User reviews

Storyline: Max von Sydow's voice-over narration hypnotizes the protagonist (and audience) back to 1945 where our protagonist the young American ideologist Leopold Kessler (Jean-Marc Barr) has just arrived in post-WWII 1945 Germany to help rebuilding the damaged country. Uncle Kessler (Ernst-Hugo Järegård) supplies Leopold with a job in the big Zentropa train corporation, but soon Leopold falls in love with Katharina Hartmann (Barbara Sukowa); daughter of Zentropa owner Max Hartmann (Jørgen Reenberg). Leopold soon finds himself caught in a web of corruption, being taken advantage of, losing his ideology, and is forced to chose between pest or colera.

Mysterious, mesmerizing, manipulative, noirish, haunting, beautiful, and ugly. These are some immediate, grandiose, descriptions that come to mind when thinking of Lars von Trier's 1991 masterpiece EUROPA; the final chapter of the Europa trilogy. In USA it was retitled ZENTROPA so audiences wouldn't confuse it with Agnieszka Holland's EUROPA EUROPA from 1990 (equally a WWII drama). The Europa trilogy also consists of FORBRYDELSENS ELEMENT from 1984 and EPIDEMIC from 1987 (the infamous experiment that only sold 900 tickets in the Danish cinemas). The trilogy thematically deals with hypnotism and loss of idealism, although the themes of this trilogy are not as essential as the visuals. In the opening-shot of EUROPA we see a locomotive moving towards us while our unidentified narrator literally hypnotizes us: "On the mental count of ten, you will be in Europa. Be there at ten. I say: ten". A metaphor for movies' ability to transport us into a subconscious dream-reality.

EUROPA utilizes a strange but extremely effective visual style -- that famous Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky is Trier's main-influence says it all. It's a black-and-white movie occasionally intertwined with red in form of blood, a red dress etc. According to rumors this inspired Steven Spielberg to use the similar effect in SHINDLER'S LIST from 1993 (coincidentially another WWII drama). Furthermore Trier uses so-called Dutch angels and reinvents background-projection by adding separately shot co-operating layers upon layers, but unlike old Hollywood movies that incorporated it for economical reasons, Trier uses it for artistic reasons. These carefully executed strange-looking visual techniques underline that we are in a dream-reality, we are hypnotized; the universe of EUROPA is not real! EUROPA is often criticized for weighing advanced technique (such as multi-layered background-projection) above plot and characters, but hey that's what reviewers criticized Stanley Kubrick's 1968 visual masterpiece 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY for -- nowadays it holds an obligatory place in all cinema-history books.

EUROPA also gets accused of historical incorrectness. Apparently Trier assigns the Nazis' Werewolf terrorist-group too much historical significance. According to various online-sources that's correct (a fascinating subject - try Googl'ing it yourself!), yet Trier's purposes are neither educational nor portraying history accurately. EUROPA is a never-ending nightmare. Leopold Kessler is hypnotized, therefore the universe that the audience encounters is a distorted reality. Equally it shows how our memory deceives us -- a 100% accurate reconstruction is a lie! Although young audiences who experience EUROPA are too young to have memories from WWII, we have a collective memory of it from various BBC documentaries, so these small inaccuracies actually serve a purpose: they inform us us that we are not in post-WWII Germany 1945, but in Leopolds memory of it.

All three Europa trilogy chapters portray young ideologists with noble intentions forced into corruption and losing their ideological innocence. The ambiguous endings of FORBRYDELSENS ELEMENT and EUROPA show the ideologists getting forever caught in their hypnotized realities. Before, during and after shooting EUROPA in 1990 in Poland, Lars von Trier and co-writer Niels Vørsel were extremely interested in WWII. It shows. It's packed with extremely beautiful shots catching the atmosphere of the time-period spot-on. A great example is the old Polish church (EUROPA was shot in Poland primarily for economic reasons) in the last act of EUROPA. As with 2001: SPACE ODYSSEY I think EUROPA will receive it's rightfully deserved place in cinema-history. Its method of twisting old film-noir love-affair clichés and visual techniques is so unique, strange and completely different from anything you will see from Hollywood nowadays, or any other dream-factory for that matter.

