Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

#276 Post by Mr Sausage » Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:08 pm

Gregory wrote:Depression is pretty constant for many people.
I should add that I don't think her disdain for bourgeois life is of the moral or political sort; she just doesn't think she belongs in that world, and she can never be what she's expected to be: the perfect bride and upwardly mobile career woman. It's no accident that her breakdown as many major pressures peak and converge at the same time: extended wedding celebrations that are picture-perfect and everything needs to happen on schedule and on cue, celebrations she feels entirely isolated from but which she's repeatedly told not to spoil because of their material cost; a major promotion in front of everyone; come up with a tagline tonight or this kid gets fired, etc. So I find it bizarre to say that she just happened to be having a bad day.
It also seems to be the case that Justine lacks a lot of the emotional support she would need to deal properly with her affliction. She repeatedly attempts to reach out to her father and mother, and is either avoided in the case of her father, or oppressed by her mother's self-indulgent negativity. Her sister, while there for her at least physically and with basic concern, evinces Reliakor's attitude: Claire's pragmatism finds Justine burdensome, and she's repeatedly irritated that he sister can't just snap out of it and be practical the way that she herself is. It's unfortunately the case (well observed by von Trier) that people often resent those sufferers of mental illness they must care for, no matter how much they love the sufferer, because that person just can't do simple things, easy things you'd think, and therefore monopolizes attention. When something seems so simple to you, it can be hard to watch a grown adult just fail to do such simple things (and which you must now do for them). That's where the 'why can't you just snap out of it?!' response usually comes from.

What makes the climax so wonderful is that when Claire can no longer be pragmatic, can no longer find shelter in either her material lifestyle or the authority of her husband, she turns to her sister for support--and her sister gives it, even at the moment when the gesture should be the most meaningless. Depression is a disease that makes you turn inward, closes you off in your own skull; that's unavoidable. Justine, repeatedly looking for a way out of this, finds two escapes from it: in the end of her consciousness, and in a gesture of comfort and human sympathy for people whose fear and despair she actually doesn't share. Where Claire is weakest, Justine is strongest, and vice versa. But at the end of the movie both have stepped outside of their petty self-concerns for one brief moment. If you don't find that moving on a basic human level, all I can do is shrug.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

#277 Post by Gregory » Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:16 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:She wanted the wedding, she was excited as she approached the wedding. She was giving a legitimate effort to appreciate it and enjoy herself. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that her mental state just got the best of her. I just don't know why von Trier would have chosen her wedding as the setting for the opening half of the film were it not an attempt to show us how little control she had over her mental state, and how far gone she was. I think Justine would choose to be able to be celebratory and happy like the other folks at the wedding were she given the option, she just doesn't have their level of psychological control over herself.
I think she was most likely deeply conflicted about it long before it happened but was trying to get herself to go through with it. A depressed person will often try very hard to push onward (through the grey yarn in the image of the film) and try to approximate what is "normal," to do what others expect. There were surely appealing things about the wedding and the marriage itself but they represent a type of "normal" that she could never attain and could only pretend to fulfill for so long, which is why she had to continue to escape, to be alone and to wrestle with the bridal gown. The effort to do otherwise reached a point where it became impossible to continue, the convergence of pressures I described above, and something had to give. Would she choose to be "happy" in some way if she somehow had that option? Probably, but I don't think she aspires to be like the other people at the wedding, most of whom are clearly miserable or despicable in their own ways. The "happy, normal" person is an illusion in the world of the film. Claire, for example, is pretty "normal" but is troubled and fragile, falling apart the moment there are not clear directions or a milieu in which it is clear what she is expected to do or what the social norms are.

Mr Sausage: I agree with all that -- well said.

