Shia lebouf, uma Thurman, jamie bell? These are recognised actors. How can they be stupid enough to take part in this filth?. And this was a porno. The sex was real, there was no plot (if there was I missed it), the acting was bad, it was all about sex.
Texas is just a name, i'm actually from London! ♡♥♡♥♡♥♡♥★☆★☆★☆★☆
Well, you clearly did miss it as the movie doesn't show Charlotte Gainsbourg getting screwed on camera for five straight hours. Porno is supposed to be arousing. WHAT in this movie apart from what's intellectually stimulating was arousing for you?
shareIt is a porno. His point still stands. This film showed hardcore throughout the entire film, so much sex. So don't start avoiding the argument by asking him what he finds arousing.
shareThat is not avoiding the point. It's pointing out the hole in his argument. Porn is supposed to be arousing, not to mention I didn't realize about 15-20 minutes in a five and a half hour movie constitutes as showing hardcore sex through an entire movie. Anyone who has even a base knowledge of Lars von Trier as a filmmaker should know that making anything in his movies sexual for gratification is genuinely the last thing on his mind. The sex he showed in "The Idiots" was ugly, the sex he showed in "Manderlay" was skin crawling, the sex in "Antichrist" was disturbing and the sex here is viciously clinical. Or do you and the OP get your jollies from watching women pull fetuses out of them with wire hangers?
Also, seeing your post that you stopped watching the movie near the end of the first chapter, you have no say in this discussion. Sit through the entire five and a half hours like most of us did and then you get your say.
No. Anyone with base knowledge of sex understands what hardcore porn is and Nymphmaniac contains it - lots of the scenes play the same as porn films whether he finds it arousing or not. You are dancing around the point a lot but failed, try again!
shareSays the one who only made it forty minutes into the entire film. How can you say lots of the scenes in the movie play the same as scenes in porn when, by my calculations, all you saw was one penetration shot and a simulated blow job? Once again, until you sit through the WHOLE movie like everyone else did, your point is irrelevant and should be considered as such.
Pornography is the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual arousal.
A simulated BJ?!? A penis entered her mouth! How is that simulated? Watch the pedophile scene again!
shareDo you SERIOUSLY think a real dick entered Stacy Martin OR Charlotte Gainsbourg's mouths or vaginas? Do you also think she cut her clit off in "Antichrist"?
shareThe penis was fake! No difference than when you watched Walberg in Boogie Nights. Or did you think THAT was really him too! Read up on how the film was made! You saw about 3 seconds of Shia's real full frontal and NONE of the stars did full penatration sex scenes. They were digitized in! Don't judge a movie by 40 minutes of it and read the trivia and movie articles IMDB gives you!
shareThank you.
sharethank god then because I was like what kind of drugs these actors have to be on to be sucking dick and taking dick in the ass for real on film. Might as well be a porn star at that rate lol
shareWhat the *beep*?? He wasn't avoiding anything, he just countered OP's retarded statement and he is 100% right. Plus, if you didn't watch the whole thing, you have no right to discuss the movie.
shareActually the movies used body doubles and none of the credited crew really had sex let alone revealed their genitals, but your point is a very valid one in my humble opinion.
The movie's (very thin) plot could've been carried by less explicit scenes as well or even without them at all. von Trier merely wanted to shock people like he always does and him invoking artistic freedom and other likewise vague terms makes me think of a painting I saw in a museum once. It was a white canvas with a single black dot, referred to as an artistic masterpiece and considered to be worth millions.
What I'm wanna say is, the rating of Nymphomaniac as a masterpiece or even but an interesting character study only goes to show the decline of standards.
The so called feuilletonists and movie critics who gave this piece of junk a thumbs-up because of the sex scenes must have been carried away by all the sexual emancipation nonsense that has spread cross-socially over many Western countries. I'm shocked to hear some countries have given these two flicks merely a mature-rating with little or no restrictions. Some even praised this movie as pedagogically valuable, I kid you not.
