Kritika je film nazvala avangardnim, ekscentričnim, fascinantnim, interaktivnim, religioznim te nikako nesofisticiranim i dosadnim. Kako je novinarka Batya Ungar-Sargon u svom članku "Sometimes a Misogynist is Just a Misogynist" za Tablet Magazine rekla: " Moram priznati da mi je cijela ta hvala potpuna misterija. Kako je film koji koristi genitalije porno glumaca i glave filmskih glumaca na bilo koji način avangardan? Nije li upravo ovo dihtomija na kojoj se bazira čitavo naše društvo- sex work je sramotan i stoga nedostojan prednosti i pohvala, dok filmska gluma nije sex work nego art? Gospodin von Trier je doslovno obnovio ovu kršćansku dihtomiju na samim tijelima svojih glumaca. I to bi trebalo biti provokativno?" Ungar-Sargon ističe kako je film samo lažno provokativan. U biti on je retrogradan. Upravo je suprotan od onog što bi trebao biti!
Charlotte Gainsbourg kao starija Joe i Stacy Martin kao mlađa Joe, glume samoprozvanu nimfomanku koja sva izubijana biva pronađenom u mračnoj uličici od strane 60- godišnjeg Jewa Seligmana kojeg glumi Stelan Skarsgard. Seligman spašava Joe i odvodi je u svoj stan gdje je posprema u krevet, dajući joj okrepu u obliku šalice čaja i razgovora tijekom kojeg mu Joe ispriča cijelu svoju životnu priču. Dotični je samoprozvani djevac te kao takav posve bezopasan i potpuno objektivan da sasluša u najmanju ruku vidno uznemirenu Joe. Već u samom startu jasno nam je da nešto nije u redu s ovom naizgled bezopasnom situacijom jer je čitav film, odnosno oba njegova dijela, prožet nelagodnom notom. I opet uzorak se ponavlja: On je taj koji je racionalan i objektivan, koji sluša, umiruje i objašnjava, Ona je ta koja je depresivna, neurotična, neprilagođena. Nelagoda se razriješava scenom na kraju drugog dijela filma i konačno završetkom cijele priče, kada Seligman pokušava silovati Joe uz riječi: "Pa bila si s toliko muškaraca!" u smislu: "Pa s toliko njih si se jebala, zašto ne bi i sa mnom!" Scena u kojoj je on nakon što mu ova ispriča svoju traumatičnu životnu priču, čitavo vrijeme okrivljujući sebe za sve što se dogodilo, tješeći pospremi u krevet i ugasi svijetlo, da bi se za koju minutu vratio polugol nastojeći penetrirati u nju koja je već zaspala, uz već spomenute riječi, "divno" opisuje stav koji naše društvo ima spram silovanja: Ako žena voli seks i uvelike ga prakticira, zaslužuje biti silovana! Rečenica: "Pa bila si s toliko muškaraca!", pritom je samo jedna od mnogih s prikrivenim mizoginičnim značenjem. Baš poput one koju Joe uporno ponavlja tijekom oba dijela: "Ispuni mi sve rupe!", što je zapravo prikrivena aluzija na poziv za silovanjem jer u našem je društvu također uvriježeno mišljenje da je žena ta koja poziva na silovanje, odnosno provocira ga.
Film je ispunjen i ostalim mističnim mizoginičnim bullshitom kao što je primjerice scena u kojoj Joe opisuje nadnaravno iskustvo koje je doživjela kao mala djevojčica, a koji opisuje kao spontani orgazam. Možda će vas iznenaditi, ali ne postoji nešto što se zove spontani /mistični/ orgazam jer orgazam bez stimulacije NE POSTOJI. Dapače, ženski orgazam je proces i činjenica jest da isti zahtijeva ne samo simulaciju, nego i neki oblik svjesnijeg truda, koliko god nam pornići pričali bajke o brzom klimaksu i svodili seks samo na brzu penetraciju i orgazam koji se događa u sekundi. Zbog istog ovog stava, žene teško dosežu vrhunac i osjećaju krivnju jer je za njihov orgazam potrebno ipak nešto više vremena i truda, nego što je to potrebno muškarcu. Jer on želi da svršiš, ali mu se često baš i ne da potruditi oko toga. Jer on želi da ti voliš seks, ali ne želi da imaš neke komplicirane dijelove koje on ne razumije.
Od problematičnijih rečenica u filmu izdvojila bih još neke:
"Ja sam samo užasno ljudsko biće!" Zašto se u svakako von Trierovom filmu žena osjeća kao užasno biće?
"Moja majka je bila hladna kučka!" Ne progovara li to sam von Trier kroz ovu rečenicu?
