The Element of Crime

source: The Element of Crime

Moviecut—The Element of Crime

How to describe a film so avant-garde that Dirk Bogarde threatened to quit the Cannes jury if it got an award? A film that references Blade runner, with a burned-out cop (Michael Elphick) brought back into a futuristic Europe to find a serial killer. A film that has been described by some as "The Silence of the Lambs" meets "Delicatessen". Fans of David Lynch may thrill at this futuristic film noir. Many will run for the exits, as it takes quite a bit of time to develop. It is Lars von Trier's first English-language film, and it is in a sepia-tone that adds to the feeling that Europe is crumbling. Water is an element that flows throughout, again adding to the feeling that something is rotten. Elphick hooks up with Me Me Lai in her last film. She had done a lot of cannibal work before this - an interesting combination of actors. Elphick goes into a experimental drug-induced hypnotic state to try and recreate the crimes and catch the killer. Things get really surreal from here. Cinematography, sound, and special effects were all superb in this very strange film.

Lars von Trier shows with Element of Crime that he is a filmmaker who knows what he wants to accomplish in terms of atmosphere and mood but is clueless as to what he wants to say. The film is beautiful in its mixture of rich sepia cinematography with occasional piercing sharp blue light. The film comes close to being campy, but camp acknowledges it own clichés and indulges in them; this film has a wonderful way of taking a story full of genre (noir) cliché plot points and letting them all come secondary to the magnificent atmospheric flow (the compute game sound effects are bizarre in their flow with the Scandinavian score). But the only emotional facet to the story is the hardboiled detective's (played uncompromisingly by Michael Elphick) longing for his wife. She has a blue star tattooed on her chest that is clearly meant to connect with the flashes of blue throughout the film; she is the hope and life that brings some soul into the detective's sepia, post-apocalyptic world. If only some more emotional soul could be pierced into this movie.

As a Lars Von Trier fan I thought it was about time that I took a look at his first three feature film and bought the 'Europe' or 'E' trilogy on Amazon (other retailers are available thank you please). Although Lars himself isn't a particularly likable character, his films are wonderfully distinguishable. Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark are amongst my all-time favourites, and I find myself consistently drawn to his 'Depression' trilogy which imagines Charlotte Gainsbourg in various levels of mental distress. After watching The Element of Crime, it's clear to see how far Lars has progressed as a filmmaker. The Element of Crime is like watching one of The Simpson's being pulped to death and put into a blender, an incoherent yellowy mess. It opens with some interesting surreal imagery depicting a horse being pulled out of some water. It left me hoping for a nightmarish Lynchian journey and whilst it was certainly odd, I found myself wanting to float to actual dream land rather than compelled to watch the one presented on screen. I couldn't tell you what the film was about. The back of the DVD calls it a neo-noir about a cop tracking down a serial killer and that's about the gist I got as well. Some English bloke drives around in a beaten-up tin car and pointlessly encounters people. The dialogue is completely illogical and never makes sense, this means that you can't feel any sort of connection to the characters or care about what they're doing. The film is entirely interested in bizarre visuals and fancy camera movements. There's no denying the strong sense of style. The cluttered mise-en-scene and strange lighting creates a stark atmosphere, however this simply isn't enough to sustain a 100 minute movie. I'm afraid to see what Epidemic and Europa now have to offer, I can only hope that they're an improvement on this boring mess.

Depending how long you can stand such a negative movie you will rate this film after 104 min : fantastic film of a genius or after 3 min : get out of this sh.t. I personally am surprised that L.v.T has not yet commited suicide. He might be a genius but will he be able to live with such filth. I remember the praises of Fassbinder - what a genius - filth filth and more of it till he couldn't stand it any longer. L.v.T will end the same way as Fassbinder. Might take a little longer because there are huge timegaps between films.

Lars von Trier announced his presence to the world with this stunning vision of a bleak future. I've now seen this three times and the only thing I'm sure of is that there is so much that will come out with even more viewings. It is unlike anything I've ever seen, or probably will ever see again. 9/10

