Do you like this part of Trier's movies, too, when they end and all of a sudden the credits start going great?
In my vision, The House That Jack Built is a symphony of the darkest shades of the human soul. He opens the door to a world of ruthless crime, where every chord heard in the shadows of the camera reveals the main character, Jack, as the artist of his cruelty.
The dialogue between Jack and the mysterious interlocutor becomes a battle of ideas about art, morality and the inner world of man. Here, in this dialogue, Trier provokes the viewer to face questions that have no clear answers. The invisible interlocutor acts as a ghost of conscience, condemning the work of Jack, just as society rejects the creations of the director himself, riddled with fear and negative emotions. At the same time, Jack defends art by claiming that it transcends any sacrifice made in his name.
The film creates parallels between creativity and Nazism, evokes irony in references to history, recalling how places of creativity later became sources of suffering. Behind Jack lies creativity, born in agony, an idea that, although exaggerated, conveys the feelings of the director, who feels accused of wanting to reveal his true essence to the world.
In The House That Jack Built, Trier reveals his soul, incarnating in creation and challenging the viewer to his own inner reflection.
9 out of 10
I honestly don’t understand why The House That Jack Built isn’t a comedy because it’s the funniest serial killer movie I’ve ever seen.
In our culture, it is customary to portray maniacs as such “evil geniuses” who are always one step ahead of the police and society. In many ways, we can say “thank you” for this book about Hannibal Lecter, which romanticizes and elevates the image of a murderer. But in real life, Hannibal never existed. If you’re interested in tro-crime, you know that all serial killers are stupid, cruel, and completely superficial creatures. And they always catch them for idiotic reasons: the policeman stopped the car, carried a knife with him into the woods, the housing complex opened the apartment, the garage caught fire, and slaves in the garage. Studies have shown that serial killers usually have an average or low average IQ. A sample of IQ scores from 202 serial killers showed an average IQ of 89. They are not intelligent, they do not plot, they do not think through plans, they are just predators, which sooner or later will be caught in a cage.
Back to the movie. It is because of the fact that Lars von Trier understands all of the above, he departs from the cannon sacralization of the image of a serial killer. The main character, Jack, unsociable, awkward, all his victims are sluggish and ready to die at any second, and all his crimes are simply ridiculous: he drags corpses back and forth down the street, banally knocks his grandmother down on the road, leaves a bloody trail to his home. And it's hilarious because, first of all, that's how real maniacs work. And secondly, the main character is trying to play Hannibal Lecter with all his might: he talks about music, art, God, calls himself “Mr. Sophistication”, but acts so stupid and deliberately cruel that we can only laugh. And I was really laughing. Thank you to Lars von Trier for a good comedy for the fans of trout-crime.
The House That Jack Built: The Inferno That Trier Designed
Of the positive aspects, you can single out the musical component and camera work, beautifully and aesthetically removed, this is where the advantages, perhaps, end.
The House That Jack Built directed by Lars von Trier is nothing more than an attempt by an overconfident author to create something counter-versive and provocative, but the result is only a boring and unnecessarily lengthy film.
First, despite some praise, the picture challenges the viewer with its unpleasant, grotesque and extremely violent nature.
The depiction of cruelty and violence makes no real sense and serves only to satisfy the director’s dark fantasies. Everyone knows that Trier is famous for his love of scandal, he prefers to shock and cause disgust.
Scenes of violence, brutal murders and bullying are overloaded with excessive cruelty, which obviously serves to demonstrate the insanity and inhumanity of the protagonist, but beyond this inhumanity, the director has nothing more to offer the viewer.
The plot of the film is not only ridiculous, but also uselessly confusing. Trier is clearly trying to create a deep work, but instead we get a set of disparate scenes and symbolic images, which at the output look like a compilation of random ideas not combined into a coherent story.
The main character is absolutely uninteresting and ordinary, a characteristic narcissist with the absolver of justice syndrome, who thinks his murders are a work of art.
Jack is positioned as an individual with an analytical mindset and high intellectual abilities, but despite this, he commits rash actions and stupid mistakes, while as a rule, maniacs of the Jack category are meticulously calculating.
Maybe the task was to show in general the psychological aspects and the thinking of the maniac, but rather this portrait of the character looks not like the original idea to show the way of breaking the personality, but as a poorly developed concept of character.
The acting of Matt Dillon, who plays the main role of Jack, failed to bring emotional depth to his character, remaining largely monotonous throughout the film.
As a result, The House That Jack Built is nothing more than the self-assertion of a director who wants to draw attention to himself with a deliberately bloody picture. The film leaves behind only a feeling of disappointment and loss of time and the film is unlikely to appeal to those who are looking for something semantic and profound.
For “meaningful and profound” it is better to refer to the old works of Trier, for example, to the films “Dancing in the Dark” or “Dogville”.
Cruelty is ugly, but devilishly tries to appear beautiful. A purse made from a severed chest, a severed duck leg, a Joker-turned boy pretend to be symbols of congeniality with higher art, while the Buchenwald oak and aircraft siren-forming detail serve them as inspiration. Someday all these atrocities will become the property of encyclopedias, like the ruins of fascist palaces. Dream, Jack, while your name is famous. Still, the end is one, where the wind of history blows people's possessions into lava. This is the time: just show yourself to be the new Hitler, the artist of death, and all the newspapers will post your atrocities in pursuit of sensation - oh yes, the editors know what the starving crowd craves! Da Vinci painted the Gioconda for 16 years, Jack killed a random grandmother in a minute and received print runs of cheap reading all over America the next day - it is easier for a maniac to gain fame. Hurry. Such "art" and "beauty" today, Mr. Sophistication perfectly understands. Enjoy obscene photos before this monster, nurtured by David Bowie instead of the Beatles' "Helter Skelter," reaches his paws to you.
Psychopaths with a history of diagnoses walk among us – and there are many. It is painful to pull out of the bouquet of psychosis some Oedipus complex, and we get a new Charles Whitman or Fritz Honku. It all started out of psychological trauma, not out of a desire to extrapolate media atrocities. Jack Lars von Trier couldn’t connect the two words, mooing and croaking in front of the future corpse until it activates the trigger inside the killer. And healing begins - the complexes dissolve in chlorine, the veins harden, the hands no longer waver, squeezing the blue throat. The moral outburst of emotions on bipeds helps more than medicine and doctors who memorized Freud’s grandfather in college. It's so humiliating to go to the clinic and lie in a chair and admit to your evil thoughts. Especially when society encourages the commission of crimes, then taking on weakly humiliating cliches, then demonstrating the attention already mentioned. Kill that stupid bitch, add to the execution the dismemberment and toys of the scab consciousness! Then you will become more confident, an alpha male tiger, not a lamb, and neither obsession nor compulsion will be disturbed from now on. Is there any other choice?
Virgil, aka Verge in the American way, stoically withstands the eruption of the philosophical molasses of a maniac. He's a grated kalach, Dante sent him to hell 700 years ago. In hell, there are no sinners. But the author of the legendary Aeneid will answer as if by a witness of the past: there is no cruelty in art and no art in cruelty. Threat in the stupas of heretics is given as punishment. The rest is schism. But Jack does not believe, so elevated his craving for fame and signs of fate. The rain washed away the bloody drag, the car of the heroine Uma Thurman remained rusting in the woods and much more. It's as if God himself is helping Jack for his cleanliness, his perfectionism, his perfectly ironed veil after all. As if that is why he, like Rodion Raskolnikov, has the right. And uses it in the name of creativity, seeing in the corpse exposition among spruce branches a masterpiece of the level of Gustav Klimt. A ripper's kiss will go to the local police's files, a museum of ugliness and unreasonable human closeness.
