Thursday, December 1, 2011

"Melancholia"

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

At the 2009 Cannes Film Festival, Lars von Trier claimed that he is the best film director in the world. As is the case with many of his comments, and indeed, with many of his films, it is not always clear when von Trier wants us to take him seriously. However, “Melancholia” is worth taking seriously. It is dark, depressing, and pessimistic, but really good.

Most of the first half of “Melancholia” is set amid a beautiful wedding reception at a high-end country club. This is where people are meant to be happy—especially Justine (Kirsten Dunst), who is a beautiful young bride with a loving husband, lots of money, and her whole life ahead of her. But on this, the ‘happiest’ day of her life, Justine is not glowing.

In fact, she can barely eke out a smile. Justine’s gloom is not caused by a subpar reception (it’s actually magnificent) or misbehaving guests (though some do misbehave). Nor is it that her husband (Alexander Skarsgard) is a disappointment. Justine’s melancholy is objectless, aimless—without cause or merit. She is simply depressed.

This makes Justine’s sister, Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg), anxious. Along with her husband (Kiefer Sutherland), Claire is responsible for making sure that Justine’s wedding reception goes well. However, as Justine frowns, withdraws, and even disappears for long stretches of time, Claire gets wrapped up in her sister’s depression, and this triggers her own deep-seated fears, anxieties, and panic.

Although Justine and Claire’s mental sludge is not directed at any particular object, they certainly do have reason to be afraid. For, while all of the decadence and apparent celebration is going on, a planet called ‘Melancholia’ is hurtling toward earth. This planet had been hiding behind the sun, but now it is rearing its ugly head, and threatening to destroy all earthly life. As Justine, Claire, and their family members come to terms with the possibility of annihilation, they think about the significance of their lives and reflect on the state of nature.

“Melancholia” is about depression, anxiety, human nature, and the relationship between humans and nature. Like most of von Trier’s work, it is deeply and thoroughly pessimistic. Some movies are about the cruelty of nature. Other movies are about the frailty of the human psyche. Still others are about the viciousness of human nature. Von Trier is perhaps unique in that he ties all of these dark elements together; he produces a worldview whereby there is no hope, no goodness, no redemption. It seems that, for von Trier, this is not a gruesome manipulation of the facts, nor is it a horrible fantasy; rather, it’s just the way things are.

Von Trier, who has been open about the fact that he himself suffers from (sometimes crippling) depression, does a remarkable job filling the theater with his moods. The weight of Justine’s depression is palpable—almost suffocating. And von Trier makes sure to cast this shadow over the audience in a variety of ways. Sometimes his work is subtle, and sometimes it’s shocking, but it is nearly always tangible and interesting.

Some have rightly criticized von Trier and his movies. He likes to stir the pot, both in public and on-screen, and sometimes this comes across as overly abstruse, obscene, and even a bit foolish. At his worst, von Trier is a jester—a producer of nonsense. But at his best, he is a genius.

Maybe Lars von Trier is right—maybe he is the best film director in the world. I think otherwise. But I also think that von Trier’s brilliance is very rare. His use of cinematography and other effects is masterful; there are few other living filmmakers who even come close on this score. And, although von Trier continues to be interested in only certain themes, he handles them with nearly unparalleled deftness. “Melancholia” may not be enjoyable at every turn, but it’s a really good movie and an impressive artistic achievement.