5 Reasons for the Mania Surrounding ‘Nymphomaniac’

Lars Von TrierThis December visionary filmmaker Lars Von Trier makes his long-awaited return with the epic sexual chronicle Nymphomaniac.

The Danish born director and screenwriter has divided critics in the past with his stylised and controversial films but in time for his next release he has certainly acquired something of a cult following; bridging the gap between the Avant-garde and mainstream cinema. Here are five reasons for the mania surrounding Nymphomaniac.

5. The Director


One of the founders of the Dogme 95 collective, who strove to return filmmaking to its fundamental principles – story, acting and theme – Lars Von Trier is the self proclaimed ‘biggest director in the world’. Despite the blatant arrogance, I cannot help but agree! Von Trier first rose to international attention with his feature film The Element of Crime in 1984. Since then, his ambitious and visually arresting style has won him a string of awards and attracted some of Hollywood’s biggest names. Von Trier’s commitment to artistry and extreme narratives over ‘easy-viewing’ has propelled his films into a genre of their own. In this way I stand by his well acknowledged self-confidence, for me he stimulates and entertains in equal measure. Von Trier’s films take us to the dark parts of the human psyche through a combination of exquisite imagery and original technique that for me are second to none.

While Von Trier has often been criticised for his unorthodox directorial style, his notoriety does not in my opinion outweigh the quality of his films. After appearing in Dancer in the Dark (2000) Björk famously stated that she would never act again, claiming that the whole process had been emotionally taxing. In agreement with some of the filmmakers biggest critics the multi-award winning musician later revealed that she found Von Trier to be misogynistic. While his films often explore themes of sadism, the director too, not one to be outshone by his films, has been criticised for putting his actors through hell. Von Trier’s strict orders of method acting were said to have exhausted actress Nicole Kidman in 2003’s Dogville. In a difficult scene where Kidman is forced to where a collar around her neck, she has stated in interviews that the choking we see in the film was in fact, to a degree, wholly realistic. Von Trier pushes the boundaries of what popular culture accepts and challenges his actors with an all-immersing film experience which many cite as being unparalleled. Though I in no way agree with torturing your staff to achieve great results, I must admit that I find the list of actors who have returned to star in Von Trier’s films to in part betray the claims that the auteur’s directorial approach is too austere. Even Kirsten Dunst, (Melancholia) who despite agreeing that Von Trier is a challenge to work with has been reported to have requested a role in Von Trier’s next film, (after Nymphomaniac that is, for both parties agreed that she was probably not suitable for the highly sexualised film).

Controversy aside, it is my opinion that Lars Von Trier is without doubt one of the most innovative and talked-about filmmakers of our time. He has had and continues to have an astonishing influence on both Art House and mainstream cinema in his native Denmark and all over the world. Through Von Trier’s singular vision we are constantly challenged to review our expectations of contemporary, borderline mainstream cinema. For me, this is particularly important in a society where we are saturated with mediocre, box-ticking films which all too easily adhere to a tired formula. This being said, what I find most interesting about Von Trier as a director is his preference for that formula in favour of entirely unconventional approaches to filmmaking which we see in many Art House movies. In many ways I believe this is why Von Trier is so popular with a wide range of audiences. As with the Dogma 95 collective, Von Trier follows the traditional principles of filmmaking but incorporates an original and stylised practice. As a rule, his films are highly thematic and underpinned by strong acting which is manipulated to essentially tell a good story. It is Von Trier’s visionary approach to this age-old formula which makes him both unique and successful with such a broad demographic. Written and directed by Von Trier, the two-part saga Nymphomaniac is tipped to be the artist’s magnum-opus.

4. The Style


Whether its letting theme and commanding performances speak for themselves in the paired-down and super minimal Dogville or crafting grandiose, edenesque worlds laced with the macabre in Antichrist, Lars Von Trier’s distinctive style never fails to enthral. While Von Trier’s last two films have shown a more refined and artistic side to the filmmaker, his Dogme film The Idiots and Brechtian tale Dogville were shot on an unadorned stage where props and doors were often only suggested and drawn on with chalk. 2009’s exceptional Antichrist was my first foray into the beautiful and at times haunting world of Von Trier. The slow-mo, monochrome opening sequence truly wowed me and remains to this day one of my all time favourite establishing shots. Here, the operatic score and thoughtful, elegant cinematography coupled with that infamous real-life sex scene for me established a calibre of filmmaking worlds apart from other contemporary cinema. Antichrist explores a woman’s grief after the death of her son while presenting the natural world as an enemy. Teeming with symbolism and meticulously composed with Antichrist Von Trier seemed to have dressed up and enriched the ideas which made his earlier films so enticing.

