Home Entertainment This trailer for NYMPHOMANIAC is about as not-safe-for-work as it gets

This trailer for NYMPHOMANIAC is about as not-safe-for-work as it gets

2 min read
71

nymphomanaic-charlotte-gainsbourg-1-600x421

Normally, I don’t encourage people to not look at articles we do, but if you’re under 18 or of the more prudish persuasion, then I suggest you really not check out this extremely NSFW first trailer for controversial auteur Lars Von Trier’s latest film, Nymphomaniac. If that name wasn’t too much of a dead giveaway, this movie is about sex, some of it completely explicit and unsimulated. You hear that? VERY. EXPLICIT. SEX.

If that’s not your cup of tea, then might I suggest this little diversion while the rest of you perve-I mean, people can click on through.

“Nymphomaniac” is the wild and poetic story of a woman’s erotic journey from birth to the age of 50 as told by the main character, the self-diagnosed nymphomaniac, Joe. On a cold winter’s evening the old, charming bachelor, Seligman, finds Joe beaten up in an alleyway. He brings her home to his flat where he tends to her wounds while asking her about her life. He listens intently as Joe over the next 8 chapters recounts the lushly branched-out and multi faceted story of her life, rich in associations and interjecting incidents

*Cough cough*…. Er…. Okay, then. Two things: Firstly, yes, that girl (Stacy Martin, playing the younger version of Charlotte Gainsbourg’s character Joe) at the 1:03 mark is doing exactly what you think she’s doing. And secondly, damn Jamie Bell, you always seemed like such a nice guy.

Now you may have noticed that that video is from Vimeo, and that’s because Youtube pulled it down within a few hours of it going live, as it violated their adult content rules. And well, can you blame them?

There’s obviously going to be a huge chorus of people deriding this as nothing but Von Trier getting his porn jollies and calling it art, and honestly, I’m not certain they’re wrong. However, if there’s one thing I can say about all of Von Trier’s works, it’s that he is a superbly visual director and he always challenges the audiences to feel something. That something may be heartbreak, it may be revulsion, it may be joy, and sometimes it may even be a funny tingling sensation in the front of your pants, but there’s always something. And you clearly get that from this trailer. Both the strong direction and funny feeling in your pants, I mean.

As you may have heard, Nymphomaniac is being cut into two two-hour long parts (although a five-hour long director’s cut is still in the works, so there’s going to be even more time for those different feelings) which will be released in Von Trier’s native Denmark and Norway in December. No other release dates have been announced yet.

Last Updated: November 25, 2013

71 Comments

  1. Yeah, not so sure this is ‘art’…

    Reply

    • John's (JJ's) Annihilation

      November 25, 2013 at 10:54

      People have become so blinded. These days anything that’s just a little controversial or strange is considered art. So, what you do is take some dog poop, put a Snickers bar in it and voila! Art.

      Reply

      • RyseandRepeat

        November 25, 2013 at 11:02

        Agreed. I am so tired of the ‘shock’ value of media now.

        Reply

      • Alien Emperor Trevor

        November 25, 2013 at 11:17

        My niece was very amused a while back because her photography lecturer gave a very artsy interpretation of a photo she took, meaning of life stuff. She response was, “I just thought it looked cool.”

        Reply

        • John's (JJ's) finest excuse

          November 25, 2013 at 12:02

          Exactly. Like how Lady Gaga’s meat-dress was art. Crap man, it was freaking meat, it was a joke to anyone with half a brain.

          Reply

      • James Francis

        November 25, 2013 at 15:19

        Um, that is a rather narrow definition you are placing on art. Art is a subjective form and determined by the response of the viewer. You can go as far as to argue that anything has the potential to be art. But questioning something’s artistic merit just because it doesn’t fit your definition of art is defeating the very purpose of art.

        Reply

        • John's (JJ's) finest excuse

          November 25, 2013 at 16:27

          Sorry, don’t crucify me, I didn’t mean for it to sound so linear. Mistake on my part. I know art is subjective, hell I have stuff in my house that others would never deem to be art. I’m just saying that people are quick to all agree that something is art, just because it’s different, when they don’t even feel anything for it.

          Reply

      • Observer

        November 25, 2013 at 16:12

        You sir, disgrace art by narrowing it down to what you think it should be. It might not appeal to you, but I can assure that somebody out there finds it magnificent. It is your choice as the viewer to go beneath the surface or not. A lecturer of mine once answered, when asked what exactly art was, “If it was not there, and now it is. It is art.” Anything can be art. We just choose what we like to see.

        Reply

        • John's (JJ's) finest excuse

          November 25, 2013 at 16:30

          I refer to my comment above. I know I made it sound like I was the decider of what art is and I completely agree that anything can be art, I apologize. But most people like it because it’s different, not because it actually stirs their emotions (and isn’t that what art is supposed to do?)

          Reply

    • James Francis

      November 25, 2013 at 15:19

      It’s not art for you. That doesn’t mean it’s not art.

      Reply

      • RyseandRepeat

        November 25, 2013 at 15:24

        I acknowledge that. To me it isn’t art, I am sure a bottle of semen and blood is art to another, but not to me.

        Reply

        • James Francis

          November 25, 2013 at 15:25

          That actually by its nature makes it a type of art. The fact that you dislike it plays into the role of art. Art is not about being pleasant. It’s about stirring emotions – good and bad, preferably the latter.

          Reply

          • Alien Emperor Trevor

            November 25, 2013 at 15:28

            That would make Nick a work of art. 😉

          • RyseandRepeat

            November 25, 2013 at 15:37

            I AM!

