This hardly comes as a surprise, because when men make up the majority of our political leaders, corporations and media, one cannot help but include them one way or another. However, the main reason for why these men ended up on my blog as well as on other feminist sources has little to do with the achievements or even failures relating to their trade, but rather with the much more profane reality that they were all somehow involved in a “sex” scandal (I use the word “sex” apprehensively in the following text, because contrary to media sources, some of these scandals are hardly about sex but about sexual abuse and rape).

In most cases, these scandals destroyed or severely damaged the careers of the involved public figures. Of course, it should make a huge difference whether the accusations were about sexy pictures and online flirting (Anthony Weiner), cheating on the wife (Herman Cain, Arnold Schwarzenegger), or sexual harassment and rape (Cain, Strauss-Kahn and Assange), but in terms of consequences it really doesn’t: we are losing more or less promising politicians, activists and other leaders.

“Should have kept their pants on!”, some might say, and mourn today’s moral decline. Others criticize the abuse of power and the prevalence of rape culture. Some even go so far as to call for more women in politics and public life, assuming that this would lead to less colleteral damage in the power domain.

I agree: we do need more women in power! But I am not kidding myself. Women lie and cheat just as much as men do, because women love sex, because women can be selfish and careless and devious, and some even ignore the limits of consensual sex. There is nothing that would prevent women in power from making the same mistakes men do. Or is there?

No one can deny that sex and power are often linked. That is not to say that one is essential for the other, but often the two come together, and that can be a beautiful thing, for example in a consensual BDSM relationship, or a terrible thing, for example in a rape case.

Power can corrupt both women and men is similar ways, in that it can lead to megalomania and an increased appetite for taking risks and indulging in deviant, perhaps criminal behavior. However, when it comes to sexual behavior, there seems to be one big difference: women seldomly correlate sex with their own power and status, whereas men often do.

The reasons for that are to be found in socialisation rather than biology. Traditional stereotyping suggests that all women need to attract a male is physical beauty, and all men need to attract a female is power (i.e. status, money etc.). Throughout their lives, girls and boys will be confronted with these stereotypes over and over again, so naturally they will grow up to have a different relationship to power. I believe there is a grain of truth to what Debbie Walsh is saying, even though she sounds a bit too polemical: “The shorthand of it is that women run for office to do something, and men run for office to be somebody.”

the use of stereotypes in advertising

Many men have internalized the notion that power will make them more desirable, and with that belief comes a certain sense of entitlement that cannot be ignored when speaking about sexual violations by men in high places. So yes, I think it is fair to say that more women in power would lead to fewer downfalls of public figures due to sexual violence. Maybe.

Or maybe not. I guess we will just have to wait and see. Or at least I hope that we will see. Because in the end there is no use speculating about whether women’s equal representation will improve the status quo. We have to make it possible to find out for sure. As the Austrian writer Marlene Streeruwitz stated in an interview (and I am paraphrasing/translating here): “I expect to see the truth, whatever that may look like. But it will be the truth, not a hypothesis. We always talk about what could be if women were in power. Now I want to see it!”

Recently, however, I haven’t seen many films that I really, really enjoyed. You could blame me for my choice in movies, of course, but I obviously wouldn’t pick anything that I wasn’t at least somewhat interested in. My boyfriend and I usually make the decision together and we also watch most films together, and on average he seems to responds to them more positively than I do. You could say that we simply have different tastes, but that still doesn’t account for the fact that he is satisfied more frequently than I am, and I certainly wouldn’t consider myself more critical than him. Or am I?

Just a few days ago we discussed the film Drive that recently came out and was lauded by many film critics and friends of ours alike. My boyfriend loved it as well, so he was taken a little aback by my hesitation to fully endorse him, and he tried his best to understand why I didn’t like it.

