Film The Five Obstructions

[ForEverAfter]

Lars von Trier is my favourite director, by far. Nobody else is anywhere near him. Not sure if anyone saw the original "The Five Obstructions"... I was lucky enough to see it in a film festival, around the time of it's original release.

Two famous Danish directors (Lars von Trier & Jorgen Leth) remake the same film five times, with increasingly difficult restrictions on how and what they are allowed to shoot and how they are allowed to edit the films. It's very Dogme.

Anyway, I recently found out that they're doing a remake, with Martin Scorsese replacing Leth. I'd love to see this happen. It's difficult to find recent information about it, though. Has this project fallen apart?

The original film (simply titled The Five Obstructions) is a classic and a film like no other. It's very difficult to find a legal copy of it, but von Trier has stated repeatedly that he doesn't care about piracy. So, just download it and check it out!

 

[TouchN' Stuff Blvd]

I am curious why you liked this film so much? I found it interesting, not exactly enjoyable, I would watch a new one if he made it, but have never recommended the first one to anyone. I could relate to Jorgen Leth's experience being frustrated and inspired simultaneously by the limitations put on what he could work with. I don't work in film but I think that applies to any artistic creation. But I feel maybe he presented this concept of creativity responding to obstacles as the subject of the entire film, and after what felt like a very long time I did not feel I had gained much new perspective on it.
I did not really care too much for the film Leth was remaking, that probably did not aid me in getting into this film. I did however enjoy how much of an ass Lars comes off as in this film though. It actually suits him and his provocative artistic intentions quite well.
But hey check this out, the New one is going to be a remake of Taxi Driver, with some obstructions? Link is at the bottom. Weird....

http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/15776/lars-von-trier-robert-deniro-and-martin-scorsese-collaborating-on-new-taxi-driver/#axzz3DrcrYqgN

 

[ForEverAfter]

I am curious why you liked this film so much?

Actually, I never quantified how much I liked the original. I will say, again, however, it is a film like no other. And, with the plethora of recycled ideas/characters/plot-lines floating around, I found it to be a refreshing change of pace. I'm a fan of Dogme, and other forms of experimental film-making. With "Obstructions", you get to see both the results of the experiments and the experimental process. It has a sort of desperate "Lost in La Mancha" feel to it, at times.

As far as typical entertainment goes, you're right, the dynamic between Leth and von Trier was amusing. And, again, you're right, it's interesting to see the camera turned on von Trier. He certainly is an arrogant little fucker. But, I kind of like him.

But, that is not what makes this film worth watching. It's an important film - for me - because it is unique, and it offers an otherwise inaccessible insight into the weird world of art-house Danish film-making. The Five Obstructions, although not a traditionally entertaining narrative film, resonated with me immensely.

I'd absolutely love them to do the same thing with Taxi Driver. The link you provided, however, is an article from 2010. I can't find anything post 2011 about the project, so I fear it may have been cancelled or back-shelved... Hopefully not, though.

 

[jpgrdnr]

He makes movies that are hard to watch. I can't get past the fact that he is screwing with the viewers' sensibilities. I liked Dogville and Dancer in the Dark. Despised Antichrist. Melancholia was trippy, but on a rewatch couldn't get past the rich elitism of the characters. Its more art film then film as entertainment. One thing he isn't is subtle. And it isn't casual viewing.

I could see strong comparisons to Requiem For A Dream and Lynch, ie. Eraserhead.

If anything I could see Scorsese and Trier having a lot in common. The Last Temptation of Christ was fairly controversial as was Taxi Driver for Jodie Foster being so young. And the whole Cape Fear thing with De Niro and Juliette Lewis.

Goodfellas is a personal fave of mine. And Mean Streets really is a hidden gem. Taxi Driver and Raging Bull are masterpieces of American Film. Taxi Driver has become a bit cliched over the years, but its really hard to find equal in American Noir. He captures Travis Bickel's descent into hell so well.

Personally, though Kubrick and Ridley Scott have them both beat. Even Tarantino really. Pulp Fiction never gets old.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Fair enough. Von Trier is certainly not everyone's cup of tea. His films are definitely difficult to digest, sometimes, but I think that's because they differ so much from the norm. In my opinion, he has never made a bad film.

Ridley Scott, on the other hand, has made close to a dozen. In fact, he's only made one movie that deserves to be mentioned as great (IMO) and that was Alien in 1979. Bladerunner is inferior to Do Androids, and is over-rated. It's stylish. But it's intermittently slow and dull.

Tarantino directs live action cartoons. He's the best at what he does, but it's not really fair to compare Larry David to Picasso.

Von Trier is a better film-maker than Scorsese, in my opinion, because he takes more chances. He has more range. Scorsese gets really boring for me. There are only so many films I can see with the same/similar cast, about New Yorkers. Same thing goes for Oliver Stone. They're kind of obsessed. Scorsese has tried to step out of his comfort zone, with projects like Kundun and The King of Comedy, but they're never quite as impressive as his "gangsta" films.

I don't like Taxi Driver all that much. I used to, when I cared about what I was supposed to like in order to save face. Travis is a flat character. His descent is almost silent, which works for the film. But I certainly wouldn't say that it's one of the great moments in cinematic history. Raging Bull is a much better film than Taxi Driver, but it's an experimental largely-improvised pseudo-biopic. It's great for what it is. It is an accomplished piece of film-making, but it's not a nice film to watch - on any level - for me, anyway.

You could argue that Scorsese has better directorial abilities, and maybe he does.

But von Trier is the superior artist.

Kubrick is a better contender, I reckon. A Clockwork Orange and Doctor Strangelove are among the best films ever made. But, he's not a perfect director either. The end of 2001 was laughable. The second half of Full Metal Jacket was forgettable. And Spartacus was a piece of shit.

(The only thing Trier has directed that I didn't like was the Danish film, "The Boss of it All".)

 

[L2R]

von trier is a true artist. scorsese is pop art in comparison. i genuinely love most of both of their works, but for very different reasons. i also entirely agree that he's better compared with kubrick. imo stanley edges him out in skill due to the variety of his work, and his shot perfectionism. lars does fantastic imagery, but in peaks or major moments. whereas stanley tends to work on each and every shot to be a work of art. he was originally an award winning photographer, after all. lynch is a slightly more distant comparison when it comes to visuals, but his sound work is superior to all of the above imo.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I've heard that Kubrick spent an enormous amount of time re-editing Strangelove over and over again in years leading up to his death. Apparently, he was never satisfied with any cut... Not sure if that's true, but he definitely comes across as a perfectionist.

 

[L2R]

yeah he's well known for doing way too many takes. the actors just go over and over and over until they really lose themselves to the parts. it's not uncommon for his productions to go way over time. have you seen barry lyndon? the whole thing is like a living oil painting.