User reviews

Idioterne / The idiots has great similarity to Breaking the waves and Dancer in the dark: A naïve girl falls victim to the circumstances and pays too high a price. Nearly all von Trier's movies are about idealism, and so is this one. Stoffer as the group leader at first seems the binding factor, but as all others have different reasons than idealism to enter the group he establishes his leadership with increasing emphasis on psychological force and less on convincing arguments. As all members have a desire to stay in the group (again for different reasons) he then demands that they go to extreme lengths to show their commitment to the cause and indirectly to him. Hence the orgy scene (as viewers we end up with more seating comfort in the cinema after that). Then all thresholds are passed; the outsider (father) steps in to bring them back to reality and diminish their renewed established group bond. Stoffer then demands the ultimate sacrifice. Only the naïve Karen is able to be an idiot in real life in one of the most painful and harrowing scenes ever put on screen.

It feels somewhat rushed in writing and making which is odd because von Trier is known as a perfectionist. All his directing efforts seem to be put here in the actors so there is good acting across the board. The Dogme-rules only contribute to greater intensity. Von Trier interviews the actors in the movie so there is a parallel between the movie's group dynamics and the actor's group dynamics.

Breaking the waves was in my opinion overlong. Dancer in the dark was placed too much in the fantasy screen world and had therefore less dramatic impact. From the Golden Hearts-trilogy I personally like this the most.

What can you expect from a film based on a childish manifesto like Dogma 95? Bad lighting, bad acting (with a couple of notable exceptions) and a feeling that some of the scenes (like the orgy) were introduced only to prove that the Dogma was being obeyed...

The story itself (a group of people pretending to be mentally retarded and interacting with the "normal" world, with each other and with themselves) is sometimes intriguing and certainly will not leave any spectator undisturbed, but it is not enough to make this piece remarkable.

Only to be seen as a curiosity...

As a Dane it may be easier to see where Lars Von Trier is coming from with this social criticism (satire of social criticism!) movie.

First of all he comes from a country that prides itself in two traditions:

1. a state that takes care of and cares for everyone

2. a country that has a long tradition of social-criticism in literature and movies

For more than ten years it seemed that every big film project in Denmark had a social agenda...That was probably the only way to get financial support for your film project - which was most of the time, if not all of the time - supplied by the state.

This film is poking fun - primarily - at this social criticism tradition, while it also renews it.

But how much should we take seriously - Lars Von Trier would probably laugh at anyone, who takes this movie at face value - as a bona fide social criticism (which it is not!) and - of course - it fails as traditional "social criticism", just look at it - this is not a film like Pelle the Conquerer, there are no drunken, heavy-set men seducing their underage nieces and abusing the working man sadistically.

In short this movie wasn't meant to succeed in the genre in a traditional sense.

It has a more profound agenda - I have a hard time putting words to it, because what the movie says is so very Danish. Certain scenes are simply great: When they visit the factory and "the idiots" are allowed to turn the machines on and off...I can't explain why that is so intensely funny, but I'm pretty sure it's a Danish thing.

This film is funny, sad, sentimental, wonderfully-acted... It comments on a social-democratic tradition and state that embraces you for better and for worse...It also talks about capitalism in this system...Maybe it's really all about the compromise inherent in a social-democratic tradition existing parallel with a capitalist system. Such a compromise could be viewed as hypocrisy from a philosophical standpoint.

Central to this movie is the theme of honesty and sincerity...And all the while you don't want to take it too seriously, because you have a feeling that the director isn't all that serious about it himself...

In short I find the movie and it's intention irresistibly confusing.

"Idioterne" is a good and enjoyable to watch Dogma movie. The style (or better said; the lack of style) and storytelling are unique and help to make "Idioterne" a one of a kind movie experience. Just like the story in the movie; it's a successful experiment.

As a sort of a social experiment, a group of people decides to release the 'idiot' in themselves to see how the environments responds to them. Sounds like good enough material to make a hilarious comedy with but "Idioterne" never goes over-the-top and always retains a sort of realistic feeling. The movie is made in documentary style with some mixed results as a direct result of this. For most part the movie is realistic and it has an improvised feeling over it but some of the sequences are obviously planned and acted out. In those sequences it becomes painfully obvious that the actors in this movie aren't really first-rate. It makes those sequence feel forced and ridiculous. Those sequences are in contrast with the rest of the movie its style and overall feeling.