Von Trier is by no means elitist. In 2011’s Melancholia the director tackles universal problems of human relations and adds a creative disaster movie tinge. Switching between shaky, hand-held shots akin to his earlier work and the CGI enhanced super slow-mo footage of nebulas and a world slowly being pulled apart from its roots, Melancholia as with so many of Von Trier’s films challenges how the visual can interact with the narrative. Imagery in Melancholia pulls, drags and slows down as the protagonists depression consumes her and everything in its wake. Essentially this is intelligent filmmaking. It has all the big names and traditional story-telling elements which are present in Hollywood blockbusters but it is ceaselessly thoughtful and inventive. What I really enjoy about Von Trier’s style however is its accessibility. You don’t get the uncomfortable sensation when watching so many independent films that the director is attempting to alienate you. There are no insincere nods and chin-scratches nor do you feel like you need to make a swift exit from the room for fear of being quizzed on the true meaning of what you’ve just seen. I have watched his films alone and shared them with family and friends and on some level his remarkable style has struck a chord with everyone. For me he is innovative without falling into obscurity and thus groundbreaking because of this. It takes a lot for something different to be widely recognised. Think of Andy Warhol or indeed Lady Gaga who seems to be attracting ever more intellectual debate.

Melancholia was Von Trier’s last film and he retained the stimulating cinematography which made Antichrist one of those films that in almost every still is a beautiful photograph in its own right. Von Trier’s talent for crafting stunning visuals underpinned by an intelligent and thought provoking narrative make his approach to filmmaking one of the most challenging and rewarding styles in contemporary cinema. The first appetisers for Nymphomaniac have not given a great deal away in terms of style other than that symbolism will again be important to the narrative. An excerpt of chapter one, ‘The Complete Angler’ uses the metaphor of fishing to represent the bait the young girl will use to seduce the men on the train. Her sexual victory is manifest in a bag of chocolates. How the entirety of her sexual odyssey will be recounted is yet to be unveiled but it seems as with his earlier work symbols will play a big part in exploring the narrative.

3. The Build-Up

Nymphomaniac 2013

While other directors may have already clinched the ‘master of suspense’ title, Lars Von Trier has certainly mastered the technique of keeping his fan-base captivated and generating a hive of interest in the run up to his latest release. Von Trier’s distinctive new website which is dedicated to Nymphomaniac unfurls seamlessly like origami as you scroll down. The eye-brow raising parentheses which form the ‘O’ in Nymphomaniac open up provocatively to reveal the content. Need I point out the connotations of the female anatomy? Each month in the run up to December, Von Trier will release a short excerpt of film, a photograph and short descriptive text of each of the film’s eight chapters. So far, two of the eight chapters have been revealed: ‘The Complete Angler’ and ‘Jerôme’. The latter depicts Shia LaBeouf as a womanising, predatory boss introducing the young woman from chapter one to his office. This wry, self-promotional technique has already accrued a wealth of attention with critics both deriding and praising the brazen egotism. Personally, I think this practice of being drip fed tit-bits of information is perfect. What better way to promote a film which explores obsession and insatiable sexual desire than by treating its audience as addicts craving their next hit. I’m certainly hooked!

2. The All-Star Cast

Nymphomaniac Cast

One of the first promotional shots for Nymphomaniac showed how Lars Von Trier has pooled all of his high-earning contacts for his latest film. The ensemble photograph, showing each of the characters in a risqué, semi-pornographic position inside a warehouse shows an array of Hollywood names and regular Von Trier actors. Among the famous faces are Uma Thurman, Willem Dafoe, Connie Nielsen, Shia laBeouf, Christian Slater and Von Trier favourite Charlotte Gainsbourg. Dafoe and Gainsbourg acted (all but exclusively) together in Antichrist and in my opinion gave exceptional performances as a couple dealing with grief and terror. I for one am excited to see if they will be sharing the screen in Nymphomaniac and how their chemistry may differ from the dark and tortured couple we saw in Antichrist.

