Nymphomaniac (Vol. 1 & 2) is a 2013 Danish drama film written and directed by Lars von Trier. Before going any further it’s imperative to demystify the movie’s title. According to the dictionary definition, “Nymphomania is the uncontrollable or excessive sexual desire in a woman.” So, basically, a nymphomaniac is a woman who has abnormally excessive and uncontrollable sexual desire, in other words, a female sex addict. Nymphomaniac got released internationally in form of two separate volumes of roughly two hours each. However, Lars von Trier also premiered an extended cut of the first half of the film, Nymphomaniac: Vol. 1, with 30 minutes of extra footage at the 64th Berlin Film Festival, which garnered rave reviews. This film critique doesn’t analyze the two volumes separately but as a whole.
Lars von Trier’s Nymphomaniac—a bold and daring cinematic treatise on lust, jealousy and solitude—proves to be a devastating life-changing experience that makes us question the nothingness of our existence. As a work of art, it refines ours senses and haunts our imagination with its ribald motifs and breathtaking imagery. In Nymphomaniac, Lars von Trier essentially presents, in form of eight sprawling chapters (5 in Vol. 1 and 3 in Vol. 2), the bizarre tale of a self-diagnosed nymphomaniac, named Joe, recounting her erotic experiences during the different phases of her life. Lars von Trier borrows random ideas from varied disciplines and blends them seamlessly, not only demonstrating his remarkable range as an artist but also reasserting his credentials as a filmmaker par excellence.
Lars von Trier, in his characteristic style, handpicks a rather controversial subject and then gives it the most unconventional treatment. The result is an end product that’s dark, diabolical, and deviously clever. The movie despite its serious outlook has an undercurrent of dark humour that harks back to von Trier’s earlier works. Nymphomaniac: Vol. I, which presents Joe’s younger years, unfolds at a whirlwind pace and seems to underline the unrestrained joys of female libertinism. It’s a sheer delight to watch a newcomer (Stacy Martin) portray Joe’s youthful years so passionately and with an air of effortless ease. Nymphomaniac: Vol. II, which has a rather somber feel thanks to a drastic tonal shift with respect to Vol. I, shows the middle-aged Joe (played by Charlotte Gainsbourg) finally come to term with the limitations, hardships and hypocrisies of a mortal’s life as she ends up paying the price for her frenzied modus vivendi.
Nymphomaniac is easily Lars von Trier’s most accessible work till date. But, make no mistake! It’s not your run-of-the-mill cinematic product. Is it pornography? According to Wikipedia, “Pornography is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual arousal.” Now, there’s no denying that von Trier’s film is quite explicit in its propagation of sexual content. But, does it serve the purpose of sexual arousal? The film evokes pathos, horror and revulsion but not an iota of sexual gratification (unless you are a pervert). Credit must go to Lars von Trier for concocting a film that in less accomplished hands could have slumped into the realm of artsy porn.
In Nymphomaniac. for some uncanny reasons, Lars von Trier chooses to make his male characters either dumb or effeminate and the female characters smart and transgressing. Lars von Trier questions the elevated status of love vis-à-vis other human emotions. Lars von Trier creates a very interesting character in Seligman (Stellan Skarsgård)—an intellectual who chooses to stay a virgin all his life. According to Seligman, humanity is divided into two groups: the people who cut the fingernails of the left hand first (the light-hearted people who have a tendency to enjoy life more because they go straight for the easiest task and save the difficulties for later), and the people who cut the fingernails of the right hand first. Seligman himself belongs to second category as oppose to Joe who being a true pleasure-seeker falls in the first category. While Seligman and Joe come across as exact antithesis of each other, there’s much in common between the two of them. The two are tied together by some strange bond. Is it pity or envy? In the end, Nymphomaniac poses the all-important question: Whether to express oneself or to keep oneself restrained?
Overall, Nymphomaniac proves to be an endlessly fascinating work of cinema that brilliantly balances style with substance. At the same time, it’s not an easy film to watch by any stretch of imagination and can pose serious impediments to the uninitiated viewer. Nymphomaniac features a lot many memorable sequences. The one featuring Uma Thurman in the role of a distressed wife is definitely a cut above the rest. Then there’s the movie’s shocking finale that’s bound to leave the viewer cold. Amidst a plethora of disturbing scenes the movie does offer few moments of respite thanks to the occasional bursts of humor. Joe’s messed-up erotic encounter with two black men inside a hotel room is by far the most hilarious. The movie also features a levitation sequence that’s highly reminiscent of Andrei Tarkovsky’s 1975 film, The Mirror aka Zerkalo (the seventh chapter of Nymphomaniac is also named as “The Mirror”). Lars von Trier also pays tribute to Bond films. Joe’s morbid sexual behavior and the underlying sexual fetishism remind one of Bunuel’s remarkable 1967 film, Belle de Jour. In one of the scenes, Lars von Trier cheekily pays homage to the opening sequence of Antichrist. Nymphomaniac, in so many ways, is Lars von Trier’s tribute to cinema, a solemn expression of his love and appreciation for the medium. In Nymphomaniac, Lars von Trier seems to have blatantly depicted almost all forms of human sexuality which makes Nymphomaniac a very challenging film to watch for an average viewer. But, courage and patience have their own rewards, and in this case, plenty.
Rating (Vol. 1 & 2): 8.5/10
Note: This article was originally published here