ironhorse_iv Movie such as this is one of the reasons I can't stand any of the depressing melodrama for the sake of depressing melodrama that's over-saturating every medium on the planet these days. Enough of these bad things happen in real life, we don't need everything we watch nor read or listen to; to get away from normal life to be completely centered around the exact thing we're trying to take our minds off of. Director by King Dogma Attitude Lars Von Trier, 'the Idiots' is his try to make a film in compliance with the Dogme '95 Manifesto film making movement which he started. He fails to live up to it. What is the Dogme'95 Manifesto? Dogme '95 also known as Dogme#2 were rules to create filmmaking based on the traditional values of story, acting, theme, and excluding the use of elaborate special effects or technology following close to a Vow of Chastity rule. Like a whore in a nun's church, Lars broke the rules in this movie by bringing a prop onto the set and used special lighting. Von Trier also used background music (Le Cygne by Camille Saint-Saëns) in the film. The whole Dogme '95 movement collapse with this movie. Due to trying to live up to the Vows, the movie suffers from errors on screen such as boom mics or cameraman getting into the shots. The idiots also marks the second film in von Trier's Golden Heart Trilogy, which includes Breaking the Waves (1996) and Dancer in the Dark (2000) which had a woman put into wickedness actions. The woman in this one is Karen (Bodil Jørgensen) who is taken some interest in an anti-bourgeois group, leaded by Stoffer (Jens Albinus), whom spend their time acting like mentally disabled people in public to challenge the establishment through provocation. The idiots start to see that with they can get away with a lot with playing dumb, and see a romantic ideal of being disability gives until reality hit them hard. The movie is spoken in Danish, but I can't understand the message they are trying to say with this film. I can't decide if that dogma filmmaking method is admirable or intentionally hamstringing itself arbitrarily. The characters are unlikeable. The mocking of Down syndrome is rude. Then there is the pointless gangbang scene. That part of the film was pure hardcore porn. I know Lars Von Trier lived in nudist commune environment and yes, I know Danish has more lax attitude towards nudity and sex than the US apparently has by comparison, but honestly what was the point of that scene? It felt out of place. I felt that the Gruppeknald scene was just there to feed Lars Von Tier's pervert ego. Trine Michelsen is only in the movie for this scene since she is a porn star. Not a big porn star, but more importantly she is the daughter of the most influential Danish movie critic at the time Ole Michelsen. Ole Michelsen is famous for saying he reviews all types of movies except the type his daughter stars in. Lars von Trier makes a cameo in his movie in exactly just for this scene, by having Ole Michelsen was forced to review a movie that has the director sleeping with his daughter. That's pretty crude. For me, the idea that if someone is broken. I should be able to sympathize with their horrible behavior that demeans a group human beings that are already in an oppressed position to begin with is just no. That ending did nothing for me. I didn't feel sorry for any of them at all. This is not an art for art sakes, or whatever they made up to sound sophisticated movie, it's Z Grade exploitation either desperately trying or pretending to have a meaning. Mange tak, Lars. You made a pretty horrible movie.

Jackson Booth-Millard From director Lars Von Trier (Dogville), I remember seeing this Danish film at least once or twice, but I didn't really know what to think of it, the critics think it is good. Basically it sees a group of young adults, all normal, regular and intelligent people spend time together in a small society to find their "inner idiot". This is to have some kind of entertainment in public pretending to be mentally retarded, taking advantage of the situation with those who fall into believing it. One of the newly recruited members of the group starts out going along with it, but slowly she becomes highly uncomfortable with the stupid activities they are getting themselves into, they are almost becoming what they are pretending to be, retarded. Starring Bodil Jørgensen as Karen, Jens Albinus as Stoffer, Anne Louise Hassing as Susanne, Troels Lyby as Henrik, Nikolaj Lie Kaas as Jeppe, Louise Mieritz as Josephine, Henrik Prip as Ped and Luis Mesonero as Miguel. To be honest the only bit of the film I can ever remember is the part when they are all taking their clothes off, running about naked, and having a near orgy, but I do also remember it having an interesting documentary style, it is a weird comedy drama. Worth watching, at least once, in my opinion!