EUROPA is an essential movie in the Lars von Trier catalog. Some write it off as pure commercial speculation, but that would be catastrophic. It's right up there with other Trier classics and semi-classics such as FORBRYDELSENS ELEMENT from 1984, the TV-series RIGET from 1993 and DOGVILLE from 2003. It's a unique experience from before Trier cared for his actors, and before the Dogme95 Manifesto. Watch it! "On the count of ten..." 9/10

Released as Zentropa in North America to avoid confusion with Agniezska Holland's own Holocaust film Europa Europa, this third theatrical feature by a filmmaker who never ceases to surprise, inspire or downright shock is a bizarre, nostalgic, elaborate film about a naive American in Germany shortly following the end of WWII. The American, named Leo, doesn't fully get what he's doing there. He has come to take part in fixing up the country since, in his mind, it's about time Germany was shown some charity. No matter how that sounds, he is not a Nazi sympathizer or so much as especially pro-German, merely mixed up. His uncle, who works on the railroad, gets Leo a job as a helmsman on a sleeping car, and he is increasingly enmeshed in a vortex of 1945 Germany's horrors and enigmas.

This progression starts when Leo, played rather memorably by the calm yet restless actor Jean-Marc Barr, meets a sultry heiress on the train played by Barbara Sukowa, an actress with gentility on the surface but internal vigor. She seduces him and then takes him home to meet her family, which owns the company which manufactures the trains. These were the precise trains that took Jews to their deaths during the war, but now they run a drab day-to-day timetable, and the woman's Uncle Kessler postures as another one of those good Germans who were just doing their jobs. There is also Udo Kier, the tremendous actor who blew me away in Von Trier's shocking second film Epidemic, though here he is mere scenery.

Another guest at the house is Eddie Constantine, an actor with a quiet strength, playing a somber American intelligence man. He can confirm that Uncle Kessler was a war criminal, though it is all completely baffling to Leo. Americans have been characterized as gullible rubes out of their element for decades, but little have they been more blithely unconcerned than Leo, who goes back to his job on what gradually looks like his own customized death train.

The story is told in a purposely uncoordinated manner by the film's Danish director, Lars Von Trier, whose anchor is in the film's breathtaking editing and cinematography. He shoots in black and white and color, he uses double-exposures, optical effects and trick photography, having actors interact with rear-projected footage, he places his characters inside a richly shaded visceral world so that they sometimes feel like insects, caught between glass for our more precise survey.

This Grand Jury Prize-winning surrealist work is allegorical, but maybe in a distinct tone for every viewer. I interpret it as a film about the last legs of Nazism, symbolized by the train, and the ethical accountability of Americans and others who appeared too late to salvage the martyrs of these trains and the camps where they distributed their condemned shiploads. During the time frame of the movie, and the Nazi state, and such significance to the train, are dead, but like decapitated chickens they persist in jolting through their reflexes.

The characters, music, dialogue, and plot are deliberately hammy and almost satirically procured from film noir conventions. The most entrancing points in the movie are the entirely cinematographic ones. Two trains halting back and forth, Barr on one and Sukowa on another. An underwater shot of proliferating blood. An uncommonly expressive sequence on what it must be like to drown. And most metaphysically affecting of all, an anesthetic shot of train tracks, as Max von Sydow's voice allures us to hark back to Europe with him, and abandon our personal restraint.

Someone release this movie on DVD so it can take its hallowed place as one of the greatest films of all time in ten to twenty years when critics and film historians look back on the so-called films of the 1990's and see how vapid they were for the most part, and how Lars Von Trier tried to revolutionize and revitalize the international film world with this masterpiece. As it stands, "Zentropa" (or "Europa" as it is referred to outside the US) is one of the most fascinating and artistic views of the bleakness and almost psychotic uncertainty that oozed out of post WWII Europe, namely the decimated German landscape, whose physical horrors were matched only by the damage to the psyche of its people. Von Trier brilliantly paints his vision on screen. You will feel like you are watching some lost espionage noir classic from the late 1940's with the perfectly lighted black and white scenes, while at the same time feel you are on the brink of something beyond the cutting edge, especially in scenes like the assassination aboard the train. Literally, when you see this movie, you are witnessing the evolution of an art form.

