The King's Speech

The King’s Speech Review

“A Voice Within”

Heather Hardison, Ph.D.

The King’s Speech is a winner in all aspects. It is easy to see why this film won audiences over and took home the Academy Award for Best Picture and Best Actor in a year that was filled with many exceptional films. First off, I appreciated the slow pace so that the story could fully unfold. So many movies seem to rush the pace out of fear of losing the audience's attention, which I call the ADHD effect since we are certainly living in an age of immediate gratification. Before I saw the film I imagined that at times it would drag on given the nature of the film but was pleasantly surprised that it moved along quite nicely and it held my attention which I feel is due to the compelling performances by Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush. They truly carry this film and it is impossible to take your eyes off them.

Colin plays Albert “Bertie” (George the VI) the Duke of York who finds himself in the position of inheriting the throne which comes with an added role of many public speaking engagements that he finds terrifying. Geoffrey Rush portrays the speech therapist, Lionel Logue, whom the Duke’s wife solicits help from in order to treat Albert’s speech impediment.

From the first scene it was clear that Colin Firth was the right man for this demanding role. Watching him stumble over his words during his first speech as the Duke of York was uncomfortable and hard to watch, and it became clear that Firth totally embodied this character. Colin’s physical movements that he incorporated into this character portrayal were astounding. Firth turned in a remarkable and unforgettable performance. He is emerging as a dramatic leading man and will most likely be nominated again for another academy award considering his consistent performances and choices of challenging roles. This was his second nomination after his haunting portrayal of a grieving homosexual who lost his lover in A Single Man last year. He is certainly one to watch for greatness in the years to come.

I was quite surprised by the humor of The King’s Speech. I had envisioned this as a serious film, but Firth and Rush both have impeccable comic timing and the two played off each other perfectly. The chemistry between the two was crucial for this film to work since the bond that was created between these two real life characters over the years of working together was the focal point of this story.

For me, one of the most fascinating aspects was the relationship between therapist and patient. The way Logue doesn’t back down from The Duke of York was bold on his part but necessary for the treatment process. His insistence on equality – “My castle my rules!” sets the tone early for a struggle over the power considering that Albert is the Duke and future King at the time that they meet and he is accustomed to special treatment and deference. New boundaries and social roles have to be established at the beginning of their relationship in order for them to move forward and make progress in Albert’s speech therapy.

What the film does quite nicely is highlight the vulnerabilities and flaws of even those who hold the greatest power in the world. It reminds us that plight does not target just the poor or middle class. In fact, if those flaws in the royal family are discovered it could be devastating to their public persona and could have disastrous effects on the way the country is run. Thus, we can feel the pressure mounting as his responsibilities increase. Logue observes this as well and tries to convince Bertie that he shouldn’t be overcome by his fears and that it is only his fear and not his actual disability that is holding him back. Stuttering can be exacerbated by stress as depicted well in this picture. You can see the weight of the burden that Bertie carries on his shoulders – the weight of a country. His fear is that he will disappoint his entire country and the memory of his father King George the 5^th. At times he feels as if his impediment is so severe that it will impair his ability to serve as King and his suffering builds tension to the plot as well as garner sympathy from the audience.

Bertie is known for his temper and the intensity shown during his frequent outbursts were enjoyable to watch as that seemed to be the only times when he really let go and allowed the true Bertie to show through. In those times his stammer was less noticeable and you can see the changes in his posture and body language as he feels free from some of that pressure that normally bogs him down. What Colin does so well is convey the sense of sadness that Bertie feels under the surface when facing his failure head on without a way out of the spotlight. Also the lack of self confidence is always apparent through his eyes especially in those interactions with his older brother who bullies him even through adulthood. When feeling low, he almost appears to shrink in stature as if withdrawing inward. Logue seems to be the only one to connect with him and draw him out of that inward retreat. Most of those scenes where he seems to disappear I noticed that the camera held him in either the right or just the left corner of the film and not centered. This technique seemed to help reduce his size to emphasize his vulnerability and meekness, which really added to our understanding of his self perception. In those instances his presence resembled that of a child. Not a small feat for Colin who has a rather large stature himself.

Bertie makes it clear at the beginning of treatment that he doesn’t want to explore the cause of his stammer and instructs Logue not to ask personal questions about his life or his upbringing. As I psychologist I understand the importance of self discovery and connecting the pieces to identify the origin of the presenting complaint. However, it is not uncommon for therapy clients to have a fear of facing the actual cause of their malady. Part of it is a defense mechanism that has protected them from this knowledge for years and it unfortunately plays a part in continuing the cycle of the problematic behavior. Another part is fear of facing the insight. Remaining in denial is a more comfortable and safe way to exist. Despite Bertie’s resistance, Logue instinctively searches for the root cause and presses further and further into Bertie’s family history to gain insight into what fuels his speech impediment. At first Bertie agrees to attend sessions if they only address the mechanics of his disorder, but over time Logue breaks through Bertie’s guard and progress is made. One of the most memorable lines from Logue that sticks with me is “You don’t need to be afraid of the things you were afraid of when you were five.” He is conveying to Bertie that it is no longer necessary to hold on to that fear and let it control him. It is safe for him to embrace his true self. This was a turning point in Albert’s success. It allowed him to let go of the fear from childhood and the ridicule from the teasing and step into a new phase of his life where he reclaimed his birthright and his place in the world. It was his ability to accept himself (flaws and all) that released him from his internal torture and allowed him to come into his own.