Yet the movie remains perfectly good to watch. It never becomes really great or hilarious but the movie is simply perfectly entertaining to watch nevertheless.

The movie has some interesting sequences and confrontations in it that all helps to make this movie quite a memorable one. It's a movie that confronts at times and makes us as viewers think about how we would respond and act if we were in one of the situations as portrayed in the movie.

For fans of Dogma this is an absolute must-see. It has everything in it what makes Dogma movies so great. It's perhaps not the best Dogma movie but it certainly is one of the most enjoyable- and more light to watch ones.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

It's easy to confuse the adjectives "controversial" and "thought-provoking". The difference is that the former is a concept manufactured by the media and the latter is the raison d'etre of film-makers like Lars von Trier. Ostensibly this is a film about a group of people pretending to have cerebral palsy. But obviously that's not what it's really about; and I think that only those without the inclination to seek one of many possible meanings would label it "controversial" on this basis. It's classic knee-jerk.

The Idiots is a challenging indictment of middle-class hypocrisies and an enthralling deconstruction of the bohemian ideal.

Early in the film the question keeps being asked: Why is what we're doing wrong? "Because you're poking fun." But who really comes out of the narrative looking idiotic? The stuttering patio-owner, fearful of a potential insurance claim? Josephine's father, who tears his weeping daughter away from her friends? Rarely it's The Idiots themselves, whose motivations are subtly sketched out as Stoffer's commune collapses around him.

Stoffer himself is "anti-middle-class", suggesting he's simply afraid of growing up. There's the doctor, constantly writing notes, who may be treating the whole affair as some kind of social experiment. There's the marketing man, using the commune as an escape from the superficiality of his truly idiotic occupation. And there's Karen, our silent observer, whose own reasons for falling in love with The Idiots comes to flatten us in the final reel. This leads to a gripe: certain characters remain nothing MORE than sketches. I would have liked to see von Trier eschew some of the social confrontation scenes in favour of further narrative episodes.

Some scenes - such as the door-to-door Christmas decoration sale, or the house-buyers' tour - may come across as crass and cruel, but they're fascinating insofar as they present the hypocrisies that lie in the heart of us all.

Perhaps the impact of The Idiots' public "spassing" is softened somewhat in these post-Borat/Bruno days. But von Trier is a trickier customer than Baron Cohen. As such, we laugh aloud, but we're never quite sure of who we're laughing - or, indeed, if we should be laughing at all. Watch this, and then watch how all other films seem quaint by comparison.

While not quite at the same level as _Breaking the Waves_, the only other Lars von Trier I have seen (his films are quite hard to come by in Midwestern American video stores, you understand), _The Idiots_ is still a great film, and, in some ways, is just as important.

I have to comment on a lot of the reviews I've seen for this movie. A lot of viewers judge the film by the theories and views about the group's existence (particularly the view spoken by the most outspoken of the Idiots, Stoffer). This is surely not the way von Trier meant his audience to take the film. If you paid any attention to the film, you'll notice that the Idiots' lifestyle is never glamorized. Everyone's experience in the group ends in embarrassment and despair. You should also note that none of the Idiots has the same opinion of why they like to act the idiot. Stoffer might say that they do it to upset the bourgeosie (I don't pretend to know how to spell that word), but the next person might be doing it just to play around. The artist (whose name escapes me at the moment) is doing it to become a better artist, and the doctor is doing it almost for experiment. There is never a reason for the groups' existence that the entire group agrees upon. This is extremely important for understanding this film.

The way _The Idiots_ particularly hit me was in the characterizations. The actors are so great in this film that they hit the level of: "Is this really acting, or is it just being?" von Trier hit the same level in _Breaking the Waves_. These actors were so good, their characters just jumped out of the script. There are many characters, and only a few of them are characterized in the script extensively. Stoffer, although not the main character, is the most prominent character in the script. Many of the characters don't have all that many lines or screen time, but I felt I knew them all well.