YellowManReanimated I do not use the title to this review lightly, this film genuinely is that good. Von Trier manages to achieve in this film what visionary and influential directors such as Luis Bunuel, Michael Haneke and Remy Belveux et al have attempted in their own seminal works. Bunuel was extremely controversial for his time but even his most challenging and controversial films such as "L'Age d'or", "Le Discret Charme de la Bourgeosie" and "Belle de Jour" look refined and elegant almost in comparison to the gritty, completely unapologetic cinematic equivalent to a stiff middle finger that von Trier has created here. Belveux, Bonzel and Poelvoorde take cinema to deliciously shocking and extreme levels with "Man Bites Dog" but von Trier shows that there were still frontiers to cross. Haneke shows no mercy with his astonishing accomplishment "Funny Games" but in a sense dulls the belligerence of his movie somewhat by allowing it to be channelled specifically in the direction of desanitising violence and thereby reminding it's audience of it's power and horror, providing a justification for one of the most disturbing films I've seen. This in no way takes away it's power as a film it just makes it less controversial than the almost completely indefensible "The Idiots", which is what I'm here to review.Why is "The Idiots" (Idioterne) possibly one of the greatest films ever made? Simply because it doesn't provide any justification for itself and because it asks for no sympathy, whilst challenging the most deeply cherished and hard clung to values of society. This film essentially mocks mental illness, capitalism and corporations, the institution of the family, death and friendship, essentially almost everything that societies, Western societies perhaps in particular (though not necessarily), are based on. This film tears up the rule book and does what all art attempts to do: find something that these rules are essentially based upon, namely, nature.It is intimated that finding the inner idiot is the way that the characters in this film try to discover their own inner nature but that's only a smoke-screen in terms of what this film is really about. It's not so much that being an idiot brings truth, it brings something much more important: happiness. It is perhaps only for Karen that the two are one and the same. Every character is using the group as a way of making themselves happier. They're left to an extent unstimulated by "normality" and so they use being an idiot as a form of escapism, to provide that little extra that their normal life doesn't cater for. They don't ask themselves about whether what they are doing is moral because they don't care and in presenting this to us von Trier achieves the most powerful thing that art can render, the potential vacuousness of morality in the face of our own happiness. There is nothing objectively moral at all in the world or in our lives, it is a veil, or construct, we use to combat our unhappiness, namely to make ourselves look or feel better than we believe ourselves to be. Morality goes hand in hand with how a society operates and it works well enough for most, but then there are always those who need something else and this is what the group represents, that something else. Von Trier shows us that to appreciate life in a more honest and fundamental way means doing away with certain societal constructs, but of course those societal constructs exist for a reason, ie people want/ need them and the idiots in this film are in similar need of them to greater or lesser extents.Each character is distinctive in the way that they approach their roles as idiots, no doubt most interestingly Karen and so I shall say a little about her character. In Karen we see the stripping down of morality that I talked about in the previous paragraph. Karen is initially extremely resistant to the "philosophies" and behaviour of the group but the longer she spends with the group the more she feels it's impact upon her own life to be genuinely beneficial. The two weeks she spends with the idiots proves to be a genuinely happy one for her where she is able to adjust to the trauma that life has rent upon her. And here we see the power of von Trier's vision, what society would condemn as ghastly, inhuman and despicable is in fact the thing that helps Karen deal with her profound grief. What does it matter that people might say that what she is a part of is wrong if it in fact makes her happy? And when one watches the film to its conclusion one will see the profundity of the dilemma that awaits the many who would no doubt feel differently. The point isn't whether you ultimately agree with the idiots way of life but whether you see the fundamental dilemma that Karen's interaction with the group poses.Karen is not the only character of interest (one of the film's many strengths), I will end this review here though as I could really go on for an extremely long time about this film, from its technical Dogme 95 aspects to the extent that it is comic or tragic, etc. But what really matters here is the fact that the film is relentlessly human and relentlessly honest, something von Trier has a justified reputation for. It is also possibly von Trier's, or any director's, most creative, hilarious and immersive film yet and it is certainly his, and perhaps the, boldest.10/10

