Melancholia (2011)

Life is only on Earth... and not for long. If we give credit to writers, the end of the world isn't such a bad thing when you become a contemporary witness. Why should it be? So many wasted generations and it's only to the one you belong to that it's given to witness the last act...? It's not a small thing to be among the chosen ones when you're already obligated to death. Anyway... Whenever we have to deal with an apocalyptic film, nostalgia takes over all emotions, and melancholy is always present at the party. The title of this production is a direct symbol (Dürer's engraving means this), although here it is the name of a planet (immense, surreal, and blue) that Earth is about to collide with. We're at Lars von Trier, so we start with Wagner (Tristan and Isolde prelude), with a bizarre painting (Lucas Cranach the Elder), a plethora of references to others (Ophelia, Bruegel, etc.), an inflation of symbols, superimposed over a sickeningly depressive vision (Trier admits to having thought up the film while hospitalized and undergoing psychiatric therapy). It's a difficult-to-follow adaptation of Lars von Trier's Melancholia. Not only the plot but also the cluttered way in which events take place, applied over a seemingly calm and accepting demeanor, all together put great pressure on the viewer and heavily demand their attention.

This film reminds me of a joke about a stutterer who, before being able to warn his colleagues of an imminent danger, finishes (too late) his intervention by observing its effects. Von Trier stammers trying to say as much as possible in as few words as possible. He wants to communicate so much that every frame of the film has something to say, thus bringing about an exhausting overload, which is clearly a huge mistake.

What audience has such a willingness?

To give you a little idea of how it works, the golf course is advertised multiple times as having an 18-hole circuit. However, in one scene, the characters pass by a 19th hole. When asked about it, Trier explained that he wanted to suggest a surpassing of the limits of the world. By passing by a nonexistent landmark, the heroes of the narrative are already in hell - hence the Latin phrase "SIC!"

Now, take the film from the beginning and get to work, because almost everywhere you have other similar or even more difficult things to decipher. Melancholia has two asymmetrical parts. It starts well, then becomes boring. In the second part, it surprises and engages, and in the end, it seals the deal with a tacit acceptance, devoid of spectacle, profoundly human, and completely Christian.

I confess honestly that during my first viewing, I left the projection room after 35 minutes (I was not a paying customer), literally dizzy from the continuous, annoying, and overly extensive camera movements. Von Trier thinks sincerely that humans do not deserve to live (he repeats this in almost everything he does), but in this film, he offers us a tempting alternative for spending the apocalypse, even if he tells a story that is somewhat unconvincing and poor in relation to the generosity of the subject.

My opinion is that you shouldn't waste your time with this film. It may be Trier, it may be about the human condition, and the images at the beginning (a short photographic summary) are truly remarkable... But we live little and sadly. Two hours of our lives mean a lot anyway (even if we don't enter a straight line, where every minute counts..), and to increase our bitterness with worries imagined in this way is not a wise choice.

Sure, it looks good to be able to converse in society (at the club over beers) about a controversial director outside the mainstream, but in the case of Melancholia, even that is risky. Many important critics have accused those who rushed to praise the film of snobbery, influenced by the strong personality of Lars von Trier.

Even though the end of the world (inevitably) will happen in each being that will compose it at that moment, and even though the choice to narrate the cataclysm from an individual perspective is a clever one, this is a film that doesn't convince, repeats itself, is overloaded, exhausting and disjointed from the narrative...

That's my opinion.