Antichrist is a great, if flawed, film. It’s nice to find someone who seems to really get von Trier.
interesting thoughts. though i dont know if id call “antichrist” a science fiction film.
Hard to classify this one in a simple manner. It certainly isn’t a cookie-cutter horror flick, nor a typical sci-fi. Best to let von Trier be von Trier.
i never felt it was a horror film either. i dont know why genre expectations have been tied to the film. i agree, it is unclassifiable. at least in a “generic” generic sense.
Wise, no i wouldn’t call it a sci-fi film either, i think that popped-up because I was was thinking of Tarkovsky as “meta-science-fiction” & Antichrist as a “meta-horror”.
& in those notes about it I posted, I neglected to connect those dots with… you know.. another sentence. Whoops. Thoughts go too fast to type them all!! Haha.
Hahaha, good stuff. What’s your favourite von Trier, NEH?
“If we become too focused on a single idea it will drive us mad. Whether it’s the studying the history of gynocide , or a contemplation of nature itself. Too much of any idea, is a bad idea.”
I completely agree with this but I think the truth of it is what makes Antichrist a poor film.
Ohhh, i usually lean towards Dancer in the Dark , allways.
But that’s how i found von Trier, as a Bjork fan, haha, & usually the first film I find a director with is the resident favorite for a very long time.
It’s a nice confirmation of theauteur theory, that by only seeing one film, i can begin to understand all of his films.
Dogville & Breaking the Waves certainly round out the top 3.
What about you, Adam?
Mike, how so?
I agree that Trier delves deeply into the concept of ‘nature as evil’ , but i think he appropriates it by silencing the fear, by confronting it head-on. Likewise, the characters in the film attempt the same.
I think it’s great that the film has proven hard to pin down, but I don’t see why it’s received the harsh treatment (not here, but in the general internet critical community) that pops up in its negative reviews. I’d say that if there are genre elements to point out, you could definitely argue that the majority of them are horror (a cabin in the woods, portentous astrology, the discovery of nefarious research / diary that displays madness, even the overused twist that…“oh my god it was that person all along who was evil!”, etc.). But what I find interesting is the exploration of the social poisons inherent in misogyny of the middle ages up through the misguided use of clinical psychology and how it plays out in a contemporary male-female relationship… And then to couch that in the tropes of horror makes for some interesting movie-making. I’d also argue that the Tarkovsky dedication is actually sincere. I’d read that it was due to how much he felt he was stealing from Tarkovsky’s films… Even if that’s Von Trier sidestepping a more complicated answer, I think that while it might be attacking the perspective on nature held in Tarkovsky’s films, it’s certainly striving to be as cerebral as anything made by the Russian filmmaker.
Neh
I think he wallows in it. I think you’re right that he intends obsessive ideas (human nature) to be the real danger to our well-being and not physical nature, but it’s still almost 2 hours of him rubbing that idea in my face.
What did you think of the Epilogue?
In what respect? It didn’t in any way improve my experience.
I mean, how do you interpret it? (in relation to the story)
Also, it’s not meant to be a particularly enjoyable 2 hours. :) It is a horror film.
This film sucks ass and that’s really all there is to it. LvT’s pathetic attempts to shock and provoke are yawn-inducing.
That’s no argument. That’s just an off-handed opinion without thought put into it.
You really think there’s no theory behind the fact that he uses nature to be shocking & provocative?
There are numerable reasons why he is trying to get us to think about these aspects of humanity.
I wasn’t trying to disrespect anyone who liked the film, but I was definitely expressing my disdain for the film and its director. He is obviously trying to make some kind of statement on nature and evil and humanity, but his incredibly sophomoric shock jock tactics take away from any kind of serious examination.
For example… SPOILER WARNING… umm, why in the world would Charlotte’s character keep stroking her husband’s penis until he ejaculates…? Wouldn’t she just stop after maiming him? But no, we see LvT insist on showing her give him a happy ending until his cock spurts blood… Is that just about the most juvenile cheap shock tactic you have ever seen in a so-called “serious” film? he was employing the mentality of a 15 year old boy there. I’m supposed to take a film like this seriously?
There’s that word again: “sophomoric”.
That’s one of those words like “pretentious”, where the second one uses it it’s instantly ironic.
Because, unfortunately, to label anything with either of those words is to be pretentious & sophomoric,
you are placing your opinion as more important than something else, which is pretentious,
& labeling/condemning something without giving any real incite into your opinion.