For me, some of the most interesting scenes were those that depicted the rather strange techniques used as interventions for stammering, some of which were quite humorous. The scenes with Bertie and Logue in his speech therapy sessions gave the film it’s heart. The friendship and bond that was developed through years of working together was the thread that holds this story’s appeal.

Bertie dubs himself as the “Voiceless King,” but Logue believes in him and helps him find his voice along the way. At times Logue acts as a coach giving a pep talk to build Albert’s confidence stating, “You are your own man; have faith in your voice.” When Albert finally finds his voice, he is fully able to step into the role as leader for his country. This personal growth is due to the bond with Logue and was heart warming to watch.

Everything about this film is spot on. The drab colors and rainy atmosphere convey the feel of an old English setting. The music builds tension and interest as the plot develops. Each of the characters is cast perfectly and come together as a cohesive unit. What I do find ironic is that Helena Bonham Carter was nominated for an Academy Award for her portrayal as the King’s wife which is a rather subtle and normal role for her. I wish she would receive more recognition for her truly challenging roles where she taps in to a level of insanity that I feel no other actress has the acting chops to pull off. Roles such as Bellatrix Lestrange in Harry Potter and the Red Queen in Alice and Wonderland are more complex and teetering on the edge of complete madness, yet she isn’t given acclaim for those characters. There is something a little off to me in that equation. I feel she is always stellar and she added a bit of humor and pretentiousness needed for her portrayal of the Queen here. The King’s Speech ensemble was exceptional and it was nice to learn that they were all “chummy” on the set as well as off the set.

The use of the actual speeches from the 1930’s adds to the historic credibility and conjures up images of families huddled around their radios hanging on every word of these accounts of war and “dark times.” 

No doubt you will feel knots in your stomach as he is taking the long walk to his final speech knowing the obstacle that he faces. It takes a courageous man to stand up to his fear and you feel the pangs of anxiety surrounding this momentous event. Eleanor Roosevelt hit on this same point when she said "You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face... The danger lies in refusing to face the fear, in not daring to come to grips with it... You must make yourself succeed every time. You must do the thing you think you cannot do." And this is exactly what Albert does in the last scene of the film. The comparison from his first speech to his last in the film is remarkable and inspiring.

Hopefully this film opens up tolerance of disabilities of all kinds. Often the result of impairment is shame, but it doesn’t have to be. It is the perseverance over these obstacles that builds character and strength. If we learn to embrace those struggles and not feel defeated then more of us will model the acceptance of these flaws to the world and reduce the shame that is associated with such disadvantages.

This is a must see film and it is one that they should show in acting classes around the country based on Firth’s first class performance.

Best film of the year, Extraordinary peformances by Firth and Rush, Compelling, and Triumphant!

5 out of 5 stars 

Rock of Ages is a Rockin Good time

Heather Hardison, PhD.

Tom Cruise as Stacee Jaxx

Rock of Ages is definitely my summer guilty pleasure!! Most of my childhood and adolescent memories are tied to rock songs from the classic hair bands Warrant, Skid Row, Poison, Bon Jovi, Guns and Roses and my favorite Def Leppard! I have been dying to see the Broadway version of Rock of Ages starring Constantine Maroulis ever since he opened the show on Broadway. I was very disappointed when it was announced that he wouldn’t star in the film version of Rock of Ages as the young hopeful rocker, Drew, but Shankman felt he was too old at 36 to play someone in their early 20’s. Maroulis was nominated for a Tony in 2009 for Best Performance for a Leading Actor in a Musical for originating the role of Drew and has garnered much praise for his killer rock voice. He even found love with his on stage love interest, Angel Reed, who played Sherri in the Broadway version of ROA. For Constantine lovers, you will be happy to spot the original rocker in a 10 second cameo as a record executive. It’s short so you have to pay close attention.

Diego Boneta as Drew in the Film Version of ROA

Julianne Hough as Sherri

I had never heard of Diego Boneta before this film, but he delivered a solid performance and rocked the stage when covering Twisted Sister’s “I wanna rock” after channeling his inner angst due to a broken heart; so his cool points shot way up after that killer performance. Julianne Hough gives another strong musical performance and comes across as the naïve but sassy small town girl from Tulsa, Oklahoma wanting to make it big in Hollywood. As Sherri, she is fun, energetic and tough, and Boneta and Hough have great chemistry together.

