Antichrist (Lars von Trier)

[Lasse]

So with the release of Antichrist moving closer, I thought it should have its own thread. It's opening at Cannes May 13th.

I know a few of you are expecting Lars von Trier's first venture out into pure horror.

First official still can be seen at DR Website (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Kultur/2009/03/23/221631.htm?rss=true), but be aware that the picture might be a bit NSFW.

[Spinal]

First official still can be seen at DR Website (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Kultur/2009/03/23/221631.htm?rss=true), but be aware that the picture might be a bit NSFW.

Oh man, this is going to rock. Hopefully, it doesn't take too long to get over to the States.

[Qrazy]

Even though I"m not a big Von Trier fan I quite like Element of Crime and I recently watched his short Nocturne not too long ago which is fairly Horror-esque. So yeah if I were to anticipate any Trier film it would be this one. I think he's a very interesting director formally it's only on a thematic level that I come away lukewarm from his work.

[Pop Trash]

I hated Dogville but I'm curious about this. His previous venture into horror with The Kingdom series was pretty great.

[Russ]

Yeah, Qrazy, I was just going to recommend The Kingdom too (along with the second series), that is if you haven't already seen them.

[Boner M]

Von Trier fits into the category of 'directors I approach with trepidation even though I end up liking most of their work', but this is one of my most anticipated films of the year.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, Qrazy, I was just going to recommend The Kingdom too (along with the second series), that is if you haven't already seen them.

Yeah I haven't seen it yet although I've been meaning to. I have The Idiots but I doubt I"m going to like it that much, still I'll give it a look. Probably going to watch Berlin Alexanderplatz (which I have) before I jump on The Kingdom.

[Qrazy]

Von Trier fits into the category of 'directors I approach with trepidation even though I end up liking most of their work', but this is one of my most anticipated films of the year.

I don't really have a list like that. My list is more 'directors I continue to watch although I'm very critical of most of their work' simply because they have such formal talent... Haneke makes that list as well.

[Amnesiac]

Yeah, Qrazy, I was just going to recommend The Kingdom too (along with the second series), that is if you haven't already seen them.

Kind of OT, but I just realized that your avatar is from Springtime in Greenland. For whatever reason, I didn't expect anyone here to be familiar with it. I really liked it. Hilarious, bizarre, well-shot, well-acted, etc. And intriguingly ambiguous and disconcerting in some instances.

[Russ]

Kind of OT, but I just realized that your avatar is from Springtime in Greenland. For whatever reason, I didn't expect anyone here to be familiar with it. I really liked it. Hilarious, bizarre, well-shot, well-acted, etc. And intriguingly ambiguous and disconcerting in some instances.
Yeah, I'm always pimping that and Crime Wave too. For all the reasons you mention and the fact that there's really nothing else at all quite like them.

[Watashi]

I swore Spinal created a thread on this but I can't find it.

AICN has the trailer here (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40760).

This looks creepy as fuck.

[Boner M]

I swore Spinal created a thread on this but I can't find it.
No hyphen.

This looks good.

[Watashi]

Found it: http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=1960&highlight=antichrist

It was Lasse. That crazy Dane.

[trotchky]

What happened to Wasington?

[Bosco B Thug]

yaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

[Spinal]

What happened to Wasington?

One of two scenarios seems likely:

1) Trier decided to work on a project that might make enough enough money for him to get Wasington made.

2) He lost interest and decided he wanted to move in a new artistic direction.

[Raiders]

This thread has reminded me I never did get around to watching Manderlay...

[Spaceman Spiff]

I really could care less about Trier, but I'm finding myself pretty excited for this.

[Ezee E]

With the successes that von Trier has had with limiting himself so much, I always thought he was capable of making one of the best films ever.

Now, I won't get that excited for this, but it looks amazing.

[Spinal]

With the successes that von Trier has had with limiting himself so much, I always thought he was capable of making one of the best films ever.


He's already made at least three of them.

[Ezee E]

He's already made at least three of them.
Fair enough. I guess something that would be masterful to all audiences, or something... I don't know, hard to explain.

[number8]

What, like an epic Best Picture thing?

[Qrazy]

What, like an epic Best Picture thing?

Something with better lighting and range of camera movement than dogme tends to permit I think he's suggesting.

[Ezee E]

What, like an epic Best Picture thing?
In a way. Something that would make the Match Cut Top 50 of all time!!!

[soitgoes...]

In a way. Something that would make the Match Cut Top 50 of all time!!!
I did my part. Still he's got two in the top 150, that's not bad. Personally I think he's always going to be too divisive, like Haneke in a way, to generate a large following to push a consensus masterpiece.

[trotchky]

I like everything I've seen by von Trier, but I think this looks pretty boring.

[Lasse]

Second trailer (http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/antichrist/trailer-b)

This looks terrific.

[Amnesiac]

I haven't seen anything from von Trier except The Idiots. And I liked it. I don't think I've ever seen anyone agree with me though.

I need to look into his work some more.

[Spinal]

I haven't seen anything from Von Trier except The Idiots. And I liked it. I don't think I've ever seen anyone agree with me though.

I need to look into his work some more.

I like it too, but it's generally considered one of his most difficult to embrace. If you liked that, you've got to make Breaking the Waves a priority.

[Amnesiac]

I like it too, but it's generally considered one of his most difficult to embrace. If you liked that, you've got to make Breaking the Waves a priority.

Yeah, that's what I've had in mind for a while now.

[trotchky]

Okay this looks really good.

[MacGuffin]

New poster, sort of not safe for work.

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/95/watermarkphpf.jpg

I'm really looking forward to this movie. The trailers all look incredible.

[MacGuffin]

Julie Rigg: Perhaps you could say to Lars that you'll make a film if he'll come to Australia.

Nicole Kidman: He just offered me a film called Antichrist which I passed on. Somebody will make it but it's not going to be me.