I also appreciated that it actually entertained me. I wasn't expecting to enjoy it so much. It is often very, very funny (if offensive). It also gripped me emotionally. I did not particularly comprehend the ending's meaning, but it left me with a powerful emotion. I did have tears in my eyes when I left the theater, and a lot of thoughts in my head. When a man outside the theater stopped me to ask me how I liked it, my lips and my brain were too dry to actually answer anything but, "I liked it. I liked it a lot." 9/10

This misunderstood and wildly underappreciated film is up there with Riget and Zentropa in the Von Trier canon, and in my opinion better than Breaking the Waves. Critics focussed on the film's perceived cruel attitude towards the mentally handicapped. Idioterne is actually a very personal film about revolution, healing and Danish society's attitude towards the 'retarded'. It is an incredibly brave and moving film that will have you dabbing your eyes by the end.

Whoever decided that American filmgoers could not be exposed to the sight of penises, however, needs to lose their job. The absurdity of being exposed to full frontal female nudity--while being protected by big black floating boxes whenever a John Thomas is on screen--is an outrage. Did someone REALLY think this film would break through at the box office if these appendages were obscured? Were they concerned that Joe Six Pack was going to take the wife and kids to that new movie by that famed Danish director that's such a big hit with the arthouse crowd? The mind boggles.

Having seen and been blown away by the integrity, power, humour and intelligence of Festen (the first Dogme film by Thomas Winterberg), I was looking forward to see how the 'super star' of the genre would perform. Well, the contrast could not have been wider. Despite the constraints of the manifesto, Feston is well filmed, directed and acted and shows how the principle of the manifesto are not a bar to creating a quality work of art. The Idiots by contrast feels very much to be a student project, where the ego of the director is the most important thing on show, as he very obviously sticks to fingers up to societal norms like a precocious teenagers first rails against his parents. However. approaching the year 2000, sex as a means to shock is pretty passe and whilst the use of disability/mental health is more brave it is a pretty shallow attempt with the poor quality of the general film making detracting from any points that might have been made (even if those points are pretty thin, and again feel like the naive fumblings of an undergraduate rather than a progressive experimental film maker with an advanced social conscience). Interesting as a point in history in an influential movement but adds very little cinematically.

In Epidemic, one of his previous films, Lars von Trier noted that "a film must be like a stone in the shoe". Eleven years after Epidemic, Lars von Trier is famous, his budgets grew larger and so do the stones he puts in the spectators shoes. No, reality is never what you think it is. It stops moving when you expect it to rush, and than it rushes in a way that makes you dizzy. People that you considered to be serious collapse when it comes to testing their intentions in reality, and people that you never took a note of will prove to be the real heroes of life. At the same time Lars von Trier and his excellent actor ensemble try to explain why (non violent) social experiments always fail, in spite of what we learn at school and watch on TV. They fail for three main reasons. First, the intentions of the hardcore of every movement of this kind are different that the ones they declare on. Second, the few who take a social project seriously will remain outside the hardcore group in a lonely, non-influential position. And third: the external conditions for running an experiment of this kind are such, that it's impact is limited up front to zero, often without the acting persons realize it. A brilliant movie of a brilliant filmmaker, who revolutionized the cinema in the last generation. A must for every thinking person.

A seemingly anti-bourgeois group of adults spend their time seeking their "inner idiot" to release their inhibitions. They do so by behaving in public as if they were developmentally disabled.

I guess this film is highly regarded and is listed in the 1001 Films to See Before You Die. I have seen more than 6000 films, and I am not at all sure I would have put this one on that list. Although I understand that is the point, it looks very amateur at times and this hurts the experience (although I warmed up to it). Generally speaking I am a fan of Lars von Trier, but this one just seemed wrong.

It was like Sean Penn mixed with "The Ringer" with some mild pornography mixed in. It is not often you see erections and full sexual intercourse in a mainstream film... although I guess at the time this came out, von Trier may not have been seen as mainstream.

This film is a part of a film-experiment with handhold camera, poor sound and low budget. This experiment has failed ! No plot, uninteresting dialog and 120 min waste of time. The film is about a group of young people pretending - for no reason - to be mentally deficient. We follow the group through different stages of insanity, one after one. Guidelines does not exist. Not recommendable !

I couldn't appreciate this new Von Trier movie. I don't understand what he wants us to see. After seeing The Kingdom and Breaking The Waves, films I really liked, I went to see this one with high-standing expectations. People trying to get out their idiots, see how society reacts on them and try to have influence on that; could have been an interesting subject. But after two hours, the characters were still superficial. Hardly see any working-out or depth in the characters. For instance; in the last 20 minutes we find out who this people are, but that knowledge hardly added something to the movie. I just wondered why this movie was made and what the message was. Couldn't answer that one to myself. Funniest part of the film were the outtakes!