Oh, the answer to your spoiler question: SHE GOES INSANE during the film.
Doesn’t it happen in a chapter subtitled “Chaos reigns”?
You know, I once read that when people are dying in extreme circumstance, struggling for survival, like on a deserted island, they often confuse their sense of hunger for the need for procreation. This is serious. The human drive for sexual instinct is so strong it begins to overcome the need to feed ourselves. Your subconscious just starting drilling into you “you’re going to die. spread you seed. last resort!” Does that justify the characters actions? Maybe not for some people. Sounds like chaos of the human mind to me.
Blue, this may just be a case where, as you stated, you don’t like the director. I then must assume you went into the film wanting, or perhaps more accurately, expecting to dislike it.
Recently they did all these brain-scan studies on people of faith and atheists, & found out the pleasure-centers of their brains lit up when their ideas were attacked. In short, they enjoy on the fight, on not liking the otherside. I dare say they ‘get-off’ on it.
Agree to disagree about the film.
I actually adore LvT’s Breaking the Waves, so it’s not at all a matter of my personal feelings about LvT. You’re welcome to look at my ratings of LvT’s films overall—they’re quite favorable for the most part.
5/5 Breaking the Waves
4/5 Europa
4/5 Dancer in the dark
4/5 Dogville
4/5 Five Obstructions
3/5 Epidemic
2/5 Antichrist
Of course, Charlotte’s character is insane. And any behavior of hers could be justified on the grounds of her insanity. But what the viewer has to consider is why the filmmaker chooses to show what. Is Willem Dafoe’s character ejaculating blood in any way pertinent to anything that LvT is trying to say? Or is it just an easy way to shock the audience? I fail to see how that scene is pertinent to anything. If you do, please explain. I’m more than happy to be proven wrong.
Well. Let’s investigate. Could that, indeed graphic scene, be a visual metaphor?
Is he suggesting that because this woman is possessed by these ideas, by this madness, which sees women as the harbringers of death & that they should feel guilt for being who they are… that the one external organ (our most important organ in nature, our procreation tools!) that which brings life into this world, in this mad womans hands, brings death. Blood in lieu of sperm. I think it’s a striking image & certainly one I’ve never seen before.
Sorry for the run-on sentence.
I think Breaking the Waves may be his MOST manipulative film.
Which is saying something. Guy is reigning dictator of manipulative cinema. Next to Michael Bay.
Well, LvT is ALWAYS manipulative with his films. I think you, I, and most cinephiles understand this about him. It’s whether or not we choose to go along with his manipulative tactics.
But anyway, I like your analysis of the particular graphic scene up for discussion. That’s the kind of response/analysis I like to provoke in people when I disagree with them regarding specific films. Obviously, I still disagree with you as to whether this is a particularly necessary scene. It could be that the scene works both as a metaphor as you interpret it and as a shock tactic as I do.
When I speak harshly of a film though, it’s never a reflection of how I feel about those who like the film. And I do think describing certain attributes of films as “sophomoric” and even “pretentious” are okay—as long as one knows the meanings of those words and can explain as to why one feels that way. I don’t believe that to say something is “sophomoric” or “pretentious” makes the person sophomoric or pretentious. It may be the case sometimes, but how can that necessarily be the case?
And I gave a very specific example of what I thought was a particularly sophomoric tactic that LvT used in the film.
No need to make things personal or to try to attribute certain tendencies as to how my brain might work, NEH! :)
Giggles. All in good fun! i assure you. Nothing personal.
I have a tendency to become curious about the person talking, sometimes derailing my interpretation of what we’re talking about. Admittedly.
I do, however, think that no matter who is saying it, to use the word “pretentious” is to be pretentious.
And to use a word like “sophomoric” is demeaning, & in effect “sophomoric” in its sadism.
Again, nothing personal, as far as I know you’re just words on a screen I get to talk with :)
Well, if you’re going to say, using the word “pretentious” always makes the person using it pretentious, then you’ll probably have to be completely consistent and say that all adjectives that make value judgments have the same effect. I agree that pretentious is a word that is way too often used (misused, that is), but to say that it can never be used in an effective sense seems a little extreme. It’s a word with a specific meaning. Just because it is overused in a very general manner doesn’t mean that the word loses all of its effectiveness in every imaginable context.
That’s faulty logic.