Tom Cruise seemed to be an odd choice to me from the beginning. I wasn’t sure if he could sing, but he sounded pretty good even if it was auto-tuned much of the time. He was able to transform himself into the role of a narcissistic, strung out rock god. It was uncomfortable to watch his scenes at times because this role is not typical for Cruise as he usually chooses characters that aren’t as overtly sexual.

He was over the top in this film right down to the tattooed revolvers pointing at his crotch and assless chaps in his first on screen appearance, which was a lot to take in so early into the film. Cruise fully committed to this role and stayed in character the whole time. It was interesting to watch Stacee’s transformation from being in denial about the extent of his flailing career and disconnection with his true self into a clearer, more focused and fulfilled musician, which became possible through the love he found with reporter Constance Sack.

Stacee Jaxx reminded me a lot of Frank T. J. Mackey, Cruise’s role in Magnolia in 1999 (shown here). Cruise won the much deserved Golden Globe that year and was also nominated for the Academy Award for his intense and riveting performance of the male chauvinist motivational speaker. Both were narcissists being interviewed by a bold reporter trying to ruffle a few feathers to expose the true person underneath the arrogant façade put on as a front to the rest of the world. Cruise was more believable in Magnolia than in ROA. He seems to be overacting in his later roles compared to his earlier work. His performances were so effortless in Top Gun, A Few Good Men and the first Mission Impossible, but as he ages his performances are more forced, which makes it more uncomfortable to watch. Some reviewers are stating that this role was his best, but there have been so many other films where his charm and magnetism was more electric.

We learn very quickly that Jaxx is a narcissistic, sexually addicted, alcoholic on the search for the perfect woman to love and the perfect song that will make his whole world fall in line. He is challenged in an interview by Constance Sack who wants to dig deeper to get Stacee’s attention to wake him up from the alcoholic haze that his manager keeps him in so that he can continue to control his every move.

Underneath narcissism there is a deep rooted insecurity that is hidden so that others can’t see that vulnerability. They often feel too vulnerable and exposed once others know it’s all an act. They are invested in keeping up appearances at all costs; so it’s a life long act, and they often lose themselves along the way. Once pushed too many times by Sack in the interview, Jaxx reveals to Constance that he has become a slave to rock n roll in order to give the people what they want and to sell records. He covers up that pain and disappointment with booze,and it isn’t until Constance comes along that he dares to reveal any of his true feelings about his rock star status and what his true desires are. Stacee’s narcissistic characteristics are present most of the film until he miraculously transforms at the end of the film once he finds true love. Narcissism isn’t cured so easily in real life, as it is a personality disorder that is usually present for life. However, this is a fictitious story about a rock star; so we shouldn’t expect them to understand the pattern of such pervasive psychological disorders.

It seemed throughout the film that Cruise was often poking fun at his own level of fame. Women throw themselves at Stacee’s feet and faint in his presence. No doubt that Cruise has experienced some similar encounters given his own star power and he probably finds it pretty absurd.

For the most part, the critics seem to be beating up on Rock of Ages. This film was never meant to be a masterpiece or an Academy award winning film. It’s meant to be “nothing but a good time.” It’s supposed to be cheesy folks! Just sit back and enjoy the music and sing along to those rock anthems that you know you had in your tape deck back when MTV debuted in the early 80’s. I say give in to your inner rocker and rock out to this fun, entertaining flick.

Talk about a great supportive cast! Russell Brand and Alec Baldwin have wildly funny chemistry as two “has beens” still stuck in the bar scene after many years of partying a little too hard.

Russell Brand stole every one of the scenes he was in. He proves once again that he has perfect comedic timing. I can’t help but wonder what it would have been like to have cast Russell Brand as Stacee Jaxx. He seems much more capable to truly tap into that rocker mentality as he did as the vulgar rocker in Get Him to the Greek. He is no stranger to alcoholic benders and the rocky (pun intended) road to addiction. His experience in that regard could certainly come in handy for a role such as Jaxx. It would be interesting to learn who else Shankman considered for Stacee’s role as well as Drew’s character.

Paul Giamatti is great as the douche bag, money hungry manager for Jaxx. His massive brick cell phone always got big laughs from the audience. I’ve never seen a movie where Paul didn’t deliver. I am usually a huge fan of Catherine Zeta-Jones, especially her undeniably impressive performance in Chicago as Velma Kelly. However, in this flick she didn’t have that same charisma playing the mayor’s wife, Patricia Whitmore, hellbent on shutting down the Bourbon Room and stamping out Jaxx’s hedonistic ways.

I don’t want to give away the funniest spoiler of the movie. Let’s just say that the “Can’t fight this feeling” number was the best scene hands down. The audience was in an uproar over this. I can’t get it out of my head. Genius!

