Actually, that film is just about the funniest film made all of last year. It’s Von Trier telling the entire film community to go fuck themselves and it’s pretty goddamned funny. The Tarkovsky dedication is icing on the cake. If you didn’t get it before then…
And yes, Von Trier is a giant asshole. So what? Most people in the film industry are. Hell, I’m an asshole and I haven’t even done anything.
How is it A fuck off to the film community? By him trying to elicit the reaction he provoked in me?
Everything about it is supposed to make you angry. It’s disgusting, offensive, and ridiculously over-the-top. It hides it in a bullshit plot about misogyny, and Von Trier steers everything way towards the side of being incredibly obvious. I don’t see how people couldn’t get it. His tongue is so far in his cheek it’s cutting a hole out the other side.
This is what he’s saying, “You hate my hand held films? You haven’t seen shit yet.”
“You accuse me of being a misogynist? You haven’t seen anything yet.”
“You take this shit seriously? Take this seriously.”
I mean he literally said he was the greatest living filmmaker in Cannes last year.
And to top it off he dedicates to one of the biggest sacred cows in cinema? It’s hilarious. It’s almost an exploitation film and that’s about as seriously as I take it.
This should be moved to a previous thread, though…
@Deckard- Sigh? Really? Those threads are barely relevant.
@Cold Knees- That makes a lot more sense. I wish I could have 11 million dollars to say fuck you to someone. Thanks for the input though. If I knew how to move it I would.
You can apply the whole “he’s just telling you to go fuck yourself” excuse on ANY of Von Trier’s movies. But I think Antichrist is too psychologically acute and aesthetically accomplished to only merit such a description.
I haven’t found anything all that acute or accomplished in any of his films. Merely because he’s taken seriously by some European art critics doesn’t mean he says anything of real importance. The film was just fun, for me; like a Coffin Joe horror film or a exploitation film from the seventies… just with better actor’s.
What is with this obsession with DesCarte? Why can’t Von Trier be an idiot AND an A-hole?
How are those threads not relevant? They ALL have several pages of discussion on Von Trier’s “misogyny” and his dedication to Tarkovsky. I didn’t even link the others which talked about this very subject. Really.
The Tarkovsky dedication is funny, but also somewhat relevant. Tarkovsky could certainly be considered misogynistic by today’s standards.
I never understood why people are pissed about him dedicating the film to Tarkovsky… (shrugs)
It’s a rather irrelevant criticism. Everybody can dedicate their work to whoever they want.
Wasn’t the original story of Adam and Eve misogynistic?
Well, I understand (and agree somewhat) with the “gull” of Von Trier to indirectly (kinda) compare himself to a recognized master filmmaker such as Tarkovsky. No matter what one may think of Von Trier’s work apart from that, it’s pretty clear that Von Trier (whether he realizes it or not) has a certain fondness for himself which I find irritating (I tend to dismiss artists who applaud their own work), but I’ll still watch his films and don’t brood on Von Trier’s life or quotes or claims – all that’s unimportant and a waste of one’s valuable time. Just watch the goddamn film.
Now, perhaps Von Trier put up that dedication purely as a tribute and any comparisons people drew from that were unintentional – perhaps, but unlikely.
Anyway, you’re right though Salem, it’s better not to dwell on the artist’s intent so much as to form one’s own appraisal regarding his/her work. Just as in a previous thread (something about a viewer’s dislike for the filmmaker translating to a dislike of their work), it’s ludicrous and completely missing the point of art in general, to take such a stance. Sure, Mel Gibson (for example) has his problems, but so does every single user in this forum (not to mention the world over), so it’s high-handed and pretentiously naive to cross over that line and merge an artist’s life with an artist’s work and treat them as if they’re the same thing. It’s childish reasoning and a backwater mentality.
To Deckard’s other Antichrist threads above, I can add:
Directors’ Cup voting thread for Antichrist vs No Day Off
I’m Seeing This in About an Hour
^Landon gives a detailed summary of the symbolism in this film in his post on the thread just above.
So, we don’t really need yet another thread where someone shows up just to trash a film that has already been thoroughly thrashed and discussed here. One could have put an opinion on any of the existing threads, on the film’s wall, or post a review. Obviously, when someone just shows up to put up a negative opinion, which they just expect others to come on and share, no discussion is possible. Minds are made up and one just wants confirmation for one’s own negative opinion.
If one wishes to discuss this or any other film, to analyze how it works or doesn’t work, a thread just intended to serve as a flame thread seems completely without merit.
I have stated my own opinion of the film elsewhere and have no need to do it on a thread where any discussion is ruled out. I only posted here for others who maybe want to dig deeper, with the threads also provided by Deckard. If your mind is already made up, don’t bother.
Time to move on.
I loved Antichrist, how dare I.
And I haven’t read a whole lot into it, but he probably dedicated the movie to Tarkovsky because he was an influence on Von Trier, for whatever reasons.
That’s exactly why he did it. He dedicated a film he was proud of to his hero.
For better or for worse, the film provoked a major reaction from you, which is more than can be said for the majority of films released in this day and age. You’ll remember this film for as long as you live.
bknight23
After watching Antichrist, those are the only options I can come up with. Especially after he had the nerve to dedicate the film to Tarkovsky.
Antichrist is a BLATANTLY misogynist reimagining of the Adam and Eve story. I was willing to go with Von Trier if his female character envisioned the world as it really was, but rather he added insult to injury by pacifying nature with her death. In addition, he takes a very serious, very palpable issue like female castration and not only trivializes it, but attempts to justify it in the film by villainizing the female and having it appear as a form of “mea culpa”. This film is regressive, offensive, distasteful, cliched and just out and out cruel. I cant believe people would admire this film and I cant believe he would have the balls to dedicate it to Tarkovsky.
There is absolutely no association outside of a poorly done visual onomatopoeiac of the Mirror.
Tarkovsky was respectful to all of his characters and saw art as a way to guide human beings towards spiritual understanding. His work was generous, contemplative, warm and original. Von Triers work is selfish, reactionary, cold and derivative.
The fact this film is celebrated by anyone for any reason whatsoever is beyond my comprehension. (Nearly 4 full stars on MUBI)
That said, I could be narrow in my understanding, so feel free to enlighten or broaden my perspective with your own.