Reliakor
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:07 am

Re: Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

#278 Post by Reliakor » Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:27 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:
Gregory wrote:Depression is pretty constant for many people.
I should add that I don't think her disdain for bourgeois life is of the moral or political sort; she just doesn't think she belongs in that world, and she can never be what she's expected to be: the perfect bride and upwardly mobile career woman. It's no accident that her breakdown as many major pressures peak and converge at the same time: extended wedding celebrations that are picture-perfect and everything needs to happen on schedule and on cue, celebrations she feels entirely isolated from but which she's repeatedly told not to spoil because of their material cost; a major promotion in front of everyone; come up with a tagline tonight or this kid gets fired, etc. So I find it bizarre to say that she just happened to be having a bad day.
It also seems to be the case that Justine lacks a lot of the emotional support she would need to deal properly with her affliction. She repeatedly attempts to reach out to her father and mother, and is either avoided in the case of her father, or oppressed by her mother's self-indulgent negativity. Her sister, while there for her at least physically and with basic concern, evinces Reliakor's attitude: Claire's pragmatism finds Justine burdensome, and she's repeatedly irritated that he sister can't just snap out of it and be practical the way that she herself is. It's unfortunately the case (well observed by von Trier) that people often resent those sufferers of mental illness they must care for, no matter how much they love the sufferer, because that person just can't do simple things, easy things you'd think, and therefore monopolizes attention. When something seems so simple to you, it can be hard to watch a grown adult just fail to do such simple things (and which you must now do for them). That's where the 'why can't you just snap out of it?!' response usually comes from.

What makes the climax so wonderful is that when Claire can no longer be pragmatic, can no longer find shelter in either her material lifestyle or the authority of her husband, she turns to her sister for support--and her sister gives it, even at the moment when the gesture should be the most meaningless. Depression is a disease that makes you turn inward, closes you off in your own skull; that's unavoidable. Justine, repeatedly looking for a way out of this, finds two escapes from it: in the end of her consciousness, and in a gesture of comfort and human sympathy for people whose fear and despair she actually doesn't share. Where Claire is weakest, Justine is strongest, and vice versa. But at the end of the movie both have stepped outside of their petty self-concerns for one brief moment. If you don't find that moving on a basic human level, all I can do is shrug.
I do find the ending of the film moving, but I think it absurd of Von Trier to formulate this kind of duality between the catatonic depressive and her shallow, conventional foil (neither of whom I can stand). My dislike of Justine stems precisely from her species of depression having no strong ideological basis, and therefore only being a pathological condition. Hamlet could be considered a depressive person, but it doesn't manifest itself infantilely.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

#279 Post by Mr Sausage » Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:34 pm

Should also be noted that Justine's self-destructive actions comes from a far more honest and clear-sighted place than the productive actions of everyone else. Her depression makes her inappropriately act on genuine feeling. I imagine the first half as being like pulling apart a fabric that's already beginning to come undone at the edges anyway.
reliakor wrote:I do find the ending of the film moving, but I think it absurd of Von Trier to formulate this kind of duality between the catatonic depressive and her shallow, conventional foil (neither of whom I can stand). My dislike of Justine stems precisely from her species of depression having no strong ideological basis, and therefore only being a pathological condition. Hamlet could be considered a depressive person, but it doesn't manifest itself infantilely.
I've just realized that you have no idea what you mean. Most especially because your go-to example here is Hamlet. I mean, really? In no way could that be comparing like with like. Not only that, but you dislike a person for suffering from a pathological condition, ie. one that she cannot help having!

This movie gives you the opportunity to share and understand the feelings of a person suffering from something outside of their control. As far as I can tell, you have failed this opportunity.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

#280 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:42 pm

I don't like the way you've chosen to be mentally ill, bitch

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

#281 Post by Gregory » Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:45 pm

While I tend to be critical of psychiatry, I know someone who is not. His response to Melancholia, having only read a description, was to scoff, "They have drugs for that!"