Interesting, but not very surprising.

[Acapelli]

this is getting torn apart

[MacGuffin]

this is getting torn apart

No, it's not.

[Acapelli]

maybe torn apart isn't the right word, but it does seem to be extremely divisive and eliciting reactions from both extremes, seemingly more negative than positive. be careful with the links, the last two are very spoiler-ific

http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSTRE54G2JF20090517

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2009/05/antichrist_fart.php

http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=festivals&jump=review&reviewid=VE1117940286&cs=1

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/05/for_even_now_already_is_it_in. html

[MacGuffin]

maybe torn apart isn't the right word, but it does seem to be extremely divisive and eliciting reactions from both extremes, seemingly more negative than positive. be careful with the links, there are spoilers in those last three links

http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSTRE54G2JF20090517

http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=festivals&jump=review&reviewid=VE1117940286&cs=1

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2009/05/antichrist_fart.php

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/05/for_even_now_already_is_it_in. html

This has already been discussed extensively in the Cannes thread, so you know. The movie is dividing audiences, but all von Trier movies do. Furthermore, Reuters isn't a review or criticism website. Variety doesn't know what they're talking about. I've only heard bad things about Jeffery Wells' writings and Roger Ebert is off his rocker as he has been for the past few years (seriously, I don't think I would trust anyone who simultaneously says such things about Antichrist and highly praises Lee Daniels' Precious, which also screened at the festival -- in fact, I feel bad just putting the two movies in the same sentence).

[Acapelli]

jeez, you act like i just stomped your dog to death. obviously the reaction to this is much stronger than anything he's done in the past (even moreso than dogville and manderlay), probably due to the intensely violent and sexual nature of the film. you can't just describe this as just another divisive von trier film. and the links were just to provide a description and examples of the reaction

i'll just make sure that i cross-check anymore posts about this film with you so i don't offend your sensibilities again

[MacGuffin]

you can't just describe this as just another divisive von trier film.

Why not? If a movie divides an audience, it divides an audience.

[Pop Trash]

jeez, you act like i just stomped your dog to death. obviously the reaction to this is much stronger than anything he's done in the past (even moreso than dogville and manderlay), probably due to the intensely violent and sexual nature of the film. you can't just describe this as just another divisive von trier film. and the links were just to provide a description and examples of the reaction

i'll just make sure that i cross-check anymore posts about this film with you so i don't offend your sensibilities again

People get irate on Match Cut about Von Trier. Trust me, I've heard it all before when I spew my contempt for Dogville, dare say that I think Lucas Moodysson is the better contemporary Scandinavian director, etc. etc.

[Winston*]

People get irate on Match Cut about Von Trier. Trust me, I've heard it all before when I spew my contempt for Dogville, dare say that I think Lucas Moodysson is the better contemporary Scandinavian director, etc. etc.

It's not what a post is about, it's how it is about it.

[Dukefrukem]

So has anyone seen this yet?

[eternity]

I saw it when I was in Paris last week. Being indifferent to a Trier film feels so wrong, but here it is. Big improvement to Manderlay and Dogville though.

[MacGuffin]

I saw it when I was in Paris last week. Being indifferent to a Trier film feels so wrong, but here it is. Big improvement to Manderlay and Dogville though.

Now I'm 95% sure I'll love it.

[eternity]

Now I'm 95% sure I'll love it.

It's premise definitely brings a lot to the table to chew on; it's definitely provocative in a good way. But at the same time, it definitely seemed like random scenes put together with very little rhyme or reason that contributed nothing to the sum of the films parts, which I hear is actually the case, right?

It's one of those movies I like a bunch of things about while detest a bunch, which I guess represents both of the typical Trier responses; this movie just happens to have a little bit from both reactionary gift baskets.

[Boner M]

Hella disappointing. More thoughts later.

[transmogrifier]

Hella disappointing. More thoughts later.

What, based on the orgasmic word of mouth it received?

[Derek]

Hella disappointing. More thoughts later.

Confirm or deny Boner:


random scenes put together with very little rhyme or reason that contributed nothing to the sum of the films parts, which I hear is actually the case, right?

[Boner M]

Confirm or deny Boner:
Deny. It's a pretty simple and streamlined story, and divided into four chapters (grief, pain, gynocide, the three beggars) that deliver on their promise. The whole thing's pretty watchable, and visually stunning in an evil-perfume-commercial kinda way, but it relies on lots of lame horror movie cliches (Exorcist-style subliminal flashes of demonic faces, a diary of scribblings that gets less and less coherent as the pages are flipped through, IMEANC'MONLARS), and most of the dialogue is atrocious sub-Bergman gibberish.

I agree with eternity that it didn't really provoke any strong reaction in me, aside from the squirms at the notorious scenes. It's probably the most overtly misogynist film he's made, and that aspect of it felt like desperate baiting to me, but otherwise I don't doubt that it's a sincere exploration of his innermost feelings - Tarkovsky dedication and talking fox included. I just wish it was good.

The opening scene is amazing, though. And Dafoe and Gainsbourg are effin' brave.

[Watashi]

I kinda want this poster:

http://impawards.com/2009/posters/antichrist_ver5.jpg

[Amnesiac]

I kinda want this poster:

http://impawards.com/2009/posters/antichrist_ver5.jpg

What about this one?

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/images/column/9909/antichristsnip.jpg

[ledfloyd]

add me to those who were left indifferent/disappointed. i actually really loved the first hour or so, but once it got to the stuff that's been talked about, the film lost much of it's impact for me.

i also can't argue with the claims boner made about the film's misogyny. how it compares to trier's other work i can't say, as this was my first experience with him.

[B-side]

As I expected, the controversy was ridiculously overblown and silly. The film was great.

