_This is about Volume I & II combined, since I watched them one after the other._

A man finds a woman passed out in the street, and takes her in. As she rests in his spare bed, she recounts tales from her life as a self-proclaimed nymphomaniac.

I’ll brace myself for emails calling me a philistine, but my tolerance for pretentious bullshit has been tested here. Perhaps I’m taking it all the wrong way and this is a 5 1/2 hour masterpiece about human sexuality, but I just can’t get on board. It’s a really long artsy softcore porn-fest with some naff philosophising spliced in.

The episodic structure initially provides a good way to get us hooked. Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg) tells a story, then she sits with Seligman (Stellan Skarsgard) and he relates it back to something he has seen in his life or read in literature. About three hours in you realise it’s not going anywhere but at that point you might as well stick it out.

There’s a lot of ‘shock’ material in Nymphomaniac but it’s so oddly clinical that it fails to provoke any sort of reaction, no matter how disturbing the content. The one thing I truly couldn’t watch was Shia LaBoeuf attempting a Dick Van Dyke level British accent.

Some interesting performances (notably Stacy Martin as young Joe) don’t save this from being a tedious gimmicky mess strictly for von Trier completionists.

http://benoliver999.com/film/2016/08/29/nymphomaniac/

I watched this after a frustrating stint with Melancholia, and I wanted to give Lars another shot before putting him on my “no fly” list. So color me surprised when I found myself engaged and captivated by this film.

Honestly, 2 hours of hetero sex and fly fishing sounded like my worst nightmare, but something about the way this story is told is just so compelling and oddly full of heart in the places you wouldn’t expect if you know the material you’re about to watch. I could listen to the two leads ping-pong “I’m horrible” with “no you’re fly fishing” all day - it was a shtick I just never got tired of.

It’s totally fair though if someone would avoid this movie due to its explicit nature, or have negative opinions on it due to the gratuitous unsimulated sex. It was definitely…a choice…by the director - but his choice to make nonetheless. I don’t think it adds anything to the movie other than a controversial hook, and the story would still be strong without actual porn - but with that said, I also don’t think anyone would watch this movie in full with the intent of being aroused due to the subject nature alone. It is venomously unsexy despite the actual sex taking place on screen.

Strip away the on screen flesh hole close-ups and you’re actually left with something that stands on its own in all its oddities. I feel like this movie could have easily fell into typical stereotypes, plot beats, and archetypes, but instead approaches a woman’s sex addiction with a refreshing awareness that morals and sensuality can be just as complex or simple as anything else in life. Jo’s actions aren’t necessarily good - but they aren’t necessarily bad either - and there is a great discussion on giving one’s self Grace when one may feel reprehensible. I also really want to mention how refreshing it was seeing the main character not have some kind of extensive tragedy of trauma driving her sex addiction. It really is just like…sometimes nymphos be nymphing. And I think that’s great. It gives room for higher discussion on the matter of one’s actions and not some arm chair diagnosis of why an adult turns out this kind of way.

Anyways, haven’t seen part 2 yet so results may vary - but as a stand alone volume - this had no right being as good as it was.