Reliakor
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:07 am

Re: Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

#282 Post by Reliakor » Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:49 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:Should also be noted that Justine's self-destructive actions comes from a far more honest and clear-sighted place than the productive actions of everyone else. Her depression makes her inappropriately act on genuinely feeling. I imagine the first half as being like pulling apart a fabric that's already beginning to come undone at the edges anyway.
reliakor wrote:I do find the ending of the film moving, but I think it absurd of Von Trier to formulate this kind of duality between the catatonic depressive and her shallow, conventional foil (neither of whom I can stand). My dislike of Justine stems precisely from her species of depression having no strong ideological basis, and therefore only being a pathological condition. Hamlet could be considered a depressive person, but it doesn't manifest itself infantilely.
I've just realized that you have no idea what you mean. Most especially because your go-to example here is Hamlet. I mean, really? In no way could that be comparing like with like. Not only that, but you dislike a person for suffering from a pathological condition, ie. one that she cannot help having!

This movie gives you the opportunity to share and understand the feelings of a person suffering from something outside of their control. As far as I can tell, you have failed this opportunity.
Where do you draw the line? What condition or circumstance may not have its etiology so schematized as to render the existence of free will absolutely dubious? Is depression a special condition for which no shades of grey exist? Do all severe depressives require their sister to bathe them (in the midst of a hysterically weepy fit)?

Reliakor
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:07 am

Re: Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

#283 Post by Reliakor » Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:51 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:I don't like the way you've chosen to be mentally ill, bitch
No, a reduction of my stance would be more along the lines of (to Justine): "You're certainly depressed, but you're also an asshole." See the difference?

Zot!
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 am

Re: Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

#284 Post by Zot! » Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:53 pm

I also don't think it's necessary to like Justine, but it is important to understand her illness. Although irrelevant to the story, it does seem disingenuous that there isn't at least some discussion of treatment (meds) or lack thereof, especially to get through something like a wedding.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

#285 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:59 pm

Most medication for depression comes with some kind of major side effects, and sometimes takes months to really get going. Also, there are some people for whom none of these medications work well, and going off and onto them can make their symptoms worse. I don't know if it would have been in the best interest for the film to get into that hornet's nest.

Maybe if we ignore Reliakor, he'll just go away.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

#286 Post by Mr Sausage » Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:03 pm

Reliakor wrote:Where do you draw the line? What condition or circumstance may not have its etiology so schematized as to render the existence of free will absolutely dubious? Is depression a special condition for which no shades of grey exist? Do all severe depressives require their sister to bathe them (in the midst of a hysterically weepy fit)?
Your confusion is so fundamental that it's difficult to know where to start. Free will is not a relevant issue here. Clinical depression is a disruption of proper brain chemistry. Your post makes as much sense as demanding a severely drunk person use their free will to stop slurring their speech. If your brain chemistry won't allow certain responses, then it won't, free will is irrelevant. You can only act as your brain allows you. And if your brain exhausts you, makes you anhedonic, overwhelmed with feelings that have no location outside of you on top of external stressers doing your condition no good, then your range of reaction is going to be limited.

If you think acting erratically under a mental affliction makes someone an asshole, so be it. Note that Justine manages a gigantic expression of human sympathy while you cannot even manage a relatively minor one being handed to you like a gift.

Keyrek
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

#287 Post by Keyrek » Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:04 pm

Zot! wrote:I also don't think it's necessary to like Justine, but it is important to understand her illness. Although irrelevant to the story, it does seem disingenuous that there isn't at least some discussion of treatment (meds) or lack thereof, especially to get through something like a wedding.
As a tangential note to that, at the beginning of part two, I presumed Justine was at some kind of mental health clinic (the business w/ the cab) that ultimately failed to get through to her.

Zot!
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 am

Re: Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

#288 Post by Zot! » Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:35 pm

Keyrek wrote:
Zot! wrote:I also don't think it's necessary to like Justine, but it is important to understand her illness. Although irrelevant to the story, it does seem disingenuous that there isn't at least some discussion of treatment (meds) or lack thereof, especially to get through something like a wedding.
As a tangential note to that, at the beginning of part two, I presumed Justine was at some kind of mental health clinic (the business w/ the cab) that ultimately failed to get through to her.
Interesting take, I thought she was just at her apartment and wasn't coping, but that is a better reading. I agree that a deep examination of meds would have been unnecessary, but the fact that such a large wedding was arranged for someone who was so touch and go is skirting unbelievability. I guess the killer planet science is also suspect, so I think I just need to stop nitpicking.

