Epidemic

Of course, you gotta be a masochist to enjoy some people's genius - you know that if you bear with them they will take you to new levels of perception.

With Lars von Trier, the voyage is often hilarious. Epidemic is funny. Funny, in a Gummo kind of way: the characters are real, reality is eerie, and we laugh to break the tension; funny in a the characters say amusing things kind of way (preacher: "this bible is in goddamned Latin"); and funny in an Andy Kaufman screwing with the audience (yes, you) kind of way.

Make no mistake: you will suffer. If you are afraid, stay away from horror movies, ya pansy!

This movie also features some great aesthetic distance! It's bold!

Epidemic (1987), directed by Lars von Trier, is a meta-cinematic exploration of the blurred line between fiction and reality. The film follows a director and screenwriter who, while working on a script about a plague, find themselves caught up in a real-life epidemic, mirroring the events they are writing. This film is a challenging and unconventional piece of work, characteristic of von Trier's early style, marked by its fragmented narrative and philosophical underpinnings.

The performances are fittingly restrained, with Allan De Waal and Ole Ernst bringing a sense of detachment and intellectual depth to their characters, reflecting the film's thematic concerns. The film's low-budget aesthetic, with shaky handheld camerawork and raw sound design, serves to reinforce the sense of chaos and uncertainty that permeates the narrative. It's a deliberate stylistic choice that enhances the surreal, almost documentary-like atmosphere, but it may be off-putting to some viewers who prefer more polished filmmaking.

Von Trier's direction is methodical, and while the premise of the film offers intriguing possibilities, the execution can feel disjointed and unclear at times. The dialogue often veers into abstract territory, and the narrative structure is fragmented, leaving viewers to piece together the meaning behind the events. The film's slow pace, combined with its minimalistic style, can make it feel like a deliberately inaccessible work, challenging the audience's patience.

Epidemic is a film that operates on multiple levels, blending political, artistic, and existential commentary with a quasi-documentary style. While it offers some thought-provoking moments, it struggles to maintain coherence and impact over its runtime. It is best suited for those interested in avant-garde cinema or those looking to delve into the early works of Lars von Trier, but casual viewers may find it frustrating.

Rating: 6/10. A provocative, if uneven, exploration of the intersection between art, reality, and societal collapse.

EPIDEMIC (Lars von Trier - Demark 1987).

Von Trier's second feature reveals his obsessions with cinema, with his self-imposed limitations on film-making in many ways foreshadowing Von Trier's later obstructions upon Jorgen Leth in THE FIVE OBSTRUCTIONS (2003).

Essentially a film about his own obsessions, or a grand parody on horror, as some suggested. Von, Trier, frustrated by the delay of his never realized project, "The Grand Mal", about two gangster families in divided Berlin, made a bet with film consultant Claes Kastholm of the Danish Film Institute, claiming that he could make a feature film for one million Danish kroner. Resulting partly in an amateur movie about a film director and a scriptwriter who must write a new manuscript in five days, interspersed with scenes from the film they are working on - about a young idealistic doctor in the late 20th century, who tries to fight an epidemic, but only manages to spread it further. The film culminates with the outbreak of a deadly plague, not in the past but in the present. Throughout the film, Von Trier shows his fascination with Germany, for example, during a ride through the "Ruhrgebiet", the industrial core of Europe, or the world, at least during the '80s.

Camera Obscura --- 8/10

I obviously was in the right mood, since I don't give it a horrible mark. I do give it a 6 out of 10, because it is obviously such a low budget movie and it's definitely very original, but other than that, I am still amazed I watched it till the end.

Two screenwriters are trying to do in 5 days what they barely succeeded in one and a half years, that is write a script. They lost their original screenplay, which by now they can barely remember how it started, due to a bad disk. Each day is accompanied with scenes of their creative process, scenes from the movie they would do and dialogues with different people.

Now it happens that I've just written an IMDb comment that said "Funny little things: Udo Kier plays a short role in this movie, and he is really young". Deja vu! Udo Kier plays in this one, as well.

The movie is shot in black and white, probably by the same single camera, and the sound is almost not processed giving the whole movie a documentary like feeling. There are a lot of things written between the lines, the satire of the government and film industry being the most obvious.

Conclusion: you should watch this mostly if you're Danish. Else if you are a movie critic or deep into films. It is NOT a horror movie. A movie that has some gore at the very end is not horror. And also you have to have the right set of mind to watch it.

The idea of the film is great. Mixing the creation of a movie and his viewing. It's done in a very ambitious way, incredibly sophisticated and elegant when we know the budget who was assigned to the movie.

A lot of scenes are incredible, specially the one who shows the contamination of the priest, adding a reflection on the condition of the black man. Obviously the last scene is one of the most incredible things I've seen on a screen, but we can doubt the mental health of Von Trier and his crew. However maybe it's the reason he's so good...

I didn't like a few things. I think there is too much time about the creation of the movie, a few ridiculous and unappropriated moments as the story of the American letters of Niels