Recently I watched my first ever Lars Von Trier movie. The now infamous director has some incredibly controversial films under his belt. Films like AntiChrist, Melancholia, and Nymphomaniac. And The House that Jack built follows in these other films controversial footsteps. It's A film that is no holds barred in a number of ways. It's incredibly violent and disturbing, depicting extreme violence against children, animals, women, etc. Which, on its own, would be unacceptable by today's standards but the film is all about A serial killer that fancies himself an abstract artist. Which oddly enough, describes Von Trier himself, but we'll get into that in a moment. The film tells the story of Jack, a serial killer that recounts 5 of his life-defining killings over a 12 year period. the film is full of inner monologues, parrels between art and life, and characters discussing the details of art. So obviously this movie is going to be quiet divisive. Some people will love this movies no holds barred attitude. But others will undoubtedly despise it for the same reasons. As for me, I'm unfortunately on the fence, which is apparently a place Lars doesn't want anyone to be. Again, something I'll address soon. The biggest reason I'm on the fence with this film isn't because of its violent nature or even the highly disturbing aspects it has. In fact I love these aspects of the film. I love how violent and unrestricted it is. I love the main characters attempts and failures at being an artist. The biggest reason this fails for me is Lars Von Trier himself. Again, I haven't seen anything else he's done but I definitely recognize his work. I think this film is a special breed of Pretentious though. Which isn't a word I use to describe many films because I don't think many films are as undeniably full of themselves as this one is. There are an innumerable amount examples I can point to that prove this point. Whether it's Lars putting clips FROM HIS OWN MOVIES in this film as the main character talks about what makes good, long-lasting art. Or him crediting himself in a number of different roles like the House of Corpses concept creator. Just from watching this film I found it to be incredibly clear that this man is an egotistical maniac that just can't help but constantly pat himself on the back. But this kind of ego is something I'm not sure I've ever seen before so after watching the film I felt compelled to do a ludicrous amount of research on this man. And what I found turned this vividly clear portrait of an ego crazy maniac a bit muddy. The more I dug into the man, the more I realized that this man is a weirdo. He's a social outcast that struggles with anxiety, depression, and social situations in general. He gets flustered under the spotlight incredibly easy and often says a bunch of stupid things that he doesn't mean. Like that time he said he was a Nazi and that he understands Hitler. So how can this man be so amazingly pretentious while simultaneously being a clear social outcast? Well I think the answer is hidden in The House that Jack Built. He's said that the film has a lot of him in it which is something that can be said for all his films. From what I understand, his other films balance themes of Nihilism, depression, and dark humor just as this film does. But unlike Antichrist or any number of his other works, The House that Jack Built isn't about a theme or a message. It's about him. Where his other works merely reflected who he was, I think this film is just about him entirely. I think Jack is a character modeled after himself. Jack is a serial killer that wants to be an artist who suffers from obvious mental illnesses like OCD. There's a scene in the film when Jack murders a lady in her own home. But before he can leave he is forced by his own brain to clean and re-clean a number of times before he is satisfied. But slowly, over time this OCD side of him wears away and he begins to take more risks with his "art". He is also constantly talking to what we think is a voice in his head about art, engineering, and why he feels compelled to kill. I think this reflects Von Trier and his own artistic endeavors. He's always been an incredibly provocative filmmaker but, at first, he was making films with a message. Which was his personal form of art. But each movie up until now seems to find him pushing the boundaries further and further, trying to see what he can get away with. Now, he has completely dropped the facade of movie making. Now he is simply making movies because it makes HIM feel good. He no longer has an interest in entertaining or making people feel what he feels. All he wants now is to make himself feel good. The parallel between Jack and Von Trier in this way is very obvious. At first, Jack is killing people because he believes his vision will change the world but over time he begins to realize that he is a failure and continues to kill people simply because it's all he knows. After 12 years of killing people, Jack has nothing left in his life but killing. There's a scene in the film where Jack describes killing and how he feels great as he does it but the euphoria of killing quickly turns into pain. And when the pain is at it's most intense he must kill again. I think this is how von Trier feels towards his films at this point. He's said that making movies is both easy and his form of therapy. So if he is a victim of his own mind as it seems he is, this metaphor of having to create or being in constant pain feels like it applies to his work. And the back forth that Jack has with Verge seems to be Von Triers own thoughts going back and forth. Should he say this? Should he do that? Of course, this is all speculation on my part but it makes sense to me. It makes sense that Von Trier views himself as a serial killer of sorts. He is undoubtedly a controversial figure and perhaps he feels that he won't fully be understood until he goes to hell. I think if you view the film through this lens it's an incredibly compelling character study. The problem is that the film shouldn't be about him. Great art is when the artist can communicate something that resonates with people or demands change in some way. But The House That Jack Built doesn't do this. Instead, it seems to only exist because Lars needed people to look at him again. He wanted the spotlight back on him so desperately that he made a piece of art about him making a piece of art. Which doesn't resonate with me nor does it demand change. He doesn't leave room in the film for the audience to see anything in but himself. And that doesn't step you forward as an artist. If anything that catapults you backward. For a film that so extensively discusses art Lars displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what art truly is and why it's so valuable.
Review of The House That Jack Built
