And yes, its brief not breif. Thank you.
I just thought it was alright. I didn’t love it and I didn’t hate it.
I think a lot of the people who love this film read into it from arcane theoretical angles quite unnecessarily, though. Von Trier himself wasn’t approaching it so logically as all that. I prefer to see it for exactly what it appears to be on the surface: an addition to the horror genre. And through that lens, it’s good enough. I felt that the general idea of the movie, along with the “twist” and the various gory stuff, was all done pretty well. That said, I felt it dragged in places, and all that stuff with her secret thesis studies seemed kind of implausible, but then again, Von Trier wasn’t exactly working hard to make sense in this movie.
All-in-all, it’s a decent horror movie that happens to be beautifully shot. I’m not sad that I watched it, but I wasn’t blown away, either. I do find all of the deep analysis the film’s fans engage in kind of hilarious, though. It’s quite clear that if Eli Roth had directed the movie, they wouldn’t be doing that, but since it’s their favorite European director, the movie must have some “deeper meaning” to get at.
Some aspects of the movies are outstanding:
von Trier does not allow any big distractions. From start to end, he stays on one topic. Minimal visual elements, slow and step by step introduction of all the elements in the movie.
The story, the feeling he tries to communicate, the overall atmosphere, the topic itself – he did a good job to make this available and accessible to the “mainstream”.
Yes I didn’t view it as anything more than a genre film – insofar as that, I loved it.
Is it a more artistic telling of a castration complex than Sin City?
My pet squirrel went nuts for this movie.
Except Charlotte Gainsbourg and Willem Dafoe, I’ve found this movie quite lame. I’d like to apologize to the pro-Von Trier and genre-amateurs, but to me, Von Trier has something of a fraud. I quote Descartes: “I think, therefor I am”, well for Von Trier, it would rather be “I shock, therefore, am I?”. But it’s not enough far from it… The opening is absurd, directed like if it was a joke, I couldn’t help myself from laughing (I think I’ve been seen as a monster by the spectators next to me but who cares).
As for the gore – “psychological” – anxiogene following, well, Antichrist is as much elaborated in psy-angle as Matrix was in the philosophy angle: it doesn’t go very deep.
Maybe I should have watched this movie as Bolo Tie recommands it to be watched, just a gore flick.
Except Charlotte Gainsbourg and Willem Dafoe, I’ve found this movie quite lame. I’d like to apologize to the pro-Von Trier and genre-amateurs, but to me, Von Trier has something of a fraud. I quote Descartes: “I think, therefor I am”, well for Von Trier, it would rather be “I shock, therefore, am I?”. But it’s not enough far from it… The opening is absurd, directed like if it was a joke, I couldn’t help myself from laughing (I think I’ve been seen as a monster by the spectators next to me but who cares).
As for the gore – “psychological” – anxiogene following, well, Antichrist is as much elaborated in psy-angle as Matrix was in the philosophy angle: it doesn’t go very deep.
Maybe I should have watched this movie as Bolo Tie recommands it to be watched, just a gore flick.
Hmm why posted twice???
Well first of all, I wouldn’t call the film “avant-garde” at all (I don’t think I’ve ever heard it called that before actually), but it does seem to break new ground and offer a slice of originality, but there’s really nothing new or groundbreaking about it. The backstory of Von Trier’s “therapy” (not mocking it, merely unsure of the meaning of the word as used by Von Trier … a therapeutic commercial horror film? – I suppose it’s akin to scream therapy), often gives the director an “out” and makes the judging of this film a “little easier”, a little more persuasive. I think it’s better to disregard the backstory of the film because it tends to distract people from the film itself.
Now there’s been many threads on this, of which I’ve elaborated quite a lot so I won’t get into it too terribly, but this film is really the epitome of style masquerading as substance. I don’t agree with the misogynistic angle or the torture porn one, nevertheless there is a formulaic quality to it that is very apparent.