User avatar
david hare
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:01 pm
Location: WellyYeller

Re: Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

#289 Post by david hare » Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:38 pm

I've been reading the last page with mouth open and a mixture of disbelief and amusement.
I do think Realikor doesn't know what he's talking about. But he gets one thing right although he doesn't realize what it is. It's this: we can be difficult people to live with. Including living with ourselves of course. But the usual cry of people who don't understand or recognize depressive illness is how "Selfish" we are, how we should just get over it and move on. Etc, etc. Then there's the now standard drug regime of zombification or the self help options. Ask Stephen Fry.

As for projecting a dislike of a character onto a reading of the film for no other reason than that perception of the character, he relinquishes any claim to an intelligent response to the film, one which is no more than "I don't like the film becase she's an asshole." Yet I could happily listen to negative criticism based on formal elements or genuine concerns for instance with whether an actor's performance and the director's guidance works, fits into the scheme of things or not.

One of the most telling and subtle things Lars never rams home, is the shifts in behavior by Kiefer Sutherland's character. From sceptic and rich bastard asshole (my reductionism) to believer and proactivator to carer and, when the time comes, his own response becomes so overwhelming that he takes the nembutal option, not only off screen and in a form of "cowardice" (if you wished tos tart the personality interpretation game) leaving the others to face the inevitable, and possibly now without recourse the the "solution" he's swallowed.

Mfunk is right, as always in this thread, in telling people not to over read it. Go with it.

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

#290 Post by Roger Ryan » Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:46 pm

I was fortunate to catch this in a theater last night and found it very appealing. Given its already elliptical style, I thought it could have been trimmed down a bit (the "Claire" segment seemed a bit padded out for its content), but really liked the collision between the galactic and the personal. I don't see how the audience could not sympathize with Justine during the film's first half which is truly a wedding reception from hell (it must be four or five in the morning when that damn onion soup is being served!). I didn't expect something this surreal or satirical to be emotionally satisfying as well.

A couple of things to chew on...
SpoilerShow
I took it that the Google search result page for "Melancholia" made no mention of the mystery planet of that name, but only the condition; could this suggest that von Trier wants it known up front that the planet is strictly metaphorical and is the result of a shared hallucination among the four characters on the estate?

Credit to my son for picking up on this, but Claire and her son are shown struggling on the green of "Hole 19" on the estate's golf course when it has been mentioned repeatedly that there are only 18 holes. What meaning can we take from this?

Reliakor
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:07 am

Re: Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

#291 Post by Reliakor » Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:00 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:
Reliakor wrote:Where do you draw the line? What condition or circumstance may not have its etiology so schematized as to render the existence of free will absolutely dubious? Is depression a special condition for which no shades of grey exist? Do all severe depressives require their sister to bathe them (in the midst of a hysterically weepy fit)?
Your confusion is so fundamental that it's difficult to know where to start. Free will is not a relevant issue here. Clinical depression is a disruption of proper brain chemistry. Your post makes as much sense as demanding a severely drunk person use their free will to stop slurring their speech. If your brain chemistry won't allow certain responses, then it won't, free will is irrelevant. You can only act as your brain allows you. And if your brain exhausts you, makes you anhedonic, overwhelmed with feelings that have no location outside of you on top of external stressers doing your condition no good, then your range of reaction is going to be limited.

If you think acting erratically under a mental affliction makes someone an asshole, so be it. Note that Justine manages a gigantic expression of human sympathy while you cannot even manage a relatively minor one being handed to you like a gift.
No, this is a bit too simplistic. Take the bolded analogy. I'd contend that my point is more akin to asserting that not all drunk people become loud, belligerent and violent. That certain people do is of course true. That others may turn taciturn, withdrawn, and pensive is also true. Others yet may become warmly sociable. Similarly, claiming that all severely depressed people behave like Justine is erroneous, so then why pretend that her disease informs every aspect of her behavior?

