“Lars von Trier freely admits in interviews that he makes the same film over and over: a huis clos melodrama in which a passive, vulnerable, often mentally unstable woman is gradually driven crazy, and sometimes killed, by the gaslighting of a sadistic man. There’s nothing wrong with an artist returning obsessively to the same set of themes and images. But von Trier’s fetishistic re-enactment of psychological and physical torture scenarios seems to grow less, not more nuanced with each go-round.”

“The viewer hovers between genuine shock—whatever your tolerance for on-screen gore, what He and She do to each other’s and their own bodies is sickening to watch—and the eye-rolling resignation one might feel at a teenage son’s gothcore concert. You win, Lars—if I’m the bourgeoisie, consider me épatée.”

I can certainly see why Dafoe wanted to be in this, but not Gainsbourg, or any other actress of any profile at all. Has to be tweak the bourgeoise/thumb your nose at traditional (esp American) values. What else could it be? She can’t need the money or be out of offers, and LVT is notoriusly hard on actresses (Nicole Kidman wouldn’t work with him again) so there’s not even the “work with zee great artiste” thing.

And I can’t understand understand why more liberal women don’t see through the “he’s a great artist or pro-choice politician” excuse the clowns always use to skate by on their maltreatment of *individual* women; cf Clinton, Polanski, Packwood…

Imagine if Mel Gibson made a movie where a lesbian college freshman is gang-raped by some frat boys and it makes her “see the light” so by senior year she’s homecoming queen engaged to the captain of the football team.

Now we’ll have to see what the redistricting looks like to see how many of those seats end up as D or R.

I really don’t care that it’s unrated (not to mention the MPAA’s ratings have no enforcement power in law anyway), but I’d point out that the film’s reputation precedes it. It’ll get shown at a few art house places, and that’s about it. This isn’t going to be a national sensation; it’s just the creative equivalent of a grand mal seizure.

More power to Lars von Trier for making the film, but there’s nothing that seems to indicate that I’d be willing to do him the favor of watching it, so I won’t.

All you need to know. LVT is a critics darling/enfant terrible in certain hyper-progressive film circles, and while some of his earlier movies had some interesting moments, he hasn’t made anything watchable in years.

I won’t even bother going into detail. Suffice to say there will almost no interest in this film outside of NYT, kos & Slate, and only a handful of small arthouse theatres & college campuses will show it. As the poster above stated, a tiny few “mainstream” theatres will show the very rare, occasional NC-17 (Henry & June for example), but none will show an unrated. And as others posted above, the “unrated” DVDs are pure marketing gimmicks unrelated to theatrical releases.

Certainly this film is garbage that shouldn’t exist, but that’s where we are. LOL starring Willem Dafoe with his even worse recent ouvre & Charlotte Gainsbourg. Of course! Who else COULD it “star”? I guess Monica Bellucci wasn’t available.

I understand the outrage, but trust me on this one. If we ignore it, it really WILL go away, and quickly. The big corps that run Hollywood & the Oscars won’t touch it with a ten-mile pole. Let’s not do anything to bring this to the attention of one extra curious 18 year-old who won’t know any better and will waste $8.

Speaking of curious, how concerned was everyone here over the explicit violence in Passion Of The Christ & Saving Private Ryan, historically accurate & necessary to the films integrity as it may have been?

An NC-17 rating actually has less chance, by the way, of keeping a film out of theaters than an “Unrated” does. Which is why, though you occasionally find an NC-17 film in the theaters you never find a UR.

The best way to expend energy here, if you feel you must, is on the local level.

/ribbing
NOTE FOR LIBERAL VIEWERS: NO, I was NOT serious… I know he did NOT take it personally… Just some levity. Nor was I going in the direction to “challenge” Erick but prompting clarification. We still do not know which was the case as to why this is indeed “UR.” I suspect, it was indeed not submitted and they are going at it this way for the Publicity – which they are unfortunately now getting here so I’ll just toss one last comment… Now Showing: The Invention Of Lying, which more subtlely (some might say) challenges Religion with the Moses and subtle Jesus (joke) reference and (I hope) just hoping we can have a sense of humor – whereas (Erick contends) this one being a direct assault on people of Faith.

Not for nothing, but since we are on the subject of Religion and Hollywood… As a Catholic, I thought it ridiculous that people picketed “DaVinci Code.” It actually caused some folks to come to the Churches invoking curiousity over the “Divinity” debate between Christian sects. But these things are whole other discussions.

Not that Erick needs defending lol