Iii svakako jedna od "dražih" mi: "Ako bih te zamolila da mi oduzmeš djevičanstvo bi li to bio problem?" Pritom to iskustvo završava kao i vaginalno i analno silovanje, u stilu: Hoćeš kurca? E sad ćeš ga dobiti! Taj isti koji je Joe oduzeo djevičanstvo, u filmu se pojavljuje svaki put opet iznova i to kao njena jedina prava ljubav, jedini seks koji je za nju bio više od seksa. Čisto sumnjam da djevojčice maštaju o svom prvom putu kao činu silovanja, kao i da će rijetko koja reći da joj je ljubav života onaj koji ju je silovao.
"Nimfomanka" je film nastao po uzoru na erotske dnevnike iz 18. stoljeća. Radi se o žanru koji je bio pun muškaraca literarno zamaskiranih u žene, kako bi međusobno drkali na iste pogrešne percepcije ženske anatomije koje von Trier prikazuje. Kako već spomenuta novinarka Batya Ungar-Sargon tvrdi, 90% filma je zaista direktno prepisano iz djela pod nazivom Fanny Hill, Memoari žene od užitka Johna Clelanda ( Fanny Hill, Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure (1749) ), od slova koji predstavljaju imena muškaraca koje je Joe osvojila i slova koje predstavlja onog jednog jedinog, njene prave ljubavi koja se konstantno pojavljuje u filmu do sadomazo scena. Čini se da nismo daleko došli od 1974. i dana kada su muškarci drkali na ideju žene koja drka na ono na što muškarci drkaju. Jesam li dobro prevela? Rečenica ide ovako točno: Yes, 1749. We’ve come a long way since the days when men got off on the idea of women getting off on them getting off, in the sense of not having come any way at all. Neki će možda reći da je von Trier svjestan svega ovog i da je "Nimfomanka" zapravo parodija na muške seksualne fantazije i kulturu koja ih opredmećuje, iako ja ne vidim što je tu smiješno. Neki će, budući da film zaista i vrvi religioznim elementima, reći da je Joe orgazmički Isus koji traži transcendenciju, dok je djevičanski Seligman tu da je nauči kako su interpretacija i zakon, a ne potraga za duhom, pravi put ka prosvjetljenju. No, predstaviti Joe-in apetit za seksom, koji je jasno objašnjen kao pokušaj da se ublaži bol i povrati samopoštovanje ( revolucionarno jelda! :) ), kao potragu za transcendencijom je kao prihvati uvjete filma koji nalažu da je pokušaj žene da zadovolji muškarca, jedini način prosvjetljenja, jedini način na koji žena može biti prosvjetljena. Ne govori li nam isto pop kultura, protiv koje se ovakvi- avangardni, provokativni, ekscentrični filmovi zapravo bore? Isto tako angažirati muškarca da glumi lik koji objašnjava žensko seksualno iskutsvo je u najmanju ruku smiješno, ali jebiga da je u nekom slušaju on žena, film bi bio prefeministički! A svima je pun kurac feministica koje tu traže neka svoja prava!
.jpg)
Voljela bih imati razumijevanja za von Trierov stil, ali činjenica jest da njegova provokativnost često odlazi u bizarno, gnjusno i nasilno, nasilno po ženu prije svega! I uvijek ću biti pobornica provokativnog, šoka i pomicanja granica, ne šoka radi, nego zato što nas šok tjera da progledamo, da promislimo, da se pomaknemo iz udobnosti svoje kože. On je u konačnici sam rekao da dobar film mora biti kao kamenčić u cipeli. Čak se i slažem s njim u smislu da perverzija, podsvijest i seksualnost jesu povezani i mogu nam mnogo reći o čovjeku i društvu, ali zar prikaz istog zaista mora biti toliko degutantan? Također, zar su neke scene u njegovim filmovima zaista potrebne ili on samo uživa u njima? Ovom nonšalantnom nacistu sve je pak vječito vrlo smiješno, a mi žene smo nadrkane feministice koje pizde zbog svake gluposti! Oprostit ćete mi, ali njegovi ženski likovi ne stvaraju mi ugodu, ne kao feministkinji nego kao čovjeku. Jer naprosto ne razumijem poruku njegovih filmova. Jedina poruka koju "Nimfomanka" prenosi je da je u redu da se žena jebe kao muškarac, ali to je otprilike jedina pozitivna poruka. A i ta je navučena. Ona više ide u smjeru: Žene se ful seksaju i to je ok, ali to je u biti samo zato jer su u svojoj prirodi neurotične drolje. Sve ostalo u filmu svodi se na mizoginistički poziv na silovanje. Što točno von Trier ima pozitivno za reći na temu ženske seksualnosti, a i racionalnosti? Štoviše, toliko smo se navikli na njegov stil i sve takve slične filmove da uopće ne shvaćamo da s njima nešto nije u redu!!!! Njegovi filmovi nisu posvećeni ženi, nego muškim fantazijama, fantazijama koje taj rod posjeduje o ženskom seksu. Umjetnost ne smije stvarati konfuziju oko ženske anatomije i seksualne želje! Umjetnost ne smije biti degutantna! Ona svojim šok -učinkom treba tjerati na promišljanje, ali nikad, nikad nema, pravo biti nasilna i degutantna! Zašto ne tražimo