Erik Olson After viewing the movie The Idiots, by Lars Von Trier, I found that there were many themes evident in the movie as well as many dogma 95 techniques used as well. The Idiots was an almost documentary-like film about a group of individuals that all were staying in Stoffer's uncles house that he was supposed to be trying to sell. Instead of selling the house he invited over some of his friends and they all decided to find their "inner idiot" by "spassing," also known as acting disabled or more blatantly… retarded. They do this both in public and in Stoffer's house and began to cross the line or make the viewers feel uncomfortable after the scene in the factory. Karen, who we are introduced to in the restaurant in the first scene, begins to find her inner idiot after staying at the house for two weeks and is actually the only one to act like an idiot in front of her family at the end of the movie, which was very surprising to me and I'm sure many other people that viewed this film. Some of the themes I found in this film were as follows: public dysfunction, community, confrontation with inner self, freedom, and retardation. Public dysfunction I found to be the main theme due to the fact that the majority of the movie was based around the group of characters acting retarded in public. Next there was a sense of community on the house and when they performed their stunts or acts in public. Confrontation with inner self was another prevalent theme in the film, because the characters were all on a mission to find their "inner idiot." As the characters tried finding their inner selves, this brought up the theme of freedom and the ability to act and say what the wanted too throughout the film. The last theme was retardation, which the film is built around as they are acting retarded both in public and at Stoffer's uncle's house. The key characters in the film were Stoffer, Karen, Susanne, Katrine, Henrik, Axel, Jeppe, and Josephine. Next I am going to talk about the cinematic techniques utilized throughout the film. Since this is considered a Danish Dogma 95 film, there are certain guidelines and rules that Von Trier had to follow. The most noticeable of the techniques was definitely the usage of hand held cameras. The scene that comes to mind when you can really see this is when they are throwing a spass birthday party for Stoffer and they are all running naked in the yard. Also another scene where it is easy to tell that the cameras are hand held is in the factory when the van is leaving. Each step the factory tour guide takes, the camera bounces along with him. Another prevalent theme is the fact that there was never any music being played in the background of the film. Also, we never saw any weapons or murder because it would have had to have been real. Some background information on the film I found was that the movie takes place in Copenhagen, which is the birthplace of Von Trier. This may be the case because he is afraid of flying and is forced to drive to wherever a movie is being filmed. Also, Von Trier's parents were nudists, so perhaps he was a fan of nudity in films because he was so accustomed to being around naked people and was very comfortable with filming and incorporating nudity into his films. The last piece of background information I found was that this film was written in four days, which on one hand is incredible, but at the same time in my opinion could be why I did not take a liking to the movie at all. Lastly, I am going to talk about my personal opinion about the movie. To begin, I will say that this was one of those movies that I will never set aside two hours to watch ever again. The beginning of the movie was funny up until right after the factory. After the factory scene I felt that the movie was very repetitive and I was having a lot of trouble sitting in my seat. There were a few scenes that were painful to sit through and made me uncomfortable such as the scene where they were hanging out with actual handicapped people and spassing with them, which in my opinion, crossed any ethical lines that had not already been crossed in the film. To continue, I can see why films like these are not available or screened in the United States, because the film was very offensive and emotionally traumatizing. Lastly, however, I thought the acting was very good and I was impressed with how the actors were able to keep their composer and not laugh while spassing in public. In conclusion, the film The Idiots was a unique film with an interesting plot, but I would never watch the movie again in the future. If I had to recommend the movie to another individual, I would say that it is a movie you can watch once, but will probably never watch again.