The Idiots (1998)

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

"The Idiots" is an absolutely interesting film to watch, not because of its obedience of the so called Dogme 95 manifesto but because it raises a lot of questions and challenges us with its not so much hidden political agenda to rethink the authenticity of our predefined social and moral codes. This is a study of how we choose to explore our inner idiots and external social tensions that follow these choices.The film follows a group of young people living together and impersonating mentally retarded people as an attempt to find their inner idiots and thus achieving true happiness, they do so in public places and when they're home and around each other and there are moments that they do actually seem genuinely happy but new circumstances appear that confronts them and us as viewers to serious questions about the morality of their acts and weather they deserve happiness under these terms or not. "The Idiots" is really about something. It introduces characters that we get to know and it has them ask bold questions and make an effort to find out the answers, even if there turns out to be none. What Von Trier does not only in "The idiots" but in some of his other films as well is to create these well thought, harmonious sets in the first half of the film only to dismantle and fall them apart in the second half where reality shows up and hidden brutal layers of their respective worlds can't help to leak in. The movie starts as what we think is a satire of bourgeoisie and middle class values by a group of bohemians but it goes on to being a satire of both groups, although it shows more compassion towards the latter, no matter how unconventional their methods are to reach some sort of peace and happiness. Everything falls apart only when they try to apply to their group the same despicable middle class principles that they were escaping from in the first place, by trying to assign winners and losers, who is a good spasser and who is not, who is more serious about this and who isn't, basically by asking all the wrong questions. On the other hand, this is only Stoffer's and maybe partly Axel's part of the story and his point of view and his take on this experience, he is the one hating the bourgeoisie, we don't really hear about the other's motivations until nearly the end of the film. The artist is there because he thinks it will help him become a better artist, the doctor is there to experiment, Josephine is using as a substitute to her medications, other's might be just playing around and Karen as it turns out by hiding out in the idiots world is trying to cope with the harsh reality of her life, the loss of her child. I think this lack of consensus is crucial towards understanding this film and characters and their final separation. The film can also be viewed as a social critic on the society's hypocratic behavior towards the mentally retarded, well maybe not in a traditional sense. The idiots are always taken care of and never disrespected by the people. Denmark is a state that takes care of everyone and this is visible through the entire movie but there's one thing that is hard to ignore and that is this sense of awkwardness and discomfort and embarrassment that they cause for the normal society anywhere they go, even there are is someone coming and offering them money to move to somewhere else, the couple who come to buy the house is obviously distraught and wants to get out of the situation as fast as possible, so is everybody else, the only person that they encounter and shows them love and compassion and not just pity is Karen who goes with them and joins them.

After viewing the movie The Idiots, by Lars Von Trier, I found that there were many themes evident in the movie as well as many dogma 95 techniques used as well. The Idiots was an almost documentary-like film about a group of individuals that all were staying in Stoffer's uncles house that he was supposed to be trying to sell. Instead of selling the house he invited over some of his friends and they all decided to find their "inner idiot" by "spassing," also known as acting disabled or more blatantly… retarded. They do this both in public and in Stoffer's house and began to cross the line or make the viewers feel uncomfortable after the scene in the factory. Karen, who we are introduced to in the restaurant in the first scene, begins to find her inner idiot after staying at the house for two weeks and is actually the only one to act like an idiot in front of her family at the end of the movie, which was very surprising to me and I'm sure many other people that viewed this film. Some of the themes I found in this film were as follows: public dysfunction, community, confrontation with inner self, freedom, and retardation. Public dysfunction I found to be the main theme due to the fact that the majority of the movie was based around the group of characters acting retarded in public. Next there was a sense of community on the house and when they performed their stunts or acts in public. Confrontation with inner self was another prevalent theme in the film, because the characters were all on a mission to find their "inner idiot." As the characters tried finding their inner selves, this brought up the theme of freedom and the ability to act and say what the wanted too throughout the film. The last theme was retardation, which the film is built around as they are acting retarded both in public and at Stoffer's uncle's house. The key characters in the film were Stoffer, Karen, Susanne, Katrine, Henrik, Axel, Jeppe, and Josephine. Next I am going to talk about the cinematic techniques utilized throughout the film. Since this is considered a Danish Dogma 95 film, there are certain guidelines and rules that Von Trier had to follow. The most noticeable of the techniques was definitely the usage of hand held cameras. The scene that comes to mind when you can really see this is when they are throwing a spass birthday party for Stoffer and they are all running naked in the yard. Also another scene where it is easy to tell that the cameras are hand held is in the factory when the van is leaving. Each step the factory tour guide takes, the camera bounces along with him. Another prevalent theme is the fact that there was never any music being played in the background of the film. Also, we never saw any weapons or murder because it would have had to have been real. Some background information on the film I found was that the movie takes place in Copenhagen, which is the birthplace of Von Trier. This may be the case because he is afraid of flying and is forced to drive to wherever a movie is being filmed. Also, Von Trier's parents were nudists, so perhaps he was a fan of nudity in films because he was so accustomed to being around naked people and was very comfortable with filming and incorporating nudity into his films. The last piece of background information I found was that this film was written in four days, which on one hand is incredible, but at the same time in my opinion could be why I did not take a liking to the movie at all. Lastly, I am going to talk about my personal opinion about the movie. To begin, I will say that this was one of those movies that I will never set aside two hours to watch ever again. The beginning of the movie was funny up until right after the factory. After the factory scene I felt that the movie was very repetitive and I was having a lot of trouble sitting in my seat. There were a few scenes that were painful to sit through and made me uncomfortable such as the scene where they were hanging out with actual handicapped people and spassing with them, which in my opinion, crossed any ethical lines that had not already been crossed in the film. To continue, I can see why films like these are not available or screened in the United States, because the film was very offensive and emotionally traumatizing. Lastly, however, I thought the acting was very good and I was impressed with how the actors were able to keep their composer and not laugh while spassing in public. In conclusion, the film The Idiots was a unique film with an interesting plot, but I would never watch the movie again in the future. If I had to recommend the movie to another individual, I would say that it is a movie you can watch once, but will probably never watch again.