In fact, I had liked it, certainly more than a lot of other ones that had recently been released. After all, Drive has the full package: It is thrilling, cool, sleek, stylistically impeccable, features great actors and actresses and references the 80s – what’s not to like?

lonesome dude on a mission, 2011

In the end, I just didn’t find it that original and it didn’t leave any lasting impact on me. It’s probably not a movie I would recommend to someone several months from now – because I will most likely have forgotten about it. The boyfriend disagreed, and he came up with many wonderful arguments for why this film might be relevant in our postmodern, self-referential condition. I, on the other hand, had little else to say than “I just didn’t care that much for it” and “it just didn’t resonate with me.”

After all, focussing on content over style, what’s so special about a twenty-something white dude as the lead character, a lonesome wolf, whose emotional coldness is only briefly undermined by his feelings for a young mom and her son, and who otherwise comes off as a bad-ass violent superhero (he can drive, he can fight, he’s in control) whose only emotional conflict lies in maintaining his independence versus protecting said young family? This type of lead character has been around at least since the 1930s and it has dominated much of American cinema ever since. I’m sorry, but I can’t find anything original or progressive in this uncritical depiction of a man seemingly struggling with his masculinity, but eventually repeating all of the same clichés, and not only does that make me sad, it alienates me from the movie, as it alienates me from film in general.

lonesome dude on a mission, 1946

I’m tired. I’m tired of watching male heros. I’m tired of watching male anti-heros. I’m tired of watching men do things and women watching men do things. In fact, it bores me to death. Drive has simply been the latest example.

lonesome dude on a mission, 1976

I’m sick of having to identify with support roles. I want women to be the center of attention at last, with everything that entails, the good and the bad. When do we get to be powerful, corrupt, invincible, vulnerable, cold and rational, or criminally insane? When do we get to be mothers who fail, daughters who disappoint, lovers who disappear? I know there are wonderful cinematic examples for all of these, but they are just too rare to really have an impact.

Lead characters can sometimes develop iconic qualities. They can set the standards for idealized versions of us, for better or for worse. They can also show us how we’re wrong. But only if we are in fact represented. As a woman represented in film, I find myself reduced to fewer versions, fewer options in life. I find it hard to conceive of myself apart from my relation to a man. I find myself idealized or demonized only in relation to men. I would like to think that this didn’t impact my life in reality but I believe it does. Movies are about imagination and if we cannot imagine women as leading figures and independent personalities on film, how can we imagine them in real life?

I am not asking to always show women as fully developed characters in positions of power and responsibility, who only make good and healthy decisions, because that’s not what all women do, that’s not what all men do. I simply demand to exist in film as a group of individuals that make up half of the population and not as the inevitable trope, supporting the image of a system that puts us in the passenger seat. I want to see women Drive.

I’d watch that movie. And I might even like it.

déjà-vu?

That’s when online dating became the latest fad. In the beginning people had a hard time admitting that they had a profile on one of those dating websites. The general belief was that only socially aberrant freaks and other hopeless cases would have to resort to such “desperate measures”. But lo and behold, online dating is more popular than ever and has lost much of its sad reputation. One of the most popular dating websites today, OK Cupid, claims to have 7 million active users to date; that means literally 7 million users to date.

But online dating also has its downsides, especially for heterosexual women. I would estimate that about 90% of the men who get in touch with a woman online are total creeps, sexual harassers and misguided “pick-up artists” (yes, I know, the latter is a tautology). And that is not based on the woman simply being not interested, but on the completely uncalled-for messages, for which there are many wonderful examples on the internet.

And so the French, no strangers to chauvinism and misogyny, especially when it comes to dating, came up with a great idea: Let’s have women decide who gets to contact them for potential dates. The concept is fairly simple: every man and woman on the dating site gets to check out the profiles of everyone else; however, while women can send the men messages to evince interest, men are only allowed to “launch a charm” (lancer un charme), to which women may react or not. The dating site is called AdopteUnMec.com (AdoptAGuy.com for Americans) and functions as a virtual supermarket where women can “buy” men by dropping them in their shopping carts. (Yes, the capitalist analogy is quite blatant.)