The storyline for this film was weak throughout, but there are some features that kept it funny enough to be entertaining in addition to the 80’s tunes that drew us to this film in the first place. Most of the entertaining moments include Cruise’s entire wardrobe or lack there of. I don’t know how they convinced him to wear assless chaps but somehow it happened. Cruise is covered in tattoos, black nail polish, eye liner and various metal crotch adornments, all of which are very disturbing compared to his usual clean cut all American look. Stacee’s sidekick monkey, Hey Man, provided many laughs throughout and added to Stacee’s eccentricity as an oddball rocker similar to Steven Tyler or Michael Jackson. Stacee’s meaningless rants are as hysterical as they are bizarre. Things got really weird during an exchange between Cruise and Baldwin when Jaxx was explaining that they would need to burn down the Bourbon Room after his performance; so they could set the fire bird free. Bizarre!! And Alec Baldwin crowd surfing was a nice touch along with his thick 80’s wig proving once again that Baldwin knows how to pull off comedy as he does so effortlessly every week on 30 Rock.

Much of the set and props are there to make us nostalgic for those 80’s fads and stylish trends that hopefully won’t ever make their way back to mainstream fashion. Let’s face it we don’t need any more legwarmers, sky high bangs, or massive wire/sequin hairbows. The scene from Tower Records took us on a walk down memory lane as we all spent most of our adolescence searching for new albums in a record store that resembled Tower Records. Seeing all the old album covers from the popular bands of the 80’s was a very nice touch as well as the references to the boy bands that popped up in the late 80’s. Was Drew’s pop group a jab at New Kids on the Block? I think so! With members named Joey and Donnie that seemed to be a direct comparison but those outfits were hideous! The 80’s hair seemed to be a character itself – the bigger and stiffer the hair the better right? There is no telling how much hair spray was used on this movie set.

If you are a fan of 80’s music you will be tapping your feet and pounding your fist in the air. It’s hard not to sing along to Bon Jovi’s “Wanted Dead or Alive,” Twisted Sister’s “I Wanna Rock,” and Def Leppard’s “Pour Some Sugar on Me.” This soundtrack will be killer! Speaking of rockers, there are tons of cameos in this film. During the street scene for “We Built This City” you can spot Debbie Gibson, Skid Row’s Sebastian Bach and Kevin Cronin from REO Speedwagon.

Even though the title Rock of Ages comes from a Def leppard song, the band never gave the Broadway show permission to use their song in the play. However, for the movie they signed over the rights, and “Pour Some Sugar On Me” is given plenty of attention as Jaxx belts out the song at the Bourbon. I’m sure the movie is quite different from the Broadway version. I need to see the musical to be able to make a direct comparison, but from the reviews I’ve heard of the show it certainly sounds like the Broadway version delivers on a whole other level.

So if Hollywood can make a film version of Rock of Ages, how long do we have to wait for Wicked – The Movie?

3.5 stars – A whole lotta fun, Energetic, and a Rockin goodtime!

Men In Black 3 Viewing at the VIP Theatre at the Mall of America

My husband and I recently took a trip to the Mall of America in Bloomington Minnesota at the end of May. There is so much to see and do in this 520 store mall. Being the movie buffs that we are we couldn’t pass up the chance to try out the MOA’s VIP theatre. They have 14 screens but one is designated as VIP - 160 seat theater devoted to adults ages 21 and up, which is made to suit us perfectly. For $2 extra you gain admittance into this theater and have a waitress who brings you wine, beer, popcorn/snacks as you request it throughout the movie. You can’t beat that plus we went during happy hour!! Needless to say we kept our drinks full through the entire showing. The seats are plush and large with ample leg room, which is a vast improvement over any theater I’ve been to with cramped seating and people tripping over each other to get to their seats. There are small tables in front of your seats to hold your snacks and drinks.

We enjoyed watching Men In Black 3 as we were treated to this VIP treatment and practically had the theater to ourselves with just a few other couples. I could get used to this type of theater treatment, and I will certainly be contacting my local theater to suggest a similar setup for ages 21 and up. It certainly would entice us to have a few more movie date nights out, if we were assured that there wouldn’t be kids and teens talking through the entire movie. 

We built our own home theater (shown above); so it takes a lot to lure us out of our quiet, cozy, theater, especially when ticket prices are close to $10 and rising. There just isn’t any advantage to going out rather than staying in. The only drawback is that we have to wait several months for movies to release on DVD, and a few times a year that is enough to draw us out for special features like Harry Potter, Hunger Games, Avengers, etc. Most of the time it really pays off to wait and screen the films in our own home. It’s quiet with no kids or teens giggling or talking through the film. We can pause the film if we need a restroom break or want to grab a snack downstairs. We have a fridge in the theater with cold water and beer; so we always have drinks on hand. There is no wait, unlike at the movies where you waste time driving to the theater, buying the tickets, finding seats and waiting through those god awful trivia questions and theater ads. The movies never even start on time anymore, and there are usually 5 previews to watch until the feature starts. You could easily waste an hour to an hour and a half with all these delays and inconveniences. Plus, you have to shell out major bucks for tickets and any refreshments if you are suckered in to paying for the outrageously overpriced drinks and candy items at the concession stand, which we refuse to do. Plus, did I mention how much more comfortable our reclining theater seats are compared to the crummy, creaking public theater seats that probably have headlice crawling all over them. No thanks! I’d rather watch from the comfort of my own theater and get a front row seat to my 100 inch screen and surround sound any day!

