Melancholia (2011) *spoilers...kind of*

The following will contain spoilers…in a way. If you have not seen the film, I suggest you close this topic now and find a way to watch it immediately. This is, hands down, the best film I have ever seen.

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

This is the first in perhaps a series of three or so posts on this film. It is to be seen as an overview of my initial reaction. And honestly, I’m just trying to put more body to my real statement which is that I am in a rare extroverted mood and I want people to know about this film because, as I mentioned, it is the best one I have ever seen. I’m still going over it in my head and I’m probably going to go watch it again in a few minutes, this time with the controller in my left hand and a pen in my right…this deserves more than the six and a half measly paragraphs I’ve devoted to it.

Okay. So either you have seen the film, or you’re not concerned by spoilers. Either is fine, (from this point on, I am writing under the impression you’ve seen the film) because they show you the overall outcome in the first series of scenes, which are flooring, to say the least…the idea of the essential “other half” of the ending scenes being placed at the beginning is in itself masterfully worked (including the external view of the collision of planets…which I’ll expand upon later), the slow motion filmography being exceptionally brilliant. Thematic Wagner (Tristan and Isolde) complements this monumental film well, in my opinion. But I’m not here to detail what happens. Melancholia collides with Earth and everyone dies. Kirsten Dunst takes her clothes off. Whoopy. If that’s what you’re looking for, go watch the movie or visit the Wiki article…it’s much more organized, with a detailed synopsis.

No, I’m here to discuss the profundity of what lies beneath this surreal work of aesthetic brilliance. We have, in this piece, in my opinion, one profound question (although some believe it is merely displaying that depressive people remain calm under stress, alluding to the debatable insight of the writer/director inspiring the film) begging itself to be readdressed. What if we are the only life in the universe? You have to admit that when Justine (Dunst) says that we shouldn’t feel tragic over the planet’s demise, that life on Earth (apparently all life) is evil, you couldn’t help but try to defend life…well, unless you’re a tragic depressive like myself (well, most of the time). The “psychic” deal aside, we want to argue with such a definitive ruling. “No, there is other life in the universe, and even if there weren’t, it can always happen again.” Perhaps our little recipe really is the only one…

When she calmly lets on with a “no shit Sherlock” mentality that we are it as far as life is concerned, I take her to mean sentient life, as we have good evidence of microbial life on other planets in this very solar system. Still. We are (most probably, so long as we have not made some egregious error) the only sentient life in our solar system, perhaps our galaxy. Yet we have world wars, genocide, thermonuclear weapons in quantities capable of sterilizing the planet a few times over…poof, nearly the blink of an eye and we’re gone. What a loss that would be, with all the potential we have. We’ve seen this concept in The Day the Earth Stood Still, among others, but this time, it’s just random chance…well, probably. It’s not about morality, we don’t get a mulligan–done. Meanwhile, we’ve grounded the NASA shuttles, are engaged in war over seas, our economy is in the toilet…and Heinlein is screaming “Get some more fucking baskets!” at the top of his lungs.

Now there are a few little neat extravagances on the science end (although we all know it has its scientific faults). The breathing difficulty, for instance, or the hail, or the battery in the golf cart lasting longer than that of the cars. But once again, the symbolism takes precedence. I can’t help thinking of our grounded shuttles, are inability to flee the planet, our unpreparedness for these (albeit highly improbable) scenarios being summarized with the cars not starting and the golf cart not making it over the bridge. What’s more: we are alone. Even if there is other life in the universe, no one but us can save us…and I’m not so sure we can.

The movie cutting straight to the credits after Justine, Claire and Leo (Claire’s son) are incinerated post impact in their “magic cave,” a series of sticks in a mock tee pee minus the cloth (itself a nice embellishment on the futility of escape, a little jeer at the 2012 survivalists, if you will…even though I would have been game for the 9th and a glass of wine on the patio scenario), at which I stood, nodded a few times and made my way over here to write this miserable little thread you may or may not have been reading.

As alluded to earlier, my fondness for this subtle detail lies in the empathetic response it pulls: that was the end, and you’re damned lucky you get to see the credits. If the external perspective of the collision had been saved til the climax, psychologically, you feel as if you were an external entity, some sick tourist come to see the end of life. This way, you get the message and you keep it. Or maybe these things just affect me too seriously. Either way, that finale of fire, that last glimpse of a skeletal tee pee with two scared adults and one faithful little boy blinking out, cutting to black, after a blue-white inferno really made an impression on me. I have to say, I’m a sucker for unhappy endings.

Regardless of personal lack of faith in my own credentials as a writer (be it the scum-sucking critic, or would-be novelist) I do hope you enjoyed this (first installment) review at least a little. If you have insight into the more subtle points of this film, please feel free to share. I’m going to go watch a second time.