My point is clear: A director who needs close-up shots of two black studs shoving their rods into a pale womans body cavities in order to portray nymphomania has horribly failed his job. And if he can't do analyse a Nymphomaniac without explicit images, he can't do it with them either.
Or maybe some of us gave the movie thumbs up because it was one of the most thematically richest films of the decade and showcasing a bevy of great performances?
shareThere's no arguing about taste, so I won't discuss the abscence or abundance of thematical richness and great perfomances in these two movies anymore (for my part I saw neither).
I shall maintain my point about von Trier's failures as the movie's creator however — as they're fully amenable to factual criteria.
You know, a movie about pathological gambling for example would do well to leave the casino every now and again; otherwise it becomes repetitive, thus boring and will raise the question why the director couldn't narrate without petty non-demanding images.
Actually I remember a movie of aforesaid traits that was panned by critics for the very same reasons they praise Nymphomaniac for.
And when this gambling-movie refrains from leaving the casino it's easy to tell by the cinematics if the director stayed inside because they felt it to be necessary or because a glittery casino makes for better shots.
von Trier stayed in the casino to shock people, he always does. His take on emotional non-sexual scenes — e.g. when Joe tries to kill Jerome — shows he can't do the trick if he can't slap you in the face with explicite images. This scene is so boring it almost felt ridiculous. Joe didn't look like at all like she wanted to kill the guy nor did the imagery portray that message.
I can find neither courage nor artistic eagerness to experiment in pornography.
A director who for example is unable to narrate the love story of a couple without close-ups of their body cavities will be as unable with such shots.
And Nymphomaniac cannot be taken out of context of it's director who wanders between insanity and the persona of an infant terrible.
I didn't raise the painting comparison for no reason. Nymphomaniac is a representative of a new concept of art that fancies itself as intellectual and liberating for breaking with traditional conventions even though it totally fails at weighing said conventions. It speaks volumes about that concept that the feuilleton of a major European newspaper with 600000 readers a day would praise von Trier's "courage" to use double penetration as an artistic device and barely lose a word about petty details such as editing, music (…)
Long story short: thanks, but no thanks. This is neither a good art house flick, nor good porn.
You most be the most narrow minded person I've seen. So, Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs is a bad movie because the violence is too extreme and the movie has nothing else to offer? What about Scorsese's Wolf of Wall Street? That too is a bad movie without anything else than sex and drugs to offer? Retard...
share"All the sexual emancipation nonsense"...
Yep. That's it right there. We should go back to the time to where a woman who sleeps around is a slut, husbands can't legally rape their own wives and women should just lie back and think about shopping and housework to ensure their partners are happy.
No wonder you didn't get this film.
Shia lebouf, uma Thurman, jamie bell? These are recognised actors. How can they be stupid enough to take part in this filth?. And this was a porno. The sex was real, there was no plot (if there was I missed it), the acting was bad, it was all about sex.
Can you repeat this in a way that's even KIND of legible?
shareTexxas, you're a recognized halfwit wandering this world and don't understand much. Why you'd choose these moronic questions for this forum on imdb is pretty random. How did you hear about the film? You're an idiot.
shareJust wanted to add my two cents :)
Texas, you are a *beep* ignorant idiot. You don't know the difference between pornography and cinema? Oh well. Just because a film features un-simulated sex it is porn and therefore discredited? What a prude, close minded twit you are.
And to answer your inane question, the actors agreed to be in the film because they felt that this was a film of merit and to work with Lars Von Trier.
Actually the penetration sex scenes were digitally added by porn stars. However, it's not porn with a NC-17 rating. More importantly, if that's all someine gets from the dramatic movie then movie appreciation is beyond them.
shareI actually take the opposite position...it wasn't porno at all. If the mere concept of penis entering vagina or whatever makes it porn....but it doesn't...Porn is implicitly about sexual arousal.
I cant tell you if the movie was art or not...It wasn't particular good...but it definitely tried exploring some aspects of human sexuality in an artful way.
Well, you didn't get the movie. In another hand, the fact that you failed to mention Willem Defoe and named Jaime Bell istead speaks a lot about you...
share