1. The Controversy


Not one to shy away from controversy, Lars Von Trier’s latest lip-biting escapade is tipped to exceed the provocateurs reputation. Many, including the man himself have claimed that it will be one of the most controversial films of all time. This may seem like a lot of empty bluster but Antichrist, with its scenes of intensely graphic self-mutilation certainly lived up to the promise of shock and led to a torrent of angry demands for censorship. The director, who seems to revel in the revolting has frequently referred to himself as a cultural radical. Again I feel obliged to make allowances for egotism and am forced to agree! Love him or hate him, Von Trier has kept tongues wagging despite the fact that his own has been famously clamped firmly behind duck-taped lips! Since the Nazi controversy surrounding an interview at the Cannes film festival for the release of Melancholia, Von Trier has disciplined himself with a vow of silence, coyly posting a photo of himself with tape across his lips to promote Nymphomaniac. Dare I suggest bondage anyone?

Sex of course is the focal point for discussion. While Antichrist made the headlines with graphic sex and torture porn scenes, in Nymphomaniac, Von Trier will be using some digital mastery to simulate sex between the cast using porn-stars genitals composited onto the bodies of the film’s cast. The director has revealed that two versions of the film will be released, a soft and hardcore edition. This will no doubt aggravate Von Trier’s detractors who have criticised the director for glamorising pornography. As in Antichrist, Nymphomaniac is said to explore themes of sex and violence from the perspective of a self-confessed nymphomaniac who recounts her experiences from birth to the age of 50. The director with an appetite for the eye-watering has definitely got us lusting for his new release, only December will tell if Nymphomaniac is deserving of the mania!

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Posted on by
I have a particular interest in Literature, Film, the Visual Arts and Music.

Want to write about Film or other art forms?

Create writer account


  1. I think a lot of it is personal taste and what you can stomach. Lars like to torture everyone.. most of his actresses nearly have nervous breakdowns after working with him and as a view he works very hard to make us uncomfortable.. I have tried twice to watch “Antichrist” and haven’t ever gotten any further than the first 15 minutes… and I made it all the way through “A Serbian Film” though I wouldn’t put that in the same category as LvT films.. it’s very hard to watch and further over the top, though oddly enough a more coherent story line than some of his films.

    • Alex Jose

      Thank you for your comment Eidem! I have to admit i think, to an extent, i quite enjoy being made uncomfortable by a film! Antichrist is certainly graphic and understandably some of the imagery will not be to everyones taste but more than the mutilation and sex scenes i think i find Gainsbourg’s portrayl of a grieving mother (first 15 minutes or so) to be most distressing! Those images really stayed with me and on that basis it has a certain power i respect.. I’ve never seen A serbian Film, bizarrely i’ve never felt in the mood..! Personally i find that Von Trier’s films can carry elements of shock because they have an interesting and original story line. I loved all the nature/witchcraft stuff in Antichrist and for me it totally warrented graphic content!

  2. Brent D.

    Lovely post Alex. I will watch Nymphomaniac, but I feel that pushing cinema for the sake of pushing it is very empty and trite thing to do.

    There is no depth to or any real meaning behind it if that’s all you’re really doing. It’s a novelty act at best and won’t last the test of time, as certainly more and more people are going to keep “pushing” cinema and will displace any edge Lars had. Not saying he can’t or shouldn’t do what he does, but quite honestly, who really cares? This is teenage, rebellious kids play without any results that matter.

    Is the world or even the artform really any better off because of his films? I often just get bored watch Lar’s films to be quite honest. I think there are things that Lars does very well, but overall I’m just left ready to move on to something that elicits real emotion or entertainment.

    • It’s the quintessential “trying too hard to be outrageous and novel” approach to garnering notoriety. You can’t just do porn. 244 million adult websites in US alone (already)…no standing out from the crowd there. Can’t do The Godfather or something like Star Wars or even Clockwork Orange…or other ground breaking movies of those times…so do this kind of thing and call it “pushing the boundaries of art.”. Art is subjective to people just as is obscenity. What is art to one is obscene to another curtailed by legal standards of course.

      But I think given that porn is a 97 billion $ global market, and given stats such as 244 million adult web pages in America, a country of 300 million+, this Art angle is a hard sell to most people. Most people know the distinction. I think those that need to convince themselves that what Lars and others like him does is “art” closer to mainstream cinema rather than sex depicted on film closer to porn are the very small minority. The zealous “fans” so to speak. Those that admire a film maker regardless of what the film maker does or his motives.