So far, so interesting. Even though the page’s pink design and supermarket idea are not exactly original, the concept of leaving women in charge of the pick-up may be very appealing to both men and women. Men have less to worry about finding interesting things to say to impress the women, because they already know that the woman who contacts them is at least interested in their profile. Women on the other hand will feel more at ease in an environment that allows them to be in control of who gets to interact with them. That is, not ALL women.

Unfortunately and quite surprisingly, Adopte Un Mec has failed to acknowledge that not all men and women out there are interested in dating the opposite sex. The entire concept is obviously designed for heterosexuals, but I don’t see why it has to insist on it exclusively. After all, users can search for non-smokers, vegetarians and bisexuals, just not of the opposite sex. Don’t get me wrong: it’s great to see women in charge, but why not try some more inclusive options? For example, men and women who identify as homosexual or bisexual could be allowed to message people of their own sex freely. I understand the difficulty of adapting a concept that is based on gender difference to a more heterogeneous clientele, but it seems to me that there has never even been the attempt.

The advertising is clearly directed towards men looking for hot girls, which appears to contradict the whole idea of inverting the objectification. What may have been subversive in the 80′s feels a little too “postfeminist” to me now. As a woman signing up to Adopte Un Mec, the first thing you are asked to do is decribe yourself and state what you are looking for in a man, the same way that you would describe what you look for in a new dress or a handbag you intend to buy. The idea of woman as customer and man as product doesn’t sit well with the feminist online dater, who is looking first and foremost for an egalitarian relationship. Perhaps Adopte Un Mec is not the best online dating service for the truly progressive single, but then again, if I was single I’d probably use it, if only for lack of better alternatives…

Prohibition, abolition or regulation?

Today, most European countries reject the American model of prohibition, which criminalizes all forms of sex work, usually to the disadvantage of sex workers, who risk their safety working underground and have no right to social services or benefits.

Many European countries, such as France, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands, have all found different legislative approaches to dealing with prostitution through governmental control. They either follow the model of abolitionism, which criminalizes clients (Sweden) or only the third parties benefitting from sex work,  such as pimps and traffickers (France), or they enforce strict regulation through decriminalization (Germany and the Netherlands), which allows for brothels and independent prostitutes to operate as long as they are legally allowed to work and are registered.

While prohibition can be rejected as the least desirable form of legislating prostitution, both abolitionism and regulation have not been able to reach their ultimate goals: to eliminate human trafficking as part of the sex industry and/or to decrease the demand for prostitution in general. I am going to refrain from referring to any particular numbers here, as any study on this topic must be taken with a grain of salt, since getting accurate statistics dealing with borderline illegal subjects is nearly impossible.

Feminists have sometimes aligned themselves with one movement, sometimes with the other, and there has yet to be an established consensus. As feminists, can we allow for the symbolic meaning of making sex work a legitimate business in our society, or should we stop and listen to those directly concerned?

orlan "le baiser de l'artiste" (1977)

Can the subaltern speak?

This debate about prostitution has always generated a lot of hypocrisy and ignorance on all sides, making it a very sensitive topic to discuss, not unlike the ongoing pornography and burqa/veil debates. With delicate issues such as these, which involve legislative and moral decision-making, choosing one positition over another always carries the risk of eventually forming certain alliances with groups one would otherwise consider antagonistic.

As with the burqa debate, I usually feel hesitant to discuss these subjects at all and want to leave it to the ones who are directly affected by this issue – in this case the sex-workers themselves. But as with the burqa debate it is difficult to simply leave it at that, because even those directly involved with the issues may fail to see the greater picture, the wider social implications of their decisions.

Naturally, sex-workers as well as anyone else, will most likely argue their case in a way that is most beneficial to their immediate needs. In the case of prostitution, which is considered a profession, this need is often economic. Why would sex workers argue in favor of the Swedish model, the punishment of their clients, which would inevitably lead to less business? The major demands of sex workers are clear: total decriminalization and the acceptance of sex work as legitimate employment.

sex workers protesting in brussels, 2005

However, it cannot be denied that the voices we hear from sex-workers (in the media, in blogs, at demonstrations) generally represent only a small percentage of all men and women offering sex for money. After all, the voices of most victims of human trafficking remain silent and unheard, as they have to fear violence, loss of anonymity and expulsion. Again, numbers for how many prostitutes work involuntarily are hard to find, and they also force us to define what we mean by “voluntary”.

