01-23-2016, 12:10 AM
Nymphomaniac 2 (2013) by Lars von Trier
After watching Nymphomaniac 1, I was curious to see what Nymphomaniac 2 would be about. Turns out it’s about a woman addicted to sex. Son of a gun.
Part 2: The older gentleman continues to shelter Joe in his apartment, where he interrupts her with intellectual musings as she continues to tell her life story. She is describing a somewhat later time in her life now, and in the flashbacks Charlotte Gainsbourg now plays Joe. Yes, she gets naked, and down and dirty, as this is a much darker phase of her life, rougher, fraught with S&M and B&D. Without getting into specifics, Joe and other characters engage in perverse behaviors without any clear sense of motivation. In fact, I strongly question whether real people -- and especially women -- would behave as shown here (though sexual wiring can get very strange in some individuals, so never say never). To my mind, Lars Von Trier turned provocateur for part 2, pushing a lot of hot buttons to get a rise out of the audience and cataloging a lot of sexual perversions. In the process he touches on some very sensitive matters. Some of his observations I appreciate and applaud for showing the hypocritical side of political correctness. But other insights (from the soapbox of his characters) strike me as poorly thought out, even juvenile, if not outright hogwash.
Part 2 is not as good as Part 1 because of this emphasis on shock value, which sacrifices the integrity of the characters. All in all, von Trier seems a bit out of his depth with this subject matter.
Somewhat disappointing, but to my mind still worth a gander.
After watching Nymphomaniac 1, I was curious to see what Nymphomaniac 2 would be about. Turns out it’s about a woman addicted to sex. Son of a gun.
Part 2: The older gentleman continues to shelter Joe in his apartment, where he interrupts her with intellectual musings as she continues to tell her life story. She is describing a somewhat later time in her life now, and in the flashbacks Charlotte Gainsbourg now plays Joe. Yes, she gets naked, and down and dirty, as this is a much darker phase of her life, rougher, fraught with S&M and B&D. Without getting into specifics, Joe and other characters engage in perverse behaviors without any clear sense of motivation. In fact, I strongly question whether real people -- and especially women -- would behave as shown here (though sexual wiring can get very strange in some individuals, so never say never). To my mind, Lars Von Trier turned provocateur for part 2, pushing a lot of hot buttons to get a rise out of the audience and cataloging a lot of sexual perversions. In the process he touches on some very sensitive matters. Some of his observations I appreciate and applaud for showing the hypocritical side of political correctness. But other insights (from the soapbox of his characters) strike me as poorly thought out, even juvenile, if not outright hogwash.
Part 2 is not as good as Part 1 because of this emphasis on shock value, which sacrifices the integrity of the characters. All in all, von Trier seems a bit out of his depth with this subject matter.
Somewhat disappointing, but to my mind still worth a gander.