Talk:Lars von Trier/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

I just found this page where it's fairly obvious that the biography on WP was copied from that page. We have to rewrite most of it. --Maitch 17:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lars von Trier's porn

Am I insane or is it not fact that von Trier branched off and directed some gay pornos? Pacian 20:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He ownes the company that produced some gay porn. The reason for this was to generate cash. He didn't direct, but is unofficially the producer of one. The films were not the great cash cow they hoped for, so they shut down the production fairly quick --Maitch 21:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"The reason for this was to generate cash"? You mean that after producing a string of Scandinavian cinema's biggest critical and financial hits, Lars von Trier's company suddenly felt obliged to start producing gay porn, risking its international reputation and financing, simply because it was greedy after the kind of petty cash a low budget porn video can generate (typically $100,000, as opposed to, say, the $40,000,000 genereted by Lars von Trier's Dancer in the Dark)? Folks, that's simply the kind of derogatory, anti-pornographic remark frequently made by young Danish academics today, not based on fact or any level of insight but simply reflecting the neo-puritanical zeitgeist that erupted in Denmark at the start of the new millennium. That Lars von Trier loves to provoke or that anybody could simply enjoy making films about sex is unthinkable for these young people. For the record, Lars von Trier's company Zentropa has produced four sex films: Constance (1998), Pink Prison (1999), HotMen CoolBoyz (2000) and All About Anna (2005). Only one of these, HotMen CoolBoyz, was made for a gay audience. -CK

The link to Pink Prison does not in fact lead to an article about the film but is re-directed elsewhere. Zahir13 14:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading this after seeing Mandelay and it has two erotic scenes -- not, of course, including the whippings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.231.238 (talk) 07:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Lars von Trier is one of the owners of a prodcution company called Puzzy Power under the Zentropa umbrella. They have at least made 3 movies

All about Anna, Constance and Pink Prison

The idea I believe, was to make adult movies that appealled to women. If anybody has more information about this feel free to edit my text.

Yes, the adult movies were to appeal to women, although I'm never quite sure what that is supposed to mean. Von Trier is one of few mainstream (can I deem him "main stream" though?) directors to show non-simulated, direct penetration sex scenes in his films. It is interesting how Von Trier challenges the distinction between pornography and "film" (with cultural capital) and really makes us question our definitions and reflect upon why the differences exist/how and why we define these categories. ----Farah-baleine (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Motivation for USA-trilogy

I removed a remaining paragraph which direcly plagiarized the above link while adding no useful information. Also, under the "USA-land of opportunity trilogy" section, I modified several poorly-stated sentences. The previous author claimed that "American film critics said he had no right to make the film Dancer in the Dark about a country in which he has never been to". I have found no published review from a US critic that states such a thing, nor any direct quote from LvT saying that was his motivation, and the way it was written made LvT sound petty and paranoid. If there's a source for this, we need to direct the reader to it. --24.81.13.220 03:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The sentence about Dancer in the Dark is correct from my memory, but it might have been poorly written. It was not a reaction from the american reviews, which I'm pretty sure LvT doesn't read, but a reaction to the questions from american reviewers during the Cannes festival. I don't think it's petty and paranoid. I think it's bold to say that. The americans have made several movies about countries they'd never been to - why can't he. During that interview he also talked about how the movie Casablanca was filmed entirely in the USA. --Maitch 11:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The way it was written made it sound (to me, at least) like there was some kind of universal criticicism of DitD on those grounds, and that was LvT's reason for the USA trilogy. The widespread criticism is simply not true, and it seems unlikely that LvT is spending years of his life and millions of dollars on the trilogy simply as a response to a few ignorant comments -- I suspect his goals are more complex than that, and I feel we shouldn't be ascribing motives here, just recording facts. (Though if he is making it solely for that reason, I think the "petty and paranoid" label would apply!) --24.81.13.220 22:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

nobody ever seems to level that as a criticism of Amerika_(Kafka_novel) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.231.238 (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Casting section

I find the casting subsection ambiguous. Many successful directors cast a few favorite actors in many of ther films and give them a variety of roles (eg, Welles, Kurosawa, Herzog, Hitchcock, just to name the 'biggies'). Is LvT really any different? --Misterwindupbird 19:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I find it to be interesting, and a key to understand the craftmanship behind his movies. Instead of changing this, we should add more! The same goes for Welles, Kurosawa, Herzog, Hitchcock! :) NuclearFunk

David Lynch, Kevin Smith, Woody Allen --it would seem that preferring your troupe is more the rule than the exception —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.231.238 (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Release year for Wasington

I have removed the release year for Wasington, because the year 2007 is speculation and highly unlikely. The movie is on hold due to von Trier having trouble writing the script. Instead the movie "The Manager of it All" is being filmed in February and released in 2007. I truly doubt that von Trier could manage to shoot this film and still find time to complete Wasington to be released in 2007. A film like Wasington is by the way very likely to be released at the Cannes film festival, so my guess would be May 2009 considering his filmography, although May 2008 is possible. I think the confusion comes from IMDb, but they are not very good at updating movies in production. --Maitch 13:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Misogyny

Much seems to have been made of how he has had very contentious relationships with the actresses in his movies. Bjork and Nicole Kidman both refuse to work with him on future projects because of supposably the way they were treated and how he pushed them on set. Should something be said about this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.42.160.231 (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Kidman refuses to work with him? You got evidence for that? Cop 633 11:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

He's a demanding director and sometimes demands unusual and quirky actions but that's hardly unique. You could say the same of Hitchcock, Coppola, Fassbinder, Ford, Bergman - but that didn't stop actors and actresses from longing to work with them!

