i can't remember why i didn't like melancholia the first time...

maybe the problem is, or one of them, that it's better if you see the beginning of the film after the end, not because then it 'makes sense' but you look at it with entirely different eyes. you are ready to see it. how much better would it be if you begin with part one justine, 8 minutes in? but yes, you also see part one with different eyes the second time.

but this is my second and third time, but the first time i didn't really see it at all. perhaps it was because after, or during, the miserable experience of seeing lars von trier's previous film, i decided i couldn't take him seriously anymore. i have rarely been more profoundly disappointed by a creative work, maybe tacita dean's installation in the turbine hall... but i looked at that and looked and looked.

what do i think of melancholia now? well i don't think 'like' is a word i could use in relation to it, but is it a good film with an astounding performance by kirsten dunst and an idea the size of a planet (ha!) at its centre. yes!

is it a masterpiece, on par with dogville and dancer in the dark? quite possibly. it depends on you and perhaps on whether you are able to see it.