All that being said though, I thought the idea for the film (the general synopsis) was wonderful and showed a great amount of potential, but the execution was way off. The first 30 min. or so of the film is pretty good and if the rest of the film had continued in this vein (do we really need an X-Ray of malformed feet to drive the point home any further?) my opinion may be much more positive, but there’s these formulaic touches that Von Trier throws in there and they’re really out-pf-place because they’re in the middle of a film that gives the impression that it’s reaching higher than that.
I did like the ever-present falling acorns and the scene with the snails as well as the intro which is just a masterful use of image and sound. I also liked the ending (the “aftermath” scene if you will) and both actors give suitable performances, but Von Trier really should’ve exercised restraint a bit more.
Funny how some people on this site detest this movie but think Pierot Le Fou and A Woman Is A Woman is awesome. It all comes down to taste I guess.
^ Jaeger, there’s no comparison between Antichrist and the two films you mentioned, so the relevancy of that is questionable.
There wasn’t meant to be comparison, I’m just simply pointing out that personal taste is what one’s love of film ultimately bulges down to.
While I’d agree with you in general, I would like to think that I’m not alone in separating “what’s good” from “what I like”. For me there’s a difference. For instance, I’d say that Big Trouble in Little China is one of my favourite films, but is it a great film? No. Citizen Kane is a great film, but is not one of my favourite films because while I find originality in it, it’s just not a film I would want to watch repeatedly for reasons of style and approach more than anything else. Of course, what one deems as “good” is different for all of us, but I think we all share a common understanding of what makes a film stand out from all the others.
You obviously have an appreciation for Antichrist, and I’m not trying to take that away from you (nor do I presume to think that I could), but I think a lot of what you admire in the film is more relating to style/tone than substance/narrative (not to say that those pairings are necessarily related). If that’s a matter of personal taste, then sobeit, but I think critical opinion of Antichrist will remain virtually the same 20 years from now (without the hyped fuss over misogyny and torture porn) as opposed to, “those inane critics whom ten to twenty years later will either positively re-appraise their opinions of the picture or be too ashamed to admit their ignorance.”
Remember David Cronenberg way back when he was making those scummy horror films, and he explained his work as being about wanting “to show the unshowable, and to speak the unspeakable”? Any number of films since (and I’m not crediting him with birthing a movement or some such) seem to be operating under the same intention. With the result being some things we may have been alright with not having seen (e.g., powerdrills, clits and sicssors). How does everyone feel about that? Pedal to the floor, restraint be damned, or, is this so much willful posturing?
I, for one, think Citizen Kane – like Bergman did as well – is an overrated piece of garbage. I haven’t seen Big Trouble In Little China.
Look, don’t get me wrong, AntiChrist has it’s many pitfalls; but that being the case, how many “great” films don’t?
Powerdrills? Hell, it was the preferred method of execution in Iraq. You could tell who was the executioner by the method and Sunnis used a drill to the head.
The idea that someone like Lars or Cronenberg can outdo reality is pretty laughable.
Just a couple of hucksters pandering to the cheap seats.
To further elucidate LvT, here’s a link to his contribution to To Each His Own Cinema. It’s sophomoric but hell, I can’t not appreciate it.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xaigqh_occupations-short-film-by-lars-von_short films
I loved the movie and dare I say it was one of the best MOVIE experances I have had all year!
this is movie made for the movies and sadly seeing this one the small screen will not compare to seeing it in theatres.
I was not a Lars Von T fan until I saw this. Then again I this is my 1st movie that ive seen by him. I tired to watching Breaking the waves a while back but caught in the middle and couldn’t get into it. WAIT, I saw Dogville and reallly reeally LOVED that but that was really cinematic like this movie was, it was theatric, but none the less great.
ANTICHRIST
JUST FROM THE OPENING scene shot in black and white done in slow motion I was HOOKED. The most meancing shot was the little boy slowing turning his head looking at the audience while his parents do it.
I loved the title cards that separated each section. THE ACTING WAS BRILLANT. INTENSE all around. the bravery of the actors.
Willam Dafoe gives a great performance. Chareltte Giansburg should of won best actress @ Cannes.
For me the grossest part was when the bloodsucker things where on dafoe’s hand
I really ENJOYED this movie despite this movie’s horror. I cant wait to see it again. WOW.
