Reprehensive Retrospective?: On Lars von Trier and Roland Emmerich

My friend Nick and I always have a good time arguing about movies. A while back, we had this online discussion of Terminator 2 and have wanted to do that kind of thing again, but, until now, we just haven't had the time. So, this post is the first in what we hope will be a series, the topic of which I'll let Nick introduce, since it was his idea.

Nick: There are plenty of filmmakers loathed by the people in our small group of cinephiles. Two are commonly abused by me: Lars von Trier and Roland Emmerich. I guess I became especially aware of this in 2009, as they both recently released movies that seem obvious considering their career trajectories: Antichrist and 2012. Or, at least based on how I’ve previously assessed their careers.

In honesty, I’ve only seen a couple von Trier's movies and maybe 4 of Emmerich’s. I’ve derided von Trier as an anti-American masochist, churning out hateful pretentious (or worse, boring) art house blah. (Jon, on the other hand, claims he's never seen a von Trier movie he hasn't liked, but I'll let him explain that for himself). And Emmerich as a joke, making CGI-heavy nonsense without even the (marginal) taste or skill that the Bays and Scotts of the business do.

But with Antichrist and 2012 coming out at about the same time, I started to considering these two as an interesting pair for analysis.

Emmerich, 54 is West German born. He’s an openly gay director who, after watching Star Wars, decided to become a filmmaker. He lives in Hollywood. He’s a populist, a humanist and, seemingly, loves America and its culture. His first big U.S. theatrical release, Universal Soldier, hit theatres in 1992. (See here for a take on his earlier efforts).

Lars von Trier is 53. He was born in Copenhagen, and is twice married. After two critical successes, Zentropa (Europa) and The Kingdom, his life took a strange turn. From Wikipedia:

In 1995, von Trier's mother revealed on her deathbed that the man who he thought was his father was not, and that she had had a tryst with her former employer, a man named Fritz Michael Hartmann, who descended from a long line of Roman Catholic classical musicians, in order to give her son "artistic genes." After four awkward meetings with his real father, the man refused further contact. The revelations led von Trier to attempt to "erase" the connections with his stepfather by converting to Catholicism, and to rework his filmmaking into a style emphasizing "honesty".

This resulted in the Dogme95 movement. It’s also interesting to note that he suffers from multiple phobias that make it difficult for him to travel.

Two European directors born about ten years after the war. They first found success in the early 90s. We’re going to explore and contrast what they’ve done since then. We’re watching these movies with a clean slate. No baggage. No preconceptions. The retrospective is as follows:

Europa & Universal Soldier
Independence Day & Breaking the Waves
The Five Obstructions & Godzilla
The Day After Tomorrow & Dancer in the Dark
Dogville & The Patriot
10,000 BC & Mandalay

And, hopefully, Antichrist and 2012.

Wish us luck.

Jon: I should point out that I paired the movies up this way in a more-or-less chronological fashion, but I also hoped that the juxtapositions would be interesting. Before starting this project, I had seen most of the Emmerich movies (just not Universal Soldier and 10,000 BC) and none of the von Trier movies - although I do like the other things I've seen by von Tier - The Element of Crime, The Boss of It All, and, especially, The Kingdom. (Looking at that list, it's a little odd that I've managed to miss most of his major works, but that's something I can delve into as we go along.)

So, let's start with Europa and Universal Soldier. There's actually a (perhaps weak) thematic connection between the two, as they both refer to the lingering problems of wars in which the U.S. was involved - WWII in the case of Europa, Vietnam in the case of Universal Solider - but, not surprisingly, their p.o.v. couldn't be more different. In Europa, though the main character is American, what's at stake seems to be the soul of Europe. Universal Soldier is more like Platoon, in that Vietnam is only important as a psychic wound on the American consciousness: the Vietnam War as an American problem and not as a Vietnamese one. This U.S.-centric p.o.v. is, of course, (unfortunately) pretty conventional, but what makes it worthy of note is that (a) Emmerich isn't an American and (b) it stars two obviously non-American performers (even though they're supposed to be playing American characters). I have to say I find a lot of value in von Trier's more global perspective. Watching Europa I was reminded by an attack friends of ours made against Inglourious Basterds this summer by saying that Tarantino's movie was not really a World War II movie. But it seemed to me they were making the mistake of saying that only movies about the experience of U.S. soldiers really counted as "World War II movies". Europa belongs with others movies in the category of "World War II movies that aren't about American soldiers" that often get overlooked when people are talking about "war movies".

