Epidemic (1987)

The Worst Film Ever

Simply A Masterpiece

Powerful

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

"Epidemic" is, at its heart of hearts, a movie about making movies. As such it challenges the relation between fiction and reality. The two are not statically established realms, self contained in their clearly contained functional domains but they are dynamically interacting at all levels and at all times. The result is a movie in which the narrative structure is dual and of a meandering nature, climaxing in what could be a merge between a programmed project that involves human intellectual intervention- the movie within the movie- and the outbreak of a natural phenomenon with its catastrophic consequences- the epidemic.Styllistically, "Epidemic" is very much a Lars Trier movie and it shows. From the apparently disconnected flow of scenes to mix of gritty realism with allegory, the director imprints his very personal mark in all elements of "Epidemic". Its very structure attests to this and the imagery reflects it in a very overt manner. "Epidemic" seems to be a playing ground of sorts in which Lars von Trier experiments as much as possible and in trying different things creates a diverse mismatch of scenes that not always work completely well together although they create an atmosphere.As the process of coalescence between "fiction" and "reality" (this reality being, of course, fictional in itself which adds another layer of complexity and challenges the very notion of the third and fourth walls) heightens the narrative frame shrinks from the stage that is Europe to a small room. The claustrophobia of the later phase of the movie bring the full impact of the plague to the viewer's attention via a limited sample of the population that permits a personal experience of it all.Much like Bergman's "The Seventh Seal", the plague in question is to be read on many levels and very much like the Swedish director's movie, "Epidemic" is not for everyone. Those who find it interesting, however, may have a strangely riveting experience upon watching this clearly unconventional movie that pushes many borders even if does not do so in a completely coherent manner.

The idea of the film is great. Mixing the creation of a movie and his viewing. It's done in a very ambitious way, incredibly sophisticated and elegant when we know the budget who was assigned to the movie.A lot of scenes are incredible, specially the one who shows the contamination of the priest, adding a reflection on the condition of the black man. Obviously the last scene is one of the most incredible things I've seen on a screen, but we can doubt the mental health of Von Trier and his crew. However maybe it's the reason he's so good...I didn't like a few things. I think there is too much time about the creation of the movie, a few ridiculous and unappropriated moments as the story of the American letters of Niels

Look, I know a substantial proportion of the American population get a little hot under the collar when funny-talking foreigners start criticising the American government and way of life, but hey - when you're the only country in the world inclined to and capable of dictation of world policy, you gotta take it on the chin. While Von Trier even makes me wince sometimes (the end credits to Dogville for instance), it's his point of view and is worthy of thought. He isn't here to lick your derrière clean for you - if you can't take a little criticism of the homeland, I'd steer clear of any imported movies for a while. Anyhoo, when truly disrespectful films like Titanic break records and reap awards with nary a raised eyebrow, it's double standards to expect non-US films to walk the line you'd like. Von Trier is a genius film-maker... you may not agree with his politics, but you cannot doubt his talent.

So what? Maybe we should come to the conclusion that he/she who teases evil is destined to be hit by it. But I don't like this film. I didn't like its joking evolution and disapprove the final, never-ending, gore scene where the young hypnotized girl's sufferance, a prologue to everybody else's, is depicted in a hard-hitting monologue. It reminded me of a similar scene seen in the contorted, convolved "Baby of Macon" (the film that signed the end of my love for Greenaway) and I hated it, notwithstanding the evident difference, that being a scene of external violence while this is more a self-inflicted violence scene. The only appreciable side of the film is the grainy black and white used: too few, ain't it? And as far as I found "Breaking the waves" terribly boring either, the score is 2 thumbs-down out of 2 for Von Trier.