But the house opposite the volcano is not built for some reason. Dreams of the perfect ranch break uninterruptedly under the bucket of a bulldozer. And the house, the director tells us, is the ultimate goal, the meaning of the killer’s life. It is not just everyday desire, and catharsis is an ideal cathedral of peace, grace, with hand arches and with a view from the window as a screen in childhood. Where muscular men mowed the grass in synchronized jerks under the scorching sun. A place on the outskirts, in the wilderness, here you can, getting rid of disorders on cards, revel in the achievements and stigma of the “new zodiac”, choking with wine from German vineyards, organize a picnic with the ghosts of the dead. But Jack may have been wrong. Narcissism is lying under a red van, but it still gets into the skin with sharpened spikes. Cognitive distortions turned out not to be idyllic, but a chasm in the rye. You're an engineer, not an architect. So are your idols Idi Amin and the Gestapo. And your complexes are an industrial fridge-covered simulation with a bunch of shitty pizzas. A warehouse of frozen meat in twisted poses. Open the doors for viewers, and they will appreciate your creativity. An additional freezer is not so difficult to open. No, he's scared. What, engineer Sophistication, building – creating – is not so easy, right?
Only here Jack is surrounded by idiots who played Russian roulette with evolution and made a hole in the head. Mistakes of nature that run under the crosshairs of sniper sight, like unconscious deer. Who are being retired from someone who is full of nonsense and who first caused a sharpening of vigilance behind a barely discernible net. Who themselves are full of nonsense about serial killers - it's so funny! It seems that the five random incidents are truly random, that the quarry built on 60 victims is the result of the massacre of degenerates, drunk with a thirst to tremble from a hunter living in the district. And von Trier seems to accuse the society of its consumers not only of stupidity, but also of the inability to see in his crimes the beauty. They believe that the oak under which Goethe’s Faust is written is desecrated by the concentration camp, not vice versa. “Fools, what do you understand about art!” – as if shouted one of the main movie killers of recent years. You blew up a swastika over the Reichstag, but you're enjoying the ruins of the Acropolis! So it's your fault, hypocrites! Indeed, fame puts you there where things are hollow.
But there is another explanation why Jack is easy to trick everyone: people are bargaining chips in the party of the author of this film.
The work of von Trier must be viewed through the prism of von Trier. The Dane has had almost every mental illness, which he undisguisedly likes to demonstrate. It is no coincidence that the first frame in the form of a house shows the inscription: “The house that Jack Lars von Trier built”, the main character appears as if the hypostasis of the creator of the tape. And he's doing what was hidden in his crazy head, von Trier. This film is an unquestioning ode to himself, full of egocentrism and sparkling violence. The rest don’t care about the characters inside or the audience outside. Viewers in Cannes, human rights activists and just shocked by the naturalistic scenes were angry, fighting in tantrums, while the nihilist Lars mocked them now: “Here’s a real horror, not your Halloween, ha ha ha ha!” The reverse example is a scene with a bullet in an all-metal shell, where, saturated with sadism, you want to know the result of a fascist experiment. Yes, and the ending will stuff your brains, not pass off the expected for reality. Perhaps, “The House That Jack Built” is the crown of von Trier’s career, his main film that realizes hidden fantasies. It is good that he still accepted that glory has limits, or, perhaps, would choose knives behind the scenes.
6 out of 10.
This is one of the most violent, intelligent and powerful provocations that cinema has seen.
A striking, allegorical film by Danish director Lars von Trier, about a man building the house of his dreams.
To be honest, I have never seen a more devastating and heartbreaking film than this. How much this movie hurts, it is impossible to describe with any epithets. You need to look at it, but it is worth looking at another question. Watching this picture is absolutely everyone’s business, but you need to consider how much shock after watching you can be. This is one of the most fierce, intelligent and powerful provocations that cinema has seen.
Incredibly interesting main character is one of the main advantages of the tape. Jack is not the archetype of a typical maniac from horror movies, with the most banal motives. A complex neurotic, sub-architect who can barely strangle a woman who is unconscious.
In the course of the story, Jack reveals himself as a creator, as a lion, as Dante (yes, even so).
A separate note is worthy of the contrast on which the director constantly plays. Blending: beautiful with terrible, high with ugly. Making a reference to the cult dystopia of Stanley Kubrick “Clockwork Orange” (1971). Only one song on the piano gave a lot of emotions and atmosphere: calming, but at the same time alarming.
The ones that Lars von Trier was able to raise are a huge number of: the essence of man, the dream that everyone has. Before: Rethinking the Divine Comedy.
There's nothing limiting Jack. Inside it is like a black, all-consuming void. Like the negative pictures he loves so much. A cruel exploration of the depths to which the human soul can descend.
Jack is literally a collective image of a modern man, indifferent, inside, who also hides a lot of cruelty, the only difference is that an ordinary person spills all this into creativity and art, because he is limited by the law.
The main question of the film is whether violence can be an art. Jack is the personification of an artist and architect who imagines himself to be superhuman. Mindlessly disposing of priceless human lives, he really creates a home.
The broken bridge at the end of the ribbon is a metaphor for wisdom that humanity cannot reach without violence. The uncrossed valley, time after time the daredevils tried to get around it, to reach another way, but in vain. Probably never will be able to do this, because everything lies in the human essence. It is doomed to eternal suffering.
This movie can be compared to a nuclear bomb. How bad your mood is is comparable only to a nuclear bomb destroying anything in its path. But in return, giving food for thought.
I recommend this picture to non-squeamish people. There is definitely something to think about.
Many people write that the film has no idea, or it is an amateur movie.
For me personally, a good film in the first place, is one that can cause me at least some feelings, no matter what, even aversion to murder or tears from melodrama.
This film is just a bouquet of feelings, for me personally.
The author was very good at presenting the mood of the hero, both at the beginning and at the end. The connection that he builds between the viewer and the main character at the beginning is truly unique, because it is such feelings that the surrounding world of the protagonist evokes.
Attempts to do not from the heart end with the main character is not successful. After accepting himself as a person who was formed earlier, he understands how to create from the heart.
The author understands that in our world there is neither good nor bad. These words will not justify genocide, but we are people who are in a constant struggle for an idea. How will we know which ideas will lead us to a better life?
Any idea has the right to exist in the world, mass genocide is also an art.
The Christian Idea Behind the Façade of the Devil’s Aesthetic
We have already seen the shocking confessions of the nymphomaniac, and now the maniac has come to the confessional. Not surprisingly, Eros is always followed by Thanatos. But if the main character of "Nymphomaniacs" can be empathized, then the director has invested so many negative qualities in Jack that his personality is only disgusted. Perhaps this is what Lars Von Trier wanted. Therefore, it looks strange statements of people complaining about their lack of empathy for the hero. You, I take it, got the popcorn and were already preparing to tear down the unfortunate killer, but suddenly your expectations were brutally dashed?
The maniac is depicted as he is: not a great mind, but considers himself comparable in greatness to Dante himself; for the sake of self-affirmation, he specially chooses victims weaker and stupider than himself; he has a bunch of phobias and obsessive states. There is no romantic image of the genius Dr. Hannibal Lecter or the successful forensic scientist Dexter Morgan. Lars Von Trier is able to show a terrible reality without unnecessary embellishment, and not everyone likes it.
Don’t be misled by picturesque metaphors and numerous comparisons of art and murder. They are the fruit of the mind of a madman, desperately trying to somehow realize himself, somehow manifest his “genius” to the world. He failed as an architect and now resorts to pathetic attempts to explain to himself and to us why and killing can be a creator. The author very clearly expresses his attitude to the hero, sending him to the very hell of hell. And the idea of photonegative, which is often mentioned in the film, as if indicates that the hero is only an inverse image of a real artist. Moreover, in the underworld, Jack had the opportunity to repent and slightly mitigate his fate, but he rejected it, not listening to the advice of his wise guide. This moment contains a very Christian message.
The plot is developing quite dynamically, especially in comparison with other works of the director. Someone gets killed, something gets cut off. Inserts from other films and static shots of paintings that inflate the atmosphere and refer to other works of art, do not take up much screen time. One can complain only of crude, uncouth and straightforward symbolism, which can be mistaken for ridicule; meanings and metaphors were too vulgar and explicit.
In general, the film is a typical creation of Lars Von Trier and the most close in style trilogy "Depression", including "Antichrist", "Melancholia" and "Nymphomaniac". The story of Jack will be interesting to fans of the director and the plot, and its specific aesthetic. You don’t have to try to justify violence for the sake of art, like Trier’s self-portrait in Jack. In a sense, in each character of a work of art there is a part of the author. But if we do admit that Jack is a self-portrait, then we need to be consistent with the girl Jack cuts off her breasts.
