The conversation on Pedophilia in Lars von Trier's film Nymph()maniac Vol 2 is rather complicated as its a dialogue between two people.

Vol 1 opens with Stellan Skarsgard's character Seligman finding Charlotte Gainsbourg's character Joe lying bleeding in an alley. He takes her in and she tells the story of her life; explaining that she deserved the beating because she's a bad person.

As the story progresses she continues to argue that she's awful. And Seligman can't see why she's so judgemental about herself. His POV is that there's nothing shameful about her desires, even if they're uncommon. And that furthermore, she may just be more honest about her sexuality.

AND NOW TO THE REAL SPOILERS-----and how von Trier f*cks with the Pedophile-monster narrative.
























































Later in Joe's adult life her search for employment lands her with a debt-collection agency ( headed by Willem Dafoe. ) Its more an extortion racket where he doesn't question the legitimacy of the client's demands upon the debtors. And Joe's talent for shameless manipulation and spotting weaknesses ( as well as her experience with Masochism ) come in handy.

One day she finds a debtor who seems unfazed by her burly co-workers breaking his objet d'art with crowbars, and is determined to find his weakness. She has them pull down his pants and she begins to relate every form of sexual fantasy in the catalog to see what his one is.

She's given up when she gets a flash of inspiration and begins, "You are in a park, you can hear the sound of the swingset swaying and the children's laughter." Bingo! She hones in on an LB fantasy until he realizes that his secret desire has been exposed.

Having outed him and extorted payment she takes pity on him.

At this point Seligman interrupts the narrative by arguing that Pedophiles are monsters.

Joe points out that 95% of us never act out our desires. She understands exactly what its like to carry the burden of a shameful desire for life. "They deserve a f*cking medal," she says.

Now in the context of the dialogue something interesting emerges. Joe identifies with us and think that those who don't rape are heroes and the majority. And yet she feels that our sexuality is as "shameful" as hers. Seligman is an Anti about us, but argues that Joe is wrong about applying shame to sexuality. Therefore, if he's right about that, and she's right about the hero part, then the concepts of shame and perversion should be removed from her "insider's perspective" about us.

Again, its pretty complex, and done through characters who each have different views. But collectively its a challenge to the notion that we aren't sympathetic figures ( even heroic. )

( Though I would think that the BLer contingent might not view the "pity blowjob" of 43 year old Ms. Gainsbourg as anything other than adding insult to injury. )

And then immediately, in one of von Trier's "jokes" that pepper the narrative, Joe relates the next chapter. Her boss, pointing out that they're not getting any younger, suggests that she groom a protege to be her successor. But his method ( find a kid without any parental presence and low self-esteem, take an interest in their interests, make yourself available, ) is a Non character lifting a page from the "child-groomer's" handbook.

Since Dafoe's character is already a manipulative SOB, I wonder just how many in the audience caught the segue from a denial of the "monster narrative" regarding us, to its ironic use as a playbook by a Non.

And when Joe's AG protege P seduces her seducer Joe comes clean about the manipulation. P responds that she can't mind the "why" because it brought them together.

Again, von Trier is f*cking with the Pedophile narrative and its standard uses.

Dante