Prostitution: a job like any other? 

Imagine this scenario: If you could work in an office job or as a sex worker for the same hourly rate, which job would you choose? I am fairly certain, the majority of women would choose the former. I have no data to support this claim; it just seems like common sense, and this is coming from a sex-positive woman who has never found it particularly difficult to engage in sexual acts with men I was only little acquainted to.

However, the decision may get a little more complicated when presented with the choice between scrubbing toilets all day for 6 Euros an hour and having sex with a man for twenty minutes for 50 Euros (that is not a random figure but apparently the established rate for the average Amsterdam sex-worker). The percentage might increase in favor of the latter but only slightly. The problem arises when you look at how a day’s work having sex with strangers pays the rent and even a little more, while offering you flexible working hours, whereas the cleaning job will force you to do another less exciting job on the side, just so you can get by. For many single mothers and migrant women, who come to Western Europe untrained and without speaking the language, this is the only “choice” they have. So much for “voluntary” prostitutes.

After all, prostitution is not a job like any other, regardless of how one feels about sex. The risk of unwanted pregnancies, STIs and physical and emotional violence is immensely high in this type of work, and no governmental regulation, regardless of how scrutinizing it is, will be able to prevent this.

Conclusion

As I have suggested before, economic reasons play almost always a role for why women decide to work as prostitutes. Whether or not Marxist feminists are right in arguing that prostitution is a direct consequence of capitalism may be debatable (and no, I am not opening that can of worms here), but we cannot deny that social measures are the first means to address when talking about eliminating prostitution. To prevent disadvantaged women from exercising the only profession they are able to obtain, seems like a cruel thing to do, especially when other government measures force them into this position. This, however, does not necessarily speak in favor of the regulation model, which still classifies prostitutes as legal and illegal. Therefore I would argue that before we look at prostitution legislation, we need to look at immigration legislation and our social welfare models and ask whether they provide adequate alternatives.

ad campaign by COYOTE, via Sociological Images

However, I am doubtful as to whether there will ever be an ideal solution, for as long as there is a demand for prostitution. I am a strong believer that everyone has a right to sex, but not to have sex with anyone other than oneself. Potential clients of prostitutes, almost exclusively male, will have to ask themselves why they should have the right to buy sex and whether they feel comfortable to do so with women who may or may not be doing it “voluntarily”. Because you can never be 100% sure that you aren’t in fact perpetuating an industry which is inherently violent and exploitative.

As feminists, we can do all sorts of handwringing about what may be the best way to address this issue; in the end it is the men who purchase these services who could have the most impact. We should not let them off the hook by resorting to biological essentialism. There are alternatives to prostitution, because there are alternatives to patriarchy and poverty, but these need to be explored first and foremost before resorting to the curing of symptoms.

The latest series of works by the Polish artist Rafal Karcz is called “I wanna kill Cindy Sherman” – is it a coincidence that he references a female artist who has been viewed time and time again as a feminist icon problematizing the relation between woman as object and female subjectivity?

cindy sherman "untitled #86" (1981)

Karcz’ entire series (you can find some images here) is rather eclectic: dark, yet rich colours, hip content, psychedelic imagery, some of which could easily be found projected onto the walls at a VICE party. But some of the pictures stick out as more unusual, more disturbing and more revealing of an implicit critique the series may offer, a critique more direct and palpable than the questioning of “the mentality of the contemporary human being and the condition of his emotions“.

all art by rafal karcz "i wanna kill cindy sherman" (2011)

The images I am referring to are seemingly blurry, grainy pictures of young women drunk and/or passed out on the floor, at parties, in bars… These women are clearly the objects of the gaze; the spectator cannot help but become a voyeur at best, an attacker observing his or her prey at worst. It makes you feel uncomfortable, to say the least. Because these women, in their state of vulnerability and defenselessness, are not simply the victims of their own inebriation. They do not exist in a vacuum. They exist within a rape culture that identifies them as the potential victims of sexual assault. The “shot-on-a-cell-phone-camera” aesthetic only adds to this eerie atmosphere of an impending violation. As the observer, you have become complicit and you feel caught, but you cannot prevent your imagination from pursuing the sad narrative to its potentially cruel outcome.

