Melancholia: A Von Trier state of mind
By Samantha Shannon-Jones
Melancholia is a type of severe depression, characterised by gloomy forebodings and extremely low spirits. It’s the perfect title for this new indie gem from Danish director Lars von Trier, director of 2009’s grotesque arthouse-horror Antichrist. Melancholia, the latest addition to his oeuvre, is billed as “a beautiful movie about the end of the world”. It’s true — Trier weaves a visually stunning and subliminal account of the end times. But despite being classified as “apocalyptic”, the collision of the rogue planet Melancholia with Earth is not the real pivot of this film.
This is not a disaster movie. There is no context, no international panic. We do not see the cast fleeing from colossal tidal waves or struggling through a devastated city. There is simply nowhere for them to run. We are left with a suffocating picture of futility, told through the eyes of two lost souls. It is more than a film: it is an event.
Kirsten Dunst plays Justine, a successful young woman with a promising career, who has just married doting sweetheart Michael (Alexander Skarsgård). The sumptuous wedding has been organised by her sister, Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg), and takes place in the isolated Swedish chateau where she lives with husband John (Kiefer Sutherland). Following the “overture” — a collage of dream-like tableaux vivants, designed to foreshadow the plot and its main themes — the film is divided into two parts: “Justine”, a long-winded account of Michael and Justine’s doomed wedding party, and “Claire”, the beautifully rendered Götterdämmerung. Both parts are deliberately claustrophobic, so that even the apocalypse, when it comes, feels homespun. As Melancholia performs its “dance of death” with Earth, nobody even thinks to turn on the TV, or read a newspaper. The interaction between the characters quickly becomes the heart, soul and life-blood of the film.
Fortunately, Trier and his cast are up to the challenge. Dunst outshines the other cast members with her portrayal of a woman who is both dead to the world and very much aware of it. Her performance of melancholia as a mental condition eclipses the eponymous planet. But Gainsbourg, in turn, is equally convincing as Claire, and arguably gives a more interesting performance: we watch Claire change so drastically, it’s hard to believe it’s the same person playing her. Incredibly, the two actresses manage to switch roles in the second half of the film. Claire — the sane one — becomes fragile and afraid in the face of the apocalypse, whilst Justine embraces it with rapturous relief: “The Earth is evil. We don’t need to grieve for it. Nobody will miss it”. In one strange and powerful scene, she is even shown bathing in the light of Melancholia, naked and smiling. That scene alone is enough to leave you trembling — that or questioning your existence.
Melancholia is not perfect. The entire wedding party scene in frustratingly slow, even boring. This is undoubtedly the point — to make us feel the same agony that Justine suffers — but for a film rooted so deeply in character interplay, it simply goes on for too long. Half of the characters we become familiar with are ruthlessly expelled from the second half. Personally I would have liked to see a bit more of Skarsgård, whose career is developing at an unprecedented rate since True Blood — but apparently he’s going to crop up alongside Rihanna in Battleship next year. Whether or not that will go well for him has yet to be seen.
Lars von Trier has a simple, if extreme, message: that life has no meaning to a melancholic. Melancholia is not just an exposition, but a celebration of that lack of meaning. And whilst it might leave you with more fat than you can chew, and whilst it may take itself just a little too seriously, it still teems with some of the strongest acting, the most evocative music, and the most beautiful imagery of cinema this summer.
Mishell
04/10/2011 at 18:28
Here’s another take:
Melancholia: Lars Von Trier’s “Bleak” House
http://culturecatch.com/film/melancholia
NR
07/10/2011 at 17:51
This is the second review I have read that mentions not turning on the TV. Remember the bit where the electricity cuts out?..
Also, I just had to comment on this “some of the strongest acting, the most evocative music, and the most beautiful imagery of cinema this summer”. Some? This summer? Give me stronger (or as strong) acting, more evocative music, and more beautiful imagery – this summer, or any other time, and I will watch it in a heartbeat!
Pedant
12/11/2011 at 19:10
The film is set in Pennsylvania, not Sweden. Check Claire’s license plates.
Samantha Shannon-Jones
11/01/2012 at 16:13
‘Melancholia’ was filmed in Sweden, so technically the chateau is Swedish. But I take your point.
David
18/02/2012 at 02:27
This film is my favourite film of 2011, but it does have some minor flaws, the length of the wedding scene not being one of them.
For instance, exactly what would cause a massively larger planet to decelerate from 60,000mph and loop back around to collide with a much smaller one? The scenario of our planet being nudged out of circular orbit and into an elliptical one, alternately being cooked and frozen is more likely, but I don’t think they had the budget for that. Also, why does Claire keep carrying her child? He’s perfectly capable of walking, and very heavy.
Having watched the film three times, the wedding scene is very much the key to the whole thing. Poor Justine gets tipped over into depression by a succession of dementors, starting with her over-enthusiastic groom. Every interaction she has chips pieces off what remains of her confidence, and everyone lets her down in one way or another, apart from her sister who picks up the pieces later.
Wayne
01/03/2012 at 00:25
I must agree with David largely.
Firstly on the scientific flaws. Ok, a rogue planet being hurled out of its solar orbit, travelling through the gulf of space, and eventually colliding with the earth, is astronomically improbable, but it’s not actually impossible. I agree with David that Melancholia does look a bit too beautiful and blue and swirly, considering it’s had no sun, probably for thousands of years, travelling during that time at temperatures of near absolute zero, only to be cooked by a fly by our sun.
Then there’s the planet’s speed. Not only does the planet travel away from the earth at 60,000mph to swing back again, but has anyone tried the math on the speed at which it supposedly comes back and hits the earth?
Looking at the scene in the prologue where we see the full impact from space, Melancholia consumes the complete diameter of the earth in around 20 seconds. The diameter of the earth is just under 8,000 miles. So that’s 8,000 miles in 20 seconds is around 400 miles per second (charitably assuming the impact with the earth didn’t slow the planet down, else it would have had to be travelling even faster than that prior to collision).
400 miles per second = 24,000 miles per minute = 1.44 million MPH!!!
This is all approximate, of course – but what kind of force would it take to get a planet 10 times the “size” of the earth, travelling at 60,000 mph away from it, to be travelling at 1.44 MILLION miles per hour TOWARDS it? Certainly more than the earth’s puny 1G gravity, especially given that the planet is reputedly 10 times the size. I think a small black hole would probably be required!
And the planet is certainly more than 10 times the VOLUME of the earth. It looks about 4 times the diameter, which would make it around 64 times the volume. Of course Melancholia may be a less dense planet, so 10 times the mass isn’t unreasonable – possibly!
Then there’s the rumbling sound of the planet. a) What’s causing it and b) How would that sound travel through the total vacuum of space to the ears of the characters + observing camera? There’d be nothing for it to travel through.
But all this is very nit-picky
All the scientific flaws in the world can’t detract from this film’s cinematic beauty and AMAZING acting. Kirsten Dunst and Claire Gainsborough put in some of the strongest performances I have EVER seen, this year or any other. IMO the wedding scene isn’t too long. It draws you in and is necessary to get the frame of mind to understand Justine later in the movie. And the final scene is one of the most powerful I have ever seen.
Overall I’d probably give this film 9.5/10. The science could have been done just that tiny bit better and tiny bit more believably, but other than that, this is a breath-taking film.
Wayne.