As if not hay Lars von Trier, his films are neither with which you can not compare.
Thanks to Trier’s peculiar vision, his non-standard thinking, the art form in which he works acquires new facets of perception of the world.
“The House That Jack Wrote” was chosen by chance. I got hooked on the idea and the picture of the film “Melancholia” and for some reason I thought that this film would be no worse. And you didn't.
The film tells the story of serial killer Jack, who confesses to the unknown. Trier again resorts to his favorite method of division into parts / chapters, where he shows five events from the life of the killer. Honestly, what is presented in the film not everyone will withstand, but you need to abstract from what is happening and just continue watching.
Through the plot there are many themes that you can think about, which are revealed through prolonged philosophical conversations, any metaphorical inserts and other chips that Lars von Trier uses in his work.
I advise everyone to watch this film, it clearly will not leave you indifferent.
So I decided to watch the movie The House That Jack Built. To be honest, I knew what I was going for, Lars von Trier, I never really liked as a director, so the review does not pretend to be objective.
In the center of the plot is a story about the murders of a maniac. The film is as psychedelic and cruel as this director loves. No complaints about the acting - Matt Dillon plays the role of Jack magnificently. You believe him and you believe in his madness.
Nevertheless, despite the good acting, you do not empathize with the hero, you essentially do not care about him, you do not feel anything for him. The plot doesn't touch your soul. Apparently, I like just another plan of cinema, which is the reason that I did not like the film.
I believe that the film should touch your soul, cause at least some emotions. The House that Jack Built doesn’t touch me, it doesn’t feel positive or negative. It is worth reading, probably, but with the full realization that the film is specific and, as it seems to me, is designed for a very narrow circle of fans of this kind.
4 out of 10
I want to start with the fact that this film is a unique farce and comedy in one bottle, an uncompromising report and, probably, one of the finals of Trier’s work. People who do not know how to draw correct conclusions from what they saw and do not understand the subtle irony of genius, should not look and draw caustic conclusions.
This film is an outstanding tape, albeit a little pretentious, not distinguished by any aesthetics and spirituality, like Dogville or Breaking the Waves, but it is the summation and, I would even say, a cross over the whole culture and ranting of postmodernism. Trier remembers everything – and Speer, Mao Zedong, and Hitler (for whom he was buried in Cannes), but makes this mix of frames, references and outright banter something more.
I really love this movie. As someone who has not fully realized his life potential, I am flattered to hear Jack’s reflections on the noble rot and futility of being. Trier diagnoses that modern humanity has long been in decline, but it turned out that from the art of the 20th century, where there were Tarkovsky, Kurosawa, Fellini, Pasolini, nothing remained, and their masterpieces can disappear into oblivion – as an attempt by Jack to cross to the other side of the bridge. This is a mad mixture of grotesque and tragicomedy from a man who has long proved to everyone that he is one of the few in modern cinema who can diagnose society and brazenly laugh in his face.
The idiots are the ones who say Trier is selfish and ambitious. No, he admits he's not an architect, he's just an engineer. I understand the cause of Trier's depression and long drinking, and where in his head come these allegories and ridicule of everything and everyone. In intellectual circles, what Lars has revealed may not be a revelation – the death of cinema has been talked about for 30 years, if not more, and the degradation of culture much more. “The House That Jack Built” may not be the revelation that Dogville produced with its groundbreaking language. But isn't that what Trier's new film is about? It is about the fact that this is a dead end, that even modern creators are exhaling and they simply have nothing to say, only to sum up a disappointing result and fall into depression.
I too began to get tired of the cinema, “my” cinema ended 60-70 years ago, and Lars’ last film was a wonderful outlet from the darkness that has been going on in the world of cinema for decades. It is sad to know that the great films are Hitler. The film from Germany, 8 1/2, Sweet Life, the films of Rossellini, Bresson are just a cast of history and symbolism, they will be forgotten, if not completely burned or buried, like those corpses in Buchenwald. I wanted to live at the same time with real artists, not with the entertainment industry! Trier would have been given much more weight in the film world if he had started his career as Jack and ended up with his best work, Dogville. Rightly – a crisis film of the creator, which he puts a terrible diagnosis not only of history, but also art, giving it an amorphous shell. Here, more than ever, a line from “My Hamlet” performed by Vladimir Semenovich Vysotsky applies: “And we all put a tricky answer and do not find the right question.”
Trier, deep down, understands the cyclical nature of history and art. We saw something similar in Fellini’s Satyricon – the complete collapse and depravity of art and devastation. Trier is aware, in his characteristic ironic vein, of the irretrievably lost great, and does not mourn this at all, but only laughs at the viewer and spits any morality and face, mocks the consumer society. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, the Holocaust, the camps – were only a prelude to the final massacre and fall into the very hell described by Dante.
7 out of 10
I’ve been wanting to see this movie for a long time and I’m finally here. Trier is not my favorite director, but many of his films deserve attention, here we are, of course, not “Dogville” but not at all from his trilogy about fools.
What's a good movie? Really well conveyed the inner world of a psychopath and a maniac. Narcissism, zoosadism in childhood, complete misunderstanding of the concept of morality as such, megalomania, super valuable ideas. The character turned out to be very believable, up to the disdainful attitude of “heroes” from the police to their work and letters to the newspapers. And, in fact, the main character comes across only when he finally loses touch with reality. Apparently, the features of many real maniacs are gathered together and from them a rather bright and memorable image was obtained. Very instructive stories show how trusting people in general and women in particular are and how easy it is for a finished bastard to take advantage of it. As they say, the salvation of drowning hands themselves drowning.
What's wrong with the movie? Of course, nudity and mind, with arguments about art, culture and so on. Maybe this part sheds some light on the inner world of the protagonist, but more simply demonstrates his megalomania. Seriously, all these wonderful stories can be safely cut, and the audience who read this review recommend them just squander, you will not lose anything. I also do not recommend watching the so-called epilogue. Absolutely meaningless and boring addition to a good overall film, which is called “in the load”. Turn it off when this sign appears on the screen. Why all these lectures and psychedelics are needed in a cheerful film about a maniac, I don't know. Apparently, the megalomania of Lars Trier went far enough that he believed that they represent some intellectual value for a person who was able to finish at least high school.
What do we get out of it? Quite a good movie about a maniac, if you like such tapes, feel free to watch. But do not worry when you squander all the boltology between episodes and do not look at the epilogue, nothing but unreasonably stretched timekeeping they do not give.
39 In my last films, I defend what I don't believe in. There's a good side here... This is a useful exercise for the development of humanistic consciousness',
Lars von Trier in an interview about the film “Antichrist”
This is the house that Jack built.
Here's another line of poetry that says,
The House That Jack Built
This is not the first, nor the last.
The line of the poem that says,
The House That Jack Built
There's always been something sinister,
In that inexorable repetition,
With every twist of which
The number of conflicts and repetitions has increased.
In each line of the poem
Title: The House That Jack Built
Among films with a particularly sinister reputation, the canvas that returned Lars to Cannes occupies one of the most prominent places. Talking to my friends and acquaintances who went to the movies to see Jack, I did not find one who watched it all. The average length of their stay in the chair was about 15 minutes. I tried to understand the reasons, but my friends only shrugged their shoulders.
Well, I watched the movie, and now I understand my friends a little less. Contrary to my expectations, the beginning of the film is typically Trier, almost even secondary. The first five minutes clearly hint at the next ten – but wouldn’t the great and terrible repeat his own “Professions” from the almanac “Everyone has his own cinema”?
But he will. Yes, so that the repetition is almost like a self-parody – in place of the grotesque, but still vital image of the “critic” there is a completely unreal miss chupacabra, as if Trier wanted to visualize an absurd mythical monster from the fantasies of a certain category of people who tend to blame women for everything. By the middle of the film, toxic themes are being raised directly, and it is suspected that Trier actually wanted to. But for a reason.
The fact that Lars is no longer restrained is striking. Disgusting shots with ducklings, a blatant scene with a purse (which immediately reads a poisonous irony against capitalism with its cannibal underside), a “family” incident with a sniper rifle, and other attributes of sadistic cinema became the hallmark of “The House that Jack Built.”