But the damage has already been done. In capturing their lifeless bodies, the women have been turned into objects and anonymous victims. The potential for self-invention and subjectification, which Cindy Sherman’s self-portraits do allow for, has been erased.

Karcz used specially mixed acid-based chemicals to distort the photographs he took on his cheap digital camera – and to kill the “Cindy” in the pictures: the object-like human figures caught in the moment but taken out of their context. To me, however, it seems he channelled Sherman in a different way; in capturing woman as an object of desire and violence, in a constant state of vulnerability – a constant reminder of the dangerous world we unfortunately live in.

Many thanks to Rafal Karcz for providing these images.

Basically, the black activist and writer Noah Sow was invited to give a lecture at the aforementioned festival, but upon arrival she was confronted with organizers who seemed unprepared and unfamiliar with her work. When she was introduced to the location for her lecture, she couldn’t help but notice that the student café was “adorned” with an offensive colonial lamp, whereupon Sow cancelled the event and left, a decision which was critized by many as an overreaction.

But this blog entry is not about the event itself, rather it is about the discussion it sparked. Most articles on this subject matter (for example here, here and here, all in German) were debated quite heatedly with comments in the hundreds and accompanying tweets. The opposing sides and their arguments could be loosely divided into two camps: on the one hand oversensitized sociology and humanities students who see discrimination everywhere, on the other the liberal-minded everyman (also occasionally everywoman) who just wants to be left in peace.

To be fair, both groups are annoying. I can say that because I am one of those hyper-sensitized humanities students and I know for a fact that I can be annoying, with my constant bickering about the world’s inequalitites. It just doesn’t make for nice family lunch conversations. But what distinguishes both camps most obviously, in my mind, is self-awareness. While one group is very capable of it, maybe excessively so, the other lacks true self-reflection in a complex society.

I get it. We are all tired of the so-called oppression olympics. I’m sure every single one of us has experienced discrimination or humiliation at some point in their life, be it for being considered too young or too old, too ugly or too cute, too extroverted or too shy. But can we please all agree that certain “inevitabilities” prevent us from being exposed to certain forms of discrimination, for example that being a bio-woman I am considered more socially acceptable than a trans-woman, that being white I will never face institutionalized racism? See, it doesn’t hurt to admit that in many ways I am better off than others and that that’s not okay.

sometimes it takes kanye west to illustrate privilege (still from video "runaway")

And being the privileged white girl that I am, I am also prone to have prejudices and to make inconsiderate remarks, that can be offensive and hurtful to others. And I know that they are wrong, but they still happen, sometimes. Bad habits die hard, but I am not proud of that and I take full responsibility. Which is why I would get very defensive if someone called me a racist or homophobe – I know that’s just not true – but that doesn’t prevent me from saying racist or homophobic things. Awareness and acceptance are the first step, an apology the next.

But alas, I am just an overly sensitive feminist, constantly assessing my behavior and my flaws. Those liberal-minded folks posing as the mainstream, however, they don’t like to have their noses rubbed in it all the time. Because being young and educated and left-wing, they are quasi tolerant and open-minded by default. And they are tired, tired of the p.c. talk, tired of being reminded of their privilege which is, after all, not their fault, they claim. But try to take it away from them, their privilege, and they get all defensive (see any discussion about quota laws, yes means yes, immigration…).

What they need to realize is that this defense mechanism is precisely what perpetuates inequality and power relations and prevents progressive social change. Instead, we should all aim to be the best person that we can be, which does not imply that one should try to please everyone. Frustration and anger are important sentiments, but they need to be channelled in the right direction. Sometimes toward oneself.