          • RyseandRepeat

            November 25, 2013 at 15:28

            As you said, everyone has different definitions of what it is. I don’t find graphic depictions of sex under the guise of ‘art’ very appealing. If I want porn, I will watch porn, but I won’t go sit in a cinema with friends to watch something like this.

          • James Francis

            November 25, 2013 at 15:31

            That you reject it on the merits of its intention actually does make it art – and as you are the one experiencing this, it is by definition art to you. Just art you do not like.

          • RyseandRepeat

            November 25, 2013 at 15:34

            Semantics 😛

          • James Francis

            November 25, 2013 at 15:46

            The role of art as a instigator of emotions and contradictions is a well-established argument. It’s the whole ‘art as a mirror’ point. Your mistake is assuming art can only be art if it is appealing. True art is about evoking emotion from the audience. It is the fundamental principle that drove in particular the modernists and other iconoclasts.

            True art can be so offensive it causes riots. Just go look at when Igor Stravinsky first revealed the Rite of Spring, today one of the biggest classic music pieces ever produced. People HATED it.

          • RyseandRepeat

            November 25, 2013 at 15:48

            I have made no mistake, I am fully aware that art to one is not art to another, and this is NOT art to me. Perhaps my mistake wasn’t stating TO ME in a loud enough font.

          • James Francis

            November 25, 2013 at 15:54

            Von Trier is a provocateur. You are provoked. As an artist, he just succeeded. This means you are the intended audience and ergo it is art to you, just art you hate. Now, if you weren’t offended and simply used it as masturbation material, then Von Trier failed and this ISN’t art.

            Stop considering art as something that appeals to you. Start considering art as any creative endeavour that EVOKES or PROVOKES you intellectually.

            You don’t choose art. Art chooses you. Especially if it makes you angry.

          • RyseandRepeat

            November 25, 2013 at 15:59

            Makes me angry? Not angry in the least. I made a comment that I don’t find this to be art, nothing more. I know what art does, I know it’s used to evoke and provoke and I enjoy that. I just find using gratuitous sex a copout for shock value. I know that people will say it’s art and I am okay with that. I won’t argue it because everything is art to someone. Von trier is indeed a provoker, but the only thing he is provoking in me is distaste and an unsold ticket 😛

          • James Francis

            November 25, 2013 at 16:12

            I suppose it’s more a case of what you think art is. I regard art as anything that through creativity stirs intellectual emotions. By saying this isn’t art, you have expressed such an emotion. So by my definition, this is art to you. But you see art as something different. And I shouldn’t assume that the definition of art can be hammered down.

          • RyseandRepeat

            November 25, 2013 at 16:15

            I think I am more against the director being known to involve sex for the sake of getting people to talk about his movie. To me that is contrived rubbish.

  2. Alien Emperor Trevor

    November 25, 2013 at 10:24

    I don’t get the point of this movie, as in why it’s shown the way that it is. I understand the synopsis (not my cup of tea but never mind that) but not the run-time or need for hardcore sex. It sounds like it’s not designed to tell a story but just to shock an audience, which detracts from the story itself – which should be the main point of the movie.

    After watching the movie will people talk about the story or its implications, or will they talk about who boned who?

    Reply

    • John's (JJ's) Annihilation

      November 25, 2013 at 11:04

      To shock is the only way some movies still get to make to the screen. To call it shallow is an understatement.

      Reply

    • Skyblue

      November 25, 2013 at 11:28

      Tell you as soon as I’ve seen it ;p

      Reply

    • RyseandRepeat

      November 25, 2013 at 11:37

      My point exactly. If you have to shock an audience with full on sex then it detracts from the story.

      Reply

  3. Lourens Corleone

    November 25, 2013 at 10:56

    Alright remember now Kervyn, don’t go watch this with your mom.

    Reply

  4. Weanerdog

    November 25, 2013 at 11:12

    I read somewhere that this movie was going to be released as an art movie, and then also as a full porn version, using body doubles for the up close shots.

    Reply

    • Kervyn Cloete

      November 25, 2013 at 11:49

      At this point, it looks there will just a hardcore version, though the one hitting theatres in December is a two parts and 4 hours long, while Von Trier has a 5.5 hr long version he’s working on. Interestingly, the 90 mins cut is not any of the sex scenes, but rather other material to allow for a better running time to appeal to a wider audience.

      Reply

  5. James Francis

    November 25, 2013 at 15:24

    In case anyone didn’t notice – the mere fact that this trailer alone has inspired such controversy makes a very good case that this is indeed art. The whole point of most art is to stoke contradictions within a person. 30+ comments and counting – I think Lars has already achieved what he wanted, and even before the film has been released!

    Art is not something you necessarily like. If it were, we’d all be giving scholarships to Michael Bay.

    Reply

    • Observer

      November 25, 2013 at 16:18

      I wholeheartedly agree with you. It was not there, now it is. They created it, caused emotions in the audience. It is art. It is a disgrace to both art and the artists out there to dismiss this as “not art”. Art is not always beautiful. If it made you think I am sure that it has done more than a lot of pretty paintings people will call art.

      Reply

  6. Kervyn Cloete

    November 25, 2013 at 16:44

    Just out of interests sake, those people deriding this film, how many of you have seen the rest of Von Trier’s films?

    And please note: I’m not trying to make some global excuse saying that you just don’t understand his works or anything, I just want to know what you saw and what you thought of it.

    Reply

    • John's (JJ's) finest excuse

      November 25, 2013 at 16:46

      Just an opinion.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Check Also

Without Remorse: Watch the intense new trailer for Tom Clancy adaptation starring Michael B. Jordan

Michael B. Jordan is on a mission of revenge that leads straight to a global conspiracy in…