Melancholia is a good film mainly because of some clever moves by the screenwriter and director, Lars Von Trier. These clever or necessary moves elevates the film to some form of art house examination of humanity as opposed to a run of the mill disaster movie which would involve swirling populations. The clever devices in the screenplay come from the isolated rural landscape where a majority of the action takes place as the planet melancholia is on a crash course with the earth. The film is a study of depression and how people of varying personalities cope with impending disaster. Each individual therefore represents what would be a particular group in the city should an event like this actually occur. This isolationist policy does benefit the vision of the director while simultaneously undermining it. The film does feature some good performances particularly by Kirsten Dunst as Justine however it does seem disjointed and predictable simply because the characters are not clearly drawn. What we see on screen are disconnected episodes; these disconnected episodes are unified by the strong presence of character and the planet. There does not seem to be a story at the heart of the film apart from the planet which is on a crash course with earth. We see a character like Justine with her mood swings but we never get a sense of her motivations etc. This makes it seem like a superficial study of depression but I have encountered women like her before and so it was quite accurate allowing for moments of excess. As there is not a solid story at the core of the film, apart from the approaching planet, the film does seem a bit slow and this too is a good and bad element in the film which means that there are certain elements that are never fully reconciled. I understood the intent of the film however as a study of depression and how this malaise affects our responses to certain events by allowing us to grasp the dark side of human interaction and impending disaster. This is why one of the film’s strengths is the contrast between the two sisters featured in this film, Justine and Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg). This device offers a suitable contrast between the angst ridden depressive, Justine and the more practical and stable Claire whose world slowly crumbles as the planet approaches earth.
These elements in the film are a blessing and a curse for despite its profundity the superficial elements rear their ugly head and make the film seem pretentious. The style is similar to Pan’s Labyrinth however there was a narrative element at the heart of Pan’s Labyrinth that allowed for a suitable cross section of reality and fantasy. This is not balanced suitably here in Melancholia simply because the scope is so limited to the approaching planet which is supposed to be the fantastical element. The film does find a common ground with the quirkiness of the characters that inhabit the world of Claire and Justine.
What’s good about this film?
The realistic elements of the film that contrast with the fantastical elements are fairly well executed by the production team in this film. When the film opens with a range of shots highlighting the fantasy world inhabited by Justine and how this aligns with the approaching planet of melancholia a clear understanding emerges, as the film progresses, of the mysticism in human nature. We see Justine stare at the stars and how in tune with the universe she is as she seems to be the first person on earth who discerns that something is amiss in the constellation of stars. This is done within the context of her marriage reception with the feeble husband Michael (Alexander Skarsgard) which opens the film. Her estrangement from the proceedings suggests that she is an extremely melancholy person who comes to understand how superficial all of this ceremony is. What this film does reveal accurately is that one who is extremely melancholy or estranged from humanity is able to discern the true nature of individuals (or their true motives), inanimate objects and animals. Justine does demonstrate this, for instance, throughout the film where she claims to see things as they really are and in one particular scene she confronts and exposes her boss and his corrupt values when he promotes her to art director and then sends an imp of a man to pursue her so that he can discover the tagline for her new poster which is designated for advertisement purposes. She eventually confronts him by saying he is corrupt as a result of his power hungry nature. Her estrangement allows her to make these insights into human nature which is why she is unable to commit to her husband especially as he is unable to confront her on an emotional level. He tries to kiss ass (‘you never have to say you’re sorry’. Worst thing a man can say to a woman) but this estranges him from her even more because it is superficial and so when he tries to consummate the nuptials by making love she pushes him aside coldly and then proceeds to hump the imp like emissary, sent by her boss to pursue her, on the golf course located on the estate. We see the influence of her mother and father on her way of thinking and this is not told by relaying any past occurrences but simply by impressing upon the viewer the character of both parents. The father seems altogether more social and likable whereas the mother shares in Justine’s estrangement especially as she does not believe in marriage and ceremony etc. It seems that these two individuals represent some dilemma in her nature and so on different occasions she tries to reach out to one or the other depending on her mood i.e. whether or not she wants to be social or not. Her character has been seen before in Apocalypse Now (1979) with Colonel Kurtz who is completely removed from the hypocrisy inherent in mankind.