      I don’t understand why people get so defensive about it. Its not as if porn is not a widely accepted film media…having such a huge global presence and 97 billion in annual revenue ( at least). And its not as if by simply calling it “art” these filmmakers are going to suddenly convince conservative thinkers to go watch the films…

      I read this article in “Psychology Today” discussing the movie Shame as it related to McQueen’s attempts to present hypersexuality disorder on film via a sex romp fest. The psychologist author of the article called McQueen/Fassbender’s attempts as a “ruse vergjng on bad faith” or something like that. The article noted how one interviewer showed up to discuss the mental health angle of the film only to arrive to Fassbender and McQueen oddly dancing in the hotel room upon arrival. Serious film about hypersexuality “disorder” boys? Not to mention the curious absence of Fassbenders mother at the premiere. Perhaps she wasn’t convinced it was art and instead had no interest seeing her son in a porn flick with a sympathetic title?

      The APA has not recognized it as a disorder but Mcqueen tried to raise the condition to a level of scorn in society which people with AIDS suffer (laughable) through good looking actors having sex with gorgeous people in erotic and titillating situations. He then just gave his erotic sex romp fest replete with good looking actors expensive real estate and erotic scenes a sympathetic name like Shame just to try to garner sympathy of mass audiences who pretty much could see through the ruse. How is what Lars is doing with Nyphomaniac any different except for substitution of male character for female and using a different title?

      I don’t have hate for films like Nymphomaniac or Shame. I just don’t like the “bad faith ruse” in the packaging and marketing. I say just “cut the crap” and stop trying to shovel it. Like I said…300+ mill Americans yet 244 mill adult web pages in America. Globally, most people are not stupid. So stop insulting their intelligence I say.

      • @Lena I really don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who has described “Shame” as a sex romp fest. Obviously it’s your opinion, fair enough if that’s what you think.

        Why does it matter if the interviewer turned up and Fassbender and McQueen were dancing? Fassbender is notoriously good fun and a bit of a drinker. Do you think because they did a film about depression, isolation , sex addiction, they can’t dance whilst doing the press tour? The curious absence of his mother? How many mothers do you know would want to see there son doing that on screen? It would be more curious if she showed up at the premiere.

        • David Tatlow

          The sex in Shame is horrible to watch. It gave me the feeling I get when I see characters struggle with drug addiction in other films – one of sorrow and pity. At points it seems as though the sex isn’t even enjoyable for the protagonist. There wasn’t one bit of eroticism in the sexual encounters because the protagonist is doing it to fill an all-destroying need, not a desire.
          @Leena – thematically, sex is still treated with contempt when it is in fact one of the most basic human activities. Sure, there’s a lot of porn, but there’s no exploration in the signifcance of the act. I’m happy to wait and see, but I doubt that there won’t be more to this film than just sex. It’s also interesting to see a woman’s sexual journey presented by a man – for better or worse this will be an intriguing watch.

    • Alex Jose

      Thank you Brent D. In my opinion i dont feel that LvT is merely pushing cinema for the sake of it. I think he’s forthwright about his films being controversial, a little self-seeking maybe, but i dont think it’s just empty controversy..

      I think the results, as with many films, equate to entertaining, visually interesting movies that say something about the world we live in. i think Melancholia for example is a beautiful way to look at mental health posing as an almost disaster movie.. in this way depression = literally the end of the world and then on another level its LvT’s retort to hollywood blockbusters. i care about that aha! His films often remind me of a good book, there is a lot to think about, lots of levels.. So it may not change the face of the world but i certainly dont think its just empty controversy!

      Obviously he is a very contentious director, i mean i do find his films to elicit real emotion and i do find them entertaining, but Eidem said earlier it’s definitely personal taste!

    • Shia always seemed eeeeeewwww to me. Then the combo of him saying he was frightened of this director but that’s how he “knew” he had to do the film and unstimulated sex scenes….gross. I’m not talking the sex…but that any actor would say that and actually think that was the way to go. Was he thinking that showed to women his vulnerable side?….uh… [[no]]

      Why can’t these male actors/directors just admit that they are doing these semi porn roles/movies for (1) kicks and giggles (2) to show everyone their tools (3) or they are desperate to get “in” to the Hollywood game or “back in” to the game and they think this will be shocking enough to get them notoriety or attention?