[Boner M]

As I expected, the controversy was ridiculously overblown and silly. The film was great.y/n

[B-side]

y/n

:confused:

[Boner M]

:confused:Yes to first sentence/No to the second

[B-side]

Yes to first sentence/No to the second

Ah. What exactly didn't you like about it?

[Boner M]

Ah. What exactly didn't you like about it?
Post #49, silly!

[B-side]

Deny. It's a pretty simple and streamlined story, and divided into four chapters (grief, pain, gynocide, the three beggars) that deliver on their promise. The whole thing's pretty watchable, and visually stunning in an evil-perfume-commercial kinda way, but it relies on lots of lame horror movie cliches (Exorcist-style subliminal flashes of demonic faces, a diary of scribblings that gets less and less coherent as the pages are flipped through, IMEANC'MONLARS), and most of the dialogue is atrocious sub-Bergman gibberish.

Atrocious? Really? Wow. I didn't think the dialogue was so far removed so as to evoke such a response. Felt appropriately analytical to me.


It's probably the most overtly misogynist film he's made, and that aspect of it felt like desperate baiting to me, but otherwise I don't doubt that it's a sincere exploration of his innermost feelings - Tarkovsky dedication and talking fox included. I just wish it was good.

You do know he sees himself as the female, right? The misogyny in the film is both a nod to the silly accusations made of him and it's very much thematically relevant.

[Boner M]

Gonna have to wimp out and say that I'm in no shape to discuss the film, B-side. It was the last film I saw at the festival I saw it at, my fifth viewing of the day, and I've since read Sicinski's extensive write-up (http://academichack.net/TIFF2009.htm#Antichrist) that has made me rethink my initial impressions, esp. regarding von Trier's attitude to women. But anyway, I have no desire to see it again anytime soon.

[B-side]

Gonna have to wimp out and say that I'm in no shape to discuss the film, B-side. It was the last film I saw at the festival I saw it at, my fifth viewing of the day, and I've since read Sicinski's extensive write-up (http://academichack.net/TIFF2009.htm#Antichrist) that has made me rethink my initial impressions, esp. regarding von Trier's attitude to women. But anyway, I have no desire to see it again anytime soon.

It's all good. I'll probably be thanking you for that link.

[B-side]

It's all good. I'll probably be thanking you for that link.

And I do. That was a great essay.

[Pop Trash]

The new Film Comment has an extensive defense of it in their new issue (forget who wrote it though), stating a lot of what B-side was saying about the misogyny and such. The writer thinks that Von Trier doesn't have a problem with women but does have a big problem with men.

The writer does go on to say that he thinks this is a sketch for a better film Von Trier might make later, so guess he didn't exactly think it was great.

Anywho, check 'er out.

[NickGlass]

The new Film Comment has an extensive defense of it in their new issue (forget who wrote it though), stating a lot of what B-side was saying about the misogyny and such. The writer thinks that Von Trier doesn't have a problem with women but does have a big problem with men.


Isn't it just safe to say von Trier is a misanthrope?

[ledfloyd]

The new Film Comment has an extensive defense of it in their new issue (forget who wrote it though), stating a lot of what B-side was saying about the misogyny and such. The writer thinks that Von Trier doesn't have a problem with women but does have a big problem with men.

The writer does go on to say that he thinks this is a sketch for a better film Von Trier might make later, so guess he didn't exactly think it was great.

Anywho, check 'er out.
and it's online (http://www.filmlinc.com/fcm/so09/antichrist.htm)

[B-side]

The new Film Comment has an extensive defense of it in their new issue (forget who wrote it though), stating a lot of what B-side was saying about the misogyny and such. The writer thinks that Von Trier doesn't have a problem with women but does have a big problem with men.

The writer does go on to say that he thinks this is a sketch for a better film Von Trier might make later, so guess he didn't exactly think it was great.

Anywho, check 'er out.

Von Trier said so himself that he identifies with the female protagonist. I'm assuming this extends beyond Antichrist. Trier is an emotional, fearful person. His "Golden Heart" films see himself as a woman, the gender most often identified as being subject to emotional manipulation and ruminations of nature. One might expect a female to be able to identify with these issues more than a male, and the gender statistics back this when it comes to who experiences anxiety. Trier may have a victim complex, but he's certainly not a misogynist.

[ledfloyd]

Von Trier said so himself that he identifies with the female protagonist. I'm assuming this extends beyond Antichrist.
Trier says ALOT of things. this Film Comment article is talking about him putting forth the image of a fraud but actually being an artist. anyhow, my point is, imparting meaning on a film because of something a director said about it is usually not smart. find the meaning within the text.

[ledfloyd]

“The male protagonists in my films are basically all idiots who don’t understand shit. Whereas the women are much more human, and much more real. It’s the women I identify with in all my films.”—Lars von Trier

“I don’t see my film characters as either male or female. It’s just that they assume a female appearance... They are part of me. But I’m not a woman. I’m not a woman! Let’s make that very clear! Oh, I don’t know, maybe I am. I am an American woman. Or 65 percent of me is.”—Lars von Trier

[B-side]

“The male protagonists in my films are basically all idiots who don’t understand shit. Whereas the women are much more human, and much more real. It’s the women I identify with in all my films.”—Lars von Trier

“I don’t see my film characters as either male or female. It’s just that they assume a female appearance... They are part of me. But I’m not a woman. I’m not a woman! Let’s make that very clear! Oh, I don’t know, maybe I am. I am an American woman. Or 65 percent of me is.”—Lars von Trier

Those two don't really contradict each other.

[B-side]

Trier says ALOT of things. this Film Comment article is talking about him putting forth the image of a fraud but actually being an artist. anyhow, my point is, imparting meaning on a film because of something a director said about it is usually not smart. find the meaning within the text.

I do a bit of both. I don't recall Trier being particularly disingenuous. He has fun, but I doubt he outright lies.

