Thoughts on: Melancholia (2011)

Posted on by Renuka D.

  • Director: Lars von Trier
  • Genres: Drama, science-fiction
  • Starring: Kirsten Dunst, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Kiefer Sutherland, Alexander Skarsgård
  • Release: May 18, 2011

It’s 2020, and that means it was the end of a decade. As such, that means we got every type of 2010s ranking list imaginable, including this behemoth by Vulture. Bizarrely, the number one movie on this list is a movie from 2011 that many people have never heard of. This might be in large part because of the director Lars von Trier self-sabotaging the Cannes premiere himself, and perhaps also because Kirsten Dunst admits she doesn’t like promotion hoopla all that much.

Either way, this movie is a hidden gem, and Vulture did well putting it on my radar. This movie is part of Lars von Trier’s “Depression Trilogy.” The trilogy consists of Antichrist, Melancholia, and Nymphomaniac. All three films star Charlotte Gainsbourg, who seems to act as a muse to Trier. With a name like Melancholia, it’s hard to think that this film could be about anything but depression. In fact, it is really, really about depression – but it is also about a giant planet called Melancholia hurtling towards the Earth.

The movie opens on a series of disturbing and mysterious images, both of people and space (the ending is quite literally given away to remove suspense, but you might not notice if you aren’t paying attention). It then introduces Justine (Kirsten Dunst) on her wedding day, which is quickly turning into a disaster due to Justine’s crippling depression.

Dunst depicts depression in a full-bodied, all-consuming way, quickly becoming desperate to escape and acting in bizarre ways. Both Trier and Dunst have a history of depression, and it is clear that they are imbuing the screen with substance from their own experiences. At the same time, Justine’s sister Claire (played by Gainsbourg), is stressed and attempting to keep the wedding together. She encourages her sister to hide her depressive episodes from her new husband (a sexy Skarsgård).

Gainsbourg is the daughter of Jane Birkin and Serge Gainsbourg, two figures that are larger than life. At the same time, she has an initial feeling of normalcy about her in the first half of the film. I think whether you like the first or second half of the film says more about you, the viewer, than it does about the film. The first half is intimate and human, but also vaguely crazed and sometimes makes less “sense” than the second half. Dunst’s character behaves strangely, and is increasingly detached from the effects of her actions. Her new-husband calls off the entire marriage simply due to her behavior during the wedding.

“Those bitches have locked themselves in their bedrooms and are now taking baths. Is everyone in your family stark raving mad?”

Dunst is both likable and unlikable. She pushes the limits of what is “acceptable,” in fascinating ways. Her wedding is, as I said, a disaster – but the real disaster is yet to come.

I, personally, am a second half person. While the first half sets up the characters and how we understand them in a familiar situation, the second half puts them in a completely unfamiliar one. The apocalypse approaches slowly, and allows Trier’s actual purpose to be revealed – he wants to talk about the human psyche during an apocalypse. Justine quickly accepts the reality of the situation, while Claire starts to lose her grip. Kiefer Sutherland is great as Claire’s astronomy-obsessed, callous husband, and his character’s grating presence underscores the fact that this is truly a film about women. (Of course we can discuss Trier’s portrayal of women and femininity in general, but still).

Additionally, Trier accepts that he wasn’t trying to make the movie accurate in terms of the astrophysics (in fact he wishes the film had more flaws in general), but although the science is hand-wavey, it doesn’t take away from the movie. It’s frightening and beautiful, and there is some weather and atmosphere fun mentioned for the science-fiction enthusiasts. It is a little hard to believe that the movie scientists have not realized that Melancholia is on a collision course with the Earth. That doesn’t quite make sense, but can be ignored with a little suspension of disbelief (or as I chose, a conspiracy theory about all the scientists lying to humanity to keep the peace until the end). Anyway, the movie isn’t about the science.

I did, and still do, vaguely wish this movie had been made a few years later. The visuals would have been stunning with higher quality effects, but it’s still awe-inspiring as is. I love the switch in perspectives between the sisters between the two halves of the film, and Justine’s view in particular strikes a chord. Sometimes it does seem like the world is a truly terrible place and it might not be the worst thing for it to get absolutely demolished.

“The Earth is evil, we don’t need to grieve for it… nobody will miss it.”

It’s not my intention to glorify depression but…in a way it is the movie’s goal. It’s a very beautiful movie after all and it’s pitched as “a beautiful movie about the end of the world.” Even the haunting music, Wagner’s Tristan und Isolde which repeats throughout the film, is meant to add to the overall aesthetic.

Trier says, “In a way, the film does have a happy ending.” This is truly captured in a split moment where we see Dunst luxuriating in the light of Melancholia, alone at night, and utterly naked. In a sense, the movie is cathartic, wallowing is the only option and the only rational option. Fighting is pointless. A weakness becomes a strength. The ending is unsurprising, but allows us all to breathe a sigh of relief.

Melancholia | Melancholia, Kirsten dunst, Cinematography

Other fun links about Melancholia

Published by Renuka D.

phd student in economics. interested in healthcare, shopping (both studying it and participating) and fraud.

Leave a comment