Therefore her sanity is questioned by her sister Claire and her husband John (Keifer Sutherland) who sees her estrangement as unnerving. The wedding reception takes place on John’s magnificent estate and it is clear that he and Claire believe in an ordinary lifestyle influenced by material factors. We see this in one particular scene where he makes Justine aware, as she wades listlessly through the house, that a lot of money was spent to make the reception happen. There are also instances when Claire tells Justine that sometimes she hates her. This is because of Justine’s flighty thoughts that do not correspond with the supposed practical reality although she is trying to channel the energies of the universe etc. She seems to understand that the planet will indeed collide with the earth despite the scientists, who are represented by the character of John in this film, who claim the contrary: that the planet will miss the earth. The scientists can be wrong sometimes as we observe the tragic fate of john in the latter stages of the film as the planet is clearly on a crash course with earth. This element is well developed and distinguishes it from The Tree of Life (2011) which failed to establish the connection between the domestic situation and the cosmos. This film at least tries to show that the character of Justine due to her estrangement, associated with extreme depression, clearly has some connection with what is going on especially as her condition alienates her from humanity and places her on another plane of existence. One should check out the scene when she observes the approaching planet in the nude with the utmost placidity while Claire panics especially as her material world is about to fall apart.
This is why Von Triers smartly provides a contrast between Justine and Claire. Justine as stated before is more nonchalant about the material world whereas Claire is more concerned about her material existence as she lives on a grand estate married to a rich aristocrat who plays with his telescope a lot. Claire is therefore more caught up in worldly affairs that are determined by material security whereas Justine appears to be more of an idealist that is not caught up in these material trappings. An invading planet would therefore suit Justine quite well. Their two husbands Michael and John also contrast with each other. For a man to love Justine he must be mindlessly in love as is Michael however for a man to love Claire he must be very practical and materialistic or world weary. This is all accurately depicted in this film.
The slow point has notably become a sore point with casual viewers but it is instrumental to the mood of the film as this allows for some form of tension to be built, however tenuous. The planet approaches slowly and this is in keeping with physics where the approach is measured like the sunset or sunrise despite coming at 60,000 mph (or kmh. can’t recall). The slow approach of the planet allows for enough time to have these personalities collide and unfold and develop their own views towards life: the idealist vs. the materialist. As the planet gets closer the characters show their true selves. Justine was always the most honest one and does not seem to change whereas the others such as Claire and John have to grapple with the fact that their material world is falling apart as the planet approaches. It gives room for the actors to flex their muscles. It is interesting for instance to watch Claire gradually lose faith in her husband’s judgement and for John to lose faith in science.
It was also interesting to see how this film gives in to the predictions re the end of the world (Mayan calendar) in 2012 where a planet will come cascading into the earth resulting in the death of life on earth.
The fact that the story takes place in the countryside allows for these characters to stand out where they would not in the city. In the city for instance a mass of populations would have to be considered and so a character like Claire or Justine would be part of a group as opposed to having their individual traits coming to the fore. Had Von Triers focused on worldwide opinion the film would be no different from Independence Day or an Armageddon. It is clear that had it been located in the city Claire would be absorbed into the group that would generate some form of cultic artistic expression regarding the planet whereas Claire would be one of the ordinary citizens who would try to flee the danger with the hope that they can start again and rebuild.
What’s bad about this film?