Anyway, I have some specific questions for you regarding what you think about von Trier's take on America in Europa and how that relates to what you see as his anti-Americanism, but first, what you'd think of the movies?

Nick: As I said, I really wanted to approach von Trier’s movies with a clean slate. My notion of his anti-Americanism comes mostly from things I’ve read and heard in interviews, as I’ve only actually seen a couple of his movies. I mostly liked Europa. I don’t think all the tonal shifts quite work (the lovemaking scene atop the model trains, for example), but I definitely don’t see the movie as anti-American. The POV character, of course, is US-born, but he has good intentions—probably the best intentions of anyone in the movie. The other American character is more slippery, but he doesn’t come off much worse than the Germans. The protagonist is a naïf who is way, way in over his head (both figuratively and literally, in the end). I think von Trier is more interested in juxtaposing this fresh-faced character, from a less than two hundred year old country with the vastly complicated, conflicting and contradictory relationships in Germany and, more expansively, the whole of Europe.

I think the movie is meant to be viewed as a grotesque comedy, one that uses Kubrickian and Lynchian techniques while composing (gorgeous) shots that parrot and parody classic World War II movies from both US and European directors. I think von Trier sees Europe at that point in history as a twisted joke, and one that America couldn’t possibly understand. There’s now way the tone deaf can keep up with the shifting pitch. What do you think? I also think it’s funny that, upon losing the big prize for this movie at Cannes, Lars flipped off the judges and stormed out. But I can see why they didn’t award it the champ (it did receive several other awards). For all its artistry, the director’s bag of tricks overshadows the characters and narrative. It’s good. But it ain’t Grand Illusion.

As for Universal Soldier…it’s pretty bad. I think it’s funny that, a year after Lars flipped the bird at Cannes, Emmerich’s two stars, JCVD and Dolph Lundgren staged a shoving match for publicity. Neither of our subjects will be arrested for crimes of subtlety.

I think the movie has a little charm. The necklace of ears is a nice touch (though a Vietnam cliché and executed in more interesting fashion in Tim O’Brien’s story "Sweetheart of the Song Tra Bong") but the movie is really a rehash of movies Emmerich likes. Terminator, most directly. In the end, it plays like a hybrid of the lousiest Universal horror movies and wannabe Cameron. There are touches of humor, and some OK shootouts. I guess if there’s something to be said for it, it’s that it doesn’t lack spirit. It doesn’t feel like Emmerich is going through the motions—more like he doesn’t have any moves yet. I think he was just happy to be there. I knock Europa a little for not being Grand Illusion. I’ll knock Universal Soldier for not even being second-tier Verhoeven.

Jon: Grand Illusion is a pretty lofty target for any other movie to live up to (it's one of the greatest war movies ever made), but, otherwise, I like your take on Europa. Universal Soldier, on the other hand - forget second-tier Verhoeven, it doesn't even manage to be second-tier Stephen Hopkins.

Two things struck me about the movie:

(1) Both of the leads are horribly miscast. Van Damme is likable in Bloodsport and Kickboxer, but here he's supposed to give a performance that's a cross between what Schwarzenegger does in Terminator and what Jeff Bridges does in Starman and it's just way too much for him. He ends up looking confused and constipated. Lundgren, on the other hand, has real presence - until he opens his mouth. It would have been a better idea to have this character not say anything at all.

(2) The action set pieces are all "okay", but the movie falls down in the way it resolves them. The way the scenes are linked together doesn't make any sense: Van Damme keeps escaping - after the fight at the motel and the one at the gas station - but he never seems to do anything to earn his escape. There's no story logic behind any of the action sequences: they're only there so that Emmerich can blow things up and knock holes in walls. It might be cheating at this point to suggest this, but this flaw is where I see the most connection with Emmerich's later movies.

Anyway, I think that's a good start. If there's anything else you or anyone else reading this wants to talk about, the comments are open.