Which director or cinematic artist do you prefer: Gaspar Noe or Lars Von Trier? Is one far more instrumental than the other in ideas, themes or styles or are they equal in talent and ambition in their ability to make artistically controversial films which seem to ‘divide the critics’?
When it comes to artistically controversial films, I think Noe is the man.
Well, Antichrist and Enter the Void both premiered at Cannes in 2009. And Antichrist seemed to get much more attention, at least in terms of controversy. Personally, I think von Trier is light years ahead of Noe in terms of ideas. I also think that in regards to technical abilities, there is no comparison. It would be like comparing Stanley Kubrick to Nora Ephron.
Or like comparing a potato with an egg.
I can’t stand either of them
….von Trier is light years ahead of Noe in terms of ideas. I also think that in regards to technical abilities, there is no comparison.
I could side with that as a gross generalization. If the ‘idea’ is pushing the medium around Noe is no slouch and Trier has done some interesting things with the medium as well.
I’m not sure either is far ahead of the other in terms of artistically controversial films.
That seems to be a content based question – people react more to the content rather than the meaning to be found in the form/structure.
I think Antichrist and Enter the Void were both the top of Noe’s & Trier’s formalistic style.
It’s really difficult to judge Noe as a director, because of the few films he has directed, only 3 and 1 of them was an excuse to win money for his masterpiece. That makes only 2 films.
Lars von Trier..
Even though I believe that Von Trier is quite a complex artist Noe has a lot to share in the sense that mainstream audiences are going to miss the point of his films. That’s a given. Wouldn’t that be identical for Von Trier because I think they are very artistic and most moviegoers fail to understand that. Maybe their ideas or stylistic methods of working are abstract?
I like them equally.
Von Trier, though I’m not really a fan of either. I think that Noe gets carried away with potential of being a shock artist. Though Von Trier does as well, he has reigned himself in a few times (Dogville, Melacholia, The Five Obstructions). Enter the Void was a big step forward for Noe though.
Are we saying Enter the Void is more artistically controversial (shocking) than Dogville?
Not necessarily. Both are shocking. I just respect Dogville more.
I vote for Noe. His films get to the heart of the human condition, while Von Trier’s just seem to condemn and criticize the human condition. I feel invigorated by Noe, let down by VT, with one exception – Dogville, but that’s mainly due to the style in which it is done.
I respect Noe’s movies much more than Trier’s. Because it seems Trier has mastered his craft to the point of being able to tackle any subject and turning it into an unforgettable, emotionally draining experience that is ultimately, almost effortlessly masterful. Noe is a struggling, flawed filmmaker who has amazing ambition and puts everything on the line. He is not very intellectual, which makes it that much better to watch his works. With I Stand Alone, it is just an ugly vision of everything. Irreversible was similiar, but it did not deny that happiness exists in this f’d up world. Enter The Void, as overlong and flawed as it sometimes is, is a fascinating mixture of everything. I’m saddened more people haven’t seen it, i’ve been trying to get the word around on other sites and been recommending it to film critics.