[ledfloyd]

Those two don't really contradict each other.
well, no, they don't. he says he empathizes with the female character. but in the second quote he implies that they aren't reeeally female, they're just characters assuming a female.

the sixth part of that film comment article really summarizes my problems with the film.

[B-side]

well, no, they don't. he says he empathizes with the female character. but in the second quote he implies that they aren't reeeally female, they're just characters assuming a female.

Pretty easily read pandering on his part. He didn't wanna lean too hard on any one claim, so he spoke ambiguously.

[NickGlass]

The opening scene is amazing, though.

Yes it is. The rest, well, a bit scattershot and, oddly, not as confident. My opinion is certainly more favorable than yours purely because I'm terribly interested in trying to figure out if the filmmaking is sincere, a psychologically probing joke, or, umm, both (too easy?).

Oh, and the post-screening press conference was via satellite (Skype), in the theater, with von Trier's big, impish head governing over the audience of critics. That was amusing.

"I'm glad to see you people in New York. If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere."

"Oh, yes, the name of the woods is 'Eden'--sorry about that."

"You think Charlotte was a bad mother? You should meet mine."

[Watashi]

As visually tasty as the opening scene was, I thought it was pretty silly.

[Adam]

Saw this ruckus last night. Silly as the prologue was, it was not the silliest part

Worst date movie, ever?

[jamaul]

Well, I couldn't resist once I found out this film had [...], so I watched it. As it happens, this was a great film to watch right after a major breakup. That's not to say I reveled in the madness on screen in some fit of bitterness projected vicariously towards my ex, but I was tickled by the dysfunction of He and She's relationship, and how it ultimately led to a pretty humorous and very literal battle of the sexes. It made me glad to be single, if only to avoid massive hemorrhages to the cock and bloody ejaculation caused by some crazy bitch's sudden and random fit of anger.

This Von Trier guy's an interesting cat. He's now my first choice to direct Hostel 3.

[Dukefrukem]

As it happens, this was a great film to watch right after a major breakup.

I need to watch this ASAP then.

[eternity]

I think making a bunch of Taylor Swift loving, promise ring wearing teenagers watch this with me in a theater has to be the meanest thing I've ever done. They saw an ad for it on the subway and "wanted to see a horror movie". I took this and misguided them into never speaking to me after that day.

[number8]

I gave you rep.

[Spaceman Spiff]

How have you all seen this? It hasn't opened here. You guys are all jerks.

[eternity]

How have you all seen this? It hasn't opened here. You guys are all jerks.
Film festivals / Process Of Acquiring Movies Which Shall Not Be Named / Living in other countries

[Spaceman Spiff]

Process Of Acquiring Movies Which Shall Not Be Named

Woah. Didn't know that this was this, ahem, available. It's times like this that I feel grateful for my moral bankruptcy.

[Ezee E]

That's their highlight this year?

[Boner M]

stop wasting awesome posters on this film kthx

[megladon8]

So apparently this movie is very misogynistic?

[Adam]

Eh, it's more like the entire human race is hot zoo garbage

Most especially women and psychotherapists

[Spaceman Spiff]

This movie was fucked up.

Formally brilliant, though. That much needs to be said. I'll be absolutely shocked if I see a more visceral and hypnotizing film all year. With that said, I also have some trouble with Trier's "humanity is garbage" message, as much truth can be mined from such a conclusion. I'm also not really sure (and this is a criticism I've seen bandied about in fairness) if this is supposed to be a poetic (and very warped, but essentially serious) portrayal of tremendous loss and madness or if Trier is intentionally dicking around in the 2nd half of that film with the profuse sex and gore. He's trying to have it both ways, but quite a few moments in that film (as impressively staged as they might be) felt like unnecessary envelope pushing to me.

A lot of the Freudian psychobabble bothered me as well.

[B-side]

Who. Cares. If. The. Film. Is. Misogynistic?

It isn't, but who fucking cares if it was? It's art. Art is not a political statement in and of itself. You bring the message. You see the misogyny.

[megladon8]

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/4145/chillpill.jpg

Take one. ;)

[Cult]

Art is not a political statement in and of itself.
It can be.

I'll be seeing this Saturday, and for some reason I'm really psyched about it.

[Adam]

A lot of the Freudian psychobabble bothered me as well.

That's good, because Von Trier wants you to see it as pure psychobabble


It can be.

Right. I'm just as tired of reading how overbearingly misogynistic this movie is, (especially in the kind of dismissive/offhand way it's been done) but I don't totally agree on the whole "Art is not a political statement in and of itself - you bring the message" thing, either. 9 times out of 10 if an artist is trying to say something with their work, you know, it's pretty clear what they wanna say. Your personal interpretations are important, but ultimately it's hard to take something away from a film if it's not really there to begin with

[B-side]

Right. I'm just as tired of reading how overbearingly misogynistic this movie is, (especially in the kind of dismissive/offhand way it's been done) but I don't totally agree on the whole "Art is not a political statement in and of itself - you bring the message" thing, either. 9 times out of 10 if an artist is trying to say something with their work, you know, it's pretty clear what they wanna say. Your personal interpretations are important, but ultimately it's hard to take something away from a film if it's not really there to begin with

Sure, but in the case of Antichrist people are ignorantly connecting material in the film with Trier's own personal feelings. It's as if they see everything in black and white. If the women are successful and independent, it's not misogynistic, but if a woman is the source of a problem, it's misogynistic. Does anyone say this about men? It's silly. Most of the misogynist claims come from his "Golden Heart" trilogy. The protagonists are women. They endure hardships. That = misogyny, apparently. I get so sick and tired of people tossing out that accusation as if it were candy. That silly label has kept so many people away from his movies. How does it not register with people that the female protagonists in his movies are always good, altruistic characters? They're always the victims. If these films were comedies and made light of their tragedies, I might understand the claim, but they're heart-wrenching portraits of the destruction of the meek.