Reliakor
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:07 am

Re: Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

#292 Post by Reliakor » Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:06 pm

david hare wrote: As for projecting a dislike of a character onto a reading of the film for no other reason than that perception of the character, he relinquishes any claim to an intelligent response to the film, one which is no more than "I don't like the film becase she's an asshole." Yet I could happily listen to negative criticism based on formal elements or genuine concerns for instance with whether an actor's performance and the director's guidance works, fits into the scheme of things or not.
You're overlooking the part where I said I found Justine's section the most watchable, Claire's being overwhelmed by narrative stasis. By no means is my attitude toward Justine (and by extension, Von Trier's) my sole problem with Melancholia.

Edit: Oh, and any distinction between form and content is an artificial one. Concepts, ideas, perspectives are as embedded in the meaning of a film as color is, or shooting technique, or editing, or whatever we commonly consider "formal" aspects. That you think problems (asserted on my end) with the main character of a film cannot mar its aesthetic value, given other relevant factors (like an implicit demand for sympathy for/identification with that character, etc.), is bizarre.
Last edited by Reliakor on Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Zot!
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 am

Re: Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

#293 Post by Zot! » Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:12 pm

Reliakor wrote:why pretend that her disease informs every aspect of her behavior?
Because the title of the Movie is Melancholia, and a giant planet called Melancholia is going to crash into earth destroying everything. I somehow sensed there was some overt symbolism here, but you never know.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

#294 Post by Mr Sausage » Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:17 pm

Reliakor wrote:No, this is a bit too simplistic. Take the bolded analogy. I'd contend that my point is more akin to asserting that not all drunk people become loud, belligerent and violent. That certain people do is of course true. That others may turn taciturn, withdrawn, and pensive is also true. Others yet may become warmly sociable. Similarly, claiming that all severely depressed people behave like Justine is erroneous, so then why pretend that her disease informs every aspect of her behavior?
Oh for Christ's sake. Congratulations on missing the actual analogy, that a chemically altered brain cannot simply be willed out of its chemical alterations.

I'm not going to argue this with you anymore because I think what you're doing, using sophisms to attack people over medical conditions of which you remain almost totally ignorant, is appalling. I'll just leave you with some preliminary reading from UC Berkeley's Health Services:
When we refer to depression in the following pages, we are talking about "clinical depression." Clinical depression is a serious medical illness that negatively affects how you feel, the way you think and how you act. Individuals with clinical depression are unable to function as they used to. Often they have lost interest in activities that were once enjoyable to them, and feel sad and hopeless for extended periods of time. Clinical depression is not the same as feeling sad or depressed for a few days and then feeling better. It can affect your body, mood, thoughts, and behavior. It can change your eating habits, how you feel and think, your ability to work and study, and how you interact with people. People who suffer from clinical depression often report that they "don't feel like themselves anymore."

Clinical depression is not a sign of personal weakness, or a condition that can be willed away. Clinically depressed people cannot "pull themselves together" and get better. In fact, clinical depression often interferes with a person's ability or wish to get help. Clinical depression is a serious illness that lasts for weeks, months and sometimes years. It may even influence someone to contemplate or attempt suicide.

Reliakor
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:07 am

Re: Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

#295 Post by Reliakor » Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:27 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:
Reliakor wrote:No, this is a bit too simplistic. Take the bolded analogy. I'd contend that my point is more akin to asserting that not all drunk people become loud, belligerent and violent. That certain people do is of course true. That others may turn taciturn, withdrawn, and pensive is also true. Others yet may become warmly sociable. Similarly, claiming that all severely depressed people behave like Justine is erroneous, so then why pretend that her disease informs every aspect of her behavior?
Oh for Christ's sake. Congratulations on missing the actual analogy, that a chemically altered brain cannot simply be willed out of its chemical alterations.

