The Five Obstructions is a film based on a dialogue and a set of filmic exercises between two Danish filmmakers, Lars Von Trier (Dancer in the Dark, Breaking the Waves) and Jorgen Leth (The Perfect Human). The former was once the student of the latter, and though this relationship is partially intact, the film is framed around these roles being reversed and around pedagogical exercises assigned to Leth by Von Trier. The aging, though less acclaimed Leth is asked to remake his one applauded film The Perfect Human with sets of rules or obstructions as decided by Von Trier.
Though this film leaps back and forth between non-fiction and fiction. The two filmmakers, with their complex relationship in a juggle, are juxtaposed with the film(s) they critique, and when they are face to face there is an element of honesty and reality that outreaches many documentary films I have seen in the past. Lars Von Trier is well known in the international film circuit and has a bright future ahead of him, but his old master Jorgen Leth cannot say the same and this film exposes Leth's vulnerabilities and awareness of his own mortality and sense of success.
I felt a great deal of empathy towards both characters when viewing this film, especially for Leth, who is partially victimized and backhandedly revered by his old student. This framework of working within strict and often arbitrarily chosen boundaries is a space I have worked within and have flourished in. Interestingly, Leth found himself in a similar position and as each obstruction was presented he was increasingly prepared to tackle it. There are so many poignant moments of painful self-examination and criticism for Leth within this piece that it may be uncomfortable for the viewer to watch, but with each obstruction being hurtled over, it leaves the viewer almost proud of the elder filmmaker for saving himself from further victimization.
This film pushes conventions by strictly adhering to Von Trier's film movement "Dogma '95" which too has a set of rules such as using only available light, hand-held cameras only, no artificial music or voice-overs, filmed in color and at a 4:3 ratio, etc. But also the norm is challenged by promoting perverse reflexivity and intense introspection reflexivity not just being an aspect or technique in the film, but instead the heart of the film itself. We learn by watching it, that the obstructions are put in place to 'leave their mark' on Jorgen Leth to change him and his process in a fundamental way. Indeed Leth was forced to stretch his own process and notions of film-making aspects that emerge over time as we watch the film but we also we learn much about Von Trier through the fifth of the five remade films and we are forced to rethink these already changing notions of film-making once again.
The film implemented many smart editing choices. Though we are given a small piece of Jorgen Leth's film The Perfect Human in the beginning of this film, the rest of his film and it's various theses are given to the viewer in small clips as we get to know Leth as a person. This is effective in not only defining Leth by his quintessential work, but also the other way around. By seeing how Leth made his film in 1967, and then how he chooses to remake it in 2003, we get a sense not only of the changed landscape and shifting ideals in film-making, but more importantly we get to see how Leth's ideals and explorations of humanity change.
The film makes me realize what limitations can be when trying to progress. There is something poetic about this irony, particularly when this film lingers in my mind.
Though this film leaps back and forth between non-fiction and fiction. The two filmmakers, with their complex relationship in a juggle, are juxtaposed with the film(s) they critique, and when they are face to face there is an element of honesty and reality that outreaches many documentary films I have seen in the past. Lars Von Trier is well known in the international film circuit and has a bright future ahead of him, but his old master Jorgen Leth cannot say the same and this film exposes Leth's vulnerabilities and awareness of his own mortality and sense of success.
I felt a great deal of empathy towards both characters when viewing this film, especially for Leth, who is partially victimized and backhandedly revered by his old student. This framework of working within strict and often arbitrarily chosen boundaries is a space I have worked within and have flourished in. Interestingly, Leth found himself in a similar position and as each obstruction was presented he was increasingly prepared to tackle it. There are so many poignant moments of painful self-examination and criticism for Leth within this piece that it may be uncomfortable for the viewer to watch, but with each obstruction being hurtled over, it leaves the viewer almost proud of the elder filmmaker for saving himself from further victimization.
This film pushes conventions by strictly adhering to Von Trier's film movement "Dogma '95" which too has a set of rules such as using only available light, hand-held cameras only, no artificial music or voice-overs, filmed in color and at a 4:3 ratio, etc. But also the norm is challenged by promoting perverse reflexivity and intense introspection reflexivity not just being an aspect or technique in the film, but instead the heart of the film itself. We learn by watching it, that the obstructions are put in place to 'leave their mark' on Jorgen Leth to change him and his process in a fundamental way. Indeed Leth was forced to stretch his own process and notions of film-making aspects that emerge over time as we watch the film but we also we learn much about Von Trier through the fifth of the five remade films and we are forced to rethink these already changing notions of film-making once again.
The film implemented many smart editing choices. Though we are given a small piece of Jorgen Leth's film The Perfect Human in the beginning of this film, the rest of his film and it's various theses are given to the viewer in small clips as we get to know Leth as a person. This is effective in not only defining Leth by his quintessential work, but also the other way around. By seeing how Leth made his film in 1967, and then how he chooses to remake it in 2003, we get a sense not only of the changed landscape and shifting ideals in film-making, but more importantly we get to see how Leth's ideals and explorations of humanity change.
The film makes me realize what limitations can be when trying to progress. There is something poetic about this irony, particularly when this film lingers in my mind.