With Kidman in Dogville it was a demanding role in a demanding film (and what great performances he got from the cast!) but actually other directors might have chosen, with that story, to be much more explicit on-screen. When I heard about the film and the use of body doubles for "nude scenes" I surmised rightly that Grace gets raped vbut I figured it would be very explicit - cued by the talk of "body doubles for scenes where the face is not seen and people are nude". I was happy to notice he didn't need to make it baroque and Cronenbergy.

One aspect of von Trier's' work that's not been discussed a lot is the way his leading lady characters are turned into symbolic Christs. From Breaking the Waves to Manderlay nearly all his later films seem to bring that angle in (I haven't seen Antichrist yet, but the title does hint it's in some sense a follow-up). Grace in Dogville is an unmistakable variation of Jesus - her powerlessness and inability to enforce anything by herself bring it out - though that's not the only side to her part of course. Now that hardly looks misogynous to me! Strausszek (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Nicole Kidman has actually stated she'd like to work with von Trier again.85.81.82.15 (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Parents "Refused to make rules..." ?

From the article]s second paragraph, emphasis mine...

...and also refused to make any rules for their children, with complex results for von Trier's personality and development.[2] The young Lars found in cinema an outlet to the outside world through which he could learn about subjects otherwise forbidden from his study by his parents.

Is not "forbidding someone from studying something" a pretty definite "rule"? Not familiar with the subject matter to make a definitive change, myself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.134.90 (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasington Article

I think Wasington should have its own article, o it hould stop directing to here because it's confusing. People who misspell "Washington" that are looking for Washington State are being directed over here. If Wasington has its own article there could be a warning put up asking users if they meant Washington the State. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 09:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Twitter Account

Is this him? http://twitter.com/lars_von_trier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.44.153 (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't him...

Goodnight moon?

Goodnight Moon 2011? Any sources? What is this?

Filmography section

Can someone please set up this filmography section properly, including awards and nominations. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Almod%C3%B3var#Filmography

I'd suggest the columns: Year, Title (Original/English), Project, Awards/Notes Utopial (talk) 07:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism concerning Cannes 2011

User:Cockneyscum is persistently manipulating news report of Lars von Trier controversial press conference at the ongoing Cannes Film Festival.

This is how he quotes von Trier: "Now how can I get out of this sentence? Ok. I’m a Nazi. In fact I'm very much in favour of them... Well, Israel is a pain in the a**...We Nazis like to do things on a big scale. Maybe I could do The Final Solution." While news reports quite clearly reports other quotes here, here and here. The articles states in a clear manner that von Trier was joking about all this, and you can compare the vandal's quote to the news reports. This is definitely hurting the community and Wikipedia as a good source as more and more journalists view Wikipedia as a reliable source. This article is no longer a reliable source. --EivindF (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you can watch the whole press conference at festival-cannes.com, and he says several times that he's just joking. It's not something that belongs in a biographical article. Smetanahue (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Even though I've presented well-researched news items from Guardian and Reuters, I'm threatened on my talk page for reporting facts here. Wikipedia is a boys club. Jimbo Wales is right, it's way too hard for people to edit pages here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cockneyscum (talk • contribs) 14:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• You did not summaries the content of the articles well and that is why your edit was reverted. If you want to discuss how we word this section, then try being helpful and adding to discussion. If you're going to throw a strop then don't bother. Mato (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Cockneyscum: You are "Edit warring" on the page without regards to the other editors. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, please discuss your changes here and refrain from editing the article before reaching a consensus. -- Luk ^talk 14:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Cockneyscum - As Luk says, the warning was not intended to be personal, and was not intended to be a threat - rather, this is a sensitive issue, and it is much better to talk about it here than have a revert war. I think his comments do deserve a place in the article, but not in the lead, and not presented as fact. Rather we should emphasise that von Trier is no stranger to controversial comments, and add material about it there. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean "summarize" instead of "summaries", Mato? Learn to spell and modify your condescending tone. Now, re-reading the Huffpo and Guardian versions, I think it's summarized well enough.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/may/18/lars-von-trier-cannes-2011-nazi-comments

http://arts.nationalpost.com/2011/05/18/ok-im-a-nazi-lars-von-trier-tells-cannes-press-conference/

And by the way, when it comes to Nazis like Mr Von Trier - you don't joke about being a Nazi and thinking Speer is talented. You're either are a Nazi, or you're not one. The World Press is reporting that Mr Von Trier has shocked the whole cannes festival. But thanks to his white nationalist friends at Wikipedia, Lars is protected. What you guys call "editing", is actually biased vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cockneyscum (talk • contribs) 14:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I meant summarise, I made a typo. Both articles you have linked above assert that the claim was made jokingly. The Guardian article states that the remark was "jestingly made in response to a question about his German roots". The National Post article says "he jokingly declared himself a Nazi". I can't see that you've included this in any of your edits...

