Les idiots

As a Dane it may be easier to see where Lars Von Trier is coming from with this social criticism (satire of social criticism!) movie.

First of all he comes from a country that prides itself in two traditions:

1. a state that takes care of and cares for everyone

2. a country that has a long tradition of social-criticism in literature and movies

For more than ten years it seemed that every big film project in Denmark had a social agenda...That was probably the only way to get financial support for your film project - which was most of the time, if not all of the time - supplied by the state.

This film is poking fun - primarily - at this social criticism tradition, while it also renews it.

But how much should we take seriously - Lars Von Trier would probably laugh at anyone, who takes this movie at face value - as a bona fide social criticism (which it is not!) and - of course - it fails as traditional "social criticism", just look at it - this is not a film like Pelle the Conquerer, there are no drunken, heavy-set men seducing their underage nieces and abusing the working man sadistically.

In short this movie wasn't meant to succeed in the genre in a traditional sense.

It has a more profound agenda - I have a hard time putting words to it, because what the movie says is so very Danish. Certain scenes are simply great: When they visit the factory and "the idiots" are allowed to turn the machines on and off...I can't explain why that is so intensely funny, but I'm pretty sure it's a Danish thing.

This film is funny, sad, sentimental, wonderfully-acted... It comments on a social-democratic tradition and state that embraces you for better and for worse...It also talks about capitalism in this system...Maybe it's really all about the compromise inherent in a social-democratic tradition existing parallel with a capitalist system. Such a compromise could be viewed as hypocrisy from a philosophical standpoint.

Central to this movie is the theme of honesty and sincerity...And all the while you don't want to take it too seriously, because you have a feeling that the director isn't all that serious about it himself...

In short I find the movie and it's intention irresistibly confusing.

I'm surprised that no one commented on the pseudo documentary's shaky reality as mirroring the problematic reality of the Idiots in the movie. Their attempts to be real idiots so as to appreciate their "inner idiots" parallels the feature film's attempt to mimic the documentary format so as to achieve credibility. By showing the overacting and crew shots in the movie, perhaps it was the director's way of commenting on the the shaky reality of the Idiots existence.

But even though we know that it's a feature film trying to be a documentary, we are still drawn to the vicarious experience of the movie - we still enjoy it as a movie. Perhaps another statement about finding happiness in a fake reality?

Like Idiots, the audience goes into an escaped reality when they go to the cinema, hoping to experience what the protagonists feel on screen. But like the idiots, the denial is only temporary. The final fate of Karen seems to warn the the audience that at the end of the day, this escaped formed of reality is no match to the "real" world that is out there.

This misunderstood and wildly underappreciated film is up there with Riget and Zentropa in the Von Trier canon, and in my opinion better than Breaking the Waves. Critics focussed on the film's perceived cruel attitude towards the mentally handicapped. Idioterne is actually a very personal film about revolution, healing and Danish society's attitude towards the 'retarded'. It is an incredibly brave and moving film that will have you dabbing your eyes by the end.

Whoever decided that American filmgoers could not be exposed to the sight of penises, however, needs to lose their job. The absurdity of being exposed to full frontal female nudity--while being protected by big black floating boxes whenever a John Thomas is on screen--is an outrage. Did someone REALLY think this film would break through at the box office if these appendages were obscured? Were they concerned that Joe Six Pack was going to take the wife and kids to that new movie by that famed Danish director that's such a big hit with the arthouse crowd? The mind boggles.

While not quite at the same level as _Breaking the Waves_, the only other Lars von Trier I have seen (his films are quite hard to come by in Midwestern American video stores, you understand), _The Idiots_ is still a great film, and, in some ways, is just as important.

I have to comment on a lot of the reviews I've seen for this movie. A lot of viewers judge the film by the theories and views about the group's existence (particularly the view spoken by the most outspoken of the Idiots, Stoffer). This is surely not the way von Trier meant his audience to take the film. If you paid any attention to the film, you'll notice that the Idiots' lifestyle is never glamorized. Everyone's experience in the group ends in embarrassment and despair. You should also note that none of the Idiots has the same opinion of why they like to act the idiot. Stoffer might say that they do it to upset the bourgeosie (I don't pretend to know how to spell that word), but the next person might be doing it just to play around. The artist (whose name escapes me at the moment) is doing it to become a better artist, and the doctor is doing it almost for experiment. There is never a reason for the groups' existence that the entire group agrees upon. This is extremely important for understanding this film.

The way _The Idiots_ particularly hit me was in the characterizations. The actors are so great in this film that they hit the level of: "Is this really acting, or is it just being?" von Trier hit the same level in _Breaking the Waves_. These actors were so good, their characters just jumped out of the script. There are many characters, and only a few of them are characterized in the script extensively. Stoffer, although not the main character, is the most prominent character in the script. Many of the characters don't have all that many lines or screen time, but I felt I knew them all well.

I also appreciated that it actually entertained me. I wasn't expecting to enjoy it so much. It is often very, very funny (if offensive). It also gripped me emotionally. I did not particularly comprehend the ending's meaning, but it left me with a powerful emotion. I did have tears in my eyes when I left the theater, and a lot of thoughts in my head. When a man outside the theater stopped me to ask me how I liked it, my lips and my brain were too dry to actually answer anything but, "I liked it. I liked it a lot." 9/10

I think Lars Von Trier ranks among the best filmmakers as I found his 'Breaking The Waves', 'Dancer In The Dark' and 'Dogville' to be exceptional films of a class apart. Then, I saw 'Idioterne'. I liked the story idea where a group of people form a cult and disobey social rules. However, the telling of it failed to impress me on any level. The execution is very amateur. While the intention of the shaky camera was to give the viewer a feel of being a voyeuristic outsider, in some shots you could actually see the microphone. There are some very explicit and pointless pornographic scenes merely put for shock value. I don't mind shock value as long as it's relevant to the story but what was the need to show a penis or sexual intercourse (where you can actually see penetration)? The acting is quite bad with the exception of Bodil Jørgensen who is terrific as the tormented Karen. Many seem to like the film because of the provocative theme and because it's 'different'. But is that all that makes a movie good?