I digress - Back to the MOA VIP theater. If you have to go out to see a movie, this is the way to do it. They have a Star Bar (shown above) with happy hour specials before and after movies, and the VIP section has it’s own bar and concession stand with no lines, and if you want to order during the movie you just raise your hand and you are promptly waited on without leaving your seat. They are extremely accommodating and are invested in creating an experience that you want to repeat over and over again. It worked like clockwork when we attended, but that was with a pretty empty theater. I believe there may have only been 6-8 people there including myself and my husband; so I wonder how this service would work with a full house. It might be more difficult for the servers to wait on 160 people at once. And I imagine it would get pretty distracting with the wait staff walking back and forth with drinks and collecting payment for each item.

We tried out the new D-Box seats right outside the theater lobby. D-Box is the new theater experience with specialized seating programmed for each movie in order to create a full body theater experience. The seats move with the action, shake during explosions and have surround sound speakers attached to the individual seats. They were previewing the new Snow White and the Huntsman in the D Box seats, and you could hear the arrows whizzing by your head as they flew through the air. The seats tilt up and around to mimic the action in the movie scenes, which was reminiscent of the 4D theaters at Disney and Universal. At the Mall of America this experience costs an extra $8 on top of the normal ticket price so that is quite steep, especially if you are also adding in a 3D charge. Within one of the MOA 200 seat 3-D theatres there is a section of 30 reserved D-Box seats (shown above) with the full range motion available that brings the movie to life for audience members. It was cool to test them out; however, we weren't feeling in the mood to spend that much on a single movie. We were lucky enough to score free VIP movie tickets; so we didn’t even pay the $24 normal ticket prices which made this VIP experience even more enjoyable! We were even treated to a free drink at Crave (upscale MOA restaurant) with our VIP wrist bands; so we were happy with the overall experience. Plus our feet needed the 2 hour rest during the movie from all the walking we did during our 2 day mall experience. If you are interested in seeing what D-Box is all about, I included a short video at the end of this blog to show what you can expect from the D-Box experience.

As far as the review of Men In Black 3, I will say that I wasn’t impressed. I loved the first 2 installments of MIB as Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones have great chemistry. I remember watching the first Men in Black in 1997 and thinking how funny and fresh this concept was. I didn’t think there was a need for a third one, but Hollywood will beat any franchise to death, if they think they can squeeze another nickel out of it without having to spend time creating a new idea. IMDB has already announced Hancock 2, Bad Boys 3 and I-Robot 2. Apparently Will Smith won't do a movie these days unless it's an undeserved sequel. I can't imagine any of those films improving on the original. 

The smartest idea they had was to change things up to where they introduced a new character by way of Tommy Lee Jones’ younger self, which Will Smith visits in the past. Josh Brolin was the best aspect of this installment. His impression of Jones was spot on and hysterical. He got the most laughs by far. Will Smith seemed lazy and just worn out in this film. You can tell how much he has aged between MIB 2 and MIB 3. He usually has tons of energy and quick whips to throw back at his co-stars, but it felt like Brolin carried the weight of this entire film. Jones was in such a small part of the film and his absence was really noticeable. 

The addition of Emma Thompson as Agent O wasn’t enough to make up for Zed’s absence either. It seems as if this franchise has lost it’s sizzle. There were some very funny scenes in this film, but they seemed few and far between. I don't imagine I would watch this one again. The supporting cast of Alice Eve as a young Agent O and Jemaine Clement as Boris the Animal brought new energy to the film, but even that fell flat after awhile. 

2.5 stars - Brolin was a hit but everything else was forgettable; Doesn’t match the first 2 installments

More information about the VIP Theatres in the Mall of America 

Link to the MOA VIP Theatre

http://www.theatresmoa.com/vip/

Happy Hour Menu at Mall of America Theaters

Daily Happy Hour 4-6 and 9-11 $3 Domestic Beer (Tap and Bottle) and $4 House Wines

I can recommend the Manyana Garnacha – very flavorful and sweet

http://www.theatresmoa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/2012HappyHour.pdf

Video of D-Box Debut at MOA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6q1rOSgYKM

Melanchoila Film Review

Melancholia is a Beautiful Disaster

Heather Hardison, Ph.D.

I attended the Memphis Indie Film Festival in November 2011, and one of the most talked about and anticipated films was Melancholia starring Kirsten Dunst, Alexander Skarsgard, Kiefer Sutherland and Charlotte Gainsbourg. I was not able to see it at that time since it debuted the day after I attended the festival, but I have been wanting to see it ever since. I found the trailer and poster intriguing, and the idea of witnessing the characters’ reactions to facing the end of the world was compelling to me on a psychological level. Given the film’s storyline, I assumed that I would find it more captivating than I did. I am drawn to films that chronicle the human condition; therefore, this concept seemed very promising initially. I believe the excruciatingly slow pace of the movie killed any excitement I had leading into this viewing. This dramatic sci fi thriller written and directed by Lars von Trier clocks in at a whopping 2 hours and 16 minutes, but it felt like it drug on for 4 hours. This film needed some major attention from the film editor to make the film more tolerable, and I was begging for the movie to come to a close about an hour into it.