[Adam]

Yeah, I agree. I just had beef with your blanket statement about art in general, not Von Trier. Have you seen the movie, though? Even if I'm tired of hearing them, people's immediate reactions are pretty understandable. Charlotte Gainsbourg has two biggish speeches towards the end that, on the surface at least, say women are evil incarnate. And then...

she mutilates and tries to sacrifice her husband. And cuts off her clit

So I get that folks take that and then they look at Von Trier's track record of putting women through hell (not just in his Golden Heart trilogy). But the guy's come out and said he relates to the the central female characters in his stuff more than anyone else and that makes sense to me

[B-side]

Yeah, I agree. I just had beef with your blanket statement about art in general, not Von Trier. Have you seen the movie, though? Even if I'm tired of hearing them, people's immediate reactions are pretty understandable. Charlotte Gainsbourg has two biggish speeches towards the end that, on the surface at least, say women are evil incarnate. And then...

she mutilates and tries to sacrifice her husband. And cuts off her clit

So I get that folks take that and then they look at Von Trier's track record of putting women through hell (not just in his Golden Heart trilogy). But the guy's come out and said he relates to the the central female characters in his stuff more than anyone else and that makes sense to me

Oh yeah, I've seen it, and most of his features, so I know the films they're referring to. I just think people like to make judgmental leaps. I don't understand the logic that sees a self-defeating woman and sees that as perfectly indicative of the director's misogyny. I have little doubt Gainsbourg's character whole arc is partially inspired by the numerous times he's been declared a misogynist, and as a sort of in-joke. Your last sentence is something that made perfect sense to me as well, and I almost think people need to have that statement of his stapled to their foreheads so they remember that what happens in the film isn't necessarily indicative of the director's feelings.

[Spaceman Spiff]

That's good, because Von Trier wants you to see it as pure psychobabble

In fairness, I think you're right here.

Brightside, I'm not sure if your 'who cares about misogyny' was directed at me (considering it followed my post), but I never claimed the film as such, and I generally don't care about such 'poor morals' (for lack of a better term right now) in my cinema unless it can be harmful in the public sphere. Your 'art is not a political statement' line is just weird and false though and I think you know this.

[B-side]

Brightside, I'm not sure if your 'who cares about misogyny' was directed at me (considering it followed my post), but I never claimed the film as such, and I generally don't care about such 'poor morals' (for lack of a better term right now) in my cinema unless it can be harmful in the public sphere. Your 'art is not a political statement' line is just weird and false though and I think you know this.

Not necessarily aimed at you, no. I'm not indifferent to misogyny in real life, but there's a huge difference between inferred misogyny via semiotics and actual, spoken misogyny through the artist himself. Of course art is a political statement, but the art itself can't speak or elucidate feelings or thoughts. You bring the connections to the table when viewing art. I'll give you an example. In Goodfellas, people are killed with guns. We aren't necessarily meant to view the violence as humorous or cathartic, so would it be a stretch to say Scorsese is against gun ownership? If we're judging solely by context, that's not really an absurd thing to think. If we look at the man behind the art, we see that's likely false. I hope I've made myself clear here as I know I'm not very good at this writing thing.

[trotchky]

A guy had a seizure in my screening round around the part where Defoe has a wheel bolted to his leg. He ended up okay (apparently he got up and walked out) but by that time the lights were up and the audience seriously frazzled. I stood up and shouted out "chaos reigns!"

Anyway, masterpiece, etc.

[Adam]

I stood up and shouted out "chaos reigns!"

You didn't really do that, though, did you?

[trotchky]

You didn't really do that, though, did you?

yes.

[B-side]

Nice.

[trotchky]

thanks, i thought it was pretty funny, although the audience just looked around confused, natch.

it's not like the guy was seriously injured, i waited until everything was "okay" again to say it.

[Ezee E]

thanks, i thought it was pretty funny, although the audience just looked around confused, natch.

it's not like the guy was seriously injured, i waited until everything was "okay" again to say it.
Still kinda weird though.

[trotchky]

sick.

[trotchky]

it's a weird movie and a weird fucking world, bro.

[trotchky]

This movie was fucked up.

Formally brilliant, though. That much needs to be said. I'll be absolutely shocked if I see a more visceral and hypnotizing film all year. With that said, I also have some trouble with Trier's "humanity is garbage" message, as much truth can be mined from such a conclusion. I'm also not really sure (and this is a criticism I've seen bandied about in fairness) if this is supposed to be a poetic (and very warped, but essentially serious) portrayal of tremendous loss and madness or if Trier is intentionally dicking around in the 2nd half of that film with the profuse sex and gore. He's trying to have it both ways, but quite a few moments in that film (as impressively staged as they might be) felt like unnecessary envelope pushing to me.

A lot of the Freudian psychobabble bothered me as well.

i find this kind of ironic given your the holy mountain avatar

[Spaceman Spiff]

i find this kind of ironic given your the holy mountain avatar

I don't really see the irony. The Holy Mountain is a very funny movie. With Antichrist, Trier is going for alternatively sincerity and exploitation, sometimes in the very same scene. It muddles the message and the drama of the film.

[trotchky]

do you think jodorowsky holds his audience or human beings in general in particularly high regard?

there's a lot of humor in antichrist too, it just isn't as flip. the fox's intonation of "chaos reigns" is appropriately hilarious and disturbing.

[B-side]

I'll never understand the complaints that Antichrist is trying too hard to push any envelopes. It does nothing that hasn't already been done in terms of "extreme" content several times before. Why is this the film that bears the brunt of that critique? Not that I understand what the hell the criticism even is in the first place.