I watched the film about an hour ago.
Watching I thought, Trier must have watched too much Tarkovsky and Discovery Channel (Time Warp and wildlife documentaries) during his depression.
BUT
In my view there is nothing wrong with this film. The story was well built and the imagery used was the imagery of our age. The amount of disturbing scenes was about right. I doubt that Trier just thought "hmm.. “a clit-cutting scene” would be shocking, let me see where I could use it". I felt the actions performed by the characters were necessary to depict the conflict between the ego and the id.
Reading the discussion here I noticed that if not all, but most of the criticism in this thread is authored by men. I am not a feminist or anything, it is merely an observation. And I just want to share what that brought into my mind after reading the comments regarding the goriness of the film.
Trier actually gives away the key to this movie with the male therapist character. Indeed if the character was a lawyer for instance, I may have pronounced Antichrist crap. I know from experience that men and women watch films differently, and I think that few men could relate to the female character’s state of mind. But by using the therapist as an apparatus he actually forces you to analyze. The “clit-cutting” was really necessary to express how Charlotte Gainsbourg’s character felt. Making love to her husband she actually saw her child fall out the window. Consequently her feeling of guilt made her want to destroy what she made herself believe was the source of the accident. So to me this was a good portrayal of a mind.
I am not very good at expressing myself by writing and I guess that is why I like films, but I hope I have made my point.
>her feeling of guilt made her want to destroy what she made herself believe was the source of the accident.
But Nataliya, this perception doesn’t seem peculiarly feminine: it’s a statement of something explicitly suggested in the film itself, something to be picked up by any relatively attentive viewer, their gender notwithstanding.
Well it lends a certain amount of credence to Dafoe’s character simply because he is a therapist instead of say, a doctor. Just by the way Dafoe plays it, the viewer gets the impression that he is successful in his field and a reliable character for us to follow during the journey of the film. So I agree, this is the best choice as a backdrop for Dafoe’s character.
I think saying that few men could relate to Gainsbourg’s character is rather amusing, because it’s like saying that only the female character can experience grief from the lose of a child and that a male viewer can’t transpose himself to her position and feel her guilt. Again, I’m sure Nataliya didn’t mean it that way, but that’s how it reads. Von Trier’s use of the mutilation in the film (no reason to continue to flog our minds with specific imagery – we’ve all seen it by now I think) would’ve worked if it was used sparingly.
This is why I personally find Von Trier to be hovering over hack territory with this film because we only need a couple of these mutilation scenes for him to get his point across (and a better director would’ve have needed them at all). The weight drilled through Dafoe’s leg is of course nothing more than a plot device to prevent him from escaping so I suppose that’s necessary (I say with a frown), but it would’ve been better if Dafoe’s leg was broken or something similar that way we would be more shocked by Gainsbourg’s own self-mutilation (and of course it is shocking the way it is now, but just imagine this as the first and dare I say, only mutilation – wouldn’t that say volumes more?), instead it just seems like Von Trier kept adding horrible things to challenge the audience’s stomach.
As visceral as the film is when one describes it in words, when you see it it’s not really as shocking as it’s supposed to be (and indeed as it should’ve been) because it looks less like someone channeling Tarkovsky than someone channeling Sam Raimi. Von Trier really needs to learn when to quit. He’s made some fine films throughout his career, but if he continues to make pseudo-shock like this he’ll be in trouble.
Witkacy I indeed, as Decard Croix points out, did not mean men can not pick up “why she does what she does” or can not relate to her grief.
When you watch a film you do not simply look at the screen and think about what you are seeing, you feel things too. I was just curious if there was a difference between what women and men felt watching this film and if it affectected their critic.
So, I watched this film about a month ago and after leaving the theater….Well, suffice it to say I felt a bit—how do I want to phrase this—apprehensive. (A bit of a side note: this apprehension I felt had absolutely nothing to do with the explicit scenes in the film). Now, knowing myself, I often have very mixed, complex, often times vague feelings after immediately viewing a film (I find this comforting actually, it means the film kept me engaged); therefore, I gave myself sometime to ponder—including watching the film over again—before I would make any definitive judgments. This being said, while I very much admired the imagery and tone of the film (I enjoyed the Tarkovskian imagery haunting throughout), in terms of the film itself, that is the content of the film, I simply can’t say much for greatness.