Poor Lars von Trier. Why do people hate you so? Perhaps it is because you have come into existence so late in the chronology of film history. I personally do not believe that the filmic art has died or even weakened. It is as strong as ever right now. Every decade has its masterpieces. The only difference between them is that in a few decades the great films all contain similar themes via the tempora and mores. People will tell you that the worst dry spell for film was the 1980s, and a lot of people in the near future will carry this over into the 1990s. It is total bunk, untrue. There was just no dominant theme. The actual reason, though, why people refuse to notice the masterpieces of the last two decades is not because there either were none or that there was no dominant theme. It is because the definitions of greatness have changed amongst the critics. They have grown bitter, and refuse to pay attention, ready at the drop of a hat to come up with a really creative phrase in their criticism or to use one of their favorite words, "overwrought," "pretentious," "self-indulgent." I think the word "overwrought" perfectly describes Citizen Kane, though I will be the first to call it one of the greatest films ever made. Orson Welles is almost hubristic in the techniques he uses to make the film. All the words listed above could probably be used to describe that film. These words all have a common synonym not found in Roget's: "original." Critics today are so cynical, they refuse to admit anything original into their intellects. Here fits all the works of Lars von Trier. Previous to The Element of Crime, I had seen his three latest films, all Dogmaesque (Dogma 95, of course, authored by Trier; only one of his films, The Idiots, was actually made under the banner of Dogma 95. Breaking the Waves was its immediate precursor and Dancer in the Dark, made right after The Idiots, is the immediate next step in the director's evolution). These films were made with a certain "vow of chastity" that gave them an emotional immediacy like no other films I've ever seen. Breaking the Waves is Trier's only enormous hit in the USA. Even though there are many people who do see an enormously sexist view behind it, most people were deeply affected by it. I am included here, as it was the first film of his that I saw. I cried my eyes out for about the final hour of that film. Many people find Dancer in the Dark similar in power, but there is a much louder criticism and hatred for this film. It seems less complex than Breaking the Waves, and the sexism which was accused in Breaking can be seen much more clearly here, or at least that is what the critics claim. Me, again, I found it utterly powerful. And then there is the Idiots, which must be the most misunderstood film made. It is almost universally hated. Barely released in the US, it is apparently not going to be released on DVD (those creeps). Me? Well, I love it and feel sorry for its director, who just happens to be the genius whom he claims to be so often. Now I finally get to journey back to his pre-Dogmaesque films with Element of Crime. I've already wasted most of my space on a rather useless diatribe, but I'd just like to say, as part of the genre of the apocalyptic future, it is better than Brazil, Blade Runner, and even A Clockwork Orange. It is the complete opposite of the Dogmaesque films. Whereas they are an exploration of emotion, this film, and I assume the other pre-Dogmaesque films, is an exploration of the intellect. It relies on its sly style more than on its content, where the Dogmaesque films are the opposite. There is hardly a better film in terms of artistry of composition. Only Sejun Sezuki's Branded to Kill matches it in pure audacity. I say, if you are wondering whether you should buy this film (on DVD, Criterion) just to see it, YES. DO IT. It is well worth your money. 10/10

I love every moment of this film. It's an exquisite puzzle, full of intense details one plucks from the props and the dialogue. That said, it is also a mesmerizing piece of work - when I saw it in the theater, everyone in the audience fell asleep at one point or another, even though we were all enthralled. I'm thrilled to finally have it on video (and DVD soon!), so I won't miss a moment. Plus, I can hit pause for Lars' cameo (he makes a cameo appearance in all of his films; you can watch him age from Element through Idiots) as a hot young skinhead hotel clerk. Woohoo!

Though supposedly taking place somewhere in West Germany, I cannot imagine a world such as this, with the exceptions of perhaps a Mad Max movie, or maybe Waterworld. Water seems to be the dominant element in the film; the entire piece is saturated. In one early scene in police headquarters, our hero, Fisher, visits the archives by climbing a rope down to a flooded basement. He wades in waist high water, searching through damp and waterlogged files encased in plastic baggies. He searches for clues to the elusive Harry Gray. This world has definitely suffered some apocalypse, though details are sketchy. Finding a long forgotten surveillance report, he tracks the movements of Mr. Gray through the muddy streets and towns. He tries to put himself into the shoes of his prey, perhaps too much so. Who is Harry Gray, anyway? Is there such a person? Will the hunter cross the line and identify too closely with the hunted? Lars von Trier's directorial debut definitely foreshadows some of his later works. All of the lotto girls bear a striking resemblance to "The Kingdom's" poor Mary Jensen. And much of the camera work is reminiscent of "The Kingdom" and "Europa". Although the film is somewhat slow, especially if you've been bred on a diet of standard American cinema, it's dreamy, somber tone is nothing if not original. Shot entirely in shades of sepia, with startling blasts of blue color that remind you that this is not a black and white film of the Fritz Lang era, you wonder if the entire movie is but a dream, conjured in our protaganist's mind and surfaced under hypnosis. Why is he in Cairo being hypnotized, anyway? Was he the killer all along, murdering the lotto girls and mutilating them with broken bottles? Does he really not remember? And am I the only one who sees the similarity between Harry Gray and "The Usual Suspects'" Kaiser Soze. The classic red herring that leads you... where? More than likely, you will only see this film if you purchase the Criterion Collection Edition (at least in the USA), or borrow it from someone who has. So, is it worth the fourty bucks to add to your collection? If you are a Michael Bay, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, shoot-em-up action guy, then probably not. But if you enjoy something completely different, then this may well be for you. By the way, the Criterion release includes a documentary about the life and work of von Trier, including some of his first adolescent films shot with his mom's 8mm camera. If you are a fan of "The Kingdom", as I am, or of any of von Trier's works, it may well be worth the asking price for this alone; and you can consider the feature a quirky bonus, showing his singular genius at such an early stage.