Kiss your children. Go for a walk in the park. Eat a tomato like it’s an apple. Attach a love letter to your payment for the gas bill. Throw some pebbles into a fountain. Learn a few phrases in Xhosa. Defrost the freezer. Do anything — it really doesn’t matter what — rather than go and see Lars Von Trier‘s “The House That Jack Built.” And if you were born under the kind of unlucky star that mandates you have to go see Lars Von Trier’s “The House That Jack Built,” (say, for professional reasons) do any/all of those things anyway. You’ll need the memory of the good times washing out your wheelie bin or filing your taxes to get you through the two hours and 35 minutes ahead, though it will have to be a pretty fucking potently joyous memory, possibly involving puppies in a springtime meadow, that will sustain you during the bit where Matt Dillon slices one of Riley Keough‘s breasts off.
READ MORE: The 2018 Cannes Film Festival: The 20 Most Anticipated Movies
This irredeemably unpleasant movie is divided into five “incidents” and an epilogue set in hell that, with remarkable verisimilitude I guess, goes on for roughly eternity. Dillon plays the eponymous killer Jack, (“titular” feeling even wronger than usual given the end of that last paragraph), with all the flair and charisma of an old Volvo. The first incident depicts him reluctantly helping out “Lady 1” as she is primly yet reductively described in the press notes — a shrewish, entitled megabitch whose car jack has broken while she’s been trying to change her tire. Lady 1 is played by Uma Thurman, who is very bad here despite having been so very good in Von Trier’s “Nymphomaniac” and whose absence at this film’s gala premiere went unnoticed by precisely nobody.
READ MORE: Lars Von Trier’s ‘House That Jack Built’ Reactions: Disgust, Loathing & Walkouts
In awkwardly scripted and dully repetitive scenes, architect/engineer Jack drives Lady 1 back and forth to the blacksmith to get her jack fixed, while she prattles away about how he’s probably a serial killer and provides him with a host of good ideas about how to murder her, before emasculating him so thoroughly that really Jack has little choice but to stave her head in. The broken Jack uses the broken jack to batter her to death, and compares the result, in one of those flash-cut montages of which von Trier is so fond, to a Picasso. Murder is a cathedral, or a pointed arch, or art or something! Also, Goethe sat under the oak tree that grew in Buchenwald concentration camp and William Blake wrote about tigers and lambs — such are the lofty topics discussed in Jack’s voiced-over conversation with Verge, as in Virgil, writer of The Aeneid and Dante’s guide to hell, here played by Bruno Ganz, an actor whose two most famous roles are Hitler and an angel.
READ MORE: The Essentials: Lars von Trier’s Best Films
Jack, who self-dubs as “Mr. Sophistication” and also suffers from OCD which makes for some wackily wearying hi-jinks, develops a taste for killing women, taking pictures of their posed and propped up bodies and then storing them in a walk-in freezer unit he happens to own. “Lady 2” and “Lady 3” respectively are played by Siobhan Fallon Hogan and Sophie Gråbøl, though there’s another woman murdered in between who doesn’t even get a number, let alone her own “incident.” But then perhaps namelessness would have been preferable for Riley Keough’s dim sexpot character who is actually in a relationship with Jack and whom he insists on calling “Simple.” Even before the mammary mutilation scene that is destined to live on in infamy, his verbal and psychological abuse of Simple is among the film’s ickiest elements, which is saying something considering there are also scenes of amateur taxidermy in which the body of a small boy is crudely fashioned into a little statue wearing a grotesque, carved-in grin.
And all the while, in between, there are lengthy digressions, animations and newsreel montages on Art and Iconography and History and Literature that are as incoherent and self-serving as the rest of the film is repulsive. So the structure is a kind of “Human Centipede” ass-to-mouth concertina of gruesome misogyny and utter tedium. And, hey, skip me the “he’s not being misogynistic, he’s making a point about misogyny” line because while that has washed with certain previous films from this controversy-generating machine, it is simply not the case here.
Von Trier has been trolling us for a while now. But never before has that uncontrollable impulse of his been so little justified by the filmmaking (even Von Trier’s ace “Melancholia” and “Nymphomaniac” collaborator, DP Manuel Alberto Claro, seems to be phoning it in here). And never has it felt this pointed, this personal and this radioactive with virulently infectious self-loathing. Here are just a few of the interest groups he works hard to offend repeatedly: women; law enforcement; anyone who’s ever defended him or one of his movies in the past (boy do we feel like idiots now); all his actors; people with children; people who were once children; art historians; classical scholars; Glenn Gould fans; serial killers; people with eyes; everyone who applauded him as he arrived at the film’s premiere; ducks; and of course the Cannes Film Festival selection committee. Sitting in a room with the very people who banned von Trier “for life” (actually 7 years) from this festival because of comments he made about understanding Hitler, and watching the long sequence in which Jack extols the brilliance of Nazi architect Albert Speer, over documentary footage of Speer and Adolf yukking it up, was certainly one of the more epic meta-trolls I’ve ever been privy to.