But I think a different kind of intemperance is more important. This is probably the director’s most nervous film. With his creative aging, Trier increasingly resembles an aging Nietzsche – the former literary and surgical wanderings painfully turn into still fascinating, but rude and ragged-provocative cries. These shouts can be perceived very differently, depending on the choice of contextual brackets, but Lars seems to no longer have the patience to make the shouts themselves subtle. His characters express themselves in cliches, then quasi-philosophy - but behind all the rudeness of the dialogues, one can see the monstrously mild path of Trier himself.
In Cannes clearly understand how the philosophy of the film is not equal to the philosophy of Jack – otherwise the footage with the “apostles of death” would not have returned Lars exactly where he was expelled for seven years by the notorious phrase about sympathy with Hitler. But although Trier does not exonerate Jack, in the end sending him to the obvious address, clearly he is not engaged in a showy moral-fire-thunderous lynching of a soulless ghoul in the name of the innocently harmed humanity.
What does this mean for humanity?
“Why are all the women in your stories so stupid?” asks Jack. I think that's the main question. The one that torments the inner realist in us ever since we see Thurman's nameless heroine. Why isn’t Jack’s entire story a good conversationalist? Why doesn't anyone object to him in his uncomplicated argument? Even Virgil sees off, not argues. There is no one to tell Jack obvious things: like the idea of a man born guilty is a rather sluggish paraphrase of the idea of original sin, or, for example, that dozens of other men are literally sleeping behind the wall who for some reason do not feel themselves accused by default. There is no one to ease the pathos and answer for the “individuals”, when Jack cries out to their total indifference – and the inhabitants are not at all as bad as Jack seems. People outside the windows often shout. And the fact that we, if we do not sleep, do not sometimes listen to words, does not make us narcissistic egoists. But Jack doesn't know that. His interlocutors are always stupid. And they hide behind a not too honest philosophy of lambs.
The rest must not be in Jack's narcissistic memory. And any objections seem to him the hypocritical bleating of a lamb, only capable of “this is immoral...” But as flawed as his philosophy may be, one thing he seems to be right about is that the culture of talking to Jacks is absent... or hidden deep down. It is customary to send them to hell without talking - but in part it is this "stupidity" of response that feeds their monstrous philosophy. Of course, it is difficult to object qualitatively when someone tries to kill you. But suppose Jack voiced his beliefs about men, art and tigers peacefully, unarmed, timidly stuttering. Would he get meaningful answers? Who knows?
I would rather recommend a mentally prepared view. Lars von Trier’s extreme film, of course, is not a dumb thrash, although in the true sense philosophy is not shining either. Philosophical is rather the frame, the recall of such a film for its era, the era of avoiding sharp corners. And while the dreadful Dane is reaching a new level of unhealthy interest in violence, I wouldn't say for sure that his film is only for sick audiences. The same Tarantino, who has no less obvious problems with violence, we watch almost family. It seems that the point is not that in Trier’s films you can stumble upon a chest cut, but rather that Trier is in no hurry to balance the eerie scenes relying in such cases moral verdicts.
But if we are happy to look at violence, just smear it with a happy ending and firmly planted evaluation labels, this is exactly the problem that Trier (as, incidentally, Tarantino) suggests thinking very seriously.
P.S. Matt Dillon is powerful.
After watching the film, remaining perplexed ('genius!', 'thought!innovation!', 'a masterpiece of art!'), I decided to go through reviews, reviews and articles, in order to once again make sure that the thought of a brilliant creation is incomprehensible to my meagre wit. However, contrary to many opinions that you can not love the film, but not write about it three volumes in prose – it is impossible, I will be brief.
.
The only thought that a man who controls himself within the framework of morality, personal principles and law can grasp in this film is that the symbols of human history are brutal killers and psychopaths. You can go further and combine the positive and the negative for example. In 2010. The first Falcon 9 launches, large-scale spacewalks of Asian powers or just the opening of the Burj Khalifa and dense smog in Moscow and the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano? I think we all know what the symbols of 2010 were. This touches on the problem of perversion of the perception of the world by man, the creation by him of the symbols/engines of history, which he hates. A kind of Stockholm syndrome Homo sapiens sapiens. It really makes me think about changing the worldview. But it could fit in the film for less timekeeping and in a different context. So we couldn't take advantage of the author's death #39 and create our own meaning. And the point is like this:
Accept yourself, be a creator, and no matter what your impact on the world. The world will be under you if you are the creator. Lars von Trier tells this idea through the most inappropriate example, provoking the viewer with catchy shots and philosophical reflections and comparisons with everyday life. Honestly, it’s more like a 5-year-old’s threats to cut off his causal place, and really cutting a little, while shouting about it at every corner, simultaneously boasting about his knowledge from the rubric ' Interesting facts' 'ABCs for the smartest' Stupid, disgusting, empty and unjustifiably pathetic. Beyond that, if it really is the message, then the director wants to see a world of selfish labile animals, self-image ' creators' in total freedom. And I'm not talking about a specific ' art' character, but about any passion in general ' emotional man'.
Returning to 'symbol'. The movie was on my list, but on the back. Recently, someone not very close friends mentioned this film, saying about it: ' genius, magnificent' The movie was on the list, I’ve heard about it a lot. Indeed, the picture of an extremely negative creature, free ' creative ' art, sealed in memory, becomes a symbol of ' audacity', ' innovation', ' contemporary art'. It's so catchy! And that's sad. Personally, I would prefer tomorrow not to remember this picture and take a good steam in the bath, so that with sweat and fumes, this film came out of me. In this picture there is nothing genius, deep and ideological. No matter how many blue curtains hang, 'The House that Jack Built' - a picture of how a director in hysterics can not clearly express a thought and breaks down on a primitive, psychedelic (possibly Trier flaunts his depression and ' resistance' to abomination) and creative helpless scream, trying to attract the viewer ' extraordinary moves' and breaks of the fourth wall. But if I'm wrong, then Lars von Trier urges people to become squalor. There is no need to waste time.
Without further ado, I think ' The House That Jack Built' is Lars von Trier’s best film. That is why it is very difficult to write a review of it (however, as for other films of the master). I understand the confusion of the Cannes Film Festival jury and the shock of the unprepared audience, but at the same time in some perplexity: how can one not prepare for a Lars film? You know what you're doing. Although, sees some, the cruelty of Trier can impress and frighten only a completely newcomer to the movie, because after Tarantino, all & #39; Peel & #39; and the like are afraid of blood? And in general, why did the overwhelming majority of viewers come to the forefront of violence?
I will leave out my speculations about the plot, because the circles of Hell, the philosophical component, etc. have long been garbled and viewed by everyone who is not lazy. I want to talk about what everyone saw, but somehow omitted. What, besides the philosophy of being, did Trier want to show? I have learned more moral lessons for myself. Why are there people like Jack? Because there are people. And you don't have to be a mind hunter or a psychologist to understand that. 'You look like a maniac', says the victim and gets in the car. 'You're so weird, Jack', the girl says as the maniac sweeps her chest for subsequent surgery. 'Get out of here, get in the way', the policeman mumbles with irritation when Jack almost shouts in his face that there is a corpse nearby.'I killed 60 people!' - he screams with all nature, but everyone around is just spinning a finger at his temple, saying what a funny guy, apparently drunk. And these tiny moments amaze me much more than the hero's overcoming Hell and his conversations with, so to speak, the carrier. Jack has a sophisticated, manic, disgusting philosophy. But who gives it the ground for development? Who is blind enough to let evil happen? No, let me make a point: violence is always the fault of the killer, not the victim. But in an indifferent society as a whole, it is evil that reproduces, like the spores of a fungus under a swollen lid.