Sorry Lars, have seen you doing a better job!

"The Idiots" is definately not for everyone. It is disturbing, baffling and distasteful. At times it is darkly funny, and in true Lars von Trier fashion, the film never relieves the audience of its discomfort.

Lars von Trier greatest strengths easily lie in manipulating an audience's emotions and in exploring human relations. "Dancer In The Dark" in someone else's hands would have been trite and melodramatic, but with von Trier it becomes transcedent. "Breaking The Waves" was a resonant film on the power of love - for both good and bad.

In "The Idiots", a group of people band together to act like the mentally disabled in order to expose people's discomfort, break confining social norms and to find their "inner idiot" - in a perverse theory that simpleness transcends "bourgeous" or "middle class" life.

The premise is interesting, but the execution - surprisingly - does *not* strike the viewer as powerfully as past von Trier works. In this film, perhaps more than in others, it is essential that the message get across or else what you have is at times an offensive film that mocks the mentally challenged. However, to von Trier's credit there are moments where one shakes one's head at how society treats the disabled or patronizes them. Particularly in the opening scene in the restaurant or during an outing when the group, as "idiots", tries to sell Christmas decorations door-to-door.

The film follows the group through the eyes of Karen, someone who joins after seeing their performance in the opening scene at the restaurant. The focus of the film, however, is never clear. von Trier tries to juggle both issues of what Karen gets out of the group and what the group is essentially trying to achieve without ever clearly articulating his arguments. Interwoven into the story are some personal stories between the group members which prove to be a distraction.

von Trier has made a film that is definately interesting, and has moments of raw power, sadly, it does not affect the audience as much it should - or with the intensity that we have come to expect from von Trier.

I just got to see it for a first time, in our Film Center, on a big screen, in 35mm. Then I hung around for the movie about its making, "The Humiliated"/"De Ydmygede". I ranked it a 10, and the movie about it was very good to see, too, and on a large screen, and in quick succession.

I was very saddened by the only idiotic thing about this movie: the black censorship rectangles slapped over the print clearly not by von Trier the film-maker, over penises of actors or over some other frontal nudity or gasp actual sex. In the context of this work, this nudity was about as offensive or noticable as in a medical context, that is to say, not at all. The censorship was not only ridiculously unnecessary but offensive in the extreme. I feel ashamed of living in the US when things like this happen. To me, this was the true humiliation -- and Lars von Trier is to be congratulated for evoking that out of our sad country.

"The Humiliated" was not edited, which, ironically, gives one the missing glimpse of anatomy, here and there. How pointless to even care to censor -- but also, how revealing. The two movies claw at the dishonesty of our culture and our hangups even in this wounded capacity as object of futile censorship.

At first I was annoyed by the clipped faces in von Trier's framing at the beginning, but then I understood (this was not my first Dogme95; I just forgot about this aspect of it). Once I understood, I got so absorbed in what was shown that I did not notice the passage of time and regretted when the movie ended.

The Idiots could do well a TV serial. It presaged the so-called reality TV and preempted it in one fell swoop. I think it will age very well as important fingerprint of our times. Maybe one day someday Americans will grow up enough to let it see the light of the projector or even TV without the silly black rectangles marring the print.

All involved should feel very excellent about making this movie. It does a great job approximating the complexity of real life, a little delicious, thoughtful corner of it, and an uncomfortable one, at that. It defies criticism.

I don't know what dogma 95 implies but suppose it has something to do with trying to be as realistic as possible. The movie looks like it is made with a simple video camera, including microphones and other cameras on the screen. Many shots were over-exposed. Also the actors sometimes played (or improvised?) so well that it looks like a documentary. And like often happens in a documentary, there is not a real plot or worked out characters. This is all well done, but it is also the problem I have with this film: most of the times as a spectator you can't forget it's not real. Often the events or the acting simply aren't convincing enough. On me it never had the impact that a good documentary can have. Von Trier should have lived for a couple of months in some kind of sect, institution or whatever and filmed really from the inside.

