"I want to see Europe again for the first time in 13 years. But Europe is not the same..."The film is the first part of Lars von Trier's grandiose Europe-trilogy (the others are: Epidemic and Europa), definitely not the best. With its dystopian film-noir style, strange characters, imagined dark-orange world there is something unique within the film history, but it doesn't mean that the film is 'good'. I know most of the people won't agree with me, but for me this film exactly points out Trier's bluffy way of directing, just as I mentioned earlier...
Actually the story is better than the film itself: We have an English detective (Fisher) who is traveling back to Europe to solve a mysterious crime. In some imagined country there is a serial killer, who murders small girls selling lotto tickets. Harry Grey is his name, aka the 'lotto-killer'. If it wouldn't be enough he mutilates his victims with a broken bottle. The whole story is framed by a psychological hypnosis of Fisher in Cairo, where he needs help to understand what happened in Europe, or more close to Trier's intention: 'what happened WITH Europe'...
"'The Element of Crime' sets out a series of mental exercises design to improve our understanding of the behavioral pattern of a criminal."
During his investigation Fisher follows this old method written by Osbourne in his book (Element of Crime). In order to catch him he turns himself into Harry Grey. But what happens if you are going too far with this identification? Or what if the killer is changing his method?I suggested that The Element of Crime is not the best among the trilogy, but despite of its slow start it is still worth to give a chance and watch it. Do that.
7/10
Posts