As for the violence in the film... It is not it that strikes me, but the reaction of the inhabitants to the pictures shown. I read the review, where the viewer in full seriousness wrote: ' I thought it would be a common tresh, and here it is, and it is so immoral'. That is, violence for fun, the same Tarantino, for example, is OK, and Trier for the sake of serious topics is not OK? Or everyone was so worried because of the duckling (whose leg was only a skilful dummy, for a minute), that somehow pushed in his mind Tarkovsky, the tormentor of animals, who for the sake of the shot burned alive the unfortunate cow. Don’t you think it’s hypocrisy to humiliate one and praise the other? Yes, and let's be honest, ' Antichrist' Trier was tougher. Any carnage in Tarantino’s films is more terrifying and bloody. A'Grindhouse' have you seen it? Look, they cut off the heroine's leg and put a machine gun in her place. Or for fun, it's okay, but for the sake of thinking, it's not, no, no, it's a terrible movie? And someone in all seriousness compared 'House...' with popcorn horror movies, saying that everything is shown better in them. Touche By the way, the most memorable moment for me is not a murder scene. The rainy episode and Jack's reaction to it got into my soul. The confluence of circumstances and the situation itself made me squander this piece over and over again. How easy this world is, since Jack is favored by the God he denies. Truly forgiving.
Trier is not about blood or violence. Trier - to think, to move the convolutions inside the skull, to get to the truth, to feel the moment of awareness. Of course, everything shown causes disgust, discomfort. But it must be, friends! All the films of the master are made in order to get us out of the fragile balance nurtured by Marvel, and like that duckling, to make us flounder in the water. All the so-called ' episodes ' shake your humanity and psyche. Together with Jack, you go from the simplest moment with Uma Thurman - and on the increasing, to the shooting in the woods and the subsequent confession. And for a reason, the situation with all-metal bullets is given last, although, in theory, it is the most lite (after all, it does not contain so much hated by everyone ' meat'). Because it is the apogee that shows what animal human nature can lead to.
And it is the total rejection of this film that makes me give it the highest score. Lars wanted to take us beyond humanity, kick us naked in the cold and see what would happen. Someone is indignant, someone admires, someone did not understand the meaning of what was done and returned to his light series from Netflix. But most importantly, there are no indifferent. All three categories of viewers felt emotions, discomfort, as if their brains were crawling. This means that the film has achieved its goal.
The house that Jack built is Larsa von Trier, the most Trierovsky, and the best film in his career in my opinion.
What's the movie about? The film is about a serial killer named Jack. He keeps all his victims in the freezer, which would later build a dream house out of corpses.
It sounds weird, it looks creepy. The unique feature of this film is that Jack’s confession is divided into 5 randomly selected incidents, and each incident is tougher than the previous one.
Between these supposedly five chapters, Jack compares his murders with the arts of ancient times, saying that in each murder he saw architectural values, so that all his beliefs and motives become clear to the viewer.
The acting of Matt Dillon and Uma Thurman is unusual, but elegant.
The atmosphere in the film is like Nymphomaniac, calm and cruel. At the end, the film seems to change the genre, on the screen there is some mysticism from which impressions will inflate in the eyes of the audience that even spoiler does not want.
I recommend the film only to those who are familiar with the work of Trier. This is not a movie with easy viewing, not everyone will withstand.
8 out of 10
It's not why, it's like! From the Texas Chainsaw Massacre
How is that? That's it. A jack. How else? With a knife, with a gun. Maybe something else? From the rifle all-metal shell on the bullet ... Oh, no, I don't think I had time. No time? What did not affect the course of the film? Nope. Why didn't you do it? After all, all the viewers wanted to see one bullet sew several heads into a row. Did you sit there and wait for this moment? No, they didn't care about, let's say, the victims. Just sitting there waiting.
In the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, everything was more colorful and sophisticated. But the newspapers wrote ' sophisticated killer'! No, you guys, Mr. Fot Trier hasn't been smart enough.
Monoton faces. Stupid characters. Very stupid. We see the film through the eyes of a murderer. The killer is not the cause, it is the effect. Consequence of what? Consequence of OCD.
Oh, well, wait, please. What movie theater are we with OCD? Red or blue?
With OCD, you see a doctor and he will tell you what to do and what pills to take. What if he's violent? If we put it in the room. There are a lot of riots.
In 'Jack' NO ONE beautiful shot, except... half-second shots from past films! More precisely, one frame from 'Melancholia.' What did the artists do, where did the cameraman look? You took two and a half hours of what? Plot? Where's the picture? It's a movie!
Music. Nope? Well, I didn't really want to, or I might get a headache.
You took us to hell, almost to the bottom of hell, so what? You did not let the character pass the test of climbing!
I'm sure every viewer expected Jack to pass the test at the end of the movie and move to the other side. He'll get out of the manhole where the police are waiting for him. Jack's going to go to jail, to be exact, for forced treatment. We've all been waiting. Instead, we get credits on a white background with fun music. What are you doing?
Now to the point of the movie. If you miss the fact that Jack suffered from illness and accept the fact that he is just a person who lives on planet Earth, then Lars von Trier in his own words retold the common saying ': What you sow, you reap' That's rude. God decides whether you will go to heaven or hell. Well, to this von Trier wove art, which in the film manifests itself in the form of disease.
And here's the end of the movie. Jack on his business was heated a place not at the bottom of hell, and a couple of circles higher!
Oh, Dante, according to von Trier's logic, for just one murder, a man's soul will most likely go not to hell, but to heaven. And only probably from five or maybe even ten murders the soul will be sent to the first round.
Trier, Aranofsky gave us the Black Swan, gave us Noah, gave us Mom! He has given us what is near to him and near to us. Trier, you want to seem involved in OCD, but a director who has this disorder will certainly show us something interesting, which is beautiful and instructive, something perfectly smooth and understandable, which will get into our soul and touch us. Jack didn't touch it.
After the movie I really wanted a drink. I couldn’t recover much the next day. The movie didn't let go. “Was it worth it?” – given that there was no catharsis at the end of the film, I wondered this question.
The ending was Jack climbing the wall between heaven and hell. In that moment, I found myself empathizing with him, that he was becoming my hero that I was rooting for. And I stopped myself. I didn't root for him anymore. Celebrated that and that's it. Jack fell to hell and the movie ended.
It was only then that I realized what had happened - I discovered within myself that very boundary where people become material. Empathy? Yes! Jack had no empathy because he was a psychopath. And knowingly limiting my empathy for Jack, I denied him the right to be that ultimate goal and sent him to hell.
Beautiful stretching – a person is a means, or the highest goal. My thoughts on this subject led me to an interesting conclusion: People become the means by law. The hospital, the school, any system forms that attitude. This is a consequence of the basic law of our universe: time only flows forward. That is, it is so fundamental that you should not fantasize about the topic that without it somehow possible.
But the most valuable thing is the other pole – everything inside me is totally protesting when I think about it – people shouldn’t be the means. Assuming otherwise, I feel like I am being destroyed as a person. I discovered something that contradicts the fundamental law of this world. At that moment, there, behind empathy, I found my soul.
There he is.
Since childhood, I remember a poem in which the line “In the house that Jack built” is repeated over and over again. Therefore, after seeing the film with this title, I decided that this is a film adaptation of this poem: ' Wow! To screen a children's rhyme is unusual'. So, of course, the film immediately interested.
But it turned out that everything is not quite so... I must say that not everyone will like this movie. And someone, faint-hearted pregnant, probably better not to watch it at all. The film was directed by a director from Denmark - Lar von Thriller, who, by name (probably a pseudonym), can be seen shooting thrillers. Going to the page of the director, I was surprised that I have not seen his other films, but he has many different awards and in his films starred such stars as Nicole Kidman, William Defoe and even singer Björk. The singer, of course, is an amateur, but still famous.
There. The House That Jack Built & #39 is not a children’s film, unlike the poem. Children’s in it only that in it children still appear (but, I will not spoiler, it would be better not to appear – it is impossible with children, even in the frame of a feature film).
In fact, the film is the story of a serial killer and maniac, which we are told with abundant cruelty and shocking coolness. Show episode after episode, related to each other conditionally. Well, each killer's crime is like a separate movie, included in 'The House That...' And only at the end of the film, everything comes to a common, unifying, denominator. Well, that's how the blankets are sewn - first its individual fragments, and then they are all sewn into one. I don’t like blankets and blankets, but it’s the method that makes the film unusual. It would be just a movie story of a maniac.
Although no, the film is very different from similar not only this technique. But also the sophisticated perversion of the crimes committed by the maniac and the complete indifference, coldness with which they are removed. Von Thriller does not feel sorry for his cinematic victims or potential viewers of his film.