All of which guarantees that this tawdry, nasty little movie is destined to immediately attain cult status as a dog whistle for the particular brand of filmbro who will wear it as a badge of honor that somehow they “get” it in a way that snowflake critics such as myself simply do not. The irony and the smallest of comforts in the dark days of hot takes to come, is that if there’s one thing that “The House That Jack Built” proves beyond all doubt, it’s that as much as Von Trier has contempt for all of the abovementioned segments of society, there are no people on earth he despises more than those who would make themselves his accomplices. That’s why he builds in such eviscerating self-critique (particularly in the form of Ganz’ character) even while he can’t stop agitating, pushing buttons, ringing the bell and running away. This house is being built to be torn down.
In the past, Von Trier has been defensible on the grounds of his undeniable filmmaking talent and because so much of his nihilism clearly sprang from a place of intense personal pain and depression. This film, however, goes so much further in its overt horribleness that it feels like the director is standing in the middle of the road over its mutilated corpse waving a bloody knife and begging the police to arrest him. In which case the least helpful reaction we can have, and I say this as a fan of many of his previous films, is to pull back and stroke our chins and work out how to call it Art. Perhaps Von Trier wants to be released from his enslavement to his own compulsive, schoolboy need to provoke and offend but doesn’t know how. Perhaps “The House That Jack Built” is the kind of film you make when you fervently want someone to stop you, to save you from yourself and the demons of your worst nature. Perhaps, this time, we should oblige. [F]
P.S. Hi there to the first #filmbrodude who devastates everyone with his witty bravado by replying with some variation on “wow, even more stoked to see this now!” Your prize is: you are a douchebag. xxx
Follow along with all our 2018 Cannes Film Festival coverage here.
wow, even more stoked to see this now!
Seriously though, very interesting review. You certainly seem to be on the defensive, knowing the usual sides that will come to defend a film like this whether it be in your own comments or some miscellaneous Reddit thread sharing your review and then mocking it. But I think because of how well your articulation is and clearly understanding the director’s previous work as well, I think you do a good job of driving your point home. I always find your reviews interesting at the very least, even if I’ll usually disagree, and I’ll definitely be thinking about this one while I go see the film for myself. Keep it up!
I feel bad for Bruno Ganz.
I feel sorry for literally any actor (especially women) who chooses to sign on to a Lars Von Trier film.
what a brave whistleblower you are
Excuse me?
Why do you feel sorry for them? They’re adults. They made their choices.
Because the shape and form of a movie evolves from screenplay to final cut. What may have appealed to an actor during a script or story development phase might not even exist in the project’s final form. I do agree though, that any legal-age adult should have enough sense to say ‘no’ when approached to do a Lars von Trier film.
wow, even more stoked to see this now!
What did you think of American Psycho? He tortured and mutilated women in that film…or did he???
But hey, it was directed by a female filmmaker, so she gets a pass. This critic’s political agenda allows it.
Man, the reviewer hated it.
Must be a masterpiece then. Go Lars!
Sounds fun… not.
Uh, Ms. Kiang, you do realize that your get-fucked disclaimers aimed pre-emptively at “filmbros” is the same sort of get-them-before-they-get-me gradeschool bullshit you’re railing at Von Trier for doing. I suppose it takes one to know one. That, or your meta is — unbeknownst to even you — on some whole other level.
By far the stupidest review I’ve ever read from a semi-important film site. Apparently the distinction between depiction and endorsement is lost on the writers and editors at The Playlist… no matter how bad the movie is it cannot be as big of a flaming dumpster fire as this horseshit review.
I disagree, I thought this review was clear, detailed and gave me a very good reason to stay the hell away.
Really? No mention of the cinematography, the score, and hardly anything of the writing, or actor’s performances. Nothing of what the film might be trying to say (in fact, the opposite, the review just dismisses anything it might have to say outright as being unimportant because of the content)
It was paragraph after paragraph of describing the film and how the reviewer found it offensive. Then we got a personal attack on von Trier and what he has made, followed by paragraphs of the “reviewer” deriding anyone who might want to actually see the film or who will find merit in it.