The story unfolds too slowly without even a hint or explanation about what is actually occurring in the world or within the character’s minds; so I found myself feeling quite lost throughout the first hour of the film. I did something that I never do, and I cheated by looking up the plot on imdb while watching the film to help give me some idea of what I was watching. I usually like to go into a movie without too much knowledge about what happens and without seeing too many detailed trailers because it ruins the buildup for me, but with this film I just felt like I was missing some important piece to the puzzle right off the bat. There were numerous times throughout Part 1 that I was tempted to abandon the film due to frustration. I was very glad that I was screening this movie in my own theater because I was pretty vocal with my frustration over Part 1. If I had been in a movie theater I would have most likely walked out. From reading other reviews, it appears that many struggled over whether to abandon the film or try to stick it out through those torturous long scenes that didn’t amount to anything; so at least I wasn’t alone in that regard.

The film is presented in two parts. During the first segment we attend the wedding of Justine and Michael (Dunst and Skarsgarrd), and we notice right away that Justine is suffering from some sort of clinical disorder. She leaves the reception multiple times to wander off onto the golf course, to take a nap upstairs, and soak in a bath, all while her wedding guests are waiting on her to return to cut the cake. We are even introduced to her neurotic mother, which gives us an idea of the mental instability that runs in this family. Justine’s mental state starts to decompensate more as the film progresses. 

She ends up sleeping with a stranger on the golf course on her wedding night, and her new husband leaves her at the end of the reception stating that “things could have been very different.” In a very cryptic way Justine replies, “Yes, Michael they could have been, What did you expect?” We are not sure what any of this means in relation to the developing story. In fact, there are several unanswered questions that I’m still wondering about. Why did Justine desperately need to talk to her father after the wedding reception and what was the reason for Justine to open all those art books to display them on the shelves in the study? I was sure at the time that this would come up again at the end of the movie and have some symbolic meaning based on the specific images that she chose to display from the books, but I never saw any clues to that hidden meaning.

And why was John repeatedly asking people how many holes they had on their golf course? I think there was a shot at the end where Claire is running on the 19^th hole, which seemed pretty random. I’m still not sure if the beginning sequence really happened or was a premonition that Justine had about what was to come. There were scenes in the beginning where they all wore different clothes from the last scene; so it seems that all of these scenes did not actually take place in reality. Surely all of these small details fit in to the mysterious plot somehow, but I must have missed the significance along the way.

We aren’t let in on the secret of what is really happening until Part 2 of the film, and by then most of the audience has probably either walked out or become so frustrated with the film that there is no way to salvage any interest whatsoever. Mr. von Trier must not buy in to the notion of grabbing the audience’s interest right away to keep them engaged. Normally, I’m ok with a slow beginning, if I know it is going to lead somewhere meaningful, but with this film I had no assurance that would happen; so it felt like it was a huge waste of time.

There were a few features of the film that delivered. Kirsten Dunst’s performance was stellar as the young bride that is battling a severe case of clinical depression that left her lifeless during some intense scenes. The heaviness of these moments was spot on with the depiction of how draining severe clinical depression can be. From the dialogue between Justine and Claire we get the notion that Justine has chronic depression and “makes scenes” during her most severe episodes. Claire reminds Justine on her wedding day that she promised not to make a scene at the wedding reception that Claire worked so hard to arrange, but it appears that their neurotic mother’s dramatic outburst at the dinner table about how she doesn’t even believe in marriage has triggered Justine’s mood to decline rapidly. She regresses the rest of the night into an almost catatonic depressive state by being almost unresponsive during a nap on her nephew’s bed and appearing lifeless in the bath. We are not sure at this time if there is anything specifically depressing or worrying Justine on this day. It may just be that this is a chronic condition, which could be worsened by the added stress of the wedding. We are not aware if she knows about the impending doom that is heading for Earth. The level of depression depicted in this film is so debilitating that Justine’s character would be a good candidate for Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT). It’s a mystery how she even manages to make it through the day.

In part 2 Justine’s depression worsens, and she comes to stay with her sister, Claire, and her husband, John in a stunning mansion in the countryside. Here, they are isolated from civilization, and they have a front row seat for the looming disaster that will bring about the end of the world. We finally learn that a planet called Melancholia has been hiding behind the Sun, unseen for years, and is suddenly heading for a collision with Earth. The characters in this film only have a few days notice of this doomsday event, and the second part of this film features their reactions to the approaching planet that will bring about the end of their existence and the world around them. Fear takes over, and as the seconds tick down to the collision, Claire loses her composure, and Justine reveals that she “knows things about the world” and has known that this would not end well for quite some time. After this revelation, Justine suddenly appears calmer and more rational than either Claire or John. Claire’s husband, John who assured Claire that it would be a near miss instead of a collision ends up taking the easy way out once he realizes that Melancholia will in fact wipe the Earth out. He disappears and Claire later finds him in the horse stables dead, as he took her sleeping pills to overdose so that he wouldn’t have to endure the catastrophe with the rest of his family. 

