The film ‘The Idiots’ by Lars Von Trier.
This film is about a group of middle – class people in their early 20`s, whose intention is to ‘spass out’ in public and in the privacy of their owned uncles home, I which they are all living in. The episodes of retardation are seen as controversial & provide the film with an unconventional method of viewing this type of behaviour that occurs in everyday society. It explains to the viewer, how this group of people cope with society, despite their occupations such as, a doctor, an advertising agency & an art teacher, as well as escapism from their real lives e.g. children and wives. 
After the controversial ‘gang-bang’ scene, in which the teenager Josephine and Jeppe seem to be falling for each other, the other members of the group are seen relaxing out in the garden. The peaceful, idealised scene is disturbed & shattered by Josephine’s father who embarrasses her, invading and bursting the bubble in which they live in. When talking to the group, the father talks about medication issues with his daughter. This issue brings light to a possible mental problem that she already has. The group didn’t know about this issue and highlights the possible hypocritical actions of some group members. In an aggressive and forceful manner, her father draws attention to a conflict between the real world and their make believe world by removing her from the house. The groups happiness is crushed, in particular, Josephine and Jeppe’s. You can notice this reaction by Jeppe demonstration of his idiot persona. When watching, I felt personally this was the most emotional, realistic and dramatic scene. Despite Jeppe reverting back to his ‘idiot’ persona, I feel this sort of behaviour is the only way he can truly express himself It seems like he cannot cope with this merge of realism & idealism.
The way Josephine’s father reacted to the knowledge of her personal behaviour and Jeppe’s idiot persona is commenting on our views towards this behaviour in our culture. When watching the film, I noticed another example of this sort of behaviour; when the idiots are encountered by real disabled people, and cannot deal with their behaviour, the film acknowledges that these particular characters can be criticised for what they do, but can also be justified as a twisted way of expression.
The print screens shown on my left highlight, that you really have to be an idiot to change society or at least believe you can. This idea of breaking all the rules in film making through using the rules of Dogma 95, is metaphorical for the way the group is breaking the rules of authority; being an idiot is an act of despair but also courage.
When approaching the end of the story, it became clear that the game was almost over for the characters. I noticed this, as some of the group members found, they could not confront and reveal the idiot inside themselves. However, when referring to the beginning of the film, the character, Karen seemed quiet and withdrawn and was only by chance recruited into the group. Whereas, at the end her character was found to have the deepest personality. After volunteering to go home and ‘spass out’ with Susanne as witness, we return to her home where we are finally immersed in complete reality. The character is coldly welcomed home by her family who assumed she was dead having been missing for the last 2 weeks, and due to her not attending her own baby’s funeral. I noticed, when watching the film, this character is the only person to spass out in `reality`. I think this personality, becomes a shock to the viewers nothing is resolved, however it seems Karen is found to have the most undesired life, in which allows her to act out and throw it all away, deserting her typical lifestyle.
When making the film I think the crew have tried not to make fun of mentally ill people, but to hide away and regress back to their childhood, dealing with a society they are used to.
The character, Stoffer believes “They are the ones who are making fun,” I believe, everyone in society who does not take their view, deflects the argument that the group portrays, referring to stirring trouble and insulting people in the society they have abandoned.
I also think the use of a handheld camera adds to the realism & naturalness of the scenes, almost like a documentary home video. especially when analysing the quality of the picture.
The camera moves freely as if part of the group among the action focussing on the most interesting occurrence. Although simple and realistically shots add to the lifestyle in which they all live in, enhancing an unrealistic distortion created in the characters minds and thoughts.
Through out the film I think we discover that the world begins to fall apart. While on the surface it would seem Von Trier is commenting on the attitudes society has to the mentally handicapped, however deeper down it appears to be in defence of defect.
When researching, I learnt that Lars Von Trier’s style of working refers to the French New wave, which was the name given to a group of youthful French filmmakers of the late 1950s and 60s such as Jean-Luc Godard. The style depicts a self-conscious rejection of classical cinematic form such as moving freely with the scene rather than keeping the camera position still. He also takes inspiration from the Swinging London period which involves the flourishing fashion & cultural scene in the 60s of optimism & hedonism; a cultural revolution.
Both style's portray traditional values of storytelling, acting & theme. They exclude the use of elaborate special effects, and also believed in improvisation. However when watching the film I think he had broken some of these aspects.
He uses music in the `gang bang` scene and also portrays a stunt double. I think by creating these effects it keeps the audience interested and aware of the narrative that is applied.
I also believe, the film ‘The Idiots’ is referring to the conflict between a group of middle-classes views on society, their love and hatred towards their own personal lives. It captures the characters individual personalities of abandonment and stressful lives in which they all live in. I think by emphasizing this matter, the narrative moves the audience and creates an emotion that reflects the persons behaviour.
HI Sophie, thanks for your review. You’ve got some interesting thoughts in response to the film. The two scenes you’ve chosen are certainly the emotional highlights, and most effectively show the conflict between the idiot persona and adult responsibility. Your thought about von Trier’s true intention being a ‘defense of defect’ is a particularly interesting idea and I wish you had devoted your review to exploring it in detail.
ReplyDeleteI’m playing devil’s advocate here, but I would be a little careful in accepting what others have said about the film. The line, ‘You have to be an idiot to change society or at least believe you can.’ I’ve read in other student’s reviews so I’m guessing it is something von Trier has said. If so, I would interrogate it, as von Trier is a particularly unreliable commentator. In the context of society, what exactly is the group trying to change? The general attitude towards disabled people is actually quite good, both in real life, and is presented in a fairly balanced way in the film. For every potential homebuyer who runs a mile there is an accommodating business or individual who is kind and responsive. Similarly, this idea that the Dogma manifesto is about rule breaking, when it could just as easily be a set of ideas about how to get the most from limited resources. Despite its rough aesthetic, The Idiots is a carefully constructed film that adopts a few established narrative devices. While you are right that von Trier’s style harks back to the French new wave, remember Goddard broke the rules thirty years before The Idiots was made. However, I’m not suggesting you are wrong, just offering food for thought.