My favorite story about Lars von Trier was told by Paul Bettany on a talk show. He says that he flew to Europe where von Trier picked him up in person from the airport. On the way, they stopped at a quickie mart. "I have to stop and pick up some things" said von Trier. Inside, Bettany was surprised to find von Trier stacking up pornographic magazines. "Want some?" he asked. Bettany declined.
The director paid for his purchase, and they drove straight to the hotel where Bettany was to meet co-star Nicole Kidman. The two men entered Bettany's hotel room, von Trier still carrying his stack of magazines. A minute later, Kidman showed up, and von Trier said something to the effect of "Paul, this is Nicole. Nicole, this is Paul--he made me stop on the way from the airport and buy some pornography. I'll be right back." and then he left the room.
Bettany was thunderstruck, and started explaining to Kidman what had happened--that this was not his pornography, when they both heard a noise and turned to see von Trier on the balcony observing them.
I picture von Trier as a sadistic manipulator acting out his own insecurities by forcing emotion into other people through melodrama. Bettany's story showed that it was more than in the movies that von Trier does this, and the Five Obstructions reinforces that idea. Von Trier is petulant and pouty that his mentor could take this ridiculous limitations and turn them into compelling films.
But as the film goes, you realize that the petulance has a reason--the pouting has its own logic. It's not merely von Trier's professional jealousy urging him to challenge Jorgen Leth (although, it would seem, that's in their as well). He may be simply playing the part of the sadistic manipulator, but I actually think that's just a part of who he is. Like all of us, he's contradictory and complex. Large and full of multitudes.
Which makes the finished revisions on The Perfect Human so fascinating. All art, I would argue, thrives with restrictions. Every medium has its rules that regulate what you may or may not do--from as simple as the physics of light and color, to the constrains of a canvas, or a formal dogma about technique (but please, young artists, stop writing goddamned manifestos, and just do the work. That's all you need). Von Trier, who limits himself in somewhat idealistic and ridiculous ways (dogme 95, not flying), knows this, and provides some shelter to his mentor who, so it would seem, approaches life more directly. When asked to shoot in the a depressing place, Leth immediately thinks of the red light district in Bombay. I would wager that most people, when confronted with such a question, would not have first hand knowledge of such miserable places.
Most interesting to me was the transformation of confidence in Leth, although he's always a cool cat. But with each successive victory in his filming puffs his chest a bit larger, and he seems to almost be at ease with himself more. Because of this, and the previously mentioned sadistic manipulation, the last obstruction was totally appropriate. But just to attribute it to those two things would be only assigning it subtext, when the text of it is obvious and true: the whole film is a love letter from one filmmaker to another, and an unabashed appreciation for what a true artist can create when willing to be open to challenge.
Where we saw it: DVD | We deign to rate it: 88 outta 100