Epidemic (1987)

Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Purely Joyful Movie!

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

EPIDEMIC (Lars von Trier - Demark 1987).Von Trier's second feature reveals his obsessions with cinema, with his self-imposed limitations on film-making in many ways foreshadowing Von Trier's later obstructions upon Jorgen Leth in THE FIVE OBSTRUCTIONS (2003).Essentially a film about his own obsessions, or a grand parody on horror, as some suggested. Von, Trier, frustrated by the delay of his never realized project, "The Grand Mal", about two gangster families in divided Berlin, made a bet with film consultant Claes Kastholm of the Danish Film Institute, claiming that he could make a feature film for one million Danish kroner. Resulting partly in an amateur movie about a film director and a scriptwriter who must write a new manuscript in five days, interspersed with scenes from the film they are working on - about a young idealistic doctor in the late 20th century, who tries to fight an epidemic, but only manages to spread it further. The film culminates with the outbreak of a deadly plague, not in the past but in the present. Throughout the film, Von Trier shows his fascination with Germany, for example, during a ride through the "Ruhrgebiet", the industrial core of Europe, or the world, at least during the '80s.Camera Obscura --- 8/10

spoilers I liked this movie for the idea which probably comes into focus best in this scene in which the leader of the two writers sketches out a plan for the film in paint on the wall (which is very hilarious).The way we talk about story ideas as we refine them to make the more ideal film is a little troubling! We develop stories such that they should conform to these supposedly universal values, essentially. The scenes of the film within the film are mostly completely awful, aside from the sheer photography and high contrast posterized look and let us never forget that the title with a copyright symbol is displayed throughout the entire film (nice!). As far as I'm concerned the scene at the end with the woman having her hypnotic freakout was a pretty damn cheap and much less than effective way to usher in the long predicted finish to the film. It was surely worth watching for what it had to say about what we want to see in films and why, as sarcastic as all of it was. personally I couldn't fail to be amused.Funny no matter how hard LvT pushes away at certain parameters he so often relies on these simple structures: day 1 day 2 etc. and never forget: women being tormented, which is obviously his favorite thing in the universe!

(Possible spoilers ahead)This one could be interpreted NOT as a horror movie. Neither as a movie-within-the-movie. In fact, it is a documentary on the creation of a movie, amidst budget constraints. The very fact that the title name appears on every still is an indication that the "disease" is nothing more but the movie itself. The `doctor' character (v.Trier) that leaves the den and then spreads the disease is probably a metaphor for the `director' character (v.Trier again) who sets out on his effort to complete a movie. The movie -or the making of it- then "infects" the people/viewers through the journey of the crew to Germany.Take this with a grain of salt, but the funding conversation in the end looks like a tongue-in-cheek attempt to prove v.Trier's ability of completing a movie; without help from the Danish Film Institute. On the artistic side: the adlibed dialogues and the free-style shooting (Dogma95 waiting to happen); the use of two different formats and some really inspired, creepy scenes. Don't search for any great acting here though...Add a cameo appearance by -godlike- Udo Kier, where he tells the autobiographical story of his eventful birth. Plus the terrifying sounds (the Anton Karas kind of zither discomfort) and a Wagner touch.Overall, a premature study on the typically `protestant' genre of epidemics (Verhoeven's `Flesh & Blood' is the first that comes in mind; Dreyer's fixation with Crosses too).Rating: 3/5

* SPOILER WARNING * Director Lars Von Trier, who stars as himself in this mock documentary meta-horror black comedy drama (!), comments early on that "a film should be a pebble in your shoe". With this, he may have accomplished just that. It´s an annoying mess of a movie, which tries to make sense in the last scene, but by then you have been subjected to tons of extraneous footage, bad dubbing, clues and a pretentious movie-within-a-movie, also called Epidemic. Von Trier and cowriter Niels Vørsel tries to finish their script and convince film institute executive Claes Kastholm to finance their movie about a mysterious plague spreading through Europe, but the epidemic seems to have started in real life as well. Or something. The chilling giallo-inspired climactic hypnosis sequence (with real life hypnotist Svend Ali Hamann) is effective, but Von Trier´s ad hoc filmmaking style will test the viewer´s patience. He does, however, make an interesting visit to the hospital, as a sort of premonition to his later hits "The Kingdom 1 + 2". Udo Kier appears briefly as himself. A box office disaster; well two, actually, if you count the vastly ignored re-release in 1997. *½