The Element of Crime

This is yet another film that easily conforms to my theory of Subjective Reality (see Kafka), to be honest it may not even be my theory, but whose ever it was, it has been distorted to my own way of thinking. The Element of Crime begins with a burnt-out cop (Fisher, played by Michael Elphick) who has found his way back to Cairo (after a strenuous case in Europe), being placed under hypnosis by a therapist so the root of Fisher's problems can be discovered. From the first frame Lars von Trier and cinematographer Tom Elling set up the haunting atmosphere, from the shot of the donkey rolling in the dirt, to the drab, blurry images of Egypt. But after Fisher has been placed under hypnosis the world we see is a world of constant darkness, and where the only light is the sludgy yellow sepia. This is not a stylish decision, merely a way of highlighting the murkiness of Fisher's memory, as he digs deeper into the mystery of Harry Grey we soon see the odd flash of a blue police light, von Trier's way of pointing out significant moments in Fisher's recollection.

The pull of The Element of Crime (the film) is that part of Fisher's training refers to The Element of Crime (the book), a journal for catching criminals that involves the pursuer putting themselves into the shoes of the criminal, to live, sleep and breath their lives until they are almost one with them. And that is what leads Fisher on his path, as he is soon recreating the crime scenes and scenarios that Grey might have gone through. Now this all sounds very conventional, but no. Von Trier deliberately paces the film slowly, allowing all the characters to be set-up and, even if they are not really there for any other purpose than to drive the plot. The character of Kim for example, her function is nothing more than plot devise (or to take her clothes off as one reviewer put it). These are all hallmarks of subjective reality, that none of the characters other than Fisher possesses any force in the outcome of their world.

This being von Trier's first film, and me being aware that his cinematic style has changed somewhat over the years, I was expecting the film to look nothing like his other work, but there wasn't too much of a difference, there may have been more attention to mise-en-scene and sound design (most obvious in the excellent sequence where Fisher and Kim recreate the night when Grey met his mistress on the bus), but the film looked so much like the Kingdom that it was familiar, I was more shocked when I saw the drastically different Europa. Now that is a major difference, where as Europa looked like the work of a master film-maker continuing his evolution, The Element of Crime looked like the film of a young director, trying out new techniques, referencing his hero's and gleefully deconstructing the role of film-noir (again handled in Europa).

But the fact that the film looks small scale does not devalue it one bit, as a first film it's an accomplished piece that shows the growing talent that would be nurtured into Breaking the Waves. If at times too complicated and too self knowing for its own good, it's best to allow the film to wash over you, putting yourself, much like Fisher into a dream-like state. The acting is good, but not as good as von Trier would later wrangle out of actors, and for a British audience it's a bit disconcerting to see the star of Boon performing sex scenes and slipping further into his own insanity. So, Part art-house thriller, part film-noir pastiche and part eighties pop video, The Element of Crime is by no mean as easy film to categorise or to understand. It is however a film that deserves to be studied and interpreted, if you are to get the most out of it, a true work of cinematic art. 10/10

The plots follows the descent of a reactivated ex-cop, Fisher, into a killer's mind, using a method he has been taught by his old teacher, Osborne. The backdrop of the story is Europe in an unspecified future and after an unnamed catastrophe that let the continent fall in a perpetual darkness, an apocalyptic, anarchic gloominess. More and more, Fisher becomes like the killer as he gets increasingly fascinated with the strangely complex set-up of the murders...

Ultimately, this is a film about moral corruption and cultural decline of the western world. In the tradition of cultural pessimism from the beginning of the century, it paints a gruesome picture of a world devoid of decency and morale. "I want you to screw God into me.", these words spoken by Kim, a hooker Fisher picks up during his travels, are maybe the best expression of the ultimate loss of any metaphysical sense of belonging.

The style of the movie reflects this gloominess beautifully.

There are dark and gruesome nightmares you had that linger on in your mind and strangely, sometimes in your waking hours, you wish you'd get back to taste the sweet despair again... This movie is one of them.

Some called it the kick in the pants cinema needed, the savior of cinema and work of genius. Others find Lars von Trier's debut feature unbearably pretentious and consider this a beautiful but utterly empty work of art. Whatever your opinion will be after seeing this film, you're almost guaranteed to have strong feelings about it afterwards and will almost force you to reconsider the possibilities of the medium of film once again.

Shot in English, ELEMENT OF CRIME was the first film in the Europe-trilogy, followed by EPIDEMIC (1987) and ZENTROPA (1991) and is best described as a futuristic neo-noir crime thriller. Von Trier never intended this film to be part of a trilogy. He only came up with that concept right before filming on ZENTROPA started. Actually, the three films are all very different and the only thing they have in common is a vaguely defined theme of "Europe" (practically all the films made in Europe deal with the subject in some way) and that they all start with the letter E. It's a practical joke to give his films some extra cachet, just as he's doing with his America-trilogies now. Set in the near future, the film gives an apocalyptic view of a decayed and demonic Europe, stunningly photographed in yellow and sepia colours with a vision of constant darkness (no ray of light whatsoever in the film), abandoned buildings and almost constant rain. Police detective Fisher is called in to solve a series of murders of small girls. In the process he gradually comes to realize that he must follow in the footsteps of the assumed murderer, finally completing the murderous pattern himself.