For some reason, Von Trier got caught up in his own Dogma movement shortly after this. And while his "Breaking the Waves" and "Dancer in the Dark" are classics in their own right, it is with "Zentropa" that he truly lifted the art of film making to new and exciting heights. 10/10, ages like a fine wine, and begs for a DVD release.

***Postscript - Criterion released the film on DVD in 2009. Highly recommended.

Von Trier once explained how he created such strong involvement from the viewer with his movies by placing his movie world in about the middle of the real world and the imagined world. So as viewers we think we watch a "true" story while in fact we are thoroughly manipulated, often to the point that the movie works disturbing (Dancer in the Dark) or painful (The Idiots/ Idioterne). Of course the Dogme-films acted only as a vehicle for this theory (besides creating some welcome spotlight on Von Trier).

The story is typical for Von Trier: our hero is idealistic, seems to balance his relations with everybody else, but soon becomes the victim of the problems others have created in the past for themselves. The idealist inevitably has to reject society in order to stay idealistic and becomes the terrorist. Mankind is spoiled and purity only leads to (self-)destruction. (These elements were also very omnipresent in Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark.) The movie is also full of cynical (even humorous) undertones about the role of the Germans and Americans in post-war Germany.

As a technical achievement the movie is wonderfully designed: shifting and fading washed-out colors, screen overlays, action on different overlays (with the shooting of the soon-to-be mayor as the most interesting). In this movie we can see how good Von Trier's handles film as a technical medium. In his later works he seems to step down from this (as if he is not longer interested in technical achievements because they become so easily available).

This is the fifth von Trier film I have seen. I believe that he is the only director to whom I have given such a high score on all his movies. Four of them, The Element of Crime, Europa, Breaking the Waves, and Dancer in the Dark, I have given a 10, and one, The Idiots, I have given a 9 (and I have been reconsidering whether to give it a 10 since I first saw it, although I'd like to see it once more before I do). He has been chided for calling himself one of the best working directors. I tend to agree with him. I cannot blame him for being arrogant when he has made such great films. In 50 years, when von Trier retires, he will be looked upon as the pre-eminent film artist from Europe (perhaps from the planet), and there will be classes taught in his name. He simply is the Bergman or Fellini of our time. It is too bad the critics are too intrigued with themselves to notice this.

About Europa itself, I'll admit that it was confusing and that its narrative did not seem strong. I think that's the point. This film was obviously meant to represent a nightmare, or the subconscious at some level. This is absolutely clear from the framing of the film: Max von Sydow's narration. We are hypnotized, or von Trier is hypnotized, and this is our/his subconscious mind. I'm inclined to lean more towards his mind, since the degradation of Europe concerns me, an American, very little. This framing is also clear if you have seen The Element of Crime, an even more brilliant film than this (although I am disputing that in my mind; what Europa needs more than anything is a proper release on DVD, hopefully Criterion again, with theatrical aspect ratio and remastered sound and picture; then, I am fairly sure, this film would seem as great as any of von Trier's other films). In The Element of Crime, the film begins with a hypnotist, whom we actually see on screen this time, is hypnotizing Fisher, a European detective who wants to get to the root of his mental anguish. The first words of that film are "Fantasy is okay, but my job is to keep you on track." And whenever Fisher, the narrator, gets off track, the hypnotist does chastize him and tells him to get back on with the story. He even laughs when a character is given a really silly and trite line. Something along the lines of, "Do you understand the difference between good and evil?" The hypnotist laughs and says, "Now, Fisher, she didn't really say that, did she?"

So the key to interpreting Europa, almost a sequel of sorts to The Element of Crime, is that we are deep in our/von Trier's subconscious, and the symbols there are to be interpreted within ourselves and will likely be different for everyone. What does the train itself symbolize? Consider it internally, and only then discuss it externally. Europa is a great film, a masterpiece. I was never bored by it, even though I watched it at 3 am. The perfect time to watch, actually, since it works in dream logic.