He clearly says that he is joking. 89.150.118.208 (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Self-described Nazi.

Not sure if this is notable or not. http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/05/18/fox411-cannes-controversial-director-lars-von-trier-tells-crowd-im-nazi/?test=faces

“I really wanted to be a Jew and then I found out I was really a Nazi which also gave me some pleasure. What can I say, I understand Hitler. I think he did his wrong things…but I understand the man. He’s not what you would call a good guy but I understand him, I sympathize with him.”

Von Trier tried to back off his statements when the crowd grew obviously uncomfortable.

“I’m not against the Jews. I am of course very much for the Jews. How can I get out of this sentence, ok I’m a Nazi,” the director said.

Reason it might not be notable would be that he seems a bit confused about his parentage possibly making him a Nazi, or maybe it should just be chalked up to artistic weirdo-ness. Pär Larsson (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all you can't really link to foxnews and use their shock-value article as a refrence. I found footage of the actual press conference here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWFYcEtcew4 The only bit that is missing from the whole controversy is him, presumably jokingly, adding at the end "Yes, I am a Nazi". Well of course he's not.. The point of this being notable or not will show in the future. If there will be a big protest and producers will refuse to work with him, then yes of course it's notable. But right now it's just another one of Lars von Trier's controversial statements, he loves that. At his screening of "Antichrist" journalists were fainting.. It's more tabloid than encyclopedic as it stands now. --EivindF (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that he often makes controversial comments seems notable enough. I think these latest remarks should be included in that context, although I don't see an appropriate place in the article for them now. Maybe they could be worked in alongside the coverage on his depression or his phobias? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I have included them in the release section of Melancholia, which is the only place I think they belong. The only way they potentially could be covered in the biographical article would be in the context of a section about his public persona, type of humour, and tendency to attract attention through press conferences, but even then there is not necessarily any need to go into detail about what he said in this particular case - he's said a lot of things in similar veins. Smetanahue (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Good call. I was thinking that if content like this was included in this article, then it shouldn't actually say anything about jews or nazis or anything else he might have said; rather it should just talk generally about how he sometimes makes controversial comments. But if no-one else is clamouring for its inclusion then I'm happy to leave it as it is. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I've left a post about this issue at the BLP noticeboard. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's very good as it stands now. His statements have received a public reaction, other than the tabloid press. I don't think it was notable before that happened, show don't tell and all that. --EivindF (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Von Trier's joking/ironical tone needs to be established through quoting his own words or the words of a reliable 3P source, not just as a blanket statement by an article editor. Looking at the long clips of the press conference, I agree that it's clear that he was making an odd joke rather than an earnest avowal of Nazi sympathy, but we need to establish that clearly with the data, not just assert it. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

In this article actor Stellan Skarsgård describes yesterdays outburst as being one of Trier's many jokes of "irony and light tourettes". The article's in Norwegian, but here is the essential quotes translated: "This will all blow over. Lars von Trier's just kidding! He communicates with irony and a slight degree of Tourettes. That's why I always look forward to his press conferences, you know something always happens there." and "Everyone knows that Lars von Trier is capable of saying anything. At the film's gala premiere after the press conference yesterday, there were no protests. Just a fantastic reception and standing ovations." --EivindF (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I see that his comments have led to him being banned from the Cannes film festival which makes this incident more notable, and I think worthy of inclusion. I'd still like to see how it plays out over the following days before updating the article, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Lock this article

von Trier's recent comments are leading to vandalism of this article. It is going to continue. This article should be locked, and a discussion be had about how to present the Cannes comments before this article falls into a political tug of war and/or vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.138.226 (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be that much vandalism at the moment. On the contrary most of the recent IP edits to this article seems to be serious contributions. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this article has progress quite well, in just the ways a Wikipedia article should. Are you a Revisionist who would like to orchestrate a censorship of the whole Cannes comments? Imagen they never happened and have no significants? I think the article in its current state says it all quite well. 76.22.32.86 (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Relative importance of Cannes comments

I see that various editors have put material about von Trier's Cannes 2011 comments into the lead, and into its own "Expulsion from Cannes" section. I think this creates a balance problem, as it makes these comments seem as important as his role in Dogme 95, for example, or as his early life and career. I have removed them for now - note that the material is still present in the 2000s section. (I see this section has become rather long - how about splitting it up using level 3 headings?) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, maybe you're right, flippant remarks about Nazi admiration are a minor personality flaw that should be ignored. Of course... 76.22.32.86 (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you being sarcastic? Because that usually doesn't translate too well to text. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

We must really be careful here. It's a pretty obvious case of self-depreciating humour gone wrong in an environment in which it wasn't expected. But the international press seems to be not very good at understanding this. Or if they understand it, they are not always making it as clear as it should be.