Von Trier's passion about Europe is almost exclusively a deep and long-going fascination with Germany, the catalyst of modern history, that has been the defining factor in Europe's faith for most of the twentieth century. This film, as ZENTROPA and to a lesser extent EPIDEMIC, paint the apocalyptic picture of a world, resemblant of post-war Germany, with not just the physical damage involved, but with people who were emotionally battered as well. It's one thing to lose your belongings, even your relatives, but they didn't just lose everything they had, they lost morally as well. Von Trier presents to us a sort of neitherworld where morals are discarded and people are merely trying to survive.

Not an easy film, to be sure. It was rewarded with a technical prize at Cannes in 1984, but was denied the grand jury prize, mainly because of Dirk Bogarde, who headed the jury, and reportedly was appalled by the film. He thought von Trier wanted to put an end to cinema and destroy the medium of film altogether. He threatened to pull out of the jury, if the film got any prizes. Apparently, they somehow managed to give the film this award for technical achievements. Relatively harmless and who would notice anyway? In interviews Von Trier blatantly claims that his film was historically by far the most important that year and this claim can arguably be protracted for a considerable longer period of time.

Could this film be recommended for your enjoyment or regular entertainment value? No, it can't. But most movies can't. Historically however, this film is important, if there ever was one. This one of the few examples of a film that poses real questions about the way we judge film. Perhaps it's best enjoyed, and I don't want to sound pretentious myself here, by the more experienced moviegoer and for me the film worked best the second or third time I saw it. Upon it's first release in Denmark, half the people - even ardent cinema lovers - were running for the exits within the first half hour.

To the horror of many and delight of some, it's already a staple for students at many film academies, and understandably so. The film is an innovative panache of cinematic styles and expressions, gorgeous sets, the yellow lighting (they used very powerful natrium lights) and stuffed with references and allusions to earlier cinema, like Andrei Tarkovsky and BLADE RUNNER. Any reference to Tarkovsky will probably have the other half still watching running for the exits as well, but cinematic literacy is easily misunderstood.

Not my favorite or the most enjoyable in any sense, so one star off because of the silly detective story and the sometimes over-pretentiousness, otherwise a stunning work of visual art. I think everyone with an interest in cinema should see this film.

Camera Obscura --- 9/10

Hypnosis and criminology get the once over in this highly disturbing first entry from maverick film-maker Von Trier. A washed up profiler returns home to a post-apocalyptic Europe from Cairo to investigate "The Lotto Girl" murders and becomes determined to prove the methods of his mentor (who has since gone mad) in catching the serial killer. Odes to Hitchcock and other classic film noir abound.

Von Trier manipulates every aspect of every shot (the use of color tones is especially alarming) to create a totally fantasized vision of psychological torture. This, much like his follow up masterpiece, "Zentropa" is the polar opposite of his "no frills" Dogma classics of more recent years "Breaking the Waves" and "Dancer in the Dark." Love them or loathe them, you can't deny the talent and thought that went into making these drastically different works or film art.

Unfortunately, by setting "The Element of Crime" in such a vaguely distant future (I can only guess this is Europe in nuclear winter) and pacing the film to be so hypnotically listless, there really is no heart to this film. "Zentropa" had historical context and better executed tension, and is thus far superior. The only context "The Element of Crime" has is someone else's nightmare.

The screenplay seems to be ahead of its time, as there are many depressingly cynical one-liners that David Fincher wish he had put in "Fight Club." That is the only hint of humor at all to break the oppressive feel of this film, and it is very very dark and nihilistic humor at that. Alas, while you can study and find value in the technical aspects of this film, there is no "joy" to be found, and we, much like the protagonist must awaken from this film nightmare by screaming "I believe in joy!"

Side Notes: ala Hitchcock, Von Trier has a cameo as "the schmuck of ages."

Lars Von Trier's feature début is a stylish, extremely bizarre and intriguing tapestry about an ex-cop (Michael Elphick) who obsessively pursues a serial killer. Playing with different film genres and supported by a fantastic production design, "The Element of Crime" was very different from what I expected, but not in a bad way. This is the first film in Lars' 'Europe trilogy', followed by "Epidemic" (1987) and "Zentropa" (1991). Influenced by Fritz Lang, Terry Gilliam and many others, the film also has a voice of its own (Von Trier's raging verve); I'd call it "The Silence of the Lambs" meets "Delicatessen", so you can have an idea of how bizarre it is. If that sounds interesting to you, you should check it; even if you're not into the likes of "Dogville" or "Breaking the Waves", you may still appreciate it. Interesting for Von Trier fans and admirers of puzzles alike. 8/10.