Zentropa has much in common with The Third Man, another noir-like film set among the rubble of postwar Europe. Like TTM, there is much inventive camera work. There is an innocent American who gets emotionally involved with a woman he doesn't really understand, and whose naivety is all the more striking in contrast with the natives.

But I'd have to say that The Third Man has a more well-crafted storyline. Zentropa is a bit disjointed in this respect. Perhaps this is intentional: it is presented as a dream/nightmare, and making it too coherent would spoil the effect.

This movie is unrelentingly grim--"noir" in more than one sense; one never sees the sun shine. Grim, but intriguing, and frightening.

With stunning cinematography and a thread of Kafkaesque absurdity, this movie had me from the simple yet fascinating opening scene. The movie plays much like a dream, and I think that may be why people either hate it or love it. Characters are drawn superficially and the story itself is slight and perhaps a little pointless. But these are failings of the movie but conscious choices. The film works isn't trying to work as history, but rather is a deconstruction of 1940s war movies.

I would have trouble arguing that there was much real substance to the movie, but the movie is such a cinematic wonder that I was completely swept away. This is one of the most beautifully filmed movies ever, and there is a wild imagination in its style. I can completely understand why people would hate it, but I give it 9/10.

That was the first thing that sprang to mind as I watched the closing credits to Europa make there was across the screen, never in my entire life have I seen a film of such technical genius, the visuals of Europa are so impressive that any film I watch in it's wake will only pale in comparison, forget your Michael Bay, Ridley Scott slick Hollywood cinematography, Europa has more ethereal beauty than anything those two could conjure up in a million years. Now I'd be the first to hail Lars von Trier a genius just off the back of his films Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark, but this is stupid, the fact that Europa has gone un-noticed by film experts for so long is a crime against cinema, whilst overrated rubbish like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Life is Beautiful clean up at the academy awards (but what do the know) Europa has been hidden away, absent form video stores and (until recently) any British TV channels.

The visuals in Europa are not MTV gloss; it's not a case of style over substance, its more a case of substance dictating style. Much like his first film The Element of Crime, von Trier uses the perspective of the main character to draw us into his world, and much like Element, the film begins with the main character (or in the case of Europa, we the audience) being hypnotized. As we move down the tracks, the voice of the Narrator (Max von Sydow) counts us down into a deep sleep, until we awake in Europa. This allows von Trier and his three cinematographers to pay with the conventions of time and imagery, there are many scenes in Europa when a character in the background, who is in black and white, will interact with a person in the foreground who will be colour, von Trier is trying to show us how much precedence the coloured item or person has over the plot, for instance, it's no surprise that the first shot of Leopold Kessler (Jean-marc Barr) is in colour, since he is the only character who's actions have superiority over the film.

The performances are good, they may not be on par with performances in later von Trier films, but that's just because the images are sometimes so distracting that you don't really pick up on them the first time round. But I would like to point out the fantastic performance of Jean-Marc Barr in the lead role, whose blind idealism is slowly warn down by the two opposing sides, until he erupts in the films final act. Again, muck like The Element of Crime, the film ends with our hero unable to wake up from his nightmare state, left in this terrible place, with only the continuing narration of von Sydow to seal his fate. Europa is a tremendous film, and I cant help thinking what a shame that von Trier has abandoned this way of filming, since he was clearly one of the most talented visual directors working at that time, Europa, much like the rest of his cinematic cannon is filled with a wealth of iconic scenes. His dedication to composition and mise-en-scene is unrivalled, not to mention his use of sound and production design. But since his no-frills melodramas turned out to be Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark then who can argue, but it does seems like a waste of an imaginative talent. 10/10

Wow, here's a strange film, at least visually. This Danish-German movie is a combination of black-and-white and color. Most of the time, the color is just used for one or two items in a scene, such as someone's face, or an object on screen.

The narration is from a person who talks like a hypnotist (and sounds stupid, most of the time.) It negates the fascinating visuals. The story is just so weak and confusing that after 45 minutes, it's tough to stay interested. It's a depressing post WWII-Germany story.