Separately, it is worth noting the ending of the film, solved in a different key. Here naturalism is replaced by some philosophized mysticism. Built literally from the corpses of the victims ' the house ' becomes for the maniac on the one hand a refuge, an escape from reality, but at the same time a kind of portal to the other world - you can not escape punishment. And here the director is absolutely right: his hero deserves hell.
This is an unusual thriller, in which, by the way, in a small, but also cruel, as if even with mockery, the episode starred the famous actress Uma Thurman. And here is this unusualness, plus the visual component of the film (precisely the beauty of the image, not its shocking content) and its righteous (fair) ending - what lies in the foundation of a positive assessment 'The House that Jack built'.
This is the house that Jack built. And this is the wheat that's kept in a dark closet in the house that Jack built. And this is a fun bird, a bluebird who often steals wheat, kept in a dark closet in the house that Jack built.
There's a bit of masochism about being a Lars von Trier fan. Even before you sit in a movie theater or turn on a Blu-ray player, you can understand that they are about to be crushed, devastated, worried (perhaps for life), but we keep coming back. My first personal experience with von Trier was with his adaptation of Euripides’ classic Greek tragedy Medea. Medea. Medea. It’s already... quite tragic, in fact, but Von Trier managed to get Kirsten Olesen’s most devastating performance.
This ability to conjure up the rough, real and brutal plays of a wide variety of actors, as well as his visionary filming style, which influenced the entire movement known as Dogme 95, make him one of the most influential directors of the 20th century. In 21, he became more and more daring, creating such mesmerizing opuses as “Melancholia”, which, in my opinion, demonstrates the best ever performance of Kirsten Dunst in the film, and the infamous but brilliant “Antichrist and the Nymphomaniac”, which showed us the play of Charlotte Gainsbourg. the power and scope of a talented actress.
I'm always very excited when a new Von Trier movie comes out. When I heard about The House That Jack Built, and especially its controversial Cannes screening, I was all year on the verge of my place, waiting to see what the fuss was about. Anyone who pays attention to the world of cinema knows that Von Trier's films will be shocking and disturbing, that's fine, but hearing that half the crowd came out and the other half stood up.
Jack wants to tell Virg about his legendary career as an architect and assassin.
Jack is an engineer who has always wanted to be an architect. He has serious OCD and has no real friends to talk about, except for some mechanics and hunting buddies he speaks to in passing.
At the beginning of the film, we hear Dillon's voice and the voice of a guy named "Virge." Jack wants to tell Virg the story of his legendary career as an architect and assassin. But Jack doesn't think it's just an art, a way of expressing yourself. His murders may indeed be something too negative.
What I didn't necessarily expect, but I had to have, because it was Von Trier that was a degree of philosophical discussion about the nature of man, art and artist, and about man's relationship to the world around him. It's not just a slasher. Violence, which is actually a lot of things, which is actually somewhat coincidental to what Jack and, essentially, Von Trier is actually trying to achieve.
... There are quite a few scenes in this film that will haunt you, perhaps forever.
Starting with the stunning Dancing in the Dark, Von Trier uses his films to make huge metaphorical accusations against American culture and our way of life in general. That doesn’t suit everyone, but that’s what makes Von Trier who he is. The house that Jack built amplifies this dynamic and shows us the flaws in the overall attitude toward The American. Jack is essentially the epitome of toxic masculinity and stereotypical American machismo to an extreme degree.
Let's move on to the copper nails. There are many scenes in this film that will haunt you, perhaps forever. At a picnic, there's one taxidermy incident that will stay with me for the rest of my life. You will also never think of hunting deer or family picnics again in the same vein. There's also the odd addition of some parts of a world-famous poem that I would reveal with great carelessness here, but oddly enough, it all works in my opinion. Some people, including a couple of others, will see it as a glorification of violence. I see in it what it was designed to be, a work of complex, violent, fun art.
The humor in the House of efficiency is so intense, contrasting and obvious that it makes sense to talk not just about irony, but much more correctly it will be called hyperirony, as the highest degree of ambiguity and ridicule, exceeding all reasonable limits. What is traditionally considered the most serious and incompatible with laughter? It's death and cruelty. What does director Lars von Trier do? Details these topics, revealing them in a hyperironic context. The man who ridicules death and the suffering that afflicts it reverses the situation of life and is thus master of the situation in which death and suffering are the victims of his ridicule. How can death be defeated? This can only be done by laughing in her face. How can one talk about violence seriously in a place and time where it is not only an everyday part of real life and a necessary part of virtual life (which the viewer usually wants to see on television is a destructive spectacle), but also an invisible structure that organizes the entire system of human relationships? For example, it can be done, as Lars von Trier does in Jack's house, exposing and driving violence to the limit of absurdity and excess. In order to penetrate the audience saturated with modern thrillers and action films, the grotesque is needed as a last resort to return the reality of experiences to cinema. Demonstrating the extreme degree of cruelty as a matter of course, the director provokes the viewer to stop perceiving it as such.
Hyperirony can be easily traced throughout the film. From the very beginning, in 1 incident, self-irony is used, affecting both the expectations of the viewer and the film itself, which kind of justifies them. In Incident 2, common clichés are played out, and the irony extends to mental illness - Jack's compulsiveness forces him to return to the crime scene again and again in search of unharvested drops of blood. The religious apotheosis of sarcasm is “help from above” and Jack’s reaction: “I felt that God was taking care of me.” 3 The incident, perhaps the most grotesque and provocative, culminates in the creation of a frozen sarcastic mask as a material embodiment of the spirit of the film. 4 The incident once again ridicules the inconsciousness of the police and adds to this a display of striking public alienation and indifference. In Incident 5, the mockery of the stamps continues, but the degree of irony begins to decrease, which creates difficulties for Jack and leads to the need to complete his grandiose project to build a temple in honor of Thanatos. The epilogue - catabassis ends with the last metaphorical joke on Jack himself.
Violence on screen and in life
In "Home," there are two types of violence: the apparent on-screen violence played by Jack and the implicit in everyday life, which is only hinted at. As for the first, Jack goes from an inept impulsive psychopath to a real master and artist in his field. Its development can be conditionally represented by the following scheme: 1 spontaneity and intemperance - 2 intentionality and clumsiness - 3 sophistication of design and execution - 4 play and provocation - 5 pretentiousness of design and pedantry in execution. As for implicit violence, it should be said that each incident of the film calls the viewer to think about the role of violence in everyday life: 1.Tyranny, manipulation, verbal aggression of people towards each other; 2. Obsessive invasion of the general (political, social, economic, etc.) in the private sphere, manipulation of simple-minded inhabitants; 3.Cruelty to animals, senseless hunting, training children to weapons; 4. Domestic violence, total indifference of neighbors who do not want to help; 5 Antihuman ingenuity in military conflicts, experiments on people. Thus, the film provides abundant food for reflection on the ubiquitous presence of violence and cruelty in human society.
According to Jack himself, pain and pleasure are inextricably cyclical in his personality. If you try to look honestly at this problem, it is easy to trace the presence of this functional linkage in the structure of man as such. Indeed, at first glance, it seems that everyone is seeking the most pleasure while at the same time avoiding suffering. But if you exaggerate this philosophy to the limit and consider it in a simplified form, as Jack does, it is easy to come to the extremes of hedonism, which the ancient Greek philosophers of Cyrenaica could not avoid. Thus, although Jack’s ethical position has some real basis, it is egoistic and ill-conceived, vulgar and one-sided hedonism, and therefore becomes a bad philosophy that deserves no justification.
The aesthetics of decay and noble rot
Jack is an engineer, but he wants to be an architect. The difference between them corresponds to the difference between a craftsman and an artist. As a building material for his creation, Jack uses human bodies. His creative impulse is peculiar and affirms the idea that art is on the other side of good and evil. As he himself speaks of such aesthetics: “the beauty of decay” and “noble rot”. Even if Jack is right that “an artist needs cynicism” and can be considered “destruction as a path to salvation,” it is difficult for the average person to understand and accept such an idea. You can remember many films professing the aesthetics of decay and noble rot: Perfume, Dexter, Hannibal, Demon-barber, 1st season of True Detective, etc. The fact that cinematography repeatedly returns to this theme indicates that it expresses the “spirit of the times” to some extent. Perhaps the main role here is played by the history of art of the twentieth century with its proclamation of art for the sake of art, a break with the classical tradition, the search for new forms of expression. As well as the mentality of Western man, determined by a de-anthropological turn, the loss of faith in any spiritual values, the triumph of materialism and naturalism.