[Adam]

I think, again, that has a lot to do with folks' preconceived notions of Von Trier

[B-side]

I think, again, that has a lot to do with folks' preconceived notions of Von Trier

Preconceived notions never do anyone any good when it comes to film. I'm sick of people bitching after they see Antichrist about how it wasn't shocking as if the film had in any way intended to garner such a cheap reaction. Shock can be a good response to evoke when it's utilized in an intelligent manner to draw a critical eye to the subject matter. I'd say Trier did just this with Antichrist. Still, all the press for Antichrist coming out of the festivals isn't doing it any good critically. It's hard not to go into it with too many expectations. Lucky for me, I know critics tend to overemphasize that kind of content and blow it way out of proportion, so I simply went into it expecting little more than what I knew was there.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I'd like to clarify that Trier's 'envelope pushing' is less of a knock on the film than it is of my constitution, but regardless some of it did feel like baiting to me, maybe because I usually get this vibe from Trier films that I find it harder to distance this movie (probably my favorite of his now that I think about it) from his usual shock tactics. Nevertheless, I did like the movie all things considered.

[Cult]

The man right beside me started breathing heavily, cradling his head and looking down during that whole middle section. Finally he got up and left, but I was worried he would projectile vomit on me or something.

I didn't love or hate the movie. I think it has a lot of interesting things to think about and pick apart, but I don't know if doing that would be as rewarding as one might hope. I never thought I'd be meh on this movie, but it seems I am. Still very glad I saw it in theaters, that was quite an experience. :lol:

[number8]

Finally going to see this on Tuesday, and then Where the Wild Things Are right after.

It should be an interesting double feature...

[Dukefrukem]

Ummm. I started watching this last night. That opening scene really caught me be surprise. I wasn't expecting the intensity that I feel was FORCED upon us. It's the opening scene of the movie, a time when viewer attention is at it's peak. But yeh.. I'm glad I didn't read anything about this movie before I started watching it. I don't think I would have had the reaction I did. I'm very interested in continuing it tonight.

[Dukefrukem]

A guy had a seizure in my screening round around the part where

That happened to me at the ending of Spiderman 3. I missed the ending because I ran to call an ambulance in the lobby.

[number8]

CHAOS REIGNS!!!

Now that's a horror movie.

[number8]

Oh yeah. My review:

http://www.justpressplay.net/movie-reviews/40-reviews/6075-antichrist.html

[Spinal]

Boy, oh boy. This is a film that tackles ideas and feelings that are difficult to comfortably discuss in a public forum. I'm not even really talking about the film's more graphic and violent imagery. I'm talking about the prevailing atmosphere of despair and hopelessness associated with procreation and the sexual act. To insinuate Trier's film is misogynistic is to largely miss the point. This is not really a story of man versus woman. This is a story of man against nature, a chaotic, merciless force that is deaf to human suffering, only demanding that we copulate and produce more life. As a man and woman lie inside an isolated cabin in the woods, they are disrupted by an ominous sound. Are they being watched? Is there someone who has come to do them harm? No, the reality is more benign and yet also more disturbing: acorns falling from a tree in random fashion, indifferent, unfeeling. In the wake of a horrible tragedy, the woman comes to see herself and her body as inexorably linked with this natural force. As a mother, capable of producing new life within her body, she is also complicit in the crime of producing new suffering. This realization leads to anguish, breakdown and a desperate attempt to nullify the source of sexual pleasure.

This is a beautiful, haunting and courageous work full of resonant symbolism and dangerous thoughts. A horror film that is perhaps more horrifying after you have left the theater and have time to let the ramifications of what you have just seen sink in.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I want to wait for this to come out on DVD, so that I can watch The Passion of the Christ (which I have not seen), followed by Antichrist. I get the feeling it would make for an interesting double-feature.

[balmakboor]

Cool. I was looking forward to reading Match-Cut reactions and they sound very promising indeed. No idea how long I'll have to wait to see this in Bismarck, ND though.

As for the guy having a seizure or whatever, I've only found something in a movie difficult to watch to the point of feeling physically sickened on two occasions. The fire extinguisher beating in Irreversible and most of Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer.

[number8]

Chaos reigns.

[number8]

I want to wait for this to come out on DVD, so that I can watch The Passion of the Christ (which I have not seen), followed by Antichrist. I get the feeling it would make for an interesting double-feature.

If you have Comcast, it's OnDemand.

[Dead & Messed Up]

If you have Comcast, it's OnDemand.

That'd be cool - but I have Time Warner Cable.

[Spinal]

Did it upset you that critics in Cannes laughed at the talking fox?

LvT: I was not there at the screening. But I think I can hear the different [sic] between that kind of laughter and laughter from somebody who has decided to hate the film from the start.

But is the fox a joke?

LvT: No, it comes from these Shamanic journeys that I did. It's not like getting onto a plane! Yes, I am still afraid of that. You have a drum beat and you go into a trance that takes you into this parallel world. And there, I talked to this fox and it demanded to have a line.

Did he say anything else?

LvT: Well, the first fox I met was a red fox. And it started to split itself to pieces. And afterwards, I met a couple of other foxes. Silver foxes with little cubs. And they said to me, 'Never trust the first fox you meet.' So it was interesting.


:lol:

Link. (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1210830-antichrist/news/1833302/rt_interview_lars_von_trier_on _antichrist)

[Watashi]

Spinal giving this film four stars is as predictable as me giving Up four stars.

[Derek]

Spinal giving this film four stars is as predictable as me giving Up four stars.

True, though to Spinal's credit, he probably won't become emotionally distraught and feel betrayed when other MatchCutters dislike the film. ;)

[Raiders]

True, though to Spinal's credit, he probably won't become emotionally distraught and feel betrayed when other MatchCutters dislike the film. ;)

Aw, really? I was already planning my assault.

[Benny Profane]

Again, deja vu. The wink denotes a cautious kindness, yet it also seems to belie a reply that is wholly predicated on an already concluded argument from the past and thereby seems unequivocally meant to slight Wats/like make him feel like an ass. Still, I like how you locate your caustic resentment alongside buoyant emoticons. :cool:

Deja vu.

