Simon B
Please do not read this before watching the movie as I do not want to spoil anybody.
I just finished von Trier‘s Europe trilogy, having started with The Element of crime, followed by Europe and finally by Epidemic. Only Europe can be regarded as a more or less traditional film. The other two are very experimental and should be regarded as such. If you watch Epidemic expecting traditional cinema, you‘ll be confused and disappointed. Personally I liked the movie though.
First of all it is made as if it was an apparently random documentary accompanying von Trier and his colleague whilst working on a script for their assuemed latest movie. Visually this effect is realized by the continuous camera shakes indicating manual filming as we know it from von Triers other films. This offers an „insight“ into a filmmaker‘s work.
Secondly: If you know von Trier‘s work, you‘ll find actors like Udo Kier that „seemingly do not act“ and appear to play themselves. Even more interesting than Kier for me was Michael Phillip Simpson. He is playing the doctor from Haiti in von Trier‘s series the ghosts. In Epidemic he does not play himself, but is seen one time as a random taxi driver, which is supposed to bring von Trier to his destination, but which can‘t as he bursts out in a bizarre laughter. Then though, he is seen „as an actor“ in the scenes representing the envisioned film von Trier is working on. To sum it up: If you are familiar with von Trier‘s other works you‘ll probably appreciate this „fake look behind the curtain“ with these familiar faces.
This brings me to the last point I liked about the film. Von Trier uses the effect of mise en abyme: Epidemic is a movie inside of a documentary inside of a movie, all connected through the topic of the epidemic. We see very suttle indicators that in this documented apparent normal daily life of the two writers something is terribly wrong and only in the end we realize what it was. Then, secondly, we mainly see these writers, one of them von Trier, at their work, writing a movie script called Epidemic, for which they for example travel to Germany interviewing people and studying the scenery or informing themselves about reports of the earlier pest epidemics. Finally we see what they actually envision as a film based on their documented „investigations“: A rather metaphorical, melodramatic story about an epidemic.
I therefore found the movie as a whole rather dark and sarcastic: Two filmmakers making a movie about such a dark topic as an Epidemic, mainly focusing on the aesthetics and the music of Tannhäuser (Wagner) and not really caring about humanity‘s suffering in such a crises, investigating people about such crises … and doing so, overseeing the real hints of a real approaching catastrophy, because they‘re only focused on their own project. Everybody lives in a bubble.
This film seems to be a chaotic nothing, but if you dive into it, if you give it a chance, if you are open for anything and concentrate on the details, it can be quite revealing. It‘s a film „sui generis“, a self-ironic, cinematic experiment that should not be compared with other films of von Trier and that should either be accepted, or refused on it‘s own.
Rated 3.5/5 Stars •
Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars
09/30/24
Full Review
Mason M
Not very well received and not for everyone like most of Von Trier's films but Epidemic is amazing and hilarious. And largely great because of the horrifying final scene.
Rated 4/5 Stars •
Rated 4 out of 5 stars
09/07/24
Full Review
Audience Member
One of Lars von Triers oldest flicks, I believe it's his second full lenght after "The Elements of Crime". This film is the second part of a trilogy called "Europa", but it's not very connected too the mentioned film accept that there is some sort of plague going on.
There are some interesting methods of film making here. Near to be shot in black and white - maybe it is actually, but the filter makes it looks different in any case. We follow some film makers as they create the plot of a plague. We also se parts of the result - or the way they want it too look. Full of style and simple elegancy, but it's also a borefest. Even with a very low budget it could entertain a lot more.
A "movie-in-a-movie" in a way, but more a fake documentary of low budget film-making.
I see some "Riget" connections, but mostly I see some moves that Trier probably make when he's putting his films together. Interesting, but not at interesting as it should be.
A very powerful ending scene does not save this avant-garde film that got very few highlights. It will be remembered as a boring mess with some neat finesses.
4 out of 10 toothpaste operations.
Rated 2/5 Stars •
Rated 2 out of 5 stars
01/17/23
Full Review
Audience Member
I loved the way it looked, but I can't say I really understand it. It either is going over my head or under it.
Rated 2/5 Stars •
Rated 2 out of 5 stars
02/22/23
Full Review
Audience Member
This is the worst film Lars von Trier has produced so far. I get that the film is very experimental but I did not enjoy the film at all. There was barely any script, the acting was flimsy and not in a homage to grind house films kinda way, the plot made no sense, the special effects were terrible. I was extremely disappointed, the only redeeming factor was that it sorta helped Lars and Udo to start their Dogme movement. Stay away from the film if you can, Von Trier fans or not, this film will disappoint you or simply bore you to death with its ridiculousness.
Rated 1.5/5 Stars •
Rated 1.5 out of 5 stars
02/01/23
Full Review
Audience Member
didnt care for this jumbled mess not one von trier's best pix
Rated 2/5 Stars •
Rated 2 out of 5 stars
01/21/23
Full Review
Read all reviews
>