Admit to your privilege, admit to your assholery, and then try to make things better, so you won’t have that privilege, so you won’t have to be an asshole.

This rant is about another kind of racism, that I am going to call invisible racism. It is invisible in two ways:

1. It renders people of color invisible.

2. White people are often unaware of it, meaning they just don’t see it. In fact, some PoC might even be unaware of it; Herman Cain, for example.

Here is what I mean: not all forms of racism directly harm people. Racism can work a lot more subtly than that. Because it is so deeply embedded in our daily lives, it has become normalized.

But how can this be normal? In European countries where the population of people of color continues to grow, how is it normal that characters in popular movies are almost exclusively white? Most of mainstream cinema stems from the United States, so this shortcoming on their part is just as sad, if not sadder. But even in Europe the national productions largely favor white actors and actresses. In Germany, for example, the top 100 movies watched in 2010 include 14 German productions, none of which seems to feature more than one person of color among the leading characters.

But this is just one example. We all consume hundreds of advertisements and commercials on a daily basis (whether we want to or not) and the large majority of them feature white people. This has very little to do with proper marketing, but a lot more with racism and race erasure. After all, it’s not like people of color aren’t consumers and don’t need to be considered as a potential customer base. Rather, their wishes and desires are supposed to be implied in the white lifestyles the ads represent, and the white characters are considered universal templates for identification. Just like man is the default sex, white is the default race. As a woman, I have at least a slight idea of the schizophrenia these circumstances produce.

Then again, sometimes other races are in fact excluded as customers, which becomes obvious when walking into the cosmetics section of any old supermarket chain. All the products on offer are for white people: make-up items for light skin, hair products for white people’s hair. As a white person who doesn’t need any other products, you will never know that something is missing. And people of color open up their own specialty stores, food markets, hair salons and barbers, and in the end they get accused of not assimilating enough.

"make-up for every skin tone" - or not.

This is normalized racism which we all partake in without questioning or criticizing. Adequate representation is more than just minority quotas in political parties etc. We have to focus on the everyday things we take for granted. We have to look for the invisible and paint it in signal colors. Only then will we begin to fathom what constitutes racism and how to effectively fight it.

The first workshop I participated in was presented by a woman working for the German Trade Union Federation and was titled Work and Future – Future without work? The aim was to talk about women’s desire to have “everything”: a career, a loving partnership, children etc. How can this be achieved, can it be achieved at all and, perhaps more importantly, is it necessary to have to want all these things?

I figured this could be a good session for me to attend, considering that I have almost finished my studies with no clear plan of what to do next. Turns out I wasn’t the only one. At least twenty women attended the session, aged 15-45 and none of them seemed to be entirely sure of what the future might hold for them. Hopes and fears were exchanged between the not so carefree white girls, fuelled by personal stories and examples of structural discrimination.

I guess what irked me a little bit about the discussion was the matter of course way in which we talked about having a career, when so many people these days are struggling just to have a job. Of course, we were discussing these issues because we could, and we should be very happy about that. Nevertheless, the overall mood was defined by uncertainty and worriedness.

I talked to a woman in her mid-thirties who had been successful in the career of her choice and was hoping to have children one day. However, she was well aware of her ticking biological clock and her lack of a partner to start a family with. I listened to a woman who managed to leave the Turkish village she was born in to become a well-respected academic who just had her second child at the age of 41. A success story, one might think, but she still worried about being an “old mum” and having waited too long to have children.

The one thing we could all agree on was that no life is perfect and that there are different paths in life to becoming happy. However, the one thing that almost no one could imagine was having children and a successful career at the same time. The main obstacles were easily identified as structural and systemic problems that cannot be eliminated straight away. So what’s a girl to do if she “wants it all”? Get informed, be aware, find allies and put pressure on employers, political leaders and partners.

After lunch break I only managed to go to one other session which was about feminist politics on the web. Unfortunately much of the time was wasted trying to establish the average web and tech-savviness of the group, and discussing data privacy protection for half an hour made me wish I had gone to “Radical feminist muslima” instead. Nevertheless, I truly enjoyed this event, I got to know some fantastic women, and felt inspired to contribute more to next year’s barcamp – perhaps by offering a workshop myself?

