Nymphomania (Volume 1) -- Film Review
Nymphomania (Volume 1)
Directed
by Lars von Trier
This movie goes on my all time Ten Worst List. It is one of the most awful movies I have
ever seen. I went with a friend and I
tried to get him to leave after half an hour, but he insisted on sitting it out
to the bitter end. I think in part he
was punishing me because it was my idea to go see this.
The title is an outright lie. This is not about nymphomania. The girl portrayed in this film is depressed,
detached, and probably suicidal. If she
can be labeled as anything she is probably what they call a 'borderline'
personality. But she is definitely not a nymphomaniac. Furthermore, the character of the girl is not
at all convincing or realistic. She comes across as some man's fantasy of a
woman, rather than a real woman. It is, furthermore,
a hostile, derogatory fantasy. It is a
negative conceptualization of female sexuality by a man who seems to know very
little about women or sex.
'Nymphomania' is not a formal psychiatric category. It is not in the DSM-V. It is an informal term
that refers to an unusually strong sex drive in a woman. I dislike this term and never use it. It has a clinical ring to it and a derogatory
cast. More generally, the practice of
categorizing people according to their sexual behavior is completely
wrongheaded and leads to all sorts of misunderstanding, distortions, and
bigotry. This film is a very good
illustration of that.
The friend that I attended this film with is a joyously
married man of many years. He was
skeptical that such a thing as a 'nymphomaniac' even existed. He thought it was something like Bigfoot,
where you only see the footprints, but never encounter the beast itself. He asked me if I have ever encountered such a
woman. I have encountered at least five women
that I can think of, and have heard tell of others, who could qualify for this
label. They are a rarity in American
society, and our culture does everything possible to discourage this outcome of
female sexual development. I think there
would be many more such women if the culture fostered them. I don't call them 'nymphomaniacs,' I call
them 'volcanoes,' or 'furnaces.' It is
less abstract and more evocative of the awe and wonder that such women
inspire.
This filmmaker confuses promiscuity with 'nymphomania.' Promiscuity can be motivated by many things,
and the kind of promiscuity portrayed here is driven by depression, emptiness,
low self esteem, anxiety, and loneliness -- and possibly, at an unconscious
level, rage. 'Nymphomania,' as I
understand it, is an unusually strong sexual appetite coupled with a ready and
strong responsiveness to sexual stimulation.
It is anything but disengaged and detached, as represented here. It is not necessarily promiscuous, in fact,
such women tend to create stable relationships with one or more partners of
both sexes. Having multiple, ongoing
sexual relationships is also not the same as promiscuity. Promiscuity is shallow and anxious. Nymphomania tends not to be. So the filmmaker has chosen an inappropriate
title for his film, because he doesn't understand the woman he is trying to
portray and clearly does not know anything about women with exceptionally
strong sexual capabilities.
You can tell right away that this film was not made in
America or by Americans. A man goes out
after dark to buy something at a convenience store in his neighborhood and on
his way home notices a woman lying on the sidewalk bruised and bleeding. He helps her to her feet, takes her to his
apartment and proceeds to nurse her. This
is something that would never happen in an American city. An urban American man would never pick up a
bruised, bleeding, semiconscious woman off the sidewalk and take her to his
apartment. It is unthinkable. So right away the story takes on a fantastic
quality to an American audience.
It is never explained how she came to be battered and
bleeding and semiconscious on the sidewalk.
She sits there through the entire movie with her face all beaten up
relating the story of her life and carrying on a wide ranging philosophical
discussion with this stranger she just met, when her entire life, as she
retells, it is a series of encounters with an endless parade of men of the
utmost superficiality and minimal emotional connection. Why she would suddenly open up and begin to
philosophically muse over her life with this stranger under these extraordinary
circumstances is hard to fathom. The
movie consists of long philosophical discussions punctuated by simulated sex
scenes. The sex is not very good and
neither is the philosophy. If you want
to see pornography, don't go to this.
There is nothing erotic about this film at all. It is actually a downer.
The film amounts to an attack on this woman's character and
behavior led by the woman herself. I
think this is the reason she is allowed to sit there on camera with her face all
beaten up through the whole movie. The
filmmaker wants to make sure she is made as unattractive and unappealing as
possible. He hates this woman. He wants to drive it home that this beaten
up, uglified face is the well deserved outcome of her character and behavior. This film is a very conservative affirmation
of marriage and monogamy.
Things get increasingly ridiculous as we go along. There is a long highly improbable scene of a
ditched wife coming to Jo's apartment with her three kids and bitterly berating
Jo at length in the presence of her husband, who has just left her, for
destroying her life and wrecking her marriage.
By the time she went away bawling I couldn't blame her husband for
leaving her. There is a discussion of
the differences in polyphony between Palestrina and J.S. Bach. There is a sequence of a chorus doing a
Palestrina chorale. There is an
explanation of the Fibonacci sequence and its relationship to the Pythagorean
theorem. We see a jaguar with a young
fawn in its mouth. Sex scenes are accompanied
by chorale preludes from Bach's Little
Organ Book. All of this is supposed
to have something to do with nymphomania.
It's totally crazy.
If you fail to listen to me and make the mistake of going to
see this, keep in mind that what you are seeing is not nymphomania.
'Nymphomania' is a lurid title to draw you in, but this ambiguous term
does not describe the character of the woman portrayed. Jo is, in fact, at the other end of the
spectrum.
I couldn't see any redeeming qualities in this film. There is nothing good I can say about it. Stacy Martin's nude body is good. You can hardly go wrong with a good looking
naked girl, but that is not enough to sustain a full length movie in this day
and age. It is not that hard to see a
naked girl any more. And the movie is
rather long, or at least it seems to be.
Sorry, but this one is a total loss.