I'm not going to argue this with you anymore because I think using sophisms to attack people over medical conditions of which you remain almost totally ignorant is appalling. I'll just leave you with some preliminary reading from UC Berkey's Health Services:
When we refer to depression in the following pages, we are talking about "clinical depression." Clinical depression is a serious medical illness that negatively affects how you feel, the way you think and how you act. Individuals with clinical depression are unable to function as they used to. Often they have lost interest in activities that were once enjoyable to them, and feel sad and hopeless for extended periods of time. Clinical depression is not the same as feeling sad or depressed for a few days and then feeling better. It can affect your body, mood, thoughts, and behavior. It can change your eating habits, how you feel and think, your ability to work and study, and how you interact with people. People who suffer from clinical depression often report that they "don't feel like themselves anymore."

Clinical depression is not a sign of personal weakness, or a condition that can be willed away. Clinically depressed people cannot "pull themselves together" and get better. In fact, clinical depression often interferes with a person's ability or wish to get help. Clinical depression is a serious illness that lasts for weeks, months and sometimes years. It may even influence someone to contemplate or attempt suicide.
If you wish to continue oversimplifying and misreading me, so be it.

Me: John Nash was schizophrenic. Nijinsky was schizophrenic. The vicious serial killer who lived the county over was schizophrenic.

You: SCHIZOPHRENIA IS A DISEASE. ONE CANNOT WILL ONESELF OUT OF SCHIZOPHRENIA. SCHIZOPHRENIC PEOPLE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT OCCURS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THEIR DISEASE. SCHIZOPHRENIC PEOPLE ARE NOT BAD.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

#296 Post by Mr Sausage » Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:36 pm

Reliakor wrote:SCHIZOPHRENIA IS A DISEASE.
Unarguably true.
Reliakor wrote:ONE CANNOT WILL ONESELF OUT OF SCHIZOPHRENIA.
Unarguably true.
Reliakor wrote:SCHIZOPHRENIC PEOPLE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT OCCURS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THEIR DISEASE.
That's basic law: a person shown to be suffering from mental insanity can be held to be not responsible for their actions.
Reliakor wrote:SCHIZOPHRENIC PEOPLE ARE NOT BAD.
Irrelevant one way or the other.

Also, this should be basic enough: stop confounding different mental afflictions.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

#297 Post by zedz » Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:40 pm

My brain hurts.

Does that make me a bad person?

Zot!
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 am

Re: Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

#298 Post by Zot! » Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:49 pm

The manifestation of clinical depression in Melancholia is not unrealistic and it's onset in the film is extremely obvious. You are welcome to interpret her as a unpleasant person as a result if you like, her sister often does. We don't see much of her in a healthy state, but we can imagine she is certainly a lot more pleasant to be around, as evidenced by the limo ride. Can we please end this now?

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

#299 Post by knives » Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:02 pm

zedz wrote:My brain hurts.

Does that make me a bad person?
Coming from a family of depressives who act exactly like the Dunst character my brain hurts pretty bad myself. Why does every idiot with a keyboard want to kill the author in the dumbest of ways?

Reliakor
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:07 am

Re: Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

#300 Post by Reliakor » Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:33 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:
Reliakor wrote:SCHIZOPHRENIA IS A DISEASE.
Unarguably true.
Reliakor wrote:ONE CANNOT WILL ONESELF OUT OF SCHIZOPHRENIA.
Unarguably true.
Reliakor wrote:SCHIZOPHRENIC PEOPLE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT OCCURS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THEIR DISEASE.
That's basic law: a person shown to be suffering from mental insanity can be held to be not responsible for their actions.
Reliakor wrote:SCHIZOPHRENIC PEOPLE ARE NOT BAD.
Irrelevant one way or the other.

Also, this should be basic enough: stop confounding different mental afflictions.
I confounded nothing. Indeed you are the person who began to compare depression to drunkenness (while driving to boot!). If you can't see how those mantras I posted have little relation to my points...

Post Reply