I gave up on Lars von Trier after I watched (most of) Breaking the Waves. It was a rare movie that was so objectionable that I felt the need to leave the living room rather than breaking into a rant at the family members who chose to watch until the ending. I actually broke down and watched Dancer in the Dark as well, but it merely confirmed that I didn't need to see any more movies by this guy. I try not to revel in ignorance. I find it boring to talk to people who are excited about the fact that they haven't seen certain movies. Yes, Harry Potter or Transformers are commercial, but I have no particular respect for somebody who hasn't seen them. As someone who loves movies I try to see as many as I can including from directors or genres that I find uncomfortable or inane. But still I feel Lars von Trier has crossed some kind of line and I simply don't need to see another of his films.

Being perhaps a bit too trusting of the critics I went to see "Breaking the Waves" based on their rave reviews. It was a horrible mistake. To this day I count it as one of the five worst films I've ever seen. A sex scene that made sex look bland, a half-retarded woman who talks to god and who thinks He wants her to become a prostitute... Act breaks with title cards that seemed to last a full minute or more... The suicide-by-proxy at the end... I was twitching in my chair before the film was half over eager to leave. But no, I stayed believing it had to get better, the critics had assured me it was a good film. How wrong I was. I'm a big enough man that I will admit my mistakes and incorrect beliefs.

-Doughdee222

"Fire me, boy!"

I saw "Breaking the Waves" since it was lauded by critics I respected. I was horrified, but thought I might have over reacted. I saw it a second time and realized I had underreacted. Von Triers is a misogynist. I will never watch another of his films. If I wanted to see women brutalized I would go to slasher films where at least one woman usually survives to the end.

To each his own I guess.

My favorite works of the director are The Kingdom (Part I) and The Five Obstructions. They really are not representative of his work as an auteur, which may be why they are so great.

I haven't seen his others besides Zentropa and Dancer in the Dark.

I do sort of enjoy plodding, gruesome, interminable movies (see: the work of Gaspar Noe). I want to watch Breaking the Waves, Dogville, and Manderlay, but they are much, much longer than many other films I would rather catch up on seeing.

I get why people don't like this kind of movie. I just don't know if I would dismiss it so handily. If a reviewer doesn't like horror films, say (and they probably shouldn't, 99% are terrible), I wouldn't go to them for a review of a horror film, or even one with dark and gratuitous violence. Lars von Trier makes slow, dark, sadistic movies about the failure of humanity. I knew that going in; didn't the reviewer?

I rather like the other article on here about Lars von Trier. It says everything the review did but then goes on to talk about the ideas behind the work. I'm definitely not saying that you have to be smart to appreciate a movie like this, but if the point is so obviously to provoke thought then I would rather hear the provoked thoughts than, "I don't want to watch films by this director because I don't like the way he makes his movies."

If you missed the the ending of "Breaking the Waves" you missed the entire point of the movie. I imagine you also walked out of "The Passion of the Christ" before the ending and complained that it was just the pointless, graphic torture of some dude.

He demonstrate that through human violence, suffering and horror we can also see beauty, purity ad grace.

As mentioned by Slippedvoussoir, if you miss the end of his movies, you do not get to see how all the worst of human nature can reveal the most beautiful and human elevation.

But to fully appreciate the ending, you must sit through the sickening and upseting build up. Only then can you be touched by the revelation.

I can understand how US movie goers maybe put off by is subjects and filming technics. On the other hand, the European public is much more receptive to his cinema, it is miles away from the modern formated hollywood blockbusters, but none the less it is beautifull, moving and worth seing.

His crude filming technic is miles away from the formated Hollywod products and are his trademark. He belongs to the movement Dogma95 created with other Danish directors and they have purposely chosen to film in direct sound, with the camera held on the shoulder, giving their movies this realism that can't be recreated otherwise. He is one of the greaters directors of our time, and his uncommercial approach to filming should be celebrated in a world where movies are mostly about money.

"it was just the pointless, graphic torture of some dude. "

I have to say, I saw the entire movie (Passion of...) and that is basically all it was. Aside from the ressurected Jesus-as-terminator shot at the very end. There wasn't an ounce of Jesus' message in the film. Which is WAY more important in my mind than the supernatural, he died for our sins and was resurrected from the dead, hogwash.

Can we please have a moratorium on responding to critiques of outre independent films with "well, I guess you'd be more comfortable sticking with 'Independence Day' and 'Transformers.' " Just because a critic dislikes an indie film or a particular indie filmmaker does not mean that they must defer to mainstream Hollywood bullshit instead. It's a logical fallacy to suggest otherwise.

Super-serious arthouse filmmakers are capable of being just as shallow as anyone else. For example, I dislike Michael Bay's films, and I also tend to dislike Lars Von Trier's films. The former dresses up his lack of inisght and painfully small worldview with huge explosions and jingoistic rhetoric, the latter with nihilistic provocation and sophomoric philosophy.

Feel free to argue that I'm totally wrong about Von Trier, but arguing that I must automatically be a philistinic Hollywood whore gets us nowhere.

Whoops - I meant to post this on the other thread. Sorry. But my point still stands.

I think it would be a huge mistake to suggest that Von Triers films simply be accepted as masterpieces that demonstrate something special to those who are patient enough to make it through them completely misses what Von Trier is about: pushing your buttons. The director admits to taking great joy at repulsing, slighting and otherwise offending his audiences, and who are we to take that from him.

My main issue here is the contention that somehow, US audiences are less receptive to this kind of cinema. I think that the wave of "torture porn" blockbusters regularly released in the States would suggest otherwise. If anything, US audiences are less patient with films like Von Trier's--often formless and meandering, and let's face it, sort of boring. European audiences do appreciate an artist's ability to raise eyebrows, even if it's just for the sake of raising eyebrows, so perhaps that's what you mean by "more receptive." Also, let's not forget that this film received incredibly mixed reviews at Cannes, from both the US and European press, so it's not as though he is universally lauded on the other side of the Atlantic.

I will agree that Von Trier is one of the most singular filmmakers of his time, and he should certainly be lauded for continually pushing his art form to the breaking point, but I would argue that only after stepping a bit outside of himself can Von Trier really become a GREAT filmmaker. I find him too insular, too secure in where he is at (both geographically and thematically).To suggest [Dogma95] realism in his work is I think to miss the point: his stories are allegorical, but he aims for universal truths within those tales. I don't think he always meets those aims. Dogma95 is about just that: dogma. It's about using process to justify to the filmmaker that he or she is making something of real value. In essence, it allows Von Trier to sleep well at night. But make no mistake, there is no lack of artifice in his films.

And let's not gloss over this fact: despite his uncommercial leanings, Von Trier is certainly making movies that make money. He's not some unsung hero of underground film. He's one of the best known European directors in the world. His films always get top (or near top) reviews in American media. Many articles and blog posts (poison pen, fawning and sycophantic) have been written about Antichrist since its premier. Right now, the film is at 50% at rottentomatoes.com. That seems about right to me.

Drewskis:

Super-serious arthouse filmmakers are capable of being just as shallow as anyone else. For example, I dislike Michael Bay's films, and I also tend to dislike Lars Von Trier's films. The former dresses up his lack of inisght and painfully small worldview with huge explosions and jingoistic rhetoric, the latter with nihilistic provocation and sophomoric philosophy.

Precisely! thank you.

And thank you also to the person who mentioned the lame canard about "less receptive American audiences."