[Winston*]

This is a Lars von Trier thread, it is no place for confrontations.

[Raiders]

This is a Lars von Trier thread, it is no place for confrontations.

http://www.filmsquish.com/guts/files/images/Dr.%20Strangelove.JPG

[Derek]

Again, deja vu. The wink denotes a cautious kindness, yet it also seems to belie a reply that is wholly predicated on an already concluded argument from the past and thereby seems unequivocally meant to slight Wats/like make him feel like an ass. Still, I like how you locate your caustic resentment alongside buoyant emoticons. :cool:

Seems? My intention was to unequivocally meant to slight Wats and make him feel like an ass. :pritch: I apologize for leaving even a sliver of doubt in your mind there. The foundation of MatchCut is built on caustic resentment and anger being masked by emoticons and shallow pleasantries.

But Wats knows I love him despite these absurdities. It's just too hard not to point them out when he makes comments like that about others.

[Winston*]

Still not sure if I dug on this movie. Know I'll probably never want to see it again though. Too much for me.

[Spinal]

Stop this bickering or I will mutilate someone's genitals.

[number8]

I see you got a new avatar, Spinal. Care for some desktop wallpapers (http://www.justpressplay.net/movies/movie-news/6073-wallpapers-the-beauty-of-qantichristq.html)?

[Spinal]

Still not sure if I dug on this movie. Know I'll probably never want to see it again though. Too much for me.

Hmmm. I can't wait to see it again. I've been thinking of trying to catch it one more time before it leaves theaters.


I see you got a new avatar, Spinal. Care for some desktop wallpapers (http://www.justpressplay.net/movies/movie-news/6073-wallpapers-the-beauty-of-qantichristq.html)?

Nice! I went with the kid standing in the window. Looks great.

[number8]

Nice! I went with the kid standing in the window. Looks great.

Mine is currently #7 (Gainsbourg with the tree). :)

[Watashi]

I'm pretty sure Spinal is going to snap any minute now.

[Winston*]

Hmmm. I can't wait to see it again. I've been thinking of trying to catch it one more time before it leaves theaters.

Family outing?

[Watashi]

I'm totally buying this shirt.

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/chaos-reigns.jpg

[Spaceman Spiff]

Mine is currently #7 (Gainsbourg with the tree). :)

Mine is Gainsbourg's ass with the fucked up animals. Mmmhmm.

[origami_mustache]

By faaaaarrrrr the best thing I've seen this year and possibly my favorite Lars von Trier film. It would be between this and Europa.

[B-side]

Hm. I actually consider Europa to be middle-to-bottom-tier Trier. I definitely prefer Antichrist.

[trotchky]

In other news, Up still sucks. Antichrist still a masterpiece. Weather and sports at eleven.

[number8]

As irreplaceable I think Gainsbourg's performance was, is it wrong of me to kinda wish that Von Trier got his original choice? (It was Eva Green).

[Spinal]

As irreplaceable I think Gainsbourg's performance was, is it wrong of me to kinda wish that Von Trier got his original choice? (It was Eva Green).

Hmmm. I think she would have been fine, but I think Gainsbourg is a superior actress. She was perfect for this film.

In other news, I'm disappointed (though not surprised) at how many reviewers are simply cataloging the horrors and making snide remarks without making any attempt to confront what those images mean.

[number8]

Hmmm. I think she would have been fine, but I think Gainsbourg is a superior actress. She was perfect for this film.

.....not really my point.


In other news, I'm disappointed (though not surprised) at how many reviewers are simply cataloging the horrors and making snide remarks without making any attempt to confront what those images mean.

Me too. This movie has actually inspired some of the laziest reviews I've ever read. This pretty much sums up many of the critical reaction: "Hey, beware, [SPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSPOILERSP OILER] happens. Not a movie for kids lololol! Lars von Trier is sick and silly. End."

[Ezee E]

How old is Charlotte? Seems like a big age difference if it's Eva and Dafoe.

[right_for_the_moment]

.....not really my point.


But we already have The Dreamers for that, right?

Anyway, here's an interesting still that I came across on another forum. Not spoilerific but I think it may be oversized.

http://i37.tinypic.com/2rc7vcx.png

[origami_mustache]

Hm. I actually consider Europa to be middle-to-bottom-tier Trier. I definitely prefer Antichrist.

You and Polanski are both midgets then.

:lol:

[Bosco B Thug]

Antichrist is an unbelievably blunt, candid, and divestment-minded film. It's much like Kurosawa's Pulse, in the sense it's an almost inconsiderately philosophical horror film that take on vast, infinite things with the matter-of-factness of their semi-ironic allegorical approach. But while Pulse is a gentle film made by a gentleman, Antichrist is pretty much the opposite (that's a compliment, haven't got to the "Cons" yet). As I read it, it's an angry, fatalistic look at how brutish nature wins out over all things, and it paints a relationship between the two character such that the actions made in the final act don't seem so much evidence of a fact - "Men are this, women are SPOILERCRAZYSPOILER" - but roles being fallen into because, seemingly, of a rich, terrible, historical tradition. In that sense, the use of the coined term "gynocide" is very apt, equating gendered persecution as pretty much the same cloth as every other "-cide," evil, or purity-made-grotesque.

The bluntness of the film is what I really admire, much in the same way Kurosawa's bluntness about his very different concerns in his film makes me admire that film. Antichrist should be required finger-wagging formative viewing for all carefree, growing boys AND girls. Or just boys, might be the point...

Cons are the film is not very engaging formally. I watched Dancer in the Dark, too, and that's Von Trier being dynamic and pointed with his camera work. Antichrist had large chunks where the camerawork just felt rote and shapeless. So the film kind of drifted off at many points. Whenever it did get itself into gear, the images are hypnotizing and beautiful but also kind of flat, instead of communicative and potent, like they are in DitD. Part of it may be how the film pretty much works with two people talking and walking around a forest, while DitD and other Von Trier's other films have a large cast of characters with which to create dynamic interactions and choreography of blocking and camera movement. The latter is more impressive and engaging.