There has been a bit of an edit war about the extent to which the article discusses the topic. At the moment it's discussed in two different places plus a full lead paragraph, and the amount of discussion is definitely too much. (E.g. much more about this in the lead than about Dogme 95.)

Also, the quotation currently in the article ("I understand Hitler... and I sympathize a bit with him... I'm very much for Speer. Albert Speer I like. He was also maybe one of God's best children but he had some talent ... OK, I'm a Nazi!") is problematic because in the context of all he said it is very clear that there was a negation missing. With "He was also maybe [not] one of God's best children", von Trier characterised Albert Speer in the same understated way that he had earlier used to characterise Adolf Hitler ("he was not what we would call a good guy"). As the context is missing in this article, readers cannot understand this.

I am not sure how to best address this. Maybe I will do something later. Hans Adler 08:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed the video interview and found an AP article which quoted him more precicely to use as reference. Also changed the quotation to bring in the negation. Sandertams (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There is also no need to put 12 sources for a single sentence. Mezigue (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

^What Mezigue said. I've removed some of the blog refs and I'll prune the rest. Does need mentioning. Doesn't need 12 links per sentence. Lugnuts (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, having a paragraph in the lead doesn't make sense. I think this episode will pass and it ultimately won't be what he is known for (it was just a bad joke after all). Ultimately this will probably reduce to the level of Prince Harry wearing a Nazi costume on Halloween. Having a whole Expulsion from Cannes section might be overkill, but we should keep it for now and decide at a later date if it should still be so prominent. Fnordware (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that seems like a reasonable compromise for now. Let's remove it from the lead at least. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The section has once again been edited, and once again the quote from Lars von Trier has become very long. I feel it ought to be reverted to the shorter version again, but I would like to ask for the opinions of others on this as it is I who put in that shorter version of the quote. Sandertams (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hans Adler, perhaps it is your own interpretation of Lars von Trier that it was "obvious case of self-depreciating humour gone wrong in an environment in which it wasn't expected".

When it is humour, then it is a very weak joking which is missing any witty point. Or if you want, it is a case of bad humour, since it is joking on expense of Susanne Bier, Jews, Israel and Holocaust victems.

Wikipedia editors I think are not in a position to conduct original research by calling a humour as leathery as a shoe sole witty, or by accusing the international press of not being good at understanding von Trier's humour, or at being unclear.

--Rosenkohl (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

We are also not in a position to conduct original research in the form of a decision that what he claimed was humour was in fact not humour, and that his clarification that he is not actually a Nazi was false, whereas the previous comments were true and meant seriously. To me personally it is completely incomprehensible how anyone can not get this particular form of humour, especially once you know his personal background:

• Director of films with a very similar form of humour.
• Grown up in a an extremely non-conformist family (communist and nudist).
• Learned as an adult that the Danish Jew who he grew up with and who he thought was his father wasn't, and that his real father was a Catholic German who was active in the Danish resistance against the Nazis. And based on that said (as we cite in this article): "Until that point I thought I had a Jewish background. But I'm really more of a Nazi. I believe that my biological father's German family went back two further generations. [...] If I'd known that my mother had this plan, I would have become something else. I would have shown her. The slut!"

So the joke wasn't even new. The only thing that was new was that there were different journalists, not familiar with Lars von Trier, not familiar with his family background, not familiar with his form of humour, and especially not familiar with that particular joke.

I am not going to revert your latest edits myself, although I feel that they give undue weight to this issue. But at least they let his words stand for himself. E.g., every reasonable and intelligent reader will understand that "I am of course very much for Jews, no not too much, because Israel is pain in the ass, but still how can I get out of this sentence" is a playful approach to the moral dilemma posed by the most important place of refuge for the survivors of the Holocaust and their descendants being ruled by a Netanyahu rather than a Rabin. Hans Adler 22:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Consolidate Cannes info

OK, since there is a whole section for the Cannes incident, shouldn't that paragraph me removed from the 2000s section? Lots of duplicated information, including the quote about "but I do not think the international journalists understand my Danish humor." Fnordware (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Cannes 2011

I just put in a long account of this controversy with thorough transcripts of the press conference. This is clearly not vandalism and should not be undone unless it's to improve the quality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.111.134 (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It is vandalism [1] and I have just reverted it as such. Apart from "Bold text" [sic!], which of course has no business in the article as well as similar problems, here are the most relevant serious problems with your edit:

• Copyright violation. You can't simply copy a full transcript from somewhere on the internet into Wikipedia.
• You can't write such a biography from the point of view that certain remarks generally acknowledged to have been bad jokes were meant seriously.
• It's an extreme case of undue weight to a minor incident in the man's career.

