Forbrydelsens element

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

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

Von Trier has created some masterpieces, but also some beautiful and very flawed films. Still, as far as his style The Element of Crime is the first of his without the Dogme shaky-cam style. Let's get this out of the way. It reminds me a lot of Lynch's Eraserhead and Aronofsky's Pi in how technically brilliant, but also how surreal and how cold they are. But unlike those, this one really tested my patience at times. It has some brilliant sound design, and some really amazing lighting and cinematography. There's quite a few shots here that will linger in the mind, but as a whole the plot is quite messy and not very comprehendable. Some could say it fits as a Lynch film in a way, but I found this to be much more of a mixed bag than many of Lynch's works. Overall, as a journey through avant-garde territory with really surreal, stylized, and just unsettling and odd moments, it's recommended, but as a whole you may feel yourself checking the clock one too many times.

Though supposedly taking place somewhere in West Germany, I cannot imagine a world such as this, with the exceptions of perhaps a Mad Max movie, or maybe Waterworld. Water seems to be the dominant element in the film; the entire piece is saturated. In one early scene in police headquarters, our hero, Fisher, visits the archives by climbing a rope down to a flooded basement. He wades in waist high water, searching through damp and waterlogged files encased in plastic baggies. He searches for clues to the elusive Harry Gray. This world has definitely suffered some apocalypse, though details are sketchy.

Finding a long forgotten surveillance report, he tracks the movements of Mr. Gray through the muddy streets and towns. He tries to put himself into the shoes of his prey, perhaps too much so. Who is Harry Gray, anyway? Is there such a person? Will the hunter cross the line and identify too closely with the hunted?

Lars von Trier's directorial debut definitely foreshadows some of his later works. All of the lotto girls bear a striking resemblance to "The Kingdom's" poor Mary Jensen. And much of the camera work is reminiscent of "The Kingdom" and "Europa". Although the film is somewhat slow, especially if you've been bred on a diet of standard American cinema, it's dreamy, somber tone is nothing if not original. Shot entirely in shades of sepia, with startling blasts of blue color that remind you that this is not a black and white film of the Fritz Lang era, you wonder if the entire movie is but a dream, conjured in our protaganist's mind and surfaced under hypnosis. Why is he in Cairo being hypnotized, anyway? Was he the killer all along, murdering the lotto girls and mutilating them with broken bottles? Does he really not remember? And am I the only one who sees the similarity between Harry Gray and "The Usual Suspects'" Kaiser Soze. The classic red herring that leads you... where?

More than likely, you will only see this film if you purchase the Criterion Collection Edition (at least in the USA), or borrow it from someone who has. So, is it worth the fourty bucks to add to your collection? If you are a Michael Bay, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, shoot-em-up action guy, then probably not. But if you enjoy something completely different, then this may well be for you. By the way, the Criterion release includes a documentary about the life and work of von Trier, including some of his first adolescent films shot with his mom's 8mm camera. If you are a fan of "The Kingdom", as I am, or of any of von Trier's works, it may well be worth the asking price for this alone; and you can consider the feature a quirky bonus, showing his singular genius at such an early stage.

It's taken me a long time but I've finally managed to see Lars von Trier's debut feature film. And boy, was it worth the wait! Those who are mainly familiar with his recent work might find this fascinating and visually stunning movie a bit of a shock to the system, but if you've seen his superb thriller 'Europa' you will have a better idea what to expect. This was made way before von Trier's vow of cinematic chastity, and he pulls all the stops out. 'The Element Of Crime' is a future noir and deliberately references 'Blade Runner', but there are also dollops of David Lynch in there, Tarkovsky, Terry Gilliam and possibly even Cocteau. It's such a kitchen sink mix of influences that each viewer will probably see something else echoed in it. That's not to say the movie can only be appreciated by movie snobs and trainspotter types, it's a very enjoyable viewing experience in its own right. The cast is a very interesting and eclectic mix. The lead Brit character actor Michael Elphick is recognizable from 'The Elephant Man' and 'Withnail And I' among many other things. He is supported by Shakespearean veteran Esmond Knight, 'The Time Bandits' Jerold Wells, and Me Me Lai, best known for cannibal exploitation movies by Deodato and Lenzi. Quite an odd group of actors but they are all very good and fit together well. The movie itself is a mystery, and if the plot doesn't suck you in the amazing visuals will. The first time I watched 'The Element Of Crime' I was slightly disappointed, but a second viewing the next day really opened my eyes. Lars von Trier is one of the most interesting and original directors currently working, but he is certainly no late bloomer. 'The Element Of Crime' shows he was absolutely brilliant and innovative from the very beginning. This unique film is highly recommended for science fiction buffs and arthouse fiends alike. After you've digested it (and multiple viewings might help) watch 'Europa' which is even more impressive in my opinion.