Punk exists in movies too! This is just a reaction to all the candy-assed Disneykids corny American filmmaking that absorbs money you could better spend on fighting poverty (not drugs). It makes me want to go out and see another plastic Hollywood disaster (without paying the fee) and spasm right there in the crowd! But of course I haven't got the balls for it.

Speaking of balls, the sex scene is also a very bald critique towards ridiculous porn and corny porn lovers. I'm glad there's also films being made for real adults. This is not distasteful; this is a blessing for taste and style. A movie that should be looked upon with great respect. Lars keeps me happy!

Of all the films i have reviewed on imdb this film has to be hardest to do. I'm not even going to try to explain what the Idiots is about because i'm not to sure myself. Is it a drama , is it a comedy or is this just pure irony? Whatever the director set out to do he made a piece of work which is both compelling as it is disturbing. I saw the uncut version which was shown on the UK's Film Four extreme and before the film came on they in a roundabout sort of way warned the audiance about some of the explicit sex scenes, i dont know why they bothered because they are very incidental. The Idiots is very sad in many aspects and a little to long but without doubt it is like no other film seen before. 6 out of 10

The „Dogma 95` was a well-meant idea: making films with minimum budget and without any technical specialities. Lars von Trier, who always wants to take part in everything, of course had to make a contribution to the „Dogma` and so – because he is also famous for his predilection for shocking, disturbing stories – this strange film came out. I say strange not referring to the plot or to the production itself but to the deep fall of Lars von Trier. The natural light, the shaky camera and the „intentional` continuity mistakes (one scene starts in the afternoon and suddenly we find ourselves at dusk!) make the movie seem utterly amateurish and not directed at all, which for von Trier is really unusual, when you think of his „Element of Crime` or „Breaking the Waves`. I once tried to make a small movie for fun with my friends. It was better than „The Idiots`.

Now, I don't mean to criticise the whole „Dogma` project, only this film. It failed also in the other respect: it is not shocking. The screenplay is poor, the characters are not convincing and so their fates gain no interest. The fact that they are only playing the idiots is supposed to provoke not only the passer-bies in the movie but also the audience. This in my case didn't work and as the film doesn't have any other attractions, „The Idiots` is not more than a complete mess.

I do not use the title to this review lightly, this film genuinely is that good. Von Trier manages to achieve in this film what visionary and influential directors such as Luis Bunuel, Michael Haneke and Remy Belveux et al have attempted in their own seminal works. Bunuel was extremely controversial for his time but even his most challenging and controversial films such as "L'Age d'or", "Le Discret Charme de la Bourgeosie" and "Belle de Jour" look refined and elegant almost in comparison to the gritty, completely unapologetic cinematic equivalent to a stiff middle finger that von Trier has created here. Belveux, Bonzel and Poelvoorde take cinema to deliciously shocking and extreme levels with "Man Bites Dog" but von Trier shows that there were still frontiers to cross. Haneke shows no mercy with his astonishing accomplishment "Funny Games" but in a sense dulls the belligerence of his movie somewhat by allowing it to be channelled specifically in the direction of desanitising violence and thereby reminding it's audience of it's power and horror, providing a justification for one of the most disturbing films I've seen. This in no way takes away it's power as a film it just makes it less controversial than the almost completely indefensible "The Idiots", which is what I'm here to review.

Why is "The Idiots" (Idioterne) possibly one of the greatest films ever made? Simply because it doesn't provide any justification for itself and because it asks for no sympathy, whilst challenging the most deeply cherished and hard clung to values of society. This film essentially mocks mental illness, capitalism and corporations, the institution of the family, death and friendship, essentially almost everything that societies, Western societies perhaps in particular (though not necessarily), are based on. This film tears up the rule book and does what all art attempts to do: find something that these rules are essentially based upon, namely, nature.