više od umjetnosti? I opet, glavna glumica, štoviše redateljeva muza Charlotte Gainsbourg ne kuži kurca. U intervjuima ona ne ističe ništa loše u vezi von Trierovog stvaralaštva, iako bi kao kćer Jane Birkin, politički i socijalno osviještene žene, trebala znati bolje. To da glavna glumica ne razumije što je loše u cijeloj priči nije opravdanje, nego dokaz koliko su mizoginisticki stavovi u našem društvu duboko ukorijenjeni, toliko ukorijenjeni da neke žene zaista misle da je ovakvo stvaralaštvo prihvatljivo. I konačno, ne trebamo biti izučeni psiholozi i psihijatri da bi se upitali kakav to bolestan odnos von Trier ima sa svojom majkom koju u intervjuima naziva kurvom. Nije li njegovo stvaralaštvo zapravo osveta?
-------------
Misogyny in opus of Lars von Trier part 3- Nymfomaniac
Criticis called the movie avant-garde, eccentric, fascinating, interactive, religious and certainly not unsophisticated or boring. As journalist Batya Ungar-Sargon said in her article "Sometimes a Misogynist is Just a Misogynist" for the Tablet Magazine: " I have to admit that I am mystified by this praise. How is a film that uses porn stars’ genitalia and movie stars’ heads in any way avant garde? Isn’t this precisely the dichotomy on which our entire society is horrifically based—that sex work is shameful and therefore unworthy of benefits and acclaim, while movie acting is not sex work but art? Mr. von Trier has literally reiterated this deeply Christian dichotomy on the bodies of his actors. And this is supposed to be provocative? "Ungar-Sargon says that the movie is just being falsely provocative. In its essence it is retrograde. It is the opposite of what it should be!
Charlotte Gainsbourg as the older Joe and Stacy Martin as the young Joe, take the role of a self-proclaimed nymphomaniac who is all bruised found in a dark alley by a 60 year old Jew Seligman played by Stelan Skarsgard. Seligman saves Joe and takes her to his apartment where he puts her to bed, giving her a refreshment in the form of a cup of tea and conversation during which Joe tells him her entire life story. He is a self-proclaimed virgin and as such completely harmless and completely objective to listen to the visibly upset Joe. Already at the start it is clear that there is something wrong with this seemingly harmless situation because the whole movie, both of its parts, are infused with an uneasy note. Again, the pattern repeats itself: "He is the one who is rational and objective, who listens, soothes and explains, She is the one who is depressed, neurotic, maladjusted. The discomfort culminates at the end of second part of the movie and the ending of the story, when Seligman tries to rape Joe with the words : "But you’ve been with so many men" in the sense "But you fucked with so many men, why wouldn't you fuck with me too?!" The scene where he, after she told him her traumatic life story, all the time blaming herself for everything that happened, comfortingly puts her in bed and turns off the light, to come back a few minutes half naked trying to penetrate her, who is already asleep, with the above-mentioned words, "wonderfully" describes an attitude that our society has toward rape: If a woman loves sex and largely practices it, she deserves to be raped! The sentence : "But you’ve been with so many men! " is one of many with hidden mysogynistic meaning. Just like the one Joe persistently repeats during both parts: "Fill all my holes" which is actually a veiled allusion for a call for rape because in our society it is a common misconception that a woman is the one who calls for the rape or provokes it.
The film is filled with other mystical misogynist bullshit such as the scene which Joe describes as a supernatural experience that she experienced as a little girl, which she describes as a spontaneous orgasm. It may surprise you, but there isn't a thing called spontaneous / mystical / orgasm because orgasm without stimulating DOESN'T EXIST. Indeed, the female orgasm is a process, and the fact is that it requires not only simulation, but also some form of more conscious effort, as much as porn movies tell us tales about rapid climax and reduce sex only to rapid penetration and orgasms that happens in few seconds. Because of this same attitude, women hardly reach climax and feel guilty because their orgasm takes somewhat more time and effort than it takes for that of a man. Because he wants you to come, but he often doesn't really want to try to help you come. Because he wants you to love sex, but doesn't want you to have some complicated parts that he doesn't understand.