See WP:BLP for further information on how we see such things here. Hans Adler 13:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Porn film quote in Controversy at Cannes 2011 section

I have already voiced my misgivings at the amount of coverage given to the Cannes 2011 comments - I shall not do so again here, other than to say it is a grave WP:WEIGHT problem. Now I would like to address the "four hour porn film" quote in this section (permanent link). I think this is totally unnecessary, because the controversy is primarily about the Nazi comments, and these comments seem out of place in the section as it is. It is also creating even more of a WP:WEIGHT problem. Furthermore, it is creating a WP:BLP problem, because it is not made clear that the comments were intended as a joke. This kind of coverage could rightly be considered defamation, and could create legal trouble for the Wikimedia Foundation. We need to be much more careful in our coverage than this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 19:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

...and it seems that the user who added it has been blocked. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 19:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It does seem like this article attracts a lot of attention from the extreme jewish right wing. I am not trying to attack jewish people in general here, but there seems to exist a minority of people stuck in a victims mentality, and it was quite possibly those people Lars von Trier was trying to criticise in his joking remark. I noticed one of the vandalising edits made a reference to the website "yourjewishnews.com", which brought a very defamatory article on Lars von Trier recently, so I would monitor this section of the page closely as well. Sandertams (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Long transcript of Cannes 2011 comments

The transcript

I tried to add the following yesterday, and my changes were not only erased, but even erased from the history of this article! - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.85.117 (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Diff of the transcript — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments on the transcript

Such a long transcript obviously would pose a WP:WEIGHT problem. That is mainly why it was taken out. Another problem is that parts of the transcript seems to be made up. It was sloppily sourced, and often references didn't point to sources that confirmed what was written with some of the sources even being quite unreliable websites such as "yourjewishnews.com". It seemed very much like vandalism to me, but I am sorry to have marked it as such in the edit summary if that was not really your intention. You are of course still welcome to make contributions, but I suggest you read WP:Verifiability and WP:WEIGHT as well as the other guidelines to get a better idea of how to edit controversial matters. Especially since this is a biography of a living person, it is important to Wikipedia that it remains balanced. Sandertams (talk) 11:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There's also the issue of copyrights. While von Trier's comments themselves can be quoted with no copyright problems, the transcript of those comments remains the copyright of whoever made it. Wikipedia is very strict about enforcing its copyright policies - see WP:C for more details. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I am the user who has being trying to edit this page anonymously and whose edits have been treated as vandalism. My contribution was clearly not an act of vandalism, as Sandertams and Hans Adler irresponsibly suggested. In fact, it took me several hours to put together my contribution, and I sourced it thoroughly. With regard to Hans Adler's comment that I used bold type in my transcript of the controversial remarks, I did this to differentiate the different speakers. I was not aware that this constituted an infringement of Wikipedia policy, but it certainly does not merit wholesale elimination of my contribution. If Hans Adler objected to the bold type, he could have simply changed it to italics.

With regard to comments by Sandertams and Mr. Stradivarius about my sourcing method: The reason I sourced the transcript as I did is that there is no available example in the news media of a full raw transcript of the controversial remarks. What I did was this: I found raw audio footage of the whole last ten minutes of the news conference on YouTube, and I transcribed this - with much reference and cross checking to commercial news sources as possible. Whenever a section of the news conference had been transcribed in commercial sources, I footnoted the reference. I also cross-checked against video footage of the news conference on YouTube, taken from the Associated Press, CBS News, and other commercial news sources.

The reason why I did all of this, is that when you read the full transcript, you can tell that the news coverage of the event did not give sufficient context to understand what Von Trier was saying. For example the order in which his remarks were made was often cut and pasted in the media, and when the proper order is restored the remarks have a much different meaning.

With regard to Sandertams's remark that I cited a right-wing Jewish website, I want to point out that I cited them only to obtain the fullest possible text of a statement made by the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, and this statement had been widely cited in the media as a contributing factor to the Cannes committe's extraordinary action. Again, my purpose was to give greater context and to enable the reader to be better informed.

I understand the criticism that my contribution gave undue weight to this incident in Von Trier's career; however, since the incident is recent, and very controversial, it does seem to me that there is Wikipedia precedent for giving it a lot of weight and letting time pass before a judgment is made as to how much weight it really deserves. In any case, wholesale elimination of my work, and labelling it as vandlaism, can hardly be justified by the fact that I gave undue weight to this incident.

