Lars von Trier is my favourite director of all time and certainly one of the greatest filmmakers still alive, possibly even the greatest. He is an auteur who creates memorable visuals, haunting scenes, heart-wrenching stories, interesting and captivating characters and crafts perfect films that manage to provoke thought and get a visceral reaction from the viewer. He is a filmmaker who aims to push the boundaries of filmmaking as far as possible. Not only was he one of the two great minds behind the infamous Dogme95 movement, his films also experiment with already existing techniques, tropes, and so on. He always find ways to differentiate his films from others. He does that by doing something rather out of the box in each and every one of his films.
In Dogville, for example, there is literally no set. Not a conventional one, anyways. Rather, the film takes place on a literal stage. The houses don’t have walls or roofs, instead, there’s lines made of chalk drawn on the ground that act as the walls. In Breaking the Waves, Lars chose a very unconventional style of editing and cinematography. There’s an incredibly large amount of jump-cuts and the entire movie is filmed almost like a documentary. The film also has a very washed-out, almost lifeless, colour palette. In Antichrist, not only does he push the boundaries of what one can show in a film, he also uses cinematography and sound design to create horror. The impeccable framing, staging, blocking, lighting and use of colour all contribute to creating horrifying, almost nauseating visuals. The film even left me with a sick, nauseating feeling after every time that I watched it.
Those were just some examples of how experimental Lars von Trier really is. But do not be mistaken, he does not crave attention, that is not why he always makes experimental and provocative films. But rather, according to my interpretation of his art, he wants to tell stories that we all might be familiar with, but he wants to tell them from a very different and unique perspective. Not just that, every choice he makes in his films always has a purpose and intent and adds to the tone of the film. It also complements the themes of the film. In Europa, which is possibly his greatest film, every singe choice made by Lars is incredibly purposeful and fits the themes of the film very well. The black-and-white cinematography represent a very naïve worldview (something that Lars is obsessed with), but certain moments that defy this very black-and-white outlook of the world are shot in colour to represent the complexity of the emotions. Not just that, the very tone of the film complements the themes. The melodramatic, 1940’s-esque tone the film perfectly manages to replicate really does fit well the black-and-white, naïve worldview that the film tackles.
However, the best example of the above mentioned phenomena is, in my opinion anyways, Dogville, my favourite film from him. The set, or rather, the lack thereof might seem distracting and disorienting, but that’s part of the purpose. It symbolises how people choose to ignore the atrocious acts happening in front of their eyes. Not just that, the minimalistic acts as a great tool for storytelling. What do I mean by this? Well, lets take as an example the scene where Grace is being raped by Chuck. One of the shots is from a far distance where you can see Grace being raped, but you also see several citizens of Dogville, some of them are even directly looking at the house where this is going on. Now, of course they can’t actually see the events that are going on, but regardless, this one single shot alone utilises both foreshadowing and symbolism at once. Dogville is also a critique of America, it mocks the American Dream and makes fun of the average American neighbourhood. It also acts as a deconstruction of America. The lack of a set could be a mockery of how regardless of the architecture and infrastructure that America has always been praised for for a long time, it is a terrible place, it is capitalist hell where people go with high hopes but then are made into slaves for others “greater” than them to take advantage of.
I’ve given some examples of how von Trier uses experimentation, and now I want to talk about something else. But before I do begin, I’d like to say that perhaps this is what makes his films so divisive and polarising, but for me, it’s what truly sets him apart from other directors and gives his films a very unique feeling. This one skill that von Trier possesses shows not only how much he knows about film-making, but also how much of a master he is at experimenting with films. This is definitely his best and most unique trait as a director. However, there are so many other things that von Trier is a master of. One of them being creating a great, emotionally effective atmosphere. Every film he has made so far, at least all the ones that I’ve seen, are incredibly effective on an emotional level and leave a great impact long after you’ve finished watching the film.
I’ve already talked about some of his films, so I’ll talk about new ones just to keep things fresh. A great example of the above mentioned aspect is Melancholia, one of his more recent films. The strangest thing about Melancholia is that we know the fate of the characters from the very beginning. However, the film doesn’t try to be about whether they will actually die due to the planet colliding with the Earth or whether the planet will miss, it’s about depression and anxiety. Kirsten Dunst’s character represents depression, whereas Charlotte Gainsbourg’s character represents anxiety. The film tries to replicate what depression and anxiety feel like, and it does such a great job at it. The frantic editing, the consistent use of hand-held cinematography, the pacing and, let’s nit forget, the mind-blowing performances all make the viewer feel the emotions that von Trier wants them to feel. The film truly captures what it is like to suffer from that condition, and it truly is a one-of-a-kind film in that sense. There is no other film like it, no other film does such a great job of depicting depression and anxiety.
In all honesty, I could go on forever about why Lars von Trier is my favourite director of all time. But all things, both good and bad, must come to an end. I’d like to conclude by saying that Lars von Trier is one of the most influential filmmakers I’ve come across. His films left such a large impact on me both as a person and as an aspiring filmmaker. His films are deeply profound and have so much to say. They’re so incredibly well-made and unique, it’s hard to not at least acknowledge the mastery that Lars von Trier has over filmmaking regardless of whether you like his films or whether you agree with what they have to say. He is an auteur who understands film and has given a lot to cinema, his contributions can’t be forgotten.
Lars von Trier is my favourite director of all time, and for good reason.