jmunky.com

Watching "Epidemic" can only accurately be described as going on a wild goose chase. Lars von Trier is the goose, you're famed Officer of the London Metropolitan Police Service, Nicholas Angel, and no matter how many goddamned fences you jump to catch him he just keeps getting away. And then in the third act, when you finally do catch him, he says some shit about sympathizing with the Nazi party, and all you're left with is more questions.

"Epidemic" is a 1987... thing??? (???)...?, directed by and starring Lars von Trier. It is both his sophomore film and the second entry into his Europa Trilogy. It has been a long time since I've seen "The Element of Crime" and "Europa" itself. I believe though what connects them is their dealing with characters who are idealistic at the beginning of the film, but become severely disillusioned or radicalized by the end of the film. Honestly, you could probably say that about every Trier film, thus negating the need to rather pointlessly group them into some sort of "trilogy", but I digress.

"Epidemic" is on the surface about creativity, however as the film goes along I think it becomes more about other's perceptions and expectations of and for your creative output. If that sounds a little confusing, I heard someone compare it to the 2002 film "Adaptation" which stars both Nick Cage and Nick Cage, and I feel that is fairly accurate.

However, pre-21st century Trier had a very different style from the one he has today, you know, cutting to the emotion and all that. "The Element of Crime", "Epidemic", "Europa" are all similar in that they're completely incoherent. "The Element of Crime" especially is just variations of the color brown for a hundred minutes, while this dude walks around a city in the rain, and then Trier shows up in a really weird cameo with a shaved head that kind of gives him an "I'm Golem from 'The Lord of the Rings', but I also was a crowd extra in 'Green Room'" sort of vibe. I just liked it for the imagery and the tone, I couldn't really tell you what happens.

"Epidemic" is similar in this way. It follows Trier, who plays himself, as he tries to write a screenplay for another film called "Epidemic". Scenes from this film are intermittently shown, depicting Trier as a doctor in an apocalyptic world that has been ravaged by an unknown "epidemic". We are also warned at the beginning of the film (the one where Trier plays himself) that ironically in five days' time an epidemic of similar power will destroy civilization.

Do you see what I mean? It's hard to follow because it is hard to describe, because it was hard to watch. There are too many ideas and plots that were all equally interesting, but not focused on enough to be... coherent. It feels like a 2-in-1 movie. One is really interesting because of the irony that Trier would unknowingly be writing a script for a movie about an Epidemic on the precipice of an actual Epidemic occurring. The other seems like a harrowing tale of a doctor deciding to help people in need, all the while being completely unequipped to do so. Both fall kind of flat because they are forced to share the film with the other.

[---BEGIN SPOILERS---]
It's not all bad though. Only Trier would make an experimental horror film about his own day-to-day life. The scenes of him and his friend trying to come up with ideas for the script are a great insight into Trier's personality and processes. The ending, which is really the only "horror" scene in the film, a purposefully over-the-top sequence in which the outbreak happens and Trier comments on audience's expectations from him as a filmmaker, and from the horror genre, is great. This lady stabs a fork into a boil on her neck and it explodes all over the wall, it's beautiful, or I guess it isn't was the point of the movie. There is another part in the film where Trier plays the doctor, where they cut open this dead guy's neck and pull out what is supposed to be I guess the source of the disease, but looked more like Reese's Puffs peanut butter chocolate flavored cereal so idk.
[---END SPOILERS---]

Overall a weird movie simply because it is more of a drama making fun of people's expectations of gratuitous violence and mayhem in a horror film, rather than a horror film itself, but oh well. It's worth a watch if you're like me and you're definitely straight but there is a part of you that is maybe like 4.34% gay, and you would definitely like to rub a warm stick of butter over 1987 Trier's soft, naked body in a room lit only by candles while "My Heart Will Go On" by Celine Dion plays gently in the background.

But I'm very straight and not gay, but very straight, so that would never ever happen, because I am so straight.

Trier nowadays doesn't look bad either. He kinda gives off a rather deceptive Santa Claus look with his white beard and glasses.

Lars von Trier dressing up as Santa Claus so little kids can sit on his lap and tell him what they want for Christmas, is both the worst and best possible outcome I can possibly imagine for my local mall this December.

If you're like me (definitely gay and not straight), then you'll sit down one cold October evening with a Domino's pan pizza and a glass of milk, and just have a dang blast with this movie.