Perhaps Lars von Trier wanted to say with this film that there is no art without violence. In fact, one must first overcome oneself, that is, in a certain sense, to commit violence against one’s nature by imposing an unnatural course of action on it. Nature is pragmatic and extremely concrete, and art is abstract and often useless. To create art, one must go against one’s animal nature and make an effort to overcome it. Then external circumstances and conditions must be transformed by violence against the natural world. Art destroys and creates reality. Art can be seen as violence against other people. It can break in, shake and change the inner world of the recipient. This is exactly the impact that Lars von Trier’s The House That Jack Built has.
10 out of 10
' . Jack, you're an engineer, not an architect. . . -
The title of my review comically describes what really happens to von Trier’s work and specifically in this film. I would say that this film shows him more as an artist and thinker, and only then as a director. And he wrote the madness and human cruelty, along with the manic habits of the protagonist, his laid-back expression as he makes another act of his bloody confession to the devil.
By the way, you want to close your eyes from the blatant scenes of violence, and at the same time, you will enjoy the picture, because its composition, color palette are perfectly built, everything is natural and natural, death is shown with all immediacy and routine, without admixture of Hollywood gloss or excessive horror (hello to all action movies and horror films).
You are disgusted by the main character, you want his soonest exposure, capture, death, but you sympathize with him, you want to forgive, because it is partly not his fault that he is mentally ill.
Victims, you feel sorry for them, and then the thought flashes through your head: “Are they so stupid that I can’t catch the main character in dirty and terrifying thoughts?” What is even emphasized by Stupid - the name of one of the heroines.
You have been in conflict throughout the film. And there is no way to understand whether you like this film or not, because the convincing play of Matt Dillon, the embodiment of a quiet maniac, and excellent visual charms are multiplied by plot holes and some understatement, as if Trier needed to quickly finish shooting, leaving us with a strong visual component, complete horror in the middle of ordinary life.
But this is the kind of movie that needs to get inside, catch the horror of the coming, feel like a victim of Jack. Or Jack himself. Who's closer?
7 out of 10
A psychological thriller that tells the story of a failed architect and maniac Jack.
Throughout the film is accompanied by a voice-over dialogue of a serial killer and a certain Verge (Vergil) (reflections on eternal themes), which gives a philosophical coloring to the whole film.
The film features 5 incidents, each of which tells the story of particularly brutal murders that occurred at different times and under different circumstances. All five incidents are accompanied by comments from Jack and Verge.
In Part 1 of the film, we see Jack transform from a neurotic to an antichrist, who with each murder radicalizes his anti-Christian position, interpreting everything that Virgil does not tell him exclusively in nihilist colors. Here the main and three additional story lines are closed.
In Part 2, which differs from the first, Jack descends with Virgil to Hell and learns that everything he learned from the first part may have been a lie and he has hope to escape. But then it turns out that the hope was false.
Key episodes:
1. The scene is a metaphor with two lampposts and good and evil shadows. Evil reaches behind you, good appears as a light of hope. In the end, evil inevitably overtakes and conquers good. Evil will inevitably conquer good.
“Imagine a man walking down the street under lights. When it passes under the lantern, its shadow is thickest, but least of all. Then as he moves on, the shadow grows ahead of him. It becomes longer and longer, while becoming more faded, and another shadow appears behind the person, from the next lantern. It becomes shorter and shorter until it reaches its greatest density, when a person is exactly under the lamp. Suppose the person under the first light is me right after the murder. I feel strong and confident. I go forward, the shadow in front of me grows like my pleasure, but at the same time there is also pain - this is the shadow behind me from the next lantern. In the middle between the two lanterns, the pain becomes so intense that it outweighs my pleasure. With each step it goes away, and the pain increases. Finally, the pain becomes so unbearable that I have to do something about it. When I am under the next lamp, I will commit murder again.
2. Jack's childhood. Little Jack is sitting by the pond, behind him the peasants are mowing the grass, busy with real work, work, their breath, the smell of cut grass, a clear day - all this is wonderful, all this is the good side of Jack's main childhood memory. The evil side of the same recollection is that Jack stays with his back to Good and chooses the Evil to which he faces - cuts off the duckling's paw = psychological explanation of the main storyline - Jack was not punished as a child for his misconduct, he went unpunished, so when he killed the first victim and went (as in childhood) unpunished, he relapsed into evil - and hence the feverish desire to kill.
3. The scene from the second part of the film, when Jack sees a piece of lost paradise, a fragment from the Good part of the main childhood memory, again a wide meadow, peasant trees mowing grass, their breath, purity and simplicity of the world. That is, Jack realizes what he lost, what he turned away from when he chose evil, and how he deceived himself all his life.
Now on to the shadows of the lampposts.
The first is the evil shadow, the cut off leg of a duckling, when Jack chose evil over good, and this evil reached for him until a new shadow suddenly grew before him, the shadow of goodness emanating from the next lantern. This second, kind shadow is the image of the lost paradise with the peasants, to which Jack went the whole film, but which remained an image, not a reality, as the evil shadow of the past again overtook Jack and swallowed the good shadow.
Also striking is the equanimity of the killer and the stupidity of the victims, who literally themselves climb into the hands of the maniac.
Interesting name. All his life Jack dreamed of building a house.
He considered architecture his calling, but his parents insisted that he become an engineer. “What’s the difference between an engineer and an architect?” is one of his victims. The answer is at the end. The difference, it turns out, is big.
The film is replete with references to various works of art and historical events. So, the ending is a reference to Dante’s “Divine Comedy”.
As a result, the film of one hero with his experiences, thoughts, insignificance and tragedy.
Marketing brand “Lars von Trier” successfully coped with its film distribution task, focusing on the scandalous persona of the director and “shocking” – provocative content of the film. Trier made a unique movie. A terrifying, nightmarish, and endlessly ruthless masterpiece by Lars von Trier.
“Without love there is no art.”
8 out of 10
The mastodon and the lump are admired, adored and appreciated as a significant symbol of modern cinema. On it, they hone slander, throw hats, demonstratively leave the sessions. Whether positive or negative, four out of five will not be about the film, but about His Majesty Lance von Trier. And that's an unforgivable mistake. About the author I will say, but briefly and only for seed. Yes, the style of the creator is smeared in all places; it is still distinctive, interesting and distinguishable. But no matter how outstanding the author, it is important how atypical the film.
And the film, as it is perceived by many: gloomy, meaningful, elitist, did not come out as such. The opinion that kinzo ' not for everyone' and that ' will understand only those who understand' causes indignation bordering on laughter.
There is food for thought here, of course. Cool, stale, but at the same time juicy images struck me and imprinted in my memory for a long time. And the display of dismemberment, dirt and lust of human existence and death, in particular, should be characterized by the word ' creative', which is very commendable for a decade of cinema of secondary ideas.
So, about indignation bordering on laughter... It is with laughter that I suggest watching this tape. If you look at it through this prism, then everything quickly and quite clearly falls into place. The behavior of a psychopath is perceived not as a wild and dangerous disease for society, but as the quirkiness of the main character; all his deranged murders will turn into adventures; and savagery on the screen into popcorn and plot twists. Loyal fans are already starting to shake their heads nervously, but I assure you, this is a cool comedy to look for.
Is the comedy unusual? Perhaps, by standard, it would necessarily end in a logical point; positive or negative, it does not matter. But at the end of 'The House That Jack Built' there is an exclamation watershed. The moment when the symbolism of the things described in the painting begins to prevail over the content of the two-hour introduction. To me, a little drawn out and pretentious, but only to deliberately separate it from the foreign and other parts of the work. And if you enjoyed watching seventy-five percent of Lena, but stumbled over the last quarter of it, well, that was cool and spectacular, wasn't it? And if you are stuck in its ending as if in a trance, the narrative of which, hitting the nose, echoing and awareness rolled inside and settled somewhere deep, then most likely you have already joined the personal army of His Majesty’s admirers.