As a compromise, may I suggest that a new page be created called "Lars Von Trier Cannes 2011 controversy" and that the full transcript of Von Trier's remarks be quoted there? 86.44.85.117 (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I have revised my remarks here a few times - I apologize for this, but I'd rather revise them than leave inaccuracies. Among other things, I originally thought that my previous contribution had been erased from the history pages of the article, but it now seems this is not the case.86.44.85.117 (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Look at the first line of this version of the article. It does not start with the words "Lars von Trier" in bold, it starts literally with the words "Bold text" in bold. I don't doubt that this was an innocent mistake, but after your edit you must have seen the article in that state, and you still reverted back to that bad version. Hans Adler 08:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I also think that calling it "vandalism" was unjustified. I think that whether it should be included is another question, however. There is a clear policy at WP:NOTREPOSITORY regarding this which is explained well at the page Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources. Also, I don't think a standalone article about this event would work: although there are lots of sources, I imagine it might be deleted at WP:AfD for violating another rule of What Wikipedia is Not - this time WP:NOTNEWS. You might be able to include your transcript at Wikisource, but you should double-check about the copyright first. I'm no copyright expert, so I'll open this to others - are von Trier's comments in the public domain? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. That's why we have references. If someone wants to see the entire transcript, they can follow the link. Fnordware (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I see that the present version of the article actually does have an entire transcript of von Trier's comments, but not the one added by 86.44.85.117. Shall we trim this down to the quote in this version? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I have already suggested this in the "Relative importance of Cannes comments" section. I will go ahead and trim it now, then. It seems has been edited almost every day since the misére took place. Sandertams (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I missed that one in all the excitement. Thanks! I've also reverted the re-addition of the long quote by an IP. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree now that it was probably not vandalism in the technical sense, although it came somewhat close. The formatting shows that the material was added by copy and paste, and it is almost certainly a copyright violation. Repeated addition of copyright violations counts as vandalism after a warning. As there was no warning between the reverts, this does not technically make it vandalism. "Editing tests by experimenting users" also does not count as vandalism, and making "Bold text" the first line of the article is covered by this. However, reinstating [this version] without even looking at it and noticing this very obvious problem again comes close to vandalism.

It is true that "there is Wikipedia precedent for giving it a lot of weight and letting time pass before a judgment is made". However, this precedent is not at all considered a good thing by many of the most experienced Wikipedia editors, who are trying to reign in this nonsense. As it is a known problem that we are trying to combat, pointing to earlier examples where we have not been successful is not helpful. (See WP:OTHERSTUFF for an explanation why.)

The text was completely out of proportion compared to the rest of the article. It almost gave the impression that Lars von Trier is mostly known as a provocateur, while of course he is actually known for his films and this incident is only a minor episode in his life. I have very strong doubts that Wikisource, or indeed any other Wikimedia project, is interested in this material. Wikimedia is not about copying the entire internet. For that, see http://www.archive.org . They are much better at it using automatic means than we could ever by doing it manually. Hans Adler 10:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The text is not out of proportion but is absolutely essential for really understanding what happened; furthermore it's in a specific section clearly marked as devoted to this topic. Calling it a minor episode is absurd: however he may have been known previously, he's now more known for this than anything else; it's also a major incident in the history of the festival, as it's unprecedented; and it has connexions with wider political issues and concerns about political correctness. There is no way the transcript of a public event can pose a copyright problem; all the more so when it's compiled from various sources, as this was. Adler needs to read things before responding to them: the contribution did vastly more than simply copy the internet. Finally it's always wise to give people more, and more unbiased, info in order to let them judge, rather than selectively editing controversial matters. Alis9 (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it is rash to judge this as the most important thing in von Trier's life just yet. The man has been alive a long time, and he has accomplished many things. We are writing an encyclopedia, and we must consider the bigger picture of his life when deciding what to include. Giving over a huge section to events that transpired a little over a week ago seems like an obvious WP:WEIGHT problem. Couple this with Wikipedia's dislike of including lengthy primary sources, and it is pretty clear that a lengthy transcript is unwarranted. Please also bear in mind that there is a handy link right after the quote that readers can follow to listen to the entire original audio from the press conference. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Try reading a little more carefully: I didn't say it was "the most important thing in von Trier's life". It's clearly an important event in several ways, that happens to be part of his life. The complete context and full exchange that are subject to controversy are absolutely necessary for an unbiased presentation of the matter. wiki isn't an encyclopedia with limited space like a printed one and often goes into great detail on matters of interest; if people are wanting to post it that means it is such a matter. Any opposition to it simply amounts to a sort of censorship and imposition of personal POV subjective ideas about what people deserve to know.Alis9 (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the full exchange is necessary for an unbiased presentation; rather, editorial judgement is. Making unbiased judgements about what things should be included and how to portray them seems to me to be a fundamental part of the what editing an encyclopedia is about. Wikipedia has plenty of policies and guidelines that assist editors in making these judgements, and the reason these policies and guidelines are necessary is that there are plenty of things that "people are wanting to post" that don't belong in an encyclopedia. I believe I have linked to the policies and guidelines relevant to this case above... — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 21:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Uncut audio