You can find pictures and more info on the respective Facebook page (which is down at the moment, I don’t know why). I am not in any of the photographs, which is a good thing considering I was suffering from a major hangover and was still wearing last night’s make-up. Thanks, sis’.

Lars von Trier, the mastermind, the provocateur and enfant terrible of art cinema, takes on the apocalypse – where can he go from there? He has already explored good and evil, right and wrong, dominance and submission – what could he possibly try to examine when he wants to do away with it all?

The threat of annihilation comes in the shape of a foreign planet, supposedly passing the Earth to never return again. But the potential imminence of extinction is delayed by the depiction of a lavish wedding ceremony. And Lars von Trier does what Scandinavian directors do best: dissecting the sensitivities and insecurities of the upper middle class family and zooming in on its decadence and self-annihilation.

We have the depressed career woman, the emasculated husband, the self-sacrificing sister, the 2nd wave feminist hippie mom turned cynical old hag, the womanizing father and the mansplaining science adherent and brother-in-law. Von Trier seems to stay true to his style: The shaky hand-held camera aesthetic is reminiscent of Dogma days, but he also kept some of the artificial tableau-like shots he did so well in Antichrist. Most importantly, he still loves his female protagonists; that is, he loves to torture them. I cannot imagine it was just a coincidence that he chose a depressed actress to play a hysterically depressed character. Von Trier may be taking his leads over the edge, but he always gets the best out of them.

And so Charlotte Gainsbourg and Kirsten Dunst get to play immensely dynamic and complex roles, and play it well, and the atmosphere is really gripping and everything is beautifully shot, and I keep thinking to myself: I would totally love this movie… – if it hadn’t been directed by Lars von Trier.

Because in the end the planets go BOOM! and I am left with… indifference? After watching a Lars von Trier movie? After all, he is the guy who did Dogville and Manderley and Antichrist, for heaven’s sake! Movies you could either love or hate, but they sure made you think for a very long time after the credits rolled. I remember leaving the theater after watching Antichrist for the first time, and I was angry and overwhelmed and I needed to talk to other people about it to find out why I was so enraged by all of it.

After Melancholia I felt strangely relaxed. It ended just like it was supposed to end. I felt good about it, which is not the reaction I expected, especially since the film is anything but life-affirming and optimistic. Which, I guess, says a lot about my character and world view.

Perhaps that is what it’s all about in the end: You are either Dunst’s character or Gainbourg’s. You identify with Justine or with Claire, and that is going to define your whole approach to the film. Towards the end Claire says to Justine something like this (and I am paraphrasing because I saw it in German, which certainly didn’t improve it for me): “Perhaps you are better off, because you always expect the worst.” And Justine says: “You’re right. Perhaps I am better off.”

Maybe all the Claires out there in the world are going to be really overwhelmed and moved after watching Melancholia, and all the Justines will be calm and slightly unfazed, because they have been ready for it all along and it doesn’t erode their world view. I am a Justine. Who are you?

"la décadence"

I could only find very little information about her online. She doesn’t even have her own Wikipedia page (a future project perhaps?). She was born in Frankfurt in 1942 during the height of the 2nd World War and grew up to become an extremely talented artist with a dark soul (the first image she ever drew, at age six, was a fist striking the middle of a face).

She learned ballet in Paris, became a revue dancer barnstorming all over France, but she never turned her back on art. She found inspiration in the great French writers of the morbid and the obscene, creating visual interpretations of the works of de Sade, Bataille, and Artaud, and she dedicated her paintings “Black Light on White Shadow” (see below) to Austrian enfant terrible Thomas Bernhard.

x

Her style and themes can be described as traditionally “masculine” as her influences, in that they are grandiose, violent and nauseating. But she also reminds me of the taboo-breaking postmodern literature of Kathy Acker, dealing with sado-masochism and female desire.

"hit something" 1977

You can find the most comprehensive information about her here.