Note: this is the third film in a trilogy by director-writer Lars Von Trier. In fairness, I should see this on DVD, and the other two films. The visuals might be so good on that format that I could tolerate the story.

Zentropa is another von Trier film that manages to tell an authentically interesting story, revel in its own aesthetic beauty, and engage us in questions of metaphysics. The films narration, as described above, sets the gauntlet very high. The often tired flashback/hypnotism/relapse/etc structure poses a certain disaster to most of the films that dare to use it. However, it is pulled off masterfully.

With Zentropa, we must first buy into the introduction. We prepare ourselves to relive these moments, and allow the film to justify its use of this down the tracks. However, we learn very quickly that what we have been sold is not the standard omniscient perspective. It is distorted and fragmented; emotion has been poured on too thick at parts, while in others it is spread too thin. We must accept the story directly from a mind that we considerably mistrust.

The rest of the film tirelessly reconstructs the scenes of this deranged mind. We transition from b&w film, to color. From a nearly mystical hope, to an absurd pessimism. Time moves too slowly, but abruptly jumps ahead too quickly. von Trier understands the architecture of this 'hypnotic' state supremely.

The movie progresses sporadically which is mandatory given the structure. von Trier plays wonderfully with the noir genre, he throws in some espionage, some sex, love, hats and guns. Finally, he skillfully introduces issues of morality, war, and responsibility- adding a rich political dimension to an already layered film.

The final scenes are visually the most beautiful in the movie, and some of my all time personal favorites. The quiet, tenseless moments in this sequence finally allow us to sink into a comfortable pace and an agreeable aesthetic.

Ultimately, von Trier has framed this film around a giant question of reality. As is his standard. The fact that this metaphysical dimension continually impinges upon the film, justifies its validity. The question was artfully asked. And beneath this works a noir film, a veritable feast of imagery, and wonderful performances.

Critics need to review what they class as a quality movie. I think the critics have seen too many actions films and have succumbed to the Matrix style of films. Europa is a breath of fresh air, a film with so many layers that one viewing is not enough to understand or appreciate this outstanding film. Lars von Trier shows that old styles of filming can produce marvellous cinema and build drama and tension. The back projection effect he uses during the film arouses and enhances the characters, and the focus of the conversation they are having. Other effects he uses such as the colour and black and white in one scene much like Hitchcock and the girl with the red coat grabs attention and enhances the drama and meaning of the scene. The commentary is superb and has a hypnotic effect, again maintaining the focus on the central characters in the scene and there actions.

I could talk about the effects more but I think you all would agree they push this film into a category of its own, and really heighten the drama of the film. A film to buy if you don't own already and one to see if you have not.

10/10 Don't miss this artistic noir film from one of the great film directors.

I had started to lose my faith in films of recent being inundated with the typical Genre Hollywood film. Story lines fail, and camera work is merely copied from the last film of similiar taste. But, then I saw Zentropa (Europa) and my faith was renewed. Not only is the metaphorical storyline enthralling but the use of color and black and white is visually stimulating. The narrator (Max Von Sydow) takes you through a spellbounding journey every step of the way and engrosses you into Europa 1945. We have all seen death put on screen in a hundred thousand ways but the beauty of this film is how it takes you through every slow-moving moment that leads you to death. Unlike many films it doesn't cut after one second of showing (for example) a knife but forces you to watch the devastating yet sensuous beauty of a man's final moments. I think we can all take something different away from what this movie is trying to say but it is definitely worth taking the time to find out what it all really means. I would love to talk more in depth about the film for any one who wishes to send me an email. Enjoy it!

Europa is an attempt to treat the subject of Nazism and World War II in a post-war setting by Lars Von Trier, some of whose later movies, including Dogville (2003) and Anti-Christ (2009) stood out for their brilliant originality. However, Europa, being one of his earlier movies (from 1991), fails – apart from some original moments – to come up with any kind of fresh or new perspective. Maybe in its time, the movie's presentation, where most of the movie is in black and white except for certain important objects which are shown in color, could have been appreciated more. However after having been subjected may times to another, more well-known, Nazism-World War II movie that came later (Schindler's List, 1997) makes one feel that the color alternation does not give any respite to its generally dull and tedious method of presentation of its subject.