I’ll start by saying that while I completely disagree with all the critics who accused this film of being misogynistic (a word, like “racism” that is so over-and-misused it almost seems meaningless at this point), I did however see their point. Let me try to explain:
I think the problem with this film is that Trier relies too heavily on gender binaries (which of course is merely a social construction): i.e. woman is nature, emotion, body; man is culture, reason, and mind. He reduces his characters to mere tropes, symbols, rather than actual individuals. I’ve seen this in Trier films before (I’m thinking particularly of Dogville), where Trier attempts to make a Universal film with Universal themes. What I find so off-putting about this, however, is as an auteur, someone who works in the realm of the personal, someone is suppose to be conscious of his own subjectivity, he relies too heavily on the “objective.” What I mean is Trier, who wrote this film as a sort of catharsis, instead of making something personal, made something trite and didactic—a moralizing film.
To better get across what I’m trying to say, I will compare him to Antonioni. Now, Antonioni is also a man who has written films about women (or rather a woman); yet, I would never say Antonioni films’ objectify or romanticize or symbolize women (or even men for that matter). Antonioni characters are always complex. We see this not only in the way the actors act out their characters (the way Monica Vitti can never verbalize her unease but simply reveal it through crippled, reticent, sometimes chaotic gestures) and the way the director film’s the character (Antonioni observes his characters. He doesn’t explain, he observes). In Antonioni films there is always distance, whether it is between two characters, between a character and the camera or between a character and herself.
In my opinion the only job of a filmmaker is to explore, and too realize that he is exploring through subjective lens. It is not to state. Like Susan Sontag said, the most complex films are those that “show that something happened, not why it happened.” Trier, however, attempted to do the opposite and in my opinion failed.
I find it interesting that no one seems to be aware that the film is about a woman with Munchausen syndrome.
Sadly, I have not seen a Tarkovsky film yet, but I plan to. At the end of ANTICHRIST, a title reads, “dedicated to Andrei Tarkovsky”. I felt like that implied that Tarkovsky was a direct influence on the film. For those who have seen Tarkovsky’s work, what are the similarities? Are their Tarkovskian influences? So on, so forth…
There are many many threads that talk extensively about this. Try searching under “Antichrist.”
@Steve Oerkfitz: best comment, ever.
The film was awesome. Nobody has done a film like this before to portray one’s anxiety etc, brilliant idea. The imagery was fantastic, the sounds were fantastic, the actors were fantastic – even their faces suited the parts. The thing I loved the most was the whole contrast of something that’s beautiful but dark. My fav bit was the beginning. It really drew me in – the black and white prologue and the music – I just wanted to be there. Thumbs up!
JAEGER INKMAN
SCREW THE CRITICS
Just saw the movie, and I’m happy. Happy primarily for the fact that Trier turned his bout of depression into something avant-garde albeit explicit, and thought-provoking. After seeing this I now understand but deplore the gripes and grumbles of most of those inane critics whom ten to twenty years later will either positively re-appraise their opinions of the picture or be too ashamed to admit their ignorance.
ON ONE HAND
Trier can be pointed out as a misogynist, a chronic lover of the hatred of women. And perhaps such an accuser would be right. From the “Fatal Attraction” degree portrayal of feminine disenchantment/mania to the sometimes gory depiction of the concomitants of such instability, its hard not to detest the man’s showy audacity and heedlessness.
ON THE OTHER HAND (my stance)
Antichrist is a picture more concerned with the triangular interactions between nature/person/self than with any form of misogyny. It is a sometimes eerie, sometimes enthralling presentation of the attempted recovery from a loss of a loved one, the struggle with nature ( man included) to provoke such a recuperation, the blatant futility of such an attempt, and finally the aftereffects of such a futility.