The only reason this review gave you to stay the hell away is one person found the content disgusting and offensive and decided to write about it on the internet. It said almost nothing of the film itself and how it was crafted.
You must not have read many film reviews. Maybe you read a different review because this review makes a clear distinction and is very well written.
You’re deluded.
I’ve never seen more than 10 minutes of a Von Trier movie. Guess I won’t start now.
The fact that your “P.S.” addendum berates an early commenter, calling them a “douchebag”, even when their follow-up comment goes a long way to praising your own work, does detract from your review somewhat.
Thanks for that, douchebag.
^ “I’ve the emotional and intellectual maturity of a 5 year old, so, you speak a truth I don’t like and I’ll call you a “douchebag”.
you know she wrote that before anyone commented, right?
She wrote that before anyone commented.
Wow, even more stoked to see this now! Especially after P.S.
“wow, even more stoked to see this now!”
Butt Hurt much
Just to stoke the fire even more, isnt a film about a serial killer supposed to be all those things and more…
But I will wait to judge when I see it.
Brilliantly written! I have the feeling vonTrier would work better as a South Park character than a real human being.
Why would you assume it would be a male, or “filmbrodude”, who is now more excited to see this because of your review? Couldn’t a woman be interested in this film or is that an impossibility in your mind? You seem to have a personal sexist hang-up. Good thing you preemptively talked shit to everyone before they could voice their own opinions.
Misconception upon misconception upon misconception, slavishly devoted to misconception.
You were at Cannes and actually saw the film?
“…if there’s one thing that “The House That Jack Built” proves beyond all doubt, it’s that as much as Von Trier has contempt for all of the abovementioned segments of society, there are no people on earth he despises more than those who would make themselves his accomplices.”
This includes the very Festival de Cannes that invited him back with this after the sexual harassment claims against him by Björk and Nicole Kidman, yet touted a sexual harassment hotline and the need for gender equality in film industry hiring and workplace safety. The #MeToo, Time’s Up and #BalanceTonPorc sentiment is something to market just like the films are, and just as much of a show. The European film financiers, the state arts apparatuses, the filmmakers (above and below line), the distributors, the critics and the cinephiles are all complicit in this slick charade that serves only to grease the wheels of the market. Contempt for suckups in show business is entirely deserved. This is the only think I like about Trier, whose work and persona I otherwise despise. The misogyny in his latest sounds to be laid bare, but has the emperor not been naked the entire time?
I really did enjoy your piece otherwise.
there are much worse things in life than having to sit through a bad Von Trier film.
Not many.
If this film is so worthlessly unpleasant, why bother going into such sordid detail?
Because it’s her job?
Wow, even more stoked to see this now!
Wow, even more stoked to see this now!
I’d take the worst Von Trier film over some fucking PC film these critics love to eat up (see Moonlight) any day of the week. That’s why we need less female critics, they can’t handle uncompromising pieces of work.
okay y’all, who gave future-jack a disqus account?
^ “Have a point of view/opinion I don’t approve of? You’re a serial killer”.
don’t be absurd. he’s not a serial killer YET.
And just like that this reviewer made everyone want to see the movie. Someone give him a round of applause.
Movies like this make me grateful critics exist for being able to sit and suffer through movies I have no intention of ever seeing.
Yes, what brave warriors they are.
Never said they were ‘warriors’, weirdo. Just said I was grateful that they did a job that I wouldn’t want to.
A sturdy review overall, but I do wish that professional critics would refrain from being so antagonistic towards anyone who may find something different in a subjective piece of work. This piece shines when it sticks to its points about the film itself and what it evoked in Jessica Kiang.
Once it devolves into antagonism toward her perceptions of “film bro dudes,” and even inserts that frankly childish “PS,” it rather dilutes the point. This is the kind of writing we see amongst bloggers and toxic fans that have spent five months losing their collective minds over The Last Jedi. I don’t feel like it belongs here.
The trailer was enough to turn me off, but I was still begrudgingly willing to go along for the ride with a more devoted Von Trier fan friend. After reading Ms. Kiang’s thoughts on this work, my friend is going to be on his own.
excellent comment and well stated. Completely agree.
Wow, even more stoked to see this now! Especially after P.S. (Moralistic politically correct bull. Accept: no one is going to give you a browny point for pretending to be offended – they’ve run out. Oh, and Lars must be a genius as he succeeded with you in exactly what he set out to do, lol).
I don’t know what to think honestly, I’ll probably end up seeing it.
Any merit to making a connection between Haneke’s funny games and it’s critique of the audience’s appetite for consuming torture and atrocity with delight and instead extending the critique to the creator of the content’s own ego in producing such content under the guise of art?