The best film you have ever seen?!?!?

I have some movies to show you.

Though I have to admit, it was pretty good. GAh fine. It was great.

A beautiful movie on all accounts, I was pretty blown away by the production. And it seems that even the smallest detail lends itself to deep analysis.

Anyway, how much Robert Frost have you ever read? I have become convinced that the whole thing is based on Robert Frost poems.

Actually, read this instead of that last sentense:

I have become convinced that it is an analysis of how Robert Frost poetry describes depression, and an attempt at informing the layman on how deeply earth-shattering depression is to those that have it. Like Nietzsche said, we are mostly defined by things that never happen.

Yeah, I have to retract that greatest movie ever thing…Brazil, I think, still takes the win. Melancholia just hit me in the right mood and did everything I wanted it to.

I’ve read some Frost, but not too incredibly much. Any poem in particular that you feel captures the mood? I was getting a bit of the loneliness of Basho.

It did all the right things to me too, and I watched it in the theatre, so I got to experience the beautifulness of it full force. But watching it with my mother and grandmother kept my head cool.

More the symbolic elements than the mood. Read THE ROAD NOT TAKEN, STOPPING BY WOODS ON A SNOWY EVENING, DESERT PLACES (You are gonna laugh when you watch the movie again after this one), FIRE AND ICE… I haven’t read that much Frost myself, but just these already illuminate the movie so very much. I know, for ex. that he often used horses as metaphores for the soul.

Do actually read them though, they aren’t long.

Brazil was good. Melancholia was o.k. I’m you enjoyed it, though. If it’s thought-provoking for you then that’s good.

I didn’t really understand what you thought was profound about the film, could you summarize your thoughts about it?

I’m not sure I understood what the director was trying to convey, but the way I saw it Justine was sick of where she found herself in life and depression overwhelmed her to the point that she not only couldn’t function but probably didn’t even want to function/take an active part in a life she despised. Thus, she retreated from her life and turned her attention away from it. To the sky. A part of her (Justine) was probably excited to learn about Melancholia and its possible collision course with earth. It would completely change the status quo of her unbearable life. One might even go so far as to guess that Justine and Melancholia were somehow spiritually linked such that the closer Melancholia came to earth, the more calm and serene Justine became. I don’t think Justine’s line that “Life is only on earth…and not for long,” was any kind of driving philosophical statement of the movie. Justine had been considerably distraught to the point where she wasn’t in either great mental or physical health. So in a way she had been on the cusp of life, in an area between life and death, for awhile, and Melancholia emerged as almost kind of a celestial manifestation of her struggle with life. I don’t think Justine wanted to die, per se, but Melancholia forced her and everyone around her to appreciate their lives as they lived their last minutes, hours, days in full view and knowledge of impending extinction. Up until the threat of Melancholia, from Justine’s point of view, life was sickening charade of business as usual where people lived such empty unappreciative lives. Whereas, Justine saw possibility and serenity in Melancholia, Claire, on the other hand, got used to this business as usual life, clung to it, and took her identity from it. Justine’s inner world had been riveted apart long before and looking at things from a tragic point was familiar to her so she could identify with the coming of Melancholia whereas it meant the unexpected shattering of Claire’s inner world.

Also have you seen Michael Clayton? Although, it’s not really like Melancholia, I think you might appreciate it. It’s one of my favorite movies right now.

Also, Claire and Justine are sisters – and daughters of the same cold, emotionally unavailable, funereal mother. I think the mother is an important part of the background for this film. Claire seems to have developed to be an anxious person. She is neurotic and guarded about her emotions, while Justine is warmer, but more emotionally vulnerable and unstable.

Claire = neurosis:

Justine = ?
Obviously Justine’s distress, in contrast, manifests itself in a way that is outside socially acceptable norms. Claire and Justine both probably have deep-seated psychological issues and struggle with the meaning of life, but Claire deals with her distress by ignoring/denying it and identifying herself as a competent, efficient, and functional member of society. The distress is there nonetheless and permeates her personality in the form of anxiety. Justine, however, is quite openly distressed. In a way, Justine behaves the more authentically because she does not try to “fit in” when she doesn’t.

I don’t know, I think I’m rambling now. Hopefully some of this is interesting to you.

The symbolic elements indeed, though I would say the mise en scene for Desert Places and Fire and Ice is quite similar to Melancholia’s.