From the problematic sentences in the movie I would also single out these few:
"I'm just a horrible human being!" Why do all women in von Trier's films feel like horrible beings?
"My mother was a cold bitch!" Is von Trier himself maybe talking through this sentence?
Aaaand certainly one of my "favorites": "If I asked you to take my virginity would that be a problem?" This experience let's not forget ends as both vaginal and anal rape in the sense: You want to fuck? Well, now you are going to get what you deserve! The same guy who took Joe's virginity, appears in the film again and again and as her one true love, the only sex which was more than sex to her. I doubt that girls fantasize about their first time as an act of rape, the same as I doubt that rarely any girl will say that the love of her life is the one who raped her.
"Nymphomaniac" is modeled on the erotic journals of the 18th-century, a genre that was filled with men masquerading literarily as women to get each other off with all the same mistakes of female anatomy as von Trier exhibits. Like the above mentioned journalist Batya Ungar-Sargon said indeed, 90 percent of the film is cribbed directly from Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure, or Fanny Hill, from the letters standing in for the names of her conquests to the one true love who keeps reappearing, to the S&M scene and then its reversal, it’s all there in 1749. Yes, 1749. We’ve come a long way since the days when men got off on the idea of women getting off on them getting off, in the sense of not having come any way at all. There are those who might argue that von Trier is aware of all of this, and that "Nymphomaniac" is a parody of masculine fantasies and the culture that reifies them. And there are those who will say, since the film is indeed full of religious elements, that Joe represents an orgasmic Jesus seeking transcendence, while the virginal Jew Seligman teaches her that interpretation and law, rather than the quest for the spirit, is the true path to enlightenment. But to cast Joe’s appetite for sex, which is clearly explained by the film as an attempt to dull pain and recover self-esteem (revolutionary, right!) as a search for transcendence, is to accept the film’s terms that a woman trying to please men sexually is the only form of transcendence open to women. Isn't pop culture, telling us the same, the same culture such-avant-garde, provocative, eccentric films actually fight? Also to cast a man as a character who explains female sexual experience is the least funny, but well if it was a woman, the film would have been too feminist! And everyone is full of fucking feminists seeking some women rights!
I would like to understand von Trier's style, but the fact is that his provocacy often goes to the bizarre, disgusting and violent, violent for women above all! I'll always be a supporter of the provocative, shock and shifting borders, not for shock's sake, but because shock makes us open our eyes, makes us think, moves us from the comfort of our skin. Finally he said himself that a good film should be like a pebble in the shoe. Even I agree with him in the sense that perversion, subconscious and sexuality are connected and can tell us much about man and society, but does the display of it have to be that disgusting? Also, are some scenes in his movies really necessary, or is he just enjoying them? This nonchalant Nazi always thinks all of this is very funny, and we women are just pissed off feminists who bitch about every stupid thing! You will forgive me, but his female characters do not make me feel good, not as a feminist but as a human being. Because I just don't understand his message! The only message that "Nymphomaniac" conveys is that it's okay for a woman to fuck like a man, but it is pretty much the only positive message. And even that is far fetched. It goes more in the direction of : "Women have sex a lot and that's ok, but it is only because they are neurotic sluts in their nature". The rest of the film is reduced to misogynistic invitation to rape. What exactly does von Trier has to say on the subject of female sexuality and rationality that is positive? Moreover, we got so used to his style and that sort of movies that we even don't realize that there's something wrong with them! His films are not dedicated to women, but to male fantasies that this gender has about female sex. Art should not create confusion about women's sexual desire and anatomy! Art should not be disgusting! It needs its shock effect to makes us think, but never, never has it the right to be violent and disgusting, why don't we ask more from art? And again, the main actress, moreover the director's muse Charlotte Gainsbourg doesn't understand shit. In interviews she emphasizes how she doesn't see anything wrong with von Trier's films, although as the daughter of Jane Birkin, a politically and socially conscious woman, she should know better. The fact that the lead actress doesn't understand what is wrong with the whole story is not justification, but proof of how misogynistic attitudes are deeply rooted in our society, so rooted that some women really think that this kind of creativity is acceptable. And finally, we do not need to be trained psychologists and psychiatrists to ask what kind of sick relationship von Trier has with his mother whom he calls a whore in the interviews. Isn't his work actually revenge?
sources for the texts:
.jpg)
.jpg)
