As you would expect from the controversial Lars von Trier and a film called Nymphomaniac, you know in advance that we are not getting a shy, conservative affair and von Trier does not disappoint. The infamous director manages to craft a two-part film which fans of art-house cinema will be salivating from the mouth over. In a ubiquitous British town, Seligman (Stellan Skarsgård) finds Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg) unconscious in an alley way. Seligman takes Joe back to his home where Joe tells him she is a bad person and tells him her story from her childhood, to young adulthood (Stacy Martin), to present day, reflecting on her sexual experiences and major relationships, while the intelligential Seligman and Older Joe philosophising and interpreting her actions. Von Trier does not hold back from showing various sexual activity and Joe's descent into sexual violence, as she looks for more extreme ways to get a thrill as her behaviour and needs take a physical, mental and social toll on Joe. Nymphomaniac is unflinching with its sex scenes, Joe getting hit hard during her sadomasochist sessions and showing of male and female genitalia of all shapes and sizes, including wince inducting moments when showing the harm on Joe's private parts go through. Throughout the film we see Joe's sexual journey, from her fascination as a child to her pleasure herself and seek fulfilment. There are many different aspects of Joe's sexuality during Nymphomaniac, using sex as an escape when her father (Christian Salter) and the indifferent on face when she competes with her friend to seduce as many men as possible during a train journey. Von Trier explores many of the destructive aspects of being a sex addict, destroying friendships, being unable to form any relationships with partners and family, struggle to have emotional attachments and the impact that Joe's actions has on others. Joe is a character who rejects the idea of love and romance and leads to the question, does Joe reject it because of her upbringing, her addiction makes her unable to love or because is it because of her inability to loves makes her a sex addict? The discussions between Older Joe and Seligman are a framing device and allow von Trier to explore the philosophical parts of the story. But this is when von Trier spells out his views and meanings of the film. Both Older Joe and Seligman are used discuss to complex mathematical theorems, religious iconography, the meaning of words and morality. But to be fair, some of the elements do require specific knowledge so some explanation was needed. Nymphomaniac's cast features von Trier regulars, established talent like Jamie Bell and Uma Thurman and new actors with Stacy Martin, Sophie Kennedy Clark and Mia Goth. The performances range from good to excellent and the new young actresses do show real talent, as they give fantastic performances. The let down in the cast is Shia LaBeouf. It is easy to mock LaBeouf because of his recent off screen antics, but his performance was hampered when you can play guess the accent. My own personal guesses were Scottish, Irish, New Zealander and South African and other people's guesses ranged from Cockney, Australian and Scandinavian. Von Trier and his cinematographer Manuel Alberto Claro were able to combine both a grim, kitchen sink realistic aesthetic, while also making sure von Trier adds artistic flourishes, as he uses graphics, text and cross cutting to various images. Despite some of the heavy themes and imagery, von Trier made sure moments dark humour and wit to help lighten the mood and prevent Nymphomaniac from being too depressing as an experience. Nymphomaniac is an interesting, thoughtful film that is more than about controversy and titillation. Filled with a mostly excellent cast, Nymphomaniac should please fans of von Trier and art-house cinema.

This is the best movie I've seen from Lars Von Trier. Brilliantly constructed, well directed, with lot of imagination and using many techniques (although I'm not a specialist). I include in my review the volume II as well. After watching the first one, yesterday, didn't have patience for see the second part. The idea of a Sheherezada tail, nowadays, makes the background. I loved the way the chapters telling Joe's life are separated by the intermezzos: her dialogs with Seligman, his erudition, her intelligence shadowed only by the all pervasive guilt feeling... I found the explicit key of the movie in the second part... in one of their dialogs. I try to remember it, it might not be 100% accurate: "Do you know what is characterizing our age? - Hypocrisy! People who tell beautiful lies are acclaimed and accepted, they form the majority; the few ones who tell the truth, often uncomfortable, are rejected!" Von Trier plays with two opposite characters: a nymphomaniac (probably more a being desperate to understand life meaning and get out of the beaten track than anything else), who never finds happiness in her search, so she goes further and further, and a 60 years old virgin who lives alone and finds his happiness in books. He plays as well with religion, with the concepts of purity and sin, with plenty of symbols amassed cleverly together. He shows us, in fact, our obsession with sex, with human bodies, with chair, making fun of the ones who will refuse his movie, scandalized. In our world which sells mainly with the help of sex, rejecting this movie is a huge hypocrisy. The only disappointment for me was the end of the second part... I don't see why he chose it, but probably will find later on the answer.

this film has only one flaw - its not long enough... its funny and brilliant, its dark and thrilling and its poetic at the same time. Whoever have watched any film by Trier won't be disappointed. Of course don't read previous reviews - this film is not about sex. Its about loneliness between sensations, about being alone among people who suffer from lack of attachment. Its about life that struggles with death by facing death , to the ultimate boundary of pleasure. Just watch it, listen to BACH music and observe the feast for eye and ear and a challenge for heart... Maybe my words seem exaggerated but i have finished watching this film just an hour ago and my impressions are strong. But i believe it will endure and i will take my feelings from this movie with me and carry them through my daydreams...