I’ve always found VonTrier to be an interesting director, never a perfect director, where he straddles an odd space between true “experimental art house” (like actual art house, pipillotti rist or Kenneth anger territory, or even early short films of David Lynch) and “pop” as a director, where his movies are always flawed, but also always with merit. I’ve not seen one where I found nothing of merit at all.
The extension from deep depression, to inescapable nihilistic thoughts to full blown contempt is worth talking about though, but that said… from what I gather from your review, the movie is less a commentary on the way that contempt can push its way out and exaggerate itself into the realms of atrocity from not dealing with traditionally inward aggression (for some deep depression is little more than the only outlet for anger a person gives themselves or knows how to express), and more simply reveling in said contempt, and just looking to claw some down with it?
Nice enough article, still uncertain about the movie. I probably will see it, but “stoked” is a stupid word to use when dealing with films that deal with this sort of thing.
I mean, what arsehole out there read about Irreversible and it’s most controversial scene and said “man I’m stoked for that”… I bring it up mainly because while that movie was not fun, not uplifting, not even sure it added much to any discourse, I still think it was actually really well crafted, and although it didn’t expand on or add enlightenment to the depravity it dealt with and it’s impact on the characters, it showed it all and dealt with it in an arguably respectful manner, albeit nihilistic.
lol at the comment section proving the writer’s point
Thank you for this review.
“wow, even more stoked to see this now!”
I wasn’t interested in the movie but this great review prompted me to watch the trailer. So thank you I guess.
I was even more stoked to read the comments section.
Great review and it describes how I’ve felt about him since roughly “Antichrist.” I’m a huge fan of his earlier work though.
From what I’ve read about this so far, your last paragraph sums it up well: this work definitely seems like a cry for help.
This is not film criticism. This is rant about how a film doesn’t adjust to the “critic” moral views.
Looks like something from the Imdb board. The reviewer is clearly unable to make the distinction between “good vs bad” & “Like vs dislike”
Yes, yes, we get it; you despise males, have a victim complex, are full of self pity, don’t like it when anyone (especially males, obviously) fails to obey you or think the way you want them to or do what you want them to do, are biased and anyone who might ever think you’re balanced or professional or honest is very, very sadly, sorely and gravely mistaken.
This cheap, biased, terribly written hatchet job masqueraded by this site as a “review” says a lot more about you than the film.
It’s very telling (and disturbing) you mention at least *3 times* the breast amputation/torture scene (why do that? we got it the first time) and the word “misogyny” who knows how many times; yet barely mention and barely seem to have noticed at all the “[scene] of amateur taxidermy in which the body of a small boy is crudely fashioned into a little statue wearing a grotesque, carved-in grin.”; but it’s not surprising, since you must had been much too busy looking out for any infinitesimal detail you could attribute to “misogyny”. And, after all, it’s a *boy*, so, who cares at all, right? Especially when you have that breast amputation scene you’re so extremely obsessed with and that duck scene. Had it been a girl; your hysteria and outrage would have literally rendered you physically unable to write anything about this film.
Quite telling as well is the fact that you; without a second thought; assume *any* human being who might want to watch this out of morbid curiosity provoked by your morbid hatchet job *has to* be a male. That’s… yes; *Sexism*.
It’s painfully obvious you know nothing about the History of Cinema. All throughout it millions of male characters have died in all possible ways and manners (have you ever noticed *every* tarantino movie has at the very least one instance of genital/sexual violence/sadism/cruelty/abuse against at least one male character? *Of course* you haven’t *At All*) and no one ever has attributed any of that to misandry; yet, every single time there’s the slightest sign of any bit of possible violence of any possible kind against a female character it’s because of “misogyny”; end of discussion.
And, no, I’m not a “brodude” (whatever on Earth you might have intended to mean with it), nor heterosexual, nor “white”, nor a “misogynist”, nor a trump supporter, nor a von Trier fan, nor do I ever call anyone a “snowflake”.
brodude, nothing you said makes sense, or bears any resemblance to what she actually wrote. i suggest re-reading the review, but this time maybe checking your straw man assumptions at the door.
Oh, yes, nothing like starting a reply resorting to puerile, hypocritical, juvenile name-calling specifically with the intention of provoking the other person/angering them. It’s only natural; since you have no arguments and no points to make. You’re so, so sad. I won’t keep on wasting my precious time with individuals like you, so, please, feel free to keep on, keep on; I won’t ever see another word you write. Have a good day. Farewell. 🙂
broheim, once you say something that merits an argument or rebuttal, i’ll provide one. the collection of weird straw men you lobbed at the author doesn’t qualify.
