Lars Von Trier's Nymphomaniac - soon to be DL Classic?

lol @ the font for the title. Subtle as ever.

Not a very original premise.

I recall a British film on IFC, or Sundance, about strangers who drive to a specific area and hook up with various strangers in the parked cars. Wish I could remember the name of the film.

Unfortunately most of the cast were unattractive.

I love von Trier.

That's not the entire film's premise. It's divided into chapters, like Dogville and Manderlay, dealing with the sexual life of one woman, spanning from adolescence through adulthood.

I hated Melancholia, but am really curious to see this.

Polyanna Pisspot, go away

I loved Dancer in the dark

R2 - that's "Public Sex"

It reminds me of a modest little Australian film I saw years ago called "Warm Nights on a Slow Moving Train" about a hooker who picks up johns and services them in her bedroom compartment. Of course that's nothing compared the the sort of outrageous vomiting in the aisles skankfest Lars specializes in.

No fair! Why does Lars Von Trier get his own nymphomaniac? Why can't I have one, too?

Look who's back to shit all over every thread on the board.

New clip. I'm going to see this next week. I bet it's a chopped up version since it's only two hours long.

[quote]I recall a British film on IFC, or Sundance, about strangers who drive to a specific area and hook up with various strangers in the parked cars. Wish I could remember the name of the film.

"Cottage 'n' Frottage: The George Michael Story"

I just read something that said Shia LeDouche's body was digitally combined with another actor's body. Does that mean when we see Shia's cock, it won't actually be his cock?

Do the male characters in his films get naked?

I just watched Nymphomaniac (both volumes) on demand, and I thought it was fucking brilliant. I know that Lars von Trier is a love/hate figure, but this is the kind of sublime craziness that only he could come up with. The marketing focused so much on the explicit and provocative nature of the film that I was frankly expecting it to be a slog. But it's surprisingly very funny (at least the first half), and I thought the 4 hours went by quickly. I wish I could see the 5.5 hour cut.

I'm bumping this older thread because I think the OP's title is rather prescient. I believe that DLers would have a lot to say about this movie lol. I imagine most people who watch this would think there's something pathological and deeply disturbed about the main character, but she actually reminded me of a few gay men I know -- not just the promiscuity, but her attitude and mindset. I'm not sure if Von Trier intended it, but I think it's a film that speaks to the gay experience in certain ways. Did anyone else have that impression?

Where did you see it on demand?

R13, that was the case for everyone, and only for penetration and graphic sexuality scenes, because it's against union rules for actors to have real sex.

Shia has no problem showing his dick and has done it before.

I've read a lot of reviews and it seems, whether it ends up being good or bad, that it's worth seeing for the spectacle.

R16, here are all the options for watching the film. (I heard there are uploads on YouTube, but I assume they are poor quality and might have been taken down.)

The scene with Uma Thurman was hilariously brilliant.

Uma was tremendous in this. Just a few minutes of screen time and she makes a huge impression. Nicole Kidman was originally supposed to play that part, but I don't think she could have done any better.

As a gay man, I have to say I felt some envy toward the young Joe in the film. I know her behavior is self-destructive, but damn, she got to fuck some hot guys!

We'd like to hear about the penis scenes. Is it worth $10?

The film is explicit, but not very titillating. Also, all the real sex acts were performed by porn actors. The "legit" actors just made the motions, and their faces and bodies were combined with the porn double's genitals using visual effects. (It's sort of like the GRAVITY of adult films!)

There's a scene in Vol. II when Charlotte Gainsbourg attempts a threesome with two African men who don't speak English, and you can see their giant hard-ons.

You also see Stellen Skarsgaard's cock, though I can't imagine why anyone would want to.

It's beautifully shot. And, it is somewhat intriguing in parts. Overall sort of boring though. It doesn't feel that "erotic".

I thought it was kind of a mixed bag - I agree with the other posters about Uma, her chapter alone was worth the price of admission. She was fucking phenomenal. (And whoever found those three terrified boys who played her sons deserves a major bonus.)

Jamie Bell is also memorable because he's the only actor who underplays his role. He is creepy, weird, and brilliant. Hard to believe that was Billy Elliot...

But there were segments that were total misfires as well. An extended death sequence in Part I was poorly acted and made no sense thematically. The final chapter in Part II was from left field - I don't want to spoil it so I'll be vague. And then, of course, the wrap-around story with Skarsgard ended in the obvious Von Trier way; anyone who has seen one of his movies likely knew what was coming.