9 out of 10
I have avoided this film for a long time, as I am not a fan of von Trier’s work and I react extremely strongly to the excessive level of violence, especially sophisticated and naturalistic.
However, the circumstances under which I did see this film have given me some bewilderment at the level of hatred and disgust towards it by some reviewers and viewers.
The film managed to impress me. He makes a curious attempt to look into the head of a serial killer, examine it and put it on shelves.
From an irritated and withdrawn driver, who was categorically fed up with a rude and insolent companion, Jack gradually turns into an insecure psychopath who enjoys murder, and then completely into a philosophizing and engaged in perverted reflection experimenter.
The film is not as shocking as many people try to imagine.
I was shocked by the scene with the duckling (so natural that I was horrified to google if the duckling was really hurt) and the scene where the hero maims his girlfriend, from whom everything was compressed inside.
But I would not say that the level of naturalism here exceeds the usual norms from, for example, a series of Saw films or some slashers.
It's very shallow to take the film literally when Jack starts calling his dreadful fascination art.
I believe that the voiceovers of Verge (who is undoubtedly Virgil) express quite the opinion of the author of the film about all the atrocities that the self-confident protagonist commits.
Moreover, in the end, Jack gets what he deserves in the most unambiguous way - finding himself in the most impenetrable depths of hell, at the very bottom of it.
Ironically, it is not even his lifetime actions that lead to such an outcome, but his character traits, expressed in narcissism and excessive self-confidence.
In order to fully understand all the challenges and themes faced by the audience during the 152 minutes of this film, I had to revisit this film. And when I watched it the second time, my interest and emotions were just like when I first watched it.
So, this is a Lars von Trier movie. If you like stupid American Hollywood comedies, all sorts of action movies with great special effects and a huge budget, then this film is not for you. ' The House That Jack Built ' created to reflect on art, religion, good and evil, and more. You won’t even mention it.
There’s no point in telling you what happened in that movie to convince you that it’s a good movie. But if you are really interested in talking with the main character about his mental problems and problems that he discusses with a certain person named Virge (or he is not a person at all), then this film will be remembered for a long time.
The filming of this film is adapted to the style that the director conceived. Somewhere exciting and somewhere beautiful music is often found in this film. The dialogue written in this film is not like Tarantino’s, but the script is good enough to convey exactly what they wanted to convey to us.
At the time of writing this review, I have only watched four Lars von Trier films (Nymphomaniac 2, Melancholia and The House That Jack Built). And it was this two-and-a-half-hour film that made me realize that it was the best angry Lars movie, and one of the best movies I've ever seen.
8 out of 10
I'm an engineer. But my main dream is to become an architect.
One can endlessly reflect on how Trier “trolls” viewers, filling his picture with deliberate cruelty, provocation using footage of Nazi camps and the main character’s reflections on the possibility of creating art through violence. Jack’s admission of world-famous tyrants inadvertently led me to recall a case in which the phrase “I understand Hitler ...” was pulled out of an interview with the director himself. Because of this, viewers who want to dig deeper and critics who will undoubtedly see this picture will think that Trier interprets himself through the image of a serial killer. Although, it seems to me that this is an exaggerated and comical reproduction that they just want to see.
I don’t like violence in movies, and I can honestly say that many scenes have had to be watched through force, but I can’t say that I regret it. You can understand people who will leave without seeing it through, or who would rather close the tab on that movie and look for something more dynamic. But when you are one of those “film perverts” who are ready to watch something like this to get to the bottom, if not to the bottom, then at least to the main thoughts embedded in the work, the last minutes of the film will give true pleasure.
Often I came across a negative from connoisseurs of cinema, who reproached the picture for the presence of too direct references to the Divine Comedy, or rather to Dante himself, dressed in a red developing robe. But this is only one of the many images that are connected by the common idea of the superman. Judge for yourself, Jack presents himself as an architect, and in the film we see images of God-Urizen, who is the creator of the entire material world. This is the kind of great author the main character wants to become, to create a work of art carved out of cruelty. He reflects on vivid images woven from tyranny and crimes against humanity that can change the world. His pride takes on more and more sophisticated forms, Jack considers himself able to understand and change the course of the universe, for which he ultimately suffers defeat.
Jack, in search of the edge, like Trier, trying to create an illusion in the audience, cracks down on women and children, tries to find fame through newspapers, builds a house out of “finally suitable” material. In the middle of the film, there may be a feeling that the thought in this picture wants to justify the violence and the inhuman things that are happening on the screen. But all this is a well-built scenery, an illusion that is broken by the end of the film. The epilogue completely changes our attitude and if you, the viewer, have a suspicion or the idea that such a thing can be justified, then your inner Verge will reproachfully frown and wave his hand, say: “Goodbye, Jack.”
To sum up, I would not recommend this film to anyone I know. Because such a movie should be approached only on the basis of their own curiosity, or the desire to understand the author, or perhaps in search of some questions. Oh, damn it.
First joke. The obsessive traveler asks you three times to move her from point A to point B, then back and back to point B. However, she does not pay attention to the fact that you may have your own personal affairs. In addition, during the trip, she provoked a friendly driver in every possible way. Therefore, it is quite fair to say that it was she who gave birth to the beast in him.
There's a fluff in this scene. In the end, the hero drove his first victim's car into the woods, all the wheels were in perfect order. But there was still blood on his face, which means he could not go to the city and buy a normal jack to replace the wheel.
The story itself happened quite quickly, but this does not negate the fact that it was interesting to watch. Undoubtedly, mainly thanks to the amazing actress Uma Thurman, who literally inspired self-hatred.
Second thumbnail. The dialogue of two people separated by a mosquito net is assembled from many glues. It seems that the actors lack the skill to capture this conversation in one holistic take. The effect of a blogger appears, for example, as in +100500, when the presenter is allegedly teleported to different parts of the screen, which in turn, of course, does not allow the eye to get used to a stable picture. But I don't think that's the best approach to a scene like this.
And a new sin. The uninvited guest put only one small pillow under his head. When he began to give the woman tea, the angle changed, and she already lies on two pillows, including a large white one.
The next one seems to be teasing us. Jack visits the hostess on a bright day, and at the end of his action, the camera focuses on the window with a gloomy full moon. Well, he couldn't play with the body for so long because he didn't do much.
And on what principle did he choose his second victim? How did he track her down and why? After all, the first girl herself forced herself on him and began to beat her head with babble. This victim seems to have nothing to do with the killer. Why would he even stop by her? Why are you talking such nonsense? Is it just for prank to see what happens? He has a completely different mindset.
He's a clean man. We can see this in his paranoia, when he was afraid that blood might be found in places where it could not even be found. But then why did he work without gloves? He touched door handles, furniture, a painting, a chandelier, a faucet and even a toilet. And I'm the only one who noticed that blunder when Jack put them on. But only after the third return to the crime scene. However, he did not take care of the places he had already touched, which is an obvious flaw of the creators.
But I'll admit, talking to a cop and the trail on the road was pretty entertaining. Perhaps the film has a lot of small moments that should be paid closer attention.
Definitely the most interesting plus is a voice-over dialogue between a criminal who has grown up in intelligence and a sage who is not afraid to harshly criticize the first. At the moment of these conversations, you can hear more philosophy than you can find in any textbook. And this, for a second, a thriller about a mad killer, and not a scientific treatise.
Third walk. There is no comment, because the scene is really entourageous. I want to mention the great game Matt Dillon.
The fourth murder looks like a separate movie. The truth is, it has no history. It is likely that if we were told the story of Jack’s acquaintance with a girl, it would look illogical, because not every beauty will like such a psycho. So, in this situation, pulling out of context plays more into the hands.
The fifth atrocity did not happen. Instead, we will be introduced to the owner of the voiceover and will be shown the final version of Jack’s house. And in the end, the whole story will find echoes in my favorite Divine Comedy, so now I want to learn about this picture in as much detail as possible. Because now it feels that somewhere inside it harbors much more meaning than we see.
8 out of 10