We start off by hearing a narrator who goes on for the entire movie, instructing the viewer to go through the exact things experienced by the protagonist, Leonard Kessler (Jean Marc-Barr). In the beginning scene, the narrator asks the viewer to "go deeper" and we are given a count to "go deeper and deeper". This seems like some form of mystical ritual or "meditational" thing, something that seems somewhat inappropriate for such a somber subject as Nazism-World World War II. Later however, the narrator tells the viewer the exact things the protagonist is experiencing. This seems to be a somewhat original perspective in a movie and can be appreciated.

The femme fatale anti-heroine, Katharina Hartmann, is portrayed excellently by Barbara Sukowa, who puts in an excellent performance, being the saving grace as far as individual performances of actors go. The protagonist, Kessler, seems to be too idealistic in his beliefs and actions for most members of any audience to identify with. He basically fumbles through the entire movie and his character is one who seems to be completely spineless. Maybe the intended character was not meant to be this bad, but the actor who portrays this character certainly does not lend any special or personal touch to make this character stand out.

Overall, this movie tries to present the scenario in Germany after the end of World War II and the harsh realities of the Allied occupation and the remnants of Nazism, but fails to go beyond an excessively dull and drab mode of presentation of the subject. One certainly has to commend Von Trier for even attempting to treat such a subject as post-war Germany, but his effort could have been a little better for someone of his caliber for, certainly, such a sensitive subject would have been botched by many lesser directors, including the copycat director of Schindler's List, but perhaps the reality of the situation continues to be too tragic to be soberly portrayed on screen.

When people ask me if I have a favorite movie, I will look at them seriously and find out what kind of movie nut they are. If they seem a bit clueless, I will say 'Citizen Kane' (which is actually my 2nd favorite movie) but my all time favorite movie is "Zentropa" aka Europa. I saw this first at the Vancouver International Film Festival, and as soon as Max Van Sydow started his haunting narration, I was HOOKED! EVERYTHING about this film I love. From the mentioned narration to the bang on performance of Jean-Marc which he hasn't replicated before (The Big Blue is a big yawn) or since (but I DO love his tiny bit parts in other Von Trier movies) to the gonzo story (An American gets a job as a railway conductor in Germany immediately after the war and gets involved in post-war terrorism groups!) to the LOOK of the film. Black on white on color, phony but amazing process shots). Never boring, quite entertaining. When's this EVER going to be released on DVD?

Lars von Trier's 'Europa' has a surreal, dreamlike, Lynchian feel to it. The movie is introduced by a narrator (Max von Sydow) who keeps up with the main character and the viewers during the story, which felt very nostalgic. The usage of a color camera in tandem with a black and white camera is interesting, although I couldn't exactly grasp what the contrast between the two styles meant. The score is great and really made me forget at times that this wasn't a 1991 movie but rather something made in the 40's or 50's.

The characters are mostly interesting, the least interesting being the main character (played by Jean-Marc Barr) since his motivations and backstory is rarely mentioned. He thus feels like mostly a device to move the viewer around to more interesting characters (such as his love interest and her family) and their plots. The actor gives a decent performance, although I think the movie could've been elevated by someone a little more memorable (someone like Udo Kier for example, who plays his very hatable uncle!)

Storywise it didn't do a *lot* for me, mostly due to the way the film ends, although I did get a chuckle out of it. The film strength lies in the moody atmosphere, it's dreamlike quality and it managed to mostly engage me during its almost 2 hour runtime. I give it a 7+/10.

It is not every film's job to stimulate you superficially. I will take an ambitious failure over a mass-market hit any day. While this really can't be described as a failure, the sum of its parts remains ambiguous. That indecipherable quality tantalizes me into watching it again and again. This is a challenging, provocative movie that does not wrap things up neatly. The problem with the movie is in its structure. Its impenetrable plot seems to be winding up, just as a second ending is tacked on. Though everything is technically dazzling, the movie is exactly too long by that unit. The long-delayed climax of Leo's awakening comes about 20 minutes late.

