Lars von Trier is a poet.
But the people of left by society are still human after all, and the emotions that are difficult to grasp are still emotions.
There is nothing wrong with the gender difference, but the poetic quality in my mind is rapidly reduced, so I can see that I feel poetry, mostly in its alienation and strangeness.
But it was indeed a long, poetic debate, or both. (If there is no ending that I expected) (But the ending was written in S's eyes long ago) (hate it) (No, I hate this ending so much that I want to deduct two stars crazy)
--------------------------------------------
make some clarifications. I hate this ending not at all because it doesn't satisfy my Plato's beautiful fantasy, nor because I hate the ugly state of men who are eager to ask when they think with their lower bodies, or even because I sympathize with the mispayment of J's friendship and betrayed after making up his mind.
Mainly because a bookworm (or simply a nerd) has something endearing aside from being unflattering, and any kind of person can do anything as long as they aren't diabolical. But for the role of S, first of all, he perfectly reproduced this character in the first half, which makes it impossible to guess, and he has substituted all the characteristics I mentioned above for him, and sometimes he is even flattered by his (clumsy) excuses. The speech constitutes an important part of my opinion of the film, and it also makes me feel good about him; secondly, at the end, the established characteristics are completely erased and made into a completely different person. Made me feel offended not only by the first half of the story (mostly my own mental journey), but even by a certain type of person. To put it simply, I think the director smashed it down with a huge map cannon, and with the support of the gender difference theory, the whole ending slipped all the way. (There is certainly nothing wrong with gender difference theory itself.)
I was even worried about this ending for the entire second part because the director kept using the actor's expressions to amplify the hint. Even though I've vaguely seen S's shame in mentioning that he's never had a sexual experience, I can comfort myself that maybe that's what he calls "regret".
I also fabricated some possible developments based on this. For example, S may ask J if he is willing to have sex with him. For me, this is closer to the character set in front of S, and it is easier for me to accept it.
Until this end actually comes out. It was so ugly, I was physically sick and nauseous to the point where I couldn't move on for 30 minutes. It has nothing to do with sexual assault, but mainly because that scene made S completely a sanctimonious and anxious ordinary middle-aged and elderly man, anxious and even too lazy to pose, with a bit of embarrassment.
Instantly subverted all the presuppositions I had for S during the entire viewing process, and also destroyed some important parts of my perception of the film (probably your experience suddenly turned into shit). Either I didn't accept the truth, or I didn't understand its meaning, it just conveyed to me.
Of course, it's not that I'm angry because I didn't have a reasonable guess about the nature of S. In fact, I have made any guesses, and these trends are also expected, but it is the lowest and most unacceptable of all the treatments I think. .
I don't know if it's the director's handwriting or the difference in understanding of the actors or the problem of acting ability. But I, myself, hate, hate, the way this is handled.
Even if there are more parts that can be excavated in his final eyes. Too rough, too simple, too out of place for the first four hours.
That's it.
View more about Nymphomaniac: Vol. II reviews
