Nymphomaniac: Volumes I and II (2013)

[evilswift]

Originally Posted by scoldsteve

I was shocked to see that as graphic as it is, it could have been more explicit

[Dubstar]

^ LOL

my UK copy arrived in the mail today - woohoo!

[Zot!]

Originally Posted by LateReg

But the 5-hour cut is the actual director's cut, right? That is what I have heard. That, as one of the previous posters has said, the 4-hour cut was released with the director's knowledge but not his consent. So the 5-hour cut will come out eventually, and will be known as a director's cut, not just an extended cut, I believe.

The theatrical cut had his consent, he just didn't do the editing himself (which he typically does). Feel free to wait for the 5 hour version if you like, but don't hold your breath. You can call it a directors cut or whatever you like. My point is only that the 4 hr version is the worldwide standard version and should be considered fully intact. The 5 hr version would ADD scenes and is an extended version. In any movie many hours of footage are left on the editing room floor, so all movies are technically "cut".

[evilswift]

The real question is...

Will anyone ever think of Billy Elliot the same way again? Haha.

[evilswift]

Whatever. David Cronenberg still made the most hilarious film about a nymphomaniac first.

[Noro]

Anyone have any pictures of the HMV art cards?

[Wernski]

Originally Posted by Zot!

The theatrical cut had his consent, he just didn't do the editing himself (which he typically does). Feel free to wait for the 5 hour version if you like, but don't hold your breath. You can call it a directors cut or whatever you like. My point is only that the 4 hr version is the worldwide standard version and should be considered fully intact. The 5 hr version would ADD scenes and is an extended version. In any movie many hours of footage are left on the editing room floor, so all movies are technically "cut".

Is that accurate? I thought the 5 hour cut was completed by Trier and shown at festivals, and this 4 hour version was only cut down by someone else for its "broader" theatrical run. Am I wrong about that?

[evilswift]

Lawd, I don't think I could handle a more extended version than what I saw on iTunes. I still have nightmares about that segment with K.

[Lutz]

Originally Posted by evilswift

Whatever. David Cronenberg still made the most hilarious film about a nymphomaniac first.

The gold crown for hilarious nymhomaniac movies still rests with FUEGO yes?

Cinefamily Trailers: "Fuego" trailer - YouTube

One of those rapturous rare movies that is actually more lurid and entertaining than it's hyperbolic trailer!

[Zot!]

Originally Posted by Wernski

Is that accurate? I thought the 5 hour cut was completed by Trier and shown at festivals, and this 4 hour version was only cut down by someone else for its "broader" theatrical run. Am I wrong about that?

You are wrong in the sense that the 5 hour version was shown at a single festival, not multiple festivals. And that showing took place well after the film had already premiered. The 4 hour version was compiled in-house at Zentropa (LvT's production company) without LvTs oversight, but with his consent, and was shown everywhere. If you still want to argue that the 5 hour version is definitive...ok, but the only audience who have seen it were at a single theatrical showing in Berlin.

[Wernski]

Originally Posted by Zot!

You are wrong in the sense that the 5 hour version was shown at a single festival, not multiple festivals. And that showing took place well after the film had already premiered. The 4 hour version was compiled in-house at Zentropa (LvT's production company) without LvTs oversight, but with his consent, and was shown everywhere. If you still want to argue that the 5 hour version is definitive...ok, but the only audience who have seen it were at a single theatrical showing in Berlin.

Ok, thanks for the info! Don't really care to argue, since it's for all of us to decide for ourselves anyway. Appreciate the corrected info!

[Zot!]

Originally Posted by Wernski

Ok, thanks for the info! Don't really care to argue, since it's for all of us to decide for ourselves anyway. Appreciate the corrected info!

No probs, just don't think people should feel like they're being tricked somehow by this home video release.

Also, I should correct myself. A 5 hour cut has never played anywhere. The 2.5 hour Volume I played in Berlin. An extended Volume II has thus far never been shown.

[LateReg]

Originally Posted by Zot!

No probs, just don't think people should feel like they're being tricked somehow by this home video release.

Also, I should correct myself. A 5 hour cut has never played anywhere. The 2.5 hour Volume I played in Berlin. An extended Volume II has thus far never been shown.

I understand what you're saying: People shouldn't feel tricked as this is the one version of the film that has been shown thus far. I have already seen the 4 hour cut in its theatrical release and now own the Artificial Eye Blu-Ray. But from numerous reviews of the film I have gleaned that the longer cut is Von Trier's preferred cut of the film and technically wouldn't simply be an "extended" cut but rather the director's cut he had intended all along. For example, Scott Foundas refers to it as such in his review of the film. I spoke to Gary Tooze at DVDBeaver and he said he heard the reason there are even two cuts in the first place has to do with some of the extra content concerning pedophilia.

[Mavrick]

Originally Posted by Noro

Anyone have any pictures of the HMV art cards?

Here's one I uploaded in the UK thread

[jblank]

Originally Posted by evilswift

I'd have to pick Silegman's, LMFAO.

That's hilarious! I like the idea though, some would no doubt be rare and collectable.

[GxyExpress999]

My vote goes out to...

[Show spoiler]Udo Kier

[Dubstar]

question: does any US folk have the UK edition - I'm getting audio for the supplements but no video - does this mean the extras are encoded differently than the feature - cause I just finished watching both discs, but no go on the extras. (the only other import that I have encountered this is the animated short film: 'The Snowman')

[Wernski]

I hate to drive this conversation in circles, but..
Am I misunderstanding, or does this version from Nordisk claim to contain both the "Danish cinema version: 241 minutes (231 min. PAL DVD)" and "Lars von Trier's Director's Cut, Part 1: 145 minutes?"

http://www.laserdisken.dk/html/visva...58258159179627

[Firecrackker]

Anyone else think Antichrist is a million times more shocking/"out there" than this film? Sure this movie has more sex/nudity but people make it out to be this really "should be banned" type movie, if that makes any sense.

[evilswift]

Originally Posted by Firecrackker

Anyone else think Antichrist is a million times more shocking/"out there" than this film? Sure this movie has more sex/nudity but people make it out to be this really "should be banned" type movie, if that makes any sense.

Well, I’d say that Nymphomaniac is more steeped in reality than Antichrist.

But

[Show spoiler]leaving your toddler in a house alone during the winter so you can go get spanked by a sadistic man is a bit rough to watch!

as well as

[Show spoiler]giving a blowjob to a pedophile (onscreen!) because you feel he is God-like for not acting on his desires....

Still... that's a good question. Antichrist was probably more disturbing. Surely. There's no humor in that film whereas Nymphomaniac is frequently hilarious. I also stand by the fact that the sex in this film is not erotic at all, in any way whatsoever. But unlike Antichrist, Nymphomaniac presents a tale without many morals which can at times feel a bit more disturbing than the stressful environment of AC.

I definitely feel that Charlotte Gainsbourg gives a greater performance as Jo.