Your post is so over the top that you’ve actually proven the blog author’s point. If she didn’t care about the boy she wouldn’t have mentioned him. Perhaps take your meds and get counselling for your persecution complex?
Your reply is inane and absolutely devoid of any rationale; not to mention “arguments”. It’s nothing but a cheap, dumb ad-hominem. No wonder you agree with the “author” of this trash.
While I think the blog author shouldn’t have ended their review with the “P.S. statement,” I can’t help but agree that t he comments on here only prove the blog author right. The persecution complex from the usual highly strung and highly unstable suspects is utterly pathetic.
While I think the blog author shouldn’t have ended their review with the “P.S. statement,” I can’t help but agree that the comments on here only prove the blog author right. The persecution complex from the usual highly strung and highly unstable suspects is utterly pathetic…
True, but blatant condescension doesn’t really add anything either. I think it’s pretty obvious which comments are just eyeroll-worthy and which ones actually make legit points that should be considered.
This was a pretty amazing review right up until the end. I think this movie sounds like trash and Von Trier is an asshole but saying everyone who is interested in the movie is a misogynstic “filmbro” is just pointlessly rude and will just drive more people to see the movie out of spite.
Wow, even more stoked to see this now!
So this is it. Women are hated, by lots of people. People who are too cowardly to wear it in public.
Along comes ‘artist’ Von Trier, who also hates women. But that’s OK. His actors, the studio, the system and our culture supports him. They become his enablers.
He’s now free to abuse, torture and kill women through his lense because that’s what he wants to see.
Just as a hypothetical movie might be designed to satiate white supremacists by providing the ridicule, torture and murder of black people (racist murder porn), The House That Jack Built serves misogynistic murder porn. The usual spineless get out clauses are the same in both examples: “It’s not racist, it’s portraying the full horror of racism”… “It’s not misogynistic, it’s portraying the full horror of misogyny” etc, etc.
After reading articles about Uma Thurman accusing Hollywood of misogyny, I can’t help but think ‘hypocrite’ in big flashing letters. All those who participated in this movie are culpable. If this movie inspires copy cat murders in the world, they are culpable.
The most depressing thing about this movie is realising who built it. It wasn’t built by one person, it is ‘The House That Misogyny And The Patriarchy Built’.
All the misogynists devoid of empathy are really stoked to see this.
I think pre-emptive arrest at the box office would be fair.
Your ‘P.S’ is very silly. Shame you had to add such an insecure ending to your review.
At first I was sceptical of your views, but by the end I respected your opinion.
As I say, just a shame you didn’t have a little more courage in your convinctions…
I think this was a fair and intelligent review but the “P.S.”was a needless add-on. You’re going to get the haters no matter how reasonable your film review is. The ‘film-bro-dude’ remark was a bit of an insult to the readers of your work. At first glance it looks as if the men here are overreacting to it but try lobbing a P.S cocktail at female readers and see what happens. It really is very rare for a hundred festival goers to walk out of a screening (as they did at Cannes) so you’re not alone in your assessment. Overall good writing!
TLDR version: A fat useless feminist got triggered because a serial killer cut off a titty in a movie. If he castrated a dude instead, she would’ve been ok with it.
*looks at comment*
*looks at commenter’s name*
Yes, because we should take your ignorant-ass comment seriously. Go shovel my snow, you loser.
I’m interested in seeing this now. It sounds like nightmare on elm street meets fight club
It bothers me to NO END that so-called “film critics” like yourself completely cast aside how American films trivialize violence ALL THE DAMN TIME, and when a European Auteur makes a film that shows violence for what it really is, you vomit up this drivel.
TLDR: A feminist was pissed off that a film about a serial-killer directed by Lars Von Trier just happened to be *a film about a serial killer directed by Lars Von Trier*. Seriously, what in the FUCK did you expect? A director who lives to anger people and push people’s buttons has NO INTENTION of pleasing audiences like yourself.
Your P.S. speaks more about yourself than it does about “filmbrodudes”. I, a woman, plan on seeing this film and unsubscribing from this website if shallow reviews like this keep getting posted.
It’s hilariously negative articles like this that not only prove Lars’ point, but also just give him more material to work with for his next outing. Good job.
TLDR: “There’s violence in this movie against women and children so it can’t possibly have anything intelligent to say about anything. Therefore, it it is repugnant trash and only filmbros will like it and I’m incapable of reviewing the film solely on its merits without attacking the audience that seeks this out.”
It’s like an onion review lmao.
Repulsive?
Can’t wait to see this movie.