The profound elements in this film seem to run parallel with the absurd or superficial elements inherent in the story. These two elements are never reconciled and so it seems that the superficial elements are right behind the profound elements and any lapse in the narrative will force you to confront them. This is because the narrative is disjointed and the context associated with the approaching planet is not clearly defined. There is no context regarding the planet and one may see the film as a profound meditation on depression whereas another will see the film as pretentious and just another disaster movie with dramatic overtones. The characters seem to be isolated from the world as the planet approaches apart from Claire and the internet. (The episode with the internet was not well done; when Claire types in melancholia the first thing that should have come up was news regarding the planet. It is only the definition of melancholia that first appears.) There is absolutely no sense of the outside world and it is difficult to believe that they are so isolated from the world that only their views matter when it comes to the doom of the earth. This is where some people would expect to hear some form of news reports or an address to the nation by the various rulers of the earth. The justification for the use of a planet to explain the end of the world seems pretty shallow and some would feel that it is feeding the superstitious fears associated with the Mayan calendar and other sources who proclaim that the world will end by similar means, as described in this film, in 2012. There is no attempt at explaining how it is that a planet could end up on a crash course with earth. There is not even the postulation of some form of theory and what this means for the end of the world. Has there been any record of such a possibility in the earth’s history? The characters merely accept that the event has occurred. This policy of isolation will not enhance the film in the eyes of some viewers and it will be seen as potential. It is inevitable because it does not seem plausible or realistic. This is why it seems superficial when one contrasts it with the profound element which concerns the reaction of a particular group of individuals to this cataclysmic event.
In the city, also, these characters would be quite insignificant and not so distinctive. It is clear that Justine would reside with the hippies and that Claire would be with the bourgeois class as they bicker amongst themselves about the preservation of their property. The husband would be among the class of astronomers who would be debating the outcome. Other world views would have to be taken into account and this is not done here and so it is not really clear why a character like Justine is so distinctive. Could it be that she was the first one who witnessed the approach of the planet? I am sure there are many idealists like her and I am sure the scientists would have picked up on it. This isolationist policy does not make these characters distinctive but pretty one dimensional and the presentation does not seem realistic and therefore quite excessive. This will be the concern of many viewers. How important are these characters really? It showcases a particular character but how distinctive is this character in the wider sphere of things.
Another instance is the characters themselves who are only defined by their actions as opposed to past occurrences. It is hinted at but never developed. This is why some episodes will seem inexplicable such as when Justine humps the imp like man and so ends her marriage on the same night. It seems obvious to some like me but it will not seem so to others. Von Triers tries to limit the actions of Justine to the marriage reception and so it seems limited at times. When the imp like character follows Justine around for instance is that really necessary on a wedding night? And does it not seem lacking in subtlety. Why had not the boss sent the imp on a mission to unearth the tagline in a couple of days? Why make Justine aware of it? Send the imp on a mission to try and get under Justine’s skin and probably lure her into having an affair where she would possibly divulge her secrets to him. It is predictable that she would hump him but it is done so suddenly it seems pointless. Why would a boss act so stupid? Could he really be that greedy? This is why some more scope was needed to such a presentation and so the episode seems superficial. The other instance is with the marriage reception and Justine’s attitude to the world around her. Her husband seems so ineffective and weak that he is unable to coax her into making love. He has no control and so it would have been more fulfilling if we got to see their relationship develop some more. I understand that only a weak man could love Justine and want to marry her especially since she is so high strung she seems as if she smokes marijuana constantly. She is clearly in her own fantasy world and there is no account of how they function as a couple. He hardly gets frustrated with her condition and rarely tries to reach out to her. It is only when he makes toasts do we get a sense of the relationship.
When Justine has one of her episodes we never know what the motivation is. Is she an out and out depressive character. How does she act within the context of the everyday? Is she always bailed out by her sister? To what extent did the fiasco at the reception affect her? These questions could not be understood since a planet will wipe out everything in a couple of days.
These are some of the issues and obviously I cannot address all.
All in all it is a good art house film but one wonders how significant it really is when the wider context is taken into account.
No comments:
Post a Comment