Nymph()maniac

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Nymph()maniac

Keanu Grieves: Dec 30, 2002

I really like Lars Von Trier -- even his provocateur antics -- but I just can't get excited about Nymph()maniac, least of all because the parentheses in the title are absolutely meaningless. But the trailer is all over the map, and this just feels like a narcissistic "you've seen me but HAVE YOU SEEN ME NAKED?" vanity project from most of the actors involved. Yeah, you can simulate your O-face for a poster, but can you really find the truth in the material? The trailer is all over the map, the snippets of dialogue sound trite. I don't know, man. I just don't know.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2013 17:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 18:49

Keanu Grieves: Dec 30, 2002

Uncle Boogeyman posted:

Yeah did people not get that was supposed to be a vagina?

Well, I stand corrected. Drawing a vagina as an elliptical hole was something I never got into.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2013 19:03

Keanu Grieves: Dec 30, 2002

Sometimes a banana is just a banana.

Unless it's in the hands of Dylan McDermott. Then it's a magical artifact.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2013 19:16

Keanu Grieves: Dec 30, 2002

The_Rob posted:

I dunno man I'm seeing dick go into mouth so it really doesn't seem like this glamorous now watch me act naked thing. Lars really isn't a subtle person so I'm not sure what you are expecting.

I thought all penetration was achieved using CGI and porn stand-ins, which proves my point. Here are actors who only go halfway towards completing their art.

Mustach posted:

I'm in total agreement on the trite dialogue. I become more certain that I'll hate this movie every time I think of the "my only sin" mini-monologue.

That's precisely the line I was thinking of.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2013 21:30

Keanu Grieves: Dec 30, 2002

Jewmanji posted:

It's not art unless you're willing to suck a dick on camera. What?

It's fine if you find the little tiny bits of dialogue in the trailer off-putting, but this whole tangent is weird.

I'm saying, these actors are getting or demanding respect because of how far they're willing to go in service of art, but that performance artists have been doing way more graphic poo poo for decades. This is what I mean by, like, artistic narcissism.

So, in addition to the trailer, I dislike the hype surrounding the trailer. Nothing in this movie should be really shocking in 2013. Catherine Breillat was doing this poo poo a decade ago. Other directors did it before her. But apparently this movie's edginess comes from high-paid and well-known actors engaging in simulated sex acts. I don't see what the big deal is.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2013 23:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 18:49

Keanu Grieves: Dec 30, 2002

He's a provocateur. Usually I like that aspect, much as I like transgressive cinema. I don't think people were as shocked by the sex in Antichrist as they were by the sexual violence. This time around, it seems like actors are trying to earn edge-cred by simulating penetration? Frankly, I don't think that's a big deal and if your film needs penetration, hire actors willing to do it without doubles.

As for the parallel you draw to stunt work, I do respect actors more who are willing to do their own stunts. But even the productions with Jackie Chan and Jason Statham, to name a couple, have problems when it comes to insurance. That's a monetary consideration, beyond the actors' control.

I think it sets up this artificial class system in which actors expect porn doubles to do that which they are unwilling to do. And it's kind of bunk.

That's a minor gripe though. My main beef is with the dialogue, the length and the tone of the trailer. And those goddamn parentheses.

Nothing about this film seems as shocking as Von Trier or film magazines want it to be. That's all I'm saying.

# ¿ Dec 4, 2013 00:33

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Nymph()maniac