[Dillard]

Clever choose-your-own-adventure style review-builder (http://drnorth.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/lars-von-triers-antichrist-build-your-own-review/), which gathers a variety of reactions to Antichrist. From Dan North's blog.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Cons are the film is not very engaging formally. I watched Dancer in the Dark, too, and that's Von Trier being dynamic and pointed with his camera work.

Whuzah?

I thought von Trier was at the absolute top of his game here. This movie is so amazingly well done especially compared to the bland drabness of Dancer in the Dark.

[Bosco B Thug]

Whuzah?

I thought von Trier was at the absolute top of his game here. This movie is so amazingly well done especially compared to the bland drabness of Dancer in the Dark. Ehh, I stand by my statement. We probably are thinking slightly incompatible attributes of cinematic formalism, but I thought Von Trier did very little really interesting or stimulating with the camera in Antichrist. Even the film's heavily formal bits (the prologue, the dream sequences) failed to stimulate much thought besides "This is pretty & symbolic." I guess his intentionally awkward zoom-in into the murky vase water was getting there, but, as I mentioned, I think his working on this essential chamber piece (not to mention his artistic mindset for this film) stifled his interest in working much with technique. I'd take that over the not-frequent-enough painterly-ness of Antichrist, and there's lots of "technique" in DitD, even if its visually drab.

[number8]

Heh. Review from Amazon:


I thought this movie would be something pertaining to demons and what not but I was wrong. This was one of the worst I have seen don't get me wrong I like wierd movies just not this one. I had to fast forward to the end when it kind of got more interesting. The movie is very slow and just has no point to it other then she is sad cause her kid died. All I'm saying is if you don't like really odd movies then do not get this one at all S Darko was better and that was alright.

[dreamdead]

This is certainly a stimulating experience, even if I hedge around the word engaging, since I echo some of Bosco's concerns. A lot of the imagery here generates a kind of uncanny sensation, as in the seemingly floatingly slow dream sequences or the film's overly-determined and choreographed but nonetheless effective opening. However, the style of the film, which is initially so engaging, drops off as the film executes it's machinations in the third act, which goes for the bluntly obtuse to such an extent that the primal edge to the film's themes somehow work against it.

It stands to settle well, though, so I'm hoping my initial "and?" response to the ending is countered by the wonderfully evocative first two-thirds.

[Ivan Drago]

It has been 24 hours after I viewed it for the first (and probably only) time, and I still don't know what to say about it.

And I will never use my right hand for a certain relief ever again.

[ledfloyd]

This is certainly a stimulating experience, even if I hedge around the word engaging, since I echo some of Bosco's concerns. A lot of the imagery here generates a kind of uncanny sensation, as in the seemingly floatingly slow dream sequences or the film's overly-determined and choreographed but nonetheless effective opening. However, the style of the film, which is initially so engaging, drops off as the film executes it's machinations in the third act, which goes for he bluntly obtuse to such an extent that the primal edge to the film's themes somehow work against it.

It stands to settle well, though, so I'm hoping my initial "and?" response to the ending is countered by the wonderfully evocative first two-thirds.

i agree completely.

[Dead & Messed Up]

This is available to watch on Netflix Instant.

I'm still really hesitant...

[Rowland]

Fucking loved it.

[balmakboor]

This was an incredible piece of work.

[Raiders]

Oh brother.

[Watashi]

Oh brother.

:pritch::pritch::pritch:

[Boner M]

Guys, stop encouraging Lars.

[Raiders]

I will never watch this film again, but I must admit I can't help but perhaps partly blame myself for my hatred of it. I hate Lars Von Trier. He might as well be Andy Kaufman with every interview, every comment and heck, sometimes his own films seemingly nothing more than a put-on. He created an entire genre/cinema-form as both a challenge and a prank. That it spawned a couple quality films is to the credit of the filmmakers who took on the challenge, not to the however-serious ideals Von Trier glibly laid out.

I don't see the point in this film. It meant nothing to me. I never escaped the feeling Von Trier was getting back at the Danish press which so chided him on The Boss of it All (another "experiment" founded on some blurry line between seriousness, pointlessness and glibness) and basically seeing how much this complete opposite film would either further enrage them or have them praising it. His film prior to this was a completely impersonal, mechanized product and now this one according to the filmmaker is intensely personal, made only for himself to break free of his depression and anxiety. This may very well be true, and I can only imagine this being enjoyable in his own mind (though apparently I'm dead wrong here).

If I was to try and apply meaning to all of this, I suppose Gainsbourg's speech about the screaming acorns (coupled with the ferociousness of said acorns' hitting the roof) shows an atuneness to nature which ultimately reveals the fury and evil that according to her own thesis lurks in all women. But wait! He's not a misogynist, so maybe it's actually her husband's distant approach to her grief and suffering that causes her to become so distrusting of him (I believe it is, after all, right after she is angered by his lack of enthusiasm for her that the fox so eloquently states that "chaos reigns") and to ultimately become a force of nature.

Maybe. I don't know. Von Trier obviously hates psychology, or at least defining human suffering by means of Freud, but he also lacks much clarity in what he does believe other than the theory of chaos which he does not actually either grasp or care to define. Ultimately it's a christmas tree with which every viewer is free to hang their ornaments of meaning, implied or unimplied. I guess it's "eye of the beholder" and all that jazz. But, it's a grotesque film and all the more, I don't buy it as a serious one and certainly not a candid one. It feels like a film made with contempt and a lot of it seems directed towards me, the viewer. It triggered a shut-off valve in my brain and I have no trouble taking some of the responsibility for my reaction, but I'll be damned if it stops me from hating the film and disliking its creator.

[Spaceman