When Claire finds her deceased husband, she starts to really panic. It appears that part of her is realizing that there may be no hope left, and another part of her desperately tries to run from her fate in a very intense scene where she tries to escape with her son amidst a violent hail storm on the golf course. She finally comes to the realization that nothing can be done and breaks down emotionally. As Claire becomes unable to cope with the magnitude of the situation, Justine puts on a strong face for her nephew, Leo, and attempts to calm his fears by offering to build a magical cave that will "protect" them from harm.

I certainly appreciated the idea of this story, especially given that 2012 is full of many conspiracy theories chocked full of feared cataclysmic events that many fear will bring about destruction of the world. Thus, the concept of the film works for me, but the flaw occurs with the pacing of the film and the extent of the mysterious events that span too much of the film and are never fully explained. If we had been given more information earlier in the film, I think this film could have given us a chance to be captivated by the developing story. Instead, I felt frustrated and bored very early on. Combine that with the frustration of getting nowhere by the halfway mark and that equals a missed opportunity in my eyes. I usually like to watch movies at least twice when reviewing them, but I don’t think I could sit through this movie again unless I skipped those dull, silent moments that are peppered throughout the entirety of the film.

I did appreciate the parallelism of the planet name, Melancholia, and Justine’s depression, which I found very apropos. Although she certainly suffers from a much more intense disorder than benign melancholy, but it was a nice tie in. An interesting development in the story occurred as the planet hurtles towards Earth because the family becomes more detached and distant from each other. In many cases families draw closer together in a time of crisis, but this family descends into a state of heavy despair and is almost ripped apart until the last few minutes of the film when Claire, Justine and Claire’s son, Leo, huddle under their “magic cave” to meet their fate together as a family unit. This movie is very dark and solemn; so there is no happy ending, and there is no last minute miracle to save the world. This film depicts a very hopeless situation where the inhabitants of Earth are under a dire threat with no option to even attempt to save themselves or their world.

This film’s storyline is very similar to a popular doomsday theory of “Planet X” also known as “Nibiru.” Nancy Lieder, claimed in 1995 that she was contacted by extraterrestrial beings about a collision or near miss between Earth and a very large planet. She stated that she was chosen to warn mankind about this disaster that would cause a pole shift on Earth and destroy most of humanity. She first claimed that this would occur in 2003, but changed the details of her story once that date passed. Reputable scientists have debunked this theory and state that there is no such planet in the Milky Way Galaxy that is a threat to Earth. Despite the lack of scientific evidence to support this Planet X theory, many online groups still believe this is a realistic threat. Announcing his company's purchase of the film, the head of Magnolia Pictures said in a press release, "As the 2012 apocalypse is upon us, it is time to prepare for a cinematic last supper." It is clear that companies and the film industry are cashing in on these panic driven theories as we are in the middle of 2012, one of the most controversial years in our human existence due to the many theories related to the end of the Mayan calendar and fear of debilitating solar flares. I predict this won’t be the only disaster film released over the next year.

Along with the strong acting performances, I also give high praise for the imagery in this film. There are several breathtaking scenes that are unique only to a film like this. It’s those moments that stick in your mind days after the film. Specific scenes that still stick out in memory include: the image of our moon and Melancholia lighting up the same sky at night, the collision of the planets at the beginning and end of the film, the opening scenes foreshadowing the chaos to come, and the nighttime scenes where Melancholia is very visible in the night time sky as it approaches closer to Earth. 

Among my favorites as well are the scenes where Claire is constantly checking to see if the planet is moving closer or further away using the wire tool that her son made just for this occasion. There is something so very compelling about those scenes. They are wrought with such anticipation as you wait to see whether what she finds brings relief or more panic. As she begins to gasp for air due to the atmospheric changes I, too, felt sympathy pains and felt out of breath along with her. Kudos to von Trier for capturing her panic in a way that transcends the screen and enters into the very room where the audience is watching. This film has a very visceral impact.

Mr. von Trier has stated, “No more happy endings;” so that tells you right away that he isn’t playing around. Also, the opening montage displays the chaos and destruction that you can expect from this film; so you know right away that this story won’t end well. I’m not sure why he chose to show these scenes first as opposed to ending with a bang, but I can tell you that even with those opening scenes showing the collision, you still feel lost when we jump right in to the wedding reception.

You are never sure of the timeline in relation to the wedding date, Melancholia’s approach, and Justine’s stay with her sister. It could be a matter of a few days in between the two stories, or it could be weeks or months. Nothing is discussed in relation to each other. It’s all very vague and mysterious. We aren’t even sure how long they have known about Melancholia’s approach. At one point in Part 2, Claire and John talk about having 5 days until the near miss or collision, but they don’t discuss how long they have known about this event. It’s also not clear if this information was known at Justine’s wedding or not. She seemed to have a lot on her mind at the reception and was feeling the heaviness of something, but the other guests don’t appear to know. Justine does reveal later that she “knows things;” so it is possible that she knew about this outcome before the others, which calls in to question why she would go through with a wedding with the end of the world nearing.