      That’s the main problem I had with Shame…Fassbender and McQueen. The dumb preachy and pretentious “we’re here to teach Americans ( who are afraid of sex said McQueen) all about sex…blah blah blah…”. And all that nonsense about Michael being “feminine.” Its almost as if these guys (in a highly patronizing way) think poorly of women in general. But because of this mindset they convince themselves that normal women want to hear men compare themselves to women and that women ( as a group) consider themselves weak and vulnerable and “frightened”… or worse yet, gullible.

      These guys trying to snow women with proclamations that they have “feminine sides” (translating into vulnerable, mentally weak, frightened) as some sort of ploy to make women go….”awwwww….how sweet…he’s feminine just like me…frightened, vulnerable, weak and stupid and now I’m convinced his rough sex porn film is beautiful art.” Yuk. Oh and then the classic Fassbender proclamation ” I like strong women…”. Strong how? Scared to be seen in public, cruel to people they don’t know, running to accuse men of domestic violence at the drop of a hat, or 20 something opportunistic tramps who will do anything to get ahead? While tacitly referring to women who are older as bitter hags and women who object to degrading themselves as sexually repressed angry and the infamous insult “uptight.”. Didn’t Shia, like Fassbender date his much younger co star (19 yrs old) from his own “p-art-y porn film?”. Hmmmmm…pattern do we see?

      On the other hand I read Skaarsgard talk in the press about the “little porn movie they were doing”…I love that he said that. He’s being real…who can fault that man for his honesty?

      I can’t speak for all women but at least the women I know and have represented in divorces over the years just want to see men be men. Most women I know dont need their men to be women like themselves but instead “real men.” And most of all…HONEST. Viva la difference ! Especially men who assume this twisted and bizarre position of being mysogynistic in action or in film etc or rough towards women in real life (using them…playing theem like the playa’ they are…blah blah blah) while simultaneously protesting they are ” just LIKE women…you know feminine, weak, frightened and gullible to being played like a game.”. Yuk!

      Although “real porn” is not my cup of tea, I have known people who do that for a living. And my impression of them is real people being honest and humble about what they do to survive without this nauseating air of pretension and excuse.


      • David Tatlow

        “Why can’t these male actors/directors just admit that they are doing these semi porn roles/movies for (1) kicks and giggles (2) to show everyone their tools (3) or they are desperate to get “in” to the Hollywood game or “back in” to the game and they think this will be shocking enough to get them notoriety or attention?”

        What you’re saying generally is interesting enough, but the above section is a gross generalisation. I’m hoping it is exaggeration for effect, but if it’s not, I want to know what you think about Isabelle Huppert in The Piano Teacher and Charlotte Gainsbourg doing Nymphomaniac. Why do women choose to take on these roles?
        I think you’re overreacting to remarks that can be interpreted several ways (see your McQueen quote, if that is a direct quote?) You also generalise certain kinds of women, such as those you claim Fassbender is talking about when he speaks of liking “strong women”. It seems to me that you have close personal experiences with chauvinism/misogyny, and you’re projecting them onto a well-made, brilliantly-directed film. There’s far too much irrational hatred in what you’re saying for me to take it seriously, and I’m not trying to be offensive with that remark, I’m merely stating that your points aren’t based on the quality of a film, but an opinion of those who made it – an opinion that I believe should be based on more evidence than what you’ve put forward. I would like it if you continued to contribute here, as the stance you’re taking is an important one to discuss, but I think the personal lives of the people making a film should be kept separate from their work if said work has no connection to their everyday life. Just because Fassbender might enjoying sleeping around with girls younger than him doesn’t mean that his performances should be judged on that. Also, Shame was co-written by Abi Morgan, who has a reputation for writing strong/layered female parts (Margaret Thatcher, Brick Lane), so I’d like to think that someone who seems to have a good grasp of writing from a female perspective would have had strong objections to Shame, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

  3. Nice writeup. I find the 2 released clips very poetic yet real – most film sound scripted and too perfect, where this is rough on edges and almost voyeuristic if that makes sense…

    • Alex Jose

      Thank you for reading! I absoultely agree! And of course voyeurisim would be perfect considering we (will) be watching a film about a woman telling/showing us her sex life!

  4. David Tatlow

    Thanks for an interesting read Alex – I was looking forward to this article and it’s full cool stuff. It’s already stirring debate, which is great. I’m really looking forward to the film, this has got me all the more excited.

    • Alex Jose

      Thank you very much David! I know aha! For the record i was not a big fan of Shame, i think Nymphomaniac will have a lot more to it..