Brazil was just good? If you want to talk profound movies, that’s it; Terry Gilliam at his best (though The Adventures of Baron Von Munchausen and Time Bandits were quite good, and the screenplay for Fear and Loathing followed the book fairly well). Another great one is Being There

Well, thought provoking, at least. For instance, when Justine tells Jack that the catch-line is “nothing”, is this an indication that she is already aware (she already “knows”, like with the wedding lottery) of the futility, is it purely a statement of disgust at his egocentric tenacity (chasing the line at her wedding), or is it a bit of both? Was her having sex with Jack’s errand boy pure lust/frustration from repelling Michael’s advances, a tactical move to get the errand boy to cease badgering her, imagery employed to illustrate her disinterest in the marriage? Why does Justine’s horse never cross that bridge (incidentally where the golf cart’s battery dies as Claire tries to flee with Leo)?

I also felt it begged, if only inadvertently, the real-life questions/issues that I addressed in the OP.

The director was attempting to show (contrasting Justine, the pessimist, to Claire, the skeptic, and John, the optimist) the way in which these varying views confront high stress situations, unavoidable catastrophe. My interpretation is:

Justine [pessimist] was buckling down (the marriage was a sort of lesser of two evils) and that her ability to “know things” re Melancholia’s approach and imminent collision severed the few remaining tethers to life, a finalized abandonment of the will to live. It was surely cathartic in that she no longer had to play the part, but she was by no means happy about it—hence her (somn/indo)-lence. The point is that the pessimist, the severely depressed will handle a situation of high stress or impending doom with equanimity more so than the skeptic or the optimist.

Claire [skeptic] is not convinced that Melancholia will completely avoid the planet, but she has not abandoned the hope of survival, does not accept the inevitability of doom and fights it ‘til the last leg (now that her pills have been used by John). She is thus reduced to a sniveling, distraught mess of a person—which is quite the opposite of what she needs to be. Her son needs to be comforted, reassured, and she needs to be able to maintain her composure to sell him the rouse; she needed to be strong for him and she wasn’t. Here we see the roles reversed: as the event approached, it is Justine taking the initiative to be the caretaker, the nurse, the support.

John [optimist] from the outset assures Claire, Justine and Leo that Melancholia will pass by, that “his scientists” aren’t wrong, that their physics, their math will prove correct and that the passing of the planet will be a rare and beautiful sight rather than a horrible life-ending collision. He stockpiles supplies in preparation for the initial effects (electromagnetic leeching, etc.) and for the possibility of lingering ones (though his supplies would only be applicable if the planets merely grazed each other or something similar). When Melancholia makes the u-turn, he abandons his family and takes all the pills for himself.

So we find the pessimist is the strongest, the optimist is the weakest, and the skeptic is still in the middle.

I have not, but I will check it out when I get the time.

“They cannot scare me with their empty spaces Between stars–on stars where no human race is. I have it in me so much nearer home To scare myself with my own desert places.”

Didn’t you laugh with that?

Let me refresh your memory “If you think a Planet scares me… You are stupid!”

Heh, I missed that line in the movie.

Did you also notice the paralels with 2001: A Space Odyssey? More visual, I think, than anything… but these people deffinetly whatched it befor making Melancholia.

Math,

It’s been a week or so since I saw the movie, so my memory isn’t fresh. But you bring up some great points of interest in the movie. It was not a bad movie by any standard. I did enjoy it and it was thought provoking. Perhaps I failed to connect the dots and so the film left me feeling a little underwhelmed. Anyways, I love watching these types of movies and discussing them afterwards, so cheers to many more of these kinds of threads

That’s one of my other favorite films, and yes I felt that Melancholia was designed with ties to 2001. The visual style paired with the choice of music definitely harks back to 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Except Melancholia’s score was almost exclusively Wagner’s Prelude to Tristan und Isolde (apparently there is some other music in there, but I didn’t notice), whereas 2001 heavily featured Strauss’s Also Sprach Zarathustra (notably the first movement)–which is a huge difference in tone (Also Sprach Zarathustra emphasizes brass whereas Tristan und Isolde is string-dominant, to say nothing of the monumental aesthetic divide between Wagner and Strauss as composers). Also, Melancholia neglected to integrate a slitscan sequence… among other things.

By the by, Fuse, I haven’t watched Melancholia but the one time on October 21st.

I think Fuse’s point stands, the similarities outway the differences on this one, I think. Did I say I think?

Yes! let’s have more reviews like this.

But for now… Also Sprach Zarathustra or Tristan und Isolde? Romantic or… Whatever Strauss was, I’m not that smart.

I meant they are similar in the choice of dramatic, contemplative classical music. I didn’t necessarily mean that the music was of the same tone. I actually really liked the music in Melancholia now that I think about it.

Yes, but you wrote your thoughts right afterward.

You had me at:

You have to understand, I grew up with K.D., literally, she’s one year older than me and therefore, my age in the films in which she appears. I have been crushing on her since Jumanji, obviously, were I to watch Jumanji now, I would not find her attractive…but you know what I mean!