To say that is not to say that “all adjectives” have the same effect.
It is the definition of pretentious which renders it ironic.
if ‘pretentious’ is defined as “affecting greater importance than is actually possessed” then for anyone to label anything ‘pretentious’ is in effect a ‘pretentious’ action because they are claiming they are important enough to tell everyone that this piece of work is “affecting great importance”. Who is ANYONE to make that audacious a claim? Let alone with a single word.
the word stands alone. no other adjectives qualify.
This is really a tangent I shouldn’t’ve started.
This thread is about the film.
Didn’t mean to derail. Certain words just irk.
Antichrist is certainly designed to shock. Absolutely.
But I am of the opinion that it is good to be offended.
Being offended shows that you care.
Therefore, i see provocateurs as very important to our society.
They remind us that we do care about life.
No matter how gruesome it can be. We care.
Delayed reply to your question, NEH, sorry…
my top 3 would be
1. Dogville
2. Breaking the Waves
3. Dancer in the Dark
Not too different from yours.
Some people are shocked by LvT’s tactics, but as I wrote before, I found his attempts to be yawn-inducing. I actually groaned and chuckled during the scene in which Charlotte’s character decided to give her husband a happy ending until he nutted blood, lol.
But you’re right. Some people are shocked and outraged by it, which is what LvT wanted. I was offended not by the gruesome or graphic nature of Antichrist, I was offended that that LvT thought he could get people to think that the film is more important than it is because it has shocking images.
Obviously, it’s a divisive work. Some people loved it. Many people hated it.
And on the “pretentious” tangent…
“the word stands alone. no other adjectives qualify.”
WAIT A MINUTE!
Didn’t you just chastise me for using the word “sophomoric”? Hahaha.
“There’s that word again: “sophomoric”.
That’s one of those words like “pretentious”, where the second one uses it it’s instantly ironic.
Because, unfortunately, to label anything with either of those words is to be pretentious & sophomoric,
you are placing your opinion as more important than something else, which is pretentious,
& labeling/condemning something without giving any real incite into your opinion.”
Hmm…trying to have it both ways? Ha. Anyway, I think we at least definitely agree that the word “pretentious” is way too often misused. But it isn’t the only word of its kind. And I didn’t say “all adjectives” do the same, I said “all adjectives that make value judgments.” Isn’t that why you bristled at my using the term “sophomoric”? Using a word as simple as “foolish” would be subject to the same criticism you leveled. Who is ANYONE to call anyone else “foolish”?
NE1
SPOILERS GALORE
DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVEN’T SEEN….
.
.
.
ANTICHRIST
Lars Von Trier
All great science-fiction is predicated on the idea that some new idea has come along & changed the way we see everything, be it through technological advancement, or in this case, through a radical shift in our understanding of how the world works.
The premise here being: What if nature is evil?
Once obsessed by her research, She becomes ‘possessed’ by overexposure to certain ideas. By human nature: the art of consumption, survival, desire, procreation, & our capacity for pain as well as our inclinations toward empathy. Our impulses & compulsions, no matter how horrifying or gratifying. If we become too focused on a single idea it will drive us mad. Whether it’s the studying the history of gynocide , or a contemplation of nature itself. Too much of any idea, is a bad idea.
Eden is used to show an evolving corruption. This is the Garden of Eden in its aftermath.
Ruined, tortured by nature. This is the Earth an antichrist would want.
Where acorns are painful & foxes eat themselves. Where trees grow towards the ground.
The war waged in the film is an ugly brawl between the animal & the human in all of us. The desire to feed the fleeting, carnivorous animal, versus The audacity in helping someone else, who may even threaten our survival. That is our duality. Call it what you will. Good & evil. Jesus/Satan. Buddha/Mara. Winner/Loser. Master/Slave. Therapist/Patient. Human/Animal. Can either side ever truly win?
The final dedication, to Tarkovsky , is a joke more subtle than playing ‘Young Americans’ at the end of Dogville . It is von Trier’s trademark middle-finger. Where Tarkovsky transcends, von Trier eviscerates. What Tarkovsky beautifies & mystifies about nature, von Trier erodes & analyzes. Always being sure to cut us off before he overanalyzes himself into pure madness. The teetering point being the gleam of light through his whole career. Von Trier is not a madman; he is writing a lifelong thesis on the madness of mankind.
Essay: The visual theology of Lars von Trier