The link to the uncut recording seems to be missing in the article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHKojTI-pNM A big thank you to our anonymous contributor for his thorough investigation of what actually happened in that press conference. 85.178.168.39 (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be the one who did remove the quote from the page. Are you praising yourself for the edit? As to the edit, I don't think your reasoning justifies the removal of the quote. You could at least ask in the talk page before deleting it, seeing as a lot of people have already edited that section before reading the talkpage, despite my inline comments about reviewing the discussion before making changes. I have not restored it as of now, however. While I find the content in it to be perfectly fine and not really much out of context at all, the removal of the quote did make the section shorter, and certainly it really shouldn't take up too much space in the article as it seems to be a rather minor event in von Triers life, although an as of now still ongoing case. I would like to hear others opinions on this, and if someone does feel the quote should be kept, please restore it right away. Sandertams (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I (85.178.168.39) was praising the other anonymous who located the youtube link and made a transcript. 92.231.219.157 (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Umm, 85.178.168.39, there was a link to the full audio of the press conference but you removed it... Sandertams, I think having a quote, although not strictly necessary, is a good addition in this case. It is his words which are the subject of the controversy after all. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 22:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a misunderstanding. Von Trier's speech was provoked by Kate Muir's question (in my own opinion, he over-reacted, and the work of the other anonymous whom I (85.178.168.39) praised was instrumental in forming this opinion). Therefore the exact wording of her question is crucial context. That context was suspiciously missing in all the news reports I found (including the one you mistakenly call "full audio"). 92.231.219.157 (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Kate Muir's question provided in the Youtube link does indeed provide more context, and it also appears to be uploaded to Youtube by a reliable source (Ambrose Heron of FILMdetail, who according to his website is a film critic based in the UK and does "film updates for the Zoe Ball show on BBC Radio 2, [and] the Nemone show on BBC 6 Music" amongst other things). As such I think it is a good link to include. We could also change the wording of the sentence about Kate Muir's question to reflect the fact that she asked about his interest in the Nazi aesthetic. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've updated the page with more info about Kate Muir's question, and I've also added the "I'm a nazi!" part to the quote. Hopefully this will be enough context. If anyone disagrees with my edits, you are welcome to revert them. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry about my initial hostility. I am not opposed to revisions in the entire section or the quote for that matter, but it had probably yielded a slightly less negative reaction, had you rewritten the section yourself instead of just deleting the quote. :) It seems Mr. Stradivarius has already taken care of this. Actually, I believe the section at one time before contained this piece of information (about Kate Muir). The information definitely belongs in there. I must say, as to the quote, I don't like the part about Albert Speer, as it quotes him for saying "He was also maybe one of God's best children", while he probably meant to say "...maybe NOT one of God's best children". Sandertams (talk) 10:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I admit to not being completely comfortable about this either. There is a real problem about how to format the quote. I have used three periods "..." to indicate both an omission of words from the quote, and also just pauses in speech. What I would really like to do is indicate the way von Trier got lost on his prior train of thought and then dropped in the non-sequiteur "Ok, I'm a Nazi!", and including the whole passage about Albert Speer seemed like the best way of doing this. However I agree that "He was also maybe one of God's best children" is problematic. I saw in the transcript that "(not?)" was inserted in front of "God's best children", and I agree that this makes more logical sense, and is maybe what von Trier intended to say - but I really can't hear it in the recording. Maybe there's a way to avoid this while still retaining the context of von Trier's remarks? I am interested to hear everyone's input. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This is absurd, the phrase that made controversy was his "bit of sympathy" remark, the current quote totally misses the jokingly tone of the press conference and shows him as a skinhead. He was talking about the image of Hitler as a character. Please remember that this man is a FILM DIRECTOR, not a politician or a skinhead. His joke comes from the fact that all his life he thought that he was Jewish and later he realized he was German, and he speaks of that fact with sarcasm from the perspective of a film director. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.5.249 (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's "absurd", as The Guardian, for example, led with the "I'm a Nazi" comment rather than the Hitler sympathy part. I'm not sure the festival directors ever specified what part of von Trier's speech they found objectionable, but I don't think you can discount that part so easily. However, given that two editors have expressed concern over the bit about Albert Speer, and that I'm not entirely happy with that part either, I won't try and put this back in again unless we can find a way to make the context clearer. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Article spin

Hello I am the anonymous user who originally started this edit war by posting the full-length transcript of the remarks. I am glad to see that a couple of other users have come to my defense, and also that this discussion has been moved to its own section of the Talk page. However, it seems to me that in spite of some moves in the direction of fairness within the Talk page, fairness has not yet been achieved in the main article.

If you look at the previous comments here on the Talk page, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Mr. Stradivarius is "squatting" this article, along with Sandertams, and Hans Adler. For example, Mr. Stradivarius seems to regard himself as the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, rather than trying to achieve consensus. Mr. Stradivarius et al. are also citing a lot of Wikipedia rules pertaining to biographies of living persons - but they use these rules as a justification to block attempts to fairly represent this incident - and I mean "fairly" in the sense of "fair to Lars Von Trier" - which is after all the whole point of the rules about biographies of living persons! So in essence, Mr. Stradivarius et al. are using the rules to subvert the purpose of the rules.

The effect of Mr. Stradivarius et al.'s editorial control, so far, has been to resolutely keep the spin of this article in line with the mainstream media coverage, which, as I have pointed out, was unjust and irresponsible - primarily because it quoted Von Trier out of context.86.44.81.145 (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to quote another rule here - Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks. (You might want to read about the Wikipedia Cabal - or lack of one - as well.) Actually if you look at the comments here you'll find that I've been trying to defend Mr. von Trier all along, although I do admit to being a stickler for keeping to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Keeping the Cannes controversy section short actually works in his defence, by portraying this event as a relatively minor one in his life. Also, I am most definitely open to making the quote more indicative of the fact that he was joking. I merely specify that the quote must also reveal what all the controversy was about - and that it keeps to those policies and guidelines. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Now, the controversy at Cannes section does have more content than just the quote, and that's how it should be. The non-quote part of the section detailedly describes the situation. Read the whole section and you wont have the slightest doubt that he meant it jokingly. Someone even put in his own thoughts on the misère. I am quite satisfied with it as it is now, and frankly, I think Lars von Trier would like it himself if he read it now. - Sandertams (talk | contributions) 01:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Stern magazine article reference

