With the release of Lars Von Trier’s Nymphomaniac trailers not too long ago, it seems like a perfect time for me to look back on the predecessor to this – Melancholia. Now, Lars Von Trier is known for his outspoken and ‘temperamental’ personality. He knows what he wants, what he wants to say and does not care who it angers – if there is an emotional reaction it means someone is talking about his work and means that someone took the time to appreciate it. The media presents Von Trier as a provocateur and this is arguably true, personally I think he just works of life experience. I hear you cry, “Are you mad?” – Maybe I should explain myself. Von Trier has experienced a lot; depression, parents who were nudists, an identity crisis and understanding the effects of a crippling fear. These all feed into his narratives, along with a fascination with theology and the inherent irony of nature (by that I mean humans pastoral and romantic representation going against the facts of elements of nature fighting one another).
Now, to some this might be a revelation – but everyone who has an understanding of film theory and history will have certainly heard the phrase ‘Dogme 95’ linked with Lars Von Trier. The Dogme 95 movement was a manifesto – a vow of Chasity – created mainly by Danish Filmmakers in 1995 (Von Trier, Marc, Vinterberg, Levring and Kragh-Jacobsen) and soon had an international following. For those who do not know a lot about Dogme 95 these are the basic rule and goals that were set out in 1995:
- Shooting must be done on location. Props and sets must not be bought.
- The sound must never be produced apart from the image and vice versa
- The camera must be handheld. Any movement or immobility in the hand is permitted
- The film must be in colour. Special lighting is not permitted – if the is little light the scene must either be cut or a small lamp can be attached to the camera.
- Optical work and filters are forbidden (CGI etc.)
- The film must not contain superficial actions.
- Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden (it must take place in the here and now)
- Genre movies are not acceptable.
- The film must be shoot in Academy 35mm
- The director cannot be credited.
In the most basic terms, this movement stood for naturalism. Everything must be pure and have as little control as possible. However, Von Trier and Vinterberg have both admitted to breaking one of these rules on set and in films before. So what does this have to do with Melancholia? Well, the Dogme 95 movement was officially ended in 2005 by those who created it (though many film students still follow its guidelines and rule as it allows you to spend less money on projects) and was almost completely forgotten straight away with Lars Von Triers 2011 film Melancholia. Melancholia is a film with defined genres; disaster, drama and science fiction (#8 broken), there is Temporal and geographical alienation in the fact that we are never told the time or place (#7 broken), there is extensive CGI work (#5 broken), Props were bought (#1 Broken), it opens with the words “Lars Von Trier” (#10 Broken) and so on and so on – you get the point I am making. However, rules are meant to be broken and oh did he break them spectacularly – the film has a brilliant metaphorical story that can be applied directly to the characters and the apocalyptic force. I will get on to this later.
The story of Melancholia is split into two parts. Part One has Justine (Kirsten Dunst) as the focus of the narrative and Part Two has Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg) as the narrative focus. The opening is a series of haunting beautiful slow motions shots of Claire, Justine and the End of the World – which shows the collaboration between Manuel Alberto Claro and Lars Von Trier at its bests. The story of Melancholia focuses on the maniac depression that Justine has and on how the presence on the Astronomical Blue Giant Melancholia has an effect on life. These two elements are the major plot and narrative devices of the story – Justine and Melancholia are one and the same. The stories focus on depression means that I focuses on the effects and misunderstanding of the disease itself. Firstly, I will tackle Justine and Melancholia representing depression as a concept and a disease. Justine has just become a newlywed and seems incredibly happy about it; however, an attack of her depression and she retreats from the party to hide in her room, bathe and have sex with a party guest on the golf course. She becomes destructive for no understandable reason – her character has a clear set out path and seems an ordinary happy bride. This is arguably similar to the big blue dot in the sky of Melancholia; the beautiful CGI work brings this Astronomic Titan to live on our screens and when placed next to the Earth we get an idea for its unfettered vastness – it is simply breath taking. Now, you may be asking how can the beautiful Kirsten Dunst relate to a supermassive piece of space rock? I shall explain. The path of Melancholia seems determined and will see it pass by Earth with only a little gravitational disruption; but in many ways similar to Justine the course of Melancholia is far from determined and the planet is heading straight onto a collision course with Earth – which would destroy everything as we know it. This is the metaphor that I believe Von Trier was going for, during his years of Depression he lost control of his life and everything fell apart – he could not bring himself to get behind a camera, write or even spend time casting. This metaphor is represented in real life as for no rhyme or reason suffers of depression will cut all their ties to life and some even destroy what they have whether it is a relationship or their own life. However, the insight into depression does not end there. The character of John (Claire’s husband) represents the scientific mind and the dismissive mind in this film. Towards Justine, John is very dismissive, bordering on harsh, of her depression – believing that it is all an act and that she will snap out of it in a few days. As the world around them ultimately begins to feel the effects of the gravitational disturbance of Melancholia, John suddenly disappears and it found dead in the Barn having committed suicide. Why? Well, to put it simply he fucked up. After being adamant that Melancholia would pass Earth without any issue he had misread its course and discovered that all life on earth was doomed. You might believe that this is a loose assumption but this is how I saw it. Much like Justine and Melancholia being one and the same in metaphoric terms, John represents the misunderstanding – it is well known that many mental diseases are dismissed as bad days, people making mountains out of molehills and that it will all blow over without any repercussions. John embodies that.
The film follows these lines through the stories first part – as the narrative is focused on the destructive nature of depression on the sufferer. However, Von Trier’s second half of the story follows Claire and this is where we see the effects of depression on those close to the sufferer. Claire helps her sister through everything, she helps her through the bad days and the awful days; we see that she is a greatly caring individual but we also see the toll that it is taking on here. This is heightened by the paranoia surrounding the movements of Melancholia, she is afraid that Melancholia will do something unpredictable (similarly that her sister will do something unpredictable). This paranoia is understandably increased when she finds her husband dead, realises that the world is going to end in a few days and her sister has become creepily calm after bathing nude in the light of Melancholia at night. This is where we see has character begin to represent another person who relates to depression and its effects; there is always on person who believes that walking away from a problem will solve it. This is where we she her desperate attempts to escape the collision of the planet and the fact that her sister is beyond repair by simply running away from it all. Obviously this does not work because you cannot out run a planet on an apocalyptic crash course with Earth. I think that the way the film end is perfect, the fact that it is the child who brings some sense of calm to this world of chaos – I personally find the mind of a child is the perfect cure for everything whether it is coming to terms with impending doom or having a bad day.
Melancholia for me is an artistic piece of genius – it takes issues of everyday life and builds on them creating a story that is so powerful in its representation that I certainly made me look at depression in a different way. You may be reading this and thinking that I am looking at this wrong and that he actually meant none of that and simply want chaos to reign or that Von Trier was saying that he marveled at how depressed individuals can cope with stressful situations so calmly. Whatever you think – I still believe that you should give this film a watch. It is a once in a life time film.
Until next time,
Josh
Thinking Film 