Great cinematography often comes at the expense of a decent script, but here the innovative camera technique offers a wealth of visual ideas. The compositing artifice is provocative and engaging; A character is rear-projected but his own hand in the foreground isn't. The world depicted is deliberate, treacherous and absurd. Keep your eyes peeled for a memorable, technically astonishing assassination that will make your jaw drop.

The compositions are stunning. Whomever chose to release the (out of print) videotape in the pan & scan format must have never seen it. Where is the DVD?

It is unfathomable how anyone could give this much originality a bad review. You should see it at least once. You get the sense that von Trier bit off more than he could chew, but this movie ends up being richer for it. I suspect he is familiar with Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent in which devious Europeans also manipulate an American dupe and several Welles movies that take delirious joy in technique as much as he does. All von Trier movies explore the plight of the naif amidst unforgiving societies. This is NOT a character piece, it is a polemic. After Zentropa, von Trier moved away from this type of audacious technical experiment towards dreary, over-rated, un-nuanced sap like Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark.

"For the first time, you experience the fear of being on a train with no possibility of getting off, and no idea where the journey may end."

Wonderfully experimental, beautiful cinematography, and an ambiguous noir-ish story set in post-war Germany make for an intriguing film from Lars von Trier. Barbara Sukowa makes for a fine femme fatale, we're treated to Max von Sydow providing narration in a dreamy framework, and the scenes on the train make for a claustrophobic little world of their own. Amidst the surreal nightmare the protagonist faces, there are bits of humor injected in his demanding mentor and an absurd test he has to take right at the peak of the action. Scenes like the snow falling gently on the parishioners in the cathedral whose roof was destroyed in the war are memorable. There's a lot to like here, so I'll apologize that what follows, the bulk of my review, are what stopped me from giving it a higher rating.

To put it bluntly, where I had trouble was in how it seemed to teetered along the edge of being sympathetic to the Nazis. Oh, not in an overt way, and in a scene where the conductor is walking through the train, we do see haunting images of Jews who are on their way to a concentration camp, as if he's walking through what this train had been used for in a very guilty past. This is the new conductor, a German American who sat out the war because he is a pacifist, who early on makes the observation that "It's time someone showed this country (Germany) a little kindness," which was remarkably tone-deaf in the wake of German militarism and atrocities, even for an idealist.

Now you could say that this shows how naïve this man was, and we see what eventually happens to such a purist in the "real world," but there is also a thread criticizing those who didn't fight in the war, comparing them unfavorably even to the Nazis. A priest says that "God is on everyone's side. But when you fight for a cause with all your heart, then God finds it easier to forgive if, in doing so, you disobey his commands," which was a real doozie. Really, even the Nazis, the ones who were not "lukewarm" and fought with all their heart, can be forgiven more easily than a pacifist or an atheist?

That could be read as commentary on the Catholic Church's morally problematic position relative to the Nazis as they rose to power, but the thing is, this idea recurs. The femme fatale makes the point that "After all, they (German partisans) were only fighting for their country, like most of the world has been doing" (really, not invading other countries and committing genocide?), which of course, could be read as showing how deluded she was.

However, at a point where she is given a degree of sympathy in the script, she tells the conductor that he is the "only criminal," because he didn't fight for either side, and can't possibly understand everyone else there, what they went through, and the crimes and betrayals they felt forced to commit to survived. This is where it broke for me, that in the end, the pacifist was judged more so than those trying to continue Hitler's legacy, and the American soldiers and Germans on the train were simply lumped together in the comparison. In any event, the story never seemed to reach bottom in its messaging, which tainted the drama at its core. Lines like "Did you know that manufacturers in Germany were owned by Americans during the war?" and the American MP's being stereotypically black didn't help matters.

There is enough ambiguity in the film that you may see it a completely different way - as satire, or a haunting nightmare, not one that can be easily pinned down. Perhaps I was more sensitive on this occasion because I'm currently reading Babi Yar, by Anatoly Kuznetsov, about the Nazi occupation and atrocities in Ukraine. Any inkling of sympathy in the aftermath of the war was bound to put me on edge.

I haven't seen this movie in about 5 years, but it still haunts me.