Not as good as Melancholia.

If you are going to watch it wait till both parts are in the theater, so you can watch them together. It really is one film split in two parts.

And, this one should be seen on the big screen.

Agree with R25 about the mixed bag aspect. There's SO much there. At times it's sort of awe inspiring, and at times it'a totally dull. As I stated earlier, it doesn't feel that erotic or pornographic, though that's just my opinion, as I really never got sexually turned on (even with the African brothers and their big hard-ons -- a funny scene actually).

Uma was great in her short screen time, convincingly channeling despair and rage. The young girl who plays young Joe was very good. The last half of part 2 goes into weird territory and I really didn't like it.

A few scenes were hard to stomach. It's a lot to digest. Love it or hate it or anywhere in between, I'd say it's worth seeing.

[quote]Not as good as Melancholia.

Well I guess I don't need to see it then. I love Melancholia.

[quote]it's against union rules for actors to have real sex

Whaaaaat?

Are you serious?

He praised Adolf Hitler at Cannes and was subsequently banned from appearing again.

von Trier is known to be one of the most abusive, perverse, misogynistic directors alive. Bjork said that she would never do another movie because of him. The shit that went on during the filming of "Antichrist" is disturbing.

Enough of this gibber jabber. Which actors show cock?

Watch it and find out.

I wouldn't go see any movie with that shit, Shia La Douche, in it, not even for free, if it was being screened in my living room.

He just needs to OD already & put us out of his misery.

What the fuck was with the ending? Not the very end with Seligman, but the whole relationship with the young girl.

You can find hotter sex on xtube. Face it--Lars Von Trier is a cross between Wes Anderson and Ed Wood.

Isn't it meant to be art as opposed to 'hot sex', R35?

I just watched Volume 1 and I really liked it. Uma Thurman deserves an Oscar nomination for her performance--she was fantastic. I should be getting Volume 2 on Saturday. Jamie Bell!

The union rule against actors having penetrative sex may be true in the US but not in France, where Catherine Breillat has directed Romance, featuring discrete but real penetration. The actor was the porn performer Rocco Siffredi but the actress - Caroline Ducey - was a trained dramatic actress.

Actors in Denmark would not be thrown out of the union for engaging in un-simulated sex on screen either, the very idea would be seen as ridiculous.

And what about Vincent Gallo's The Brown Bunny? Aren't he and Sevigny in a union?

R14- there was a penis in Breaking the Waves

There's a great collage in Volume 1 of lots and lots of penises, one after the other, representing men that our heroine has fucked.

Is there any lesbianism in Volume 1?

Why should we be particularly interested in women fucking men?

This film was the least sexy sexually explicit film I've ever seen but it's not surprising coming from that evil creep Von Trier.

Lars seems to be a closet gay who is revealing his repulsion towards icky heteros in his films.

All of the women seem retarded, or insane, or psycho, and the men are idiot douchebags who are blinded by vaginas.

Lars may be aspie in that he has no filter when he talks, and also because he 'sexy' movies seem so asexual.

R38 Bruno Dumont showed closeup of penetrative sex (raw too) in Life of Jesus. Not sure if they were union as I think they were non-actors in the film.

Not a very original premise indeed. I remember an episode of Sex And The City where Samantha escorts Carrie to San Francisco on a 3-day rail-trip and hopes to get as much cock as possible in the process. Much to her chagrin, the men in the lounge car happen to watch a game and cannot be bothered to notice her, let alone fuck her, and she ends up on a journey-long drinking binge with pal gal Carrie.

He shows a lot of sex in some of his films but it's usually ugly.

What's weird is we're supposed to believe a beautiful teen/20's girl becomes a homely lantern jawed harridan.

[quote]As a gay man, I have to say I felt some envy toward the young Joe in the film. I know her behavior is self-destructive, but damn, she got to fuck some hot guys!

I shouldn't admit this, but I thought similarly, though like most said, it's not actually a sexy film. But I thought the train scene was the kind of thing in a consequence-free world that would be fun to do. Except then I remembered that unlike in the film, real trains are grubby, the toilet would be repulsive and the carriages wouldn't be full of fuckable men.

Actually, I find it a lot less interesting as something to fantasise about now that my depression has lifted. I was very depressed when I watched it and thought it was much hotter at the time. I guess that makes sense, this film is part of his Depression Trilogy, and her nymphomania is compulsive rather than life affirming in any way.