I wouldn’t necessarily classify this film as a disaster film because much of the film is not focused on the actual catastrophe that is brewing. This story seems to be more of a character study of both Claire and Justine. We see how their characters evolve over the course of this event and how their reactions differ from each other. Prior to working on this film, the writer and director reported that he suffered from clinical depression. which is probably why the portrayal of the despair and distress are so accurately captured. As a psychologist, I was very pleased to see that this aspect of the film was covered flawlessly. Kirsten Dunst delivered on her downward spiral into the depths of despair, and Claire’s rapid decompensation at the end as she is losing her grip is to be praised as well.

Part 1 and 2 feel like two separate films. The wedding reception feels more like a wedding video shot by one of the guests; so it feels as though we are in attendance. There is an intimate feel when we are alone in the room with Justine as she takes a nap with her nephew and a bath upstairs while her guests are downstairs enjoying her reception. We feel as if we are spying on very private moments with her when she finally lets down her guard and disrobes from her façade and phony grin which she forced upon herself for the sake of keeping up appearances on what should be the happiest day of her life. Her deep depression starts to become harder to fight and is dragging her down to the point where she can’t be aroused from her nephew’s bed when she is summoned by her brother in law and sister to rejoin the reception as the guests are waiting for her to cut the cake. She has become so weak from the heaviness of the depression that we see her lying lifeless on the bed and later in the tub. Mr. von Trier captured the strain of depression perfectly here, which led me to think that there was hope for the rest of the movie. There were glimpses of brilliance from von Trier, but he wasn’t consistent with these touches throughout, which is a shame.

I did not enjoy the film as a whole due to the pacing issue, but I did enjoy those sparkling moments where everything was aligned. If these moments had been strung together in a different way, then this film most definitely would have been more of a success. This was my first viewing of a Lars von Trier film, which may be the reason that I was caught off guard because I had no idea what to expect. From reading other reviews from both critics and audience members, I now understand that this type of film is his trademark, and his fans probably know what kind of ride they are in for when sitting down to watch a Lars von Trier film. Next time I will be more prepared.

This film is really only targeted for the independent/art film lover. If you don’t enjoy independent films, then I would encourage you to pass on this film. If you are somewhat adventurous when it comes to trying out new genres, then you might want to give it a go, but be prepared for what you are about to see. This is a very slow moving film that will leave you very frustrated at least during the first hour of the film, and it will leave you with a lot of unanswered questions, which can be quite unsatisfying. I would encourage you to go in to it with the goal of admiring the imagery of the film and the performances by Dunst and Gainsbourg. Those are the film’s strongest attributes. Many will be bored to tears, but maybe a few will walk away being moved emotionally and visually impressed. It is a very thought provoking piece of work. You will find yourself wondering how you would face such a catastrophic event and how you would spend you last few days on earth. The music chosen for this film was Wagner from Tristan and Isolde, which is very moving and matched perfectly with the intensity of this film. Some reviewers are stating that this is von Trier’s best work, and if that is so then I’m not looking forward to his other works. I have a feeling that it is all in how you perceive this movie and that everyone will get something different from this film. It is definitely different from other disaster films in that there is no news coverage and no mass hysteria. We only see this one family through Part 2; therefore, it is a very intimate and isolated reaction to the end of the world compared to past high energy, mass chaotic conclusions to disaster flicks.

The only way I could see this film as a success would be to turn it in to a short film lasting 30 minutes and covering the major plot points while cutting out the painfully long silent scenes where nothing significant is taking place. If he included the opening montage with the last few minutes of the film, it would be very powerful and satisfying. There were way too many scenes where one character is lost in thought for several minutes, and no dialogue or notable events take place. Obviously, we all have these mundane moments throughout our day, and it is very realistic to portray scenes that are not action oriented in order to capture the realistic side to our everyday human lives. However, to keep any sort of interest level going, there needs to be some point to this type of scene; otherwise, it needs to be cutout of the film to move things along at a faster pace. There were simply too many of these scenes in one film. It’s a shame that more of the focus was not given to the aspects of the film that shined, such as the actor’s performances and the cinematography, as that could have easily saved this film. With some proper editing this film could be shaped into a much more riveting piece of work. 

From a psychological standpoint, I enjoyed the focus on the dysfunctional, broken family and how they interact in the face of this looming tragedy. Much of the family is very unempathetic with Justine’s condition, and it is hard to watch as they are overtly uncaring and dismissive of the depth of her struggles.

2.5 stars – Bizarre but at the same time mesmerizing, Too artsy and slow paced for the mainstream audience

Melancholia Trailer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzD0U841LRM

Opening Sequence to Melancholias

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM6dYVNNg2k