When asked about my favorite films, this is the one that I seem to always mention first. There are certain films (works of art like this film, "Dark City", and "Breaking the Waves") that seem to touch a place within you, a place so protected and hidden and yet so sensitive, that they make a lifelong impression on the viewer, not unlike a life-changing event, such as the ending of a serious relationship or the death of a friend... This film "shook" me when I first saw it. It left me with an emotional hangover that lasted for several days.

I cannot stay indifferent to Lars van Trier's films. I consider 'Breaking the Waves' nothing less than a masterpiece. I loved 'Dancer in the Night'. I admired the idea in 'Dogville' but the overall exercise looked to me too dry and too theatrical, less cinema. 'Europa' which I see only now was a famous film at its time, succeeded in the US the relative success of an European film and got the Oscar for the best foreign language movie, but did not survive well the time in my opinion. It is also a too much explicit and extrovert exercise in cinema art to my taste.

The story has a level of ambiguity that cannot escape the viewer. Treating the period that immediately followed the second world war not in the black and white colors of victors and vanquished, of executioners and victims but as rather ambiguous times when people of both sides were fighting for survival in the aftermath of a catastrophic event that change the lives of nations and individuals forever is still a source of disputes even today, more such was novel and courageous two decades ago. Yet it is the means of expression that really do not appear fit to the task.

The film seems to include a lot of quotes descending directly from the films of Hitchcock, especially his early films set in the pre-war Europe, with brave British spies fighting evil German spies on trains crossing at high speed the continent at dark. The trains were a symbol of the world and its conflicts with all their intensity and dramatism. Here the train also becomes the symbol of the first sparkles of the re-birth of Germany after war, of its might, of its obsession with order and regulation, of punctuality and civility. The characters that populate the train are far from being the classical spy stories good or bad guys. The principal character a young American of German origin coming to post-war Europe willing to be part of a process of help and reconciliation finds himself in an ambiguous world of destruction and corruption, with liberators looking more like oppressive occupiers, with the vanquished not resigned to their fate but rather willing to continue on the path of self-destruction, with love doubtfully mixed with treason.

It is yet this classical film treatment that betrays the director in this case. The actions of the characters, especially of Leopold Kessler played by Jean-Marc Barr seem confused, and lack credibility. The overall cinematography seems to be not Hitchcock-like but rather from a bad imitation of Hitchcock in the late 30s. The usage of color over the black-and-white film used in the majority of the time in moments of emotional intensity is also too demonstrative. It is not that Van Trier does not master his artistic means, but he is too demonstrative, he seems to try too hard to show what a great filmmaker he is. He really is great, as he will show in some of his later films, but it will be left to the viewers to decide this alone.

Von Trier has created a film that is a noir satire, a joke on psychotherapy, the last great hurrah for back-projection in movies (even tops "The Nasty Girl" in that depatment), a historical hoax, a satire of the Prussian work ethic, a satire of noir romances, and an indirect indictment on the firms which profited off twelve years of Hiterite insanity. The train is Germany, with Ernst-Hugo Jaregard and Jean Marc-Bar decked out as its' SS and military (notice the tunic design, the collar patch piping, the peaked caps, the fact that it's all black.) The Werewolves are taken from Reichspropagandaminister Goerbbles' last hat trick, that the Reich gov't. was prepping an army of saboteurs in 1944-45 to make occupation a misery. The Zentropa firm is a combination of the steel kingpin Krupp (which used slave labor at Auschwitz), and Deutche Reichsbahn (the state railway firm which sent so many to their deaths), along with others like Ford, who profited from Axis and Allied war efforts. Hence the burial sequence is doubly ironic; the Nazi war profiteer getting last rites in a ruined cattle car that was probably resposible for the oblivion of hundreds. The film leaves you with the suspicion that Nazism was an extreme expression of the German national psychology of sado-masochism and that 46 years later Hitler's shadow still stalked Europa (the cathedral scene was shot in an actual Polish cathedral which had been left roofless by the Communist Polish gov't.) I will say no more, but I do love the "Europa Aria" over the final credits. That song says more then I possibly could.