It is intimated that finding the inner idiot is the way that the characters in this film try to discover their own inner nature but that's only a smoke-screen in terms of what this film is really about. It's not so much that being an idiot brings truth, it brings something much more important: happiness. It is perhaps only for Karen that the two are one and the same. Every character is using the group as a way of making themselves happier. They're left to an extent unstimulated by "normality" and so they use being an idiot as a form of escapism, to provide that little extra that their normal life doesn't cater for. They don't ask themselves about whether what they are doing is moral because they don't care and in presenting this to us von Trier achieves the most powerful thing that art can render, the potential vacuousness of morality in the face of our own happiness. There is nothing objectively moral at all in the world or in our lives, it is a veil, or construct, we use to combat our unhappiness, namely to make ourselves look or feel better than we believe ourselves to be. Morality goes hand in hand with how a society operates and it works well enough for most, but then there are always those who need something else and this is what the group represents, that something else. Von Trier shows us that to appreciate life in a more honest and fundamental way means doing away with certain societal constructs, but of course those societal constructs exist for a reason, ie people want/ need them and the idiots in this film are in similar need of them to greater or lesser extents.

Each character is distinctive in the way that they approach their roles as idiots, no doubt most interestingly Karen and so I shall say a little about her character. In Karen we see the stripping down of morality that I talked about in the previous paragraph. Karen is initially extremely resistant to the "philosophies" and behaviour of the group but the longer she spends with the group the more she feels it's impact upon her own life to be genuinely beneficial. The two weeks she spends with the idiots proves to be a genuinely happy one for her where she is able to adjust to the trauma that life has rent upon her. And here we see the power of von Trier's vision, what society would condemn as ghastly, inhuman and despicable is in fact the thing that helps Karen deal with her profound grief. What does it matter that people might say that what she is a part of is wrong if it in fact makes her happy? And when one watches the film to its conclusion one will see the profundity of the dilemma that awaits the many who would no doubt feel differently. The point isn't whether you ultimately agree with the idiots way of life but whether you see the fundamental dilemma that Karen's interaction with the group poses.

Karen is not the only character of interest (one of the film's many strengths), I will end this review here though as I could really go on for an extremely long time about this film, from its technical Dogme 95 aspects to the extent that it is comic or tragic, etc. But what really matters here is the fact that the film is relentlessly human and relentlessly honest, something von Trier has a justified reputation for. It is also possibly von Trier's, or any director's, most creative, hilarious and immersive film yet and it is certainly his, and perhaps the, boldest.

10/10

I found Trier's style in handheld camera work to be a little tiresome and annoying yet it gave a new dimension to the film. Idioterne almost makes the audience a participant in the "madness" which could make some people feel uncomfortable. It is a documentary style film that combines comedy and drama (and a plethora of explicit nudity)that ultimately stirs the senses as well as place the BBFC upon new ground. I recommend this film to any Trier fan as well as those who want something totally different to conventional cinema. Beware: this film may offend!

Lars Von Trier is the king of controversy. He deliberately adds scenes that aren't needed at all just to create shock from the public, he did it in "Antichrist" by placing a pornographic 3 second shock of graphic sex. Here he's decided to do it again by adding idiotic images like a fully erect penis and a pornographic sex scene. They may not be very long shots but they are simply disgusting and not needed. This film has confirmed to me that Lars Von Trier, how ever good a film-maker he is, is a pervert! He's recently even stated that whilst working on his latest film "Melencholia" he'd love to see Kirsten Dunst in a 10 minute porn movie! That's before saying that he's a fan of Nazis (as a joke, yeah real funny Lars!).

But here we're getting off the point of the film. What was the point anyway? I must've completely missed the brilliance of "The Idiots" because to me it seemed like an even more pointless "Jackass", watching pathetic idiots acting like mentally ill people by "spazzing" in public to find their inner idiot. There is little and almost no plot at all. It's a character piece, focusing on really unlikable people who have little interesting about them.

The shaky camera seems entirely unnecessary with the boom mic and camera reflection clearly visible in some shots. The directing simply has no directing. Some intellectuals might consider it "sponataneous" and "different" but it's pointless and off-putting. The screenplay is also a complete mess. Maybe something got lost in translation but I couldn't particularly understand what was going on and what the point was of there actions.

I also would not recommend watching this with other people because watching it by yourself is awkward enough. The final scene is really intense and not the good intense like "Black Swan" but really awkward and uncomfortable intense. It's horrible to watch and quite upsetting and I don't know why anyone would want their audience to feel that way. The reason for the extra mark was just for the power of the last scene and how the whole experience of seeing the film will take a while for me to forget.

Intellectuals will only like "The Idiots", they will see things I can't see because to me it's a confusing, boring and senseless piece of film making with some disgusting imagery and perverted writing. Stay clear of "The Idiots" like you'd stay clear of an idiot.