It would seem that the article cited as a reference under the section Explicit Images(— Stern #40, 27 September 2007[18]) would support a Citation Needed statement under the section Zentropa and The Kingdom. However, the reference is incompletely formatted and several searches of the Stern.de website fail to bring it up. Does anyone have access to the full archives (and maybe better German language skills than I) to verify this? Voila-pourquoi (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Early life

The article states that von Trier's parents "refused to make any rules for their children", yet also had "subjects ... forbidden" from him. Doesn't this seem a bit contradictory? I notice there's no reference for the sentence about film being a way to discover things that were "forbidden" from him.Tklink (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just found the reference where the "forbidden" idea comes from but it comes from a rather dodgy looking site with no attributable author and no references.Tklink (talk)

This source definitely does not meet criteria of WP:SOURCES Voila-pourquoi (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Jewish descnt?

The bio classified as "Danish people of Jewish descent" I don't think it is correct (Who is a Jew):

(a) He is not biologically of Jewish descent

He is not converted to Judaism

(b) He does not consider himself Jew

Please provide sources which say that he is of Jewish descent. The article has none. (Stepfather was Jew, but he was not biological father, and he was "atheistic" Jew, i.e., did not instill Judaism on son). Staszek Lem (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Right, but Ulf Trier was not his stepfather, he was his social father. --93.104.25.69 (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Lee Lin Chin

Pfft - the section about Lee Lin Chin's short segments look self-serving and a very tenuous connection to the subject. Or does this happen all the time, with people using pages for self-promotion of some piece of media that happened to mention the page's topic once, for five minutes on a Tuesday back in 1983? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.150.102 (talk) 05:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lars von Trier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100304141125/http://www.dst.dk:80/HomeUK/Statistics/Names/HowMany.aspx to http://www.dst.dk/HomeUK/Statistics/Names/HowMany.aspx
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.geocities.com/lars_von_trier2000/biyografi.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"Known for" films on lead

There is a consensus about the 4 films that should be on the lead as the films Trier is known for. If anyone objects, please discuss here (would be useful to read the earlier discussion, to avoid repetitive arguments: talk. Augustn 21:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augstn (talk • contribs)

The article borders on puffery in many places. You also seem not to have read my sources on which films should be listed as his four best-known. It will be tagged with a POV notice. AndrewOne (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You are correct to tag with POV because the entire article is a mess. Regarding the films, there is a consensus and the advice of the admin that we must TALK and come to CONSENSUS for the writing of this article (so, please do not continue deleting what's already here, discuss it first here). In order to change the consensus about the known for films you must convince the editors with some other argument than the ones you have already made. Augustn 22:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The arguments I have provided in the discussion on my talk page are easily sufficient defense for the statement that Dogville is a better-known film than Europa. If you would like me to copy and paste those responses onto this page, I can do so. AndrewOne (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Living persons biographies

The entry is a mess, mostly because a lot is written without any research or following the Living Persons Biographies policy. Let's read the policy carefully and be very cautious when writing. Let's discuss issues here Augustn 21:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augstn (talk • contribs)

Article Neutrality

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found here.

AndrewOne let's keep the talk page as clean as possible (POV issues here please). xxx Augustn 22:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Page became a mess after the cannes festival press conference, it was bombarded by a trillion of revisions, most of which were cited by current event news websites and the frenzy around his name. From top to bottom revisioners were trying to make a point that this article is about a nazi eccentric. Article was destroyed, though it was very well written. Needs careful rebuilding. I like the intro right now though I would like to see it expand a bit. Bndktfanta (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC: What should be done about User:Augstn's edits?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This request for comments has been created in order to determine what should be done about a user who, late last July, completely revamped this page for the worse and whom I suspect used a second account by the name of User:Bndktfanta when doing so. Some may argue that it can be forgiven and forgotten because (s)he was a new editor, but I think that his/her edits show an abundantly clear wish to give the article bias, that they unquestionably constitute vandalism, and that they are too substantial for such brushing off. Because of the changes made since then, his/her edits cannot be rolled back. How do we go about fixing this page and preventing something like this from happening in the future? AndrewOne (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Accusations of sexual harassment

I know it's a popular subject of discussion, but is it really appropriate to include this accusation, especially has he has not been directly named by Bjork, and that all of the allegations are just conjecture at this point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.33.121.48 (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

von Trier's sympathy towards Hitler

In 2011, he said "I understand Hitler... and I sympathize with him a little bit" Shuld the arcile include this, and the subsequent response? According to eurochannel.com, "Doubtless, it has been the biggest scandal in all the seventy years of Cannes history." [2] Should the article include this? --Zadrali (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

That's already in the article. Given the structure of the article, perhaps it would be better to have it elsewhere as opposed to just a sub-section of Melancholia? -- irn (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)