      • David Tatlow

        I think Shame – at least in terms of the way it was directed – was masterfully handled. It has McQueen’s fingerprints all over it, and I love a director who can nail his vision perfectly, whether I like the final product or not, it’s an admirable quality. Thanks again for a good article, I’ll be looking forward to the next one.

        • Alex Jose

          I definitely think it was well made, content wise however, i found it a little predictable.. Thank you! i look forward to writing it!

  5. Beautiful Things

    Antichrist IS a masterpiece, espite what people may say and the criticism it does get (not to blame, its a horrific story) – Melancholia was sadly not on same level, yet it was perfect. I am SO hyped for Nymphomaniac, I expect it to be a mix of Antichrist and Breaking the waves, I feel this (like other have said) will be another masterpiece – I think it will be packed with emotion, beautiful scenes, I hope the score fits perfectly and boosts the imagery (much like TTOL and Antichrist – the sound elements of Antichrist were perfect). I think the best parts of the film will be with Charlotte and not the younger actress but I think the younger will do very well with this role.

    I am really hoping for another dark fairy tale, filled with dread, beauty, emotion and realism and so excited to see the experimental scenes.

    I doubt I will be disappointed as I have NEVER hated a Lars Von Trier film (only really thing I hated was the tacky CGI bells at end of BTW, would have been more mysterious had we not seen them and would have fitted better).

    Would love to see this in cinema as a double bill (part 1 and 2) – dare I ask for a complete showing, no breaks of Antichrist, Melancholia, Part 1 and Part 2? what a night.

    • Alex Jose

      Thank you for reading! I totally agree! I’m really looking forward to being inspired by Nymphomaniac! I think that’s one of the biggest things i take away from LvT films, he makes me inspired to write/make my own films! They’re so fresh! haha! that would be a pretty intense night!

  6. Dutch Eric

    Many people are afraid to create these kinds of films that don’t have the whole “hollywood type happy endings” but Lars doesn’t have the same ideals. It’s nice to see a film that is different from the current blockbuster flicks and creates ideas and questions in your head about humanity. His films obviously are very provocative but they deliver the audience something no ordinary film can.

    • Alex Jose

      Thanks for your comment Dutch Eric! Absolutely, i think there is enough in there to make you think but it remains interesting, interlectually, visually, sonically etc!

  7. bartimus

    “A Serbian Film” anyone?

    • David Tatlow

      That blurs the line between art and abhorrent. It’s worrying that art can be so easily morphed from one state to another in such a fashion, but at the same time that kind of envelope-pushing has made for some wonderful cinema.

  8. Good Johnny

    Mainstream prole will hate it. Many will ‘WTF?!’ it. I’ll love it. …If the other films I’ve seen from this guy are anything to go by.

  9. Emily Biegas

    If “tit-bits” of information was an intentional typo, then very nicely done.

  10. Jordan

    I saw this movie the other week, my first Lars von Trier film and it has gotten me interested in seeing what else he can do. It seems lots of critics like to label his films as ‘pretentious’, but I don’t really see how unless they’re talking about his differing style. I must admit, I did not like the very end of Nymphomaniac (it should have ended when the main character fell asleep). This article was really good. I didn’t realize Lars was such a difficult and demanding director.

  11. First, im on my phone so please ignore errorrs. Second, no one i know has seen this so i cant doscuss with anyone.
    I loooved both volumes. Though I know a lot of people dont like the directing, I felt it was very real and very true. Joes character pulls you in and you feel so many different emotions throughout…especially in the second volume with the pedophilia and the relationship with her mentee.
    I watched the second volume earlier today and have been genuinely upset all day/night about the ending. Ive read a lot about how it was just a cheesy ending, but it stuck with me. He mentioned his curiosity, and somehow saw her as an opportunity to try this out. We rooted for him since the beginning and felt so happy that joe could finally move on and was ready to…and then he fucked it up. She has no one. Yes I am aware that it is just a movie, but when im so invested In a film like this one, I cant help but to be emotionally distraught and upset with his actions. I dont even know how to get over it because I am so unsatisfied with it. WHY couldnt they just end it when she felll asleep!?!? Its really bothering me because I felt like it was so real. Can anyone relate?

  12. So I guess nobody gives a rat’s ass about the kids in this movie huh?
    Use and abuse. It’s “art” not porn, therefore legal and ok. Right?

  13. Lots of citations needed here.

Leave a Reply