Lars Von Trier's The Idiots paints an ambitious and grotesque idea and goes all the way with it. It is a film that is as much about the audience as it is about itself, which is a rare thing in motion pictures today. The only question left is whether or not it is worth your time to watch it or not. In my opinion if you want to see a film all about horrible people doing repulsive things in order to express themselves in a distanced and disabled state then you might get something out of this film. I felt that Lars Von Trier's attempts to tackle this type of subject matter are no doubt valiant and I definitely feel that it is something that few filmmakers seem to go out of their way to avoid doing. My problem is in his choice of presenting this idea. The film follows a group of middle aged folks who decide to lose their sense of dignity and become uninhibited in virtually all of their activities.I already have a problem with the film simply starting with the premise. The premise is based on the ideas surrounding self-expression of choice versus the exaggerated statement of attempted self-fulfillment. What bothers me is that these people don't do this simply out of convenience, rage, or insanity. Each and every one of these people do this by choice. Perhaps this was done on purpose in order to be offensive, which would be okay if the film justified itself through it's imagery and it's characters. Unfortunately, the film avoids doing that by not allowing the audience to accept the fact that these characters do not understand moral fiber and thus he betrays the own idea by not displaying his stance. In a different film I can see Lars Von Trier doing this, but what gets in the way here is the unreasonably strict Danish film law called "Dogme #95" that forces the director to purposefully betray even the most subtle form of conventional film making in order to purify the idea behind the film and the film's ability or inability to be absorbent based on it's view-ability. A good film can be made from this technique, but not a film like this with this sense of ambition and possible transgression. I think in order for a film of this caliber to work you need a sense of vision, which is what The Idiots lacks the most. It has no feeling of personality, entertainment value, scope, or creativity. The characters in it are creative in their interests behind what they are doing, but there isn't any sort of hope for any of them. They are all disgusting horrible people and you feel far too distanced from them to be able to get involved in their activities. Again, perhaps this was done intentionally, and again, it is not justified.I think what bothers me the most about The Idiots is belittling it is to it's audience. For how weak the film is, there is some genuine emotion on display here that is undeniable. The film does try to confront a lot of these emotions in a very original way, and I really like that. However, the film also demoralizes the potential rawness of these scenes by avoiding letting in any fluidity. The film suffers from too much plot, ironically, in it's pacing and it becomes uneven and not really fulfilling as a whole when it does in small fragments. The film does not feel disjointed and it has a head on it's shoulders, and ironically that's what gets in the way the most. The film gave me a headache. It could have easily been about a bunch of people running around acting and and engaging in freakish behavior and it could have had a lot more life to it had it been that way, but instead it strives for too much and as a result delivers little. For a film that contains extended sequences of unsimulated sex, that is saying A LOT. I can easily see many viewers getting more than I did out of the film, and I can understand that. I think my issues have a lot to do with director Lars Von Trier's presentation. Lars Von Trier is among one of the most challenging and twisted filmmakers today. His films require ambition and emotion behind the camera as well as in front of it. A lot of great films require this. However, because of the limiting factors behind the film's technique, Lars Von Trier's attempt is cut short by the film's monumental inward destruction toward convention rather than invention. The Idiots is perhaps one of the worst examples of limitation behind the camera interfering with the potential life in front of the camera. The film has the making of an independent masterpiece. The film's dialogue is improvised, the film evokes a lot of anger in it's imagery, and the final five minutes are quietly affecting. Despite what I have been saying, I do not fault Lars Von Trier for the result. Ultimately, I fault the idea of the film itself. Imagine, for a second, if this film wasn't filmed in Dogme #95. I don't think that anybody would have liked it. I think that Lars Von Trier's public film-making career would have been over. The end result, ironically, could have been far more offensive and troubling than it already is. At least with this style the film gives fans of low-budget cinema something to digest. It may not work, but at least it's very existence shows that Lars Von Trier is the real deal. I'm thankful for that.(For an extended version of this comment, as well as other comments like this, visit www.cuddercityfilmchronicles.blogspot.com).

I think Lars Von Trier ranks among the best filmmakers as I found his 'Breaking The Waves', 'Dancer In The Dark' and 'Dogville' to be exceptional films of a class apart. Then, I saw 'Idioterne'. I liked the story idea where a group of people form a cult and disobey social rules. However, the telling of it failed to impress me on any level. The execution is very amateur. While the intention of the shaky camera was to give the viewer a feel of being a voyeuristic outsider, in some shots you could actually see the microphone. There are some very explicit and pointless pornographic scenes merely put for shock value. I don't mind shock value as long as it's relevant to the story but what was the need to show a penis or sexual intercourse (where you can actually see penetration)? The acting is quite bad with the exception of Bodil Jørgensen who is terrific as the tormented Karen. Many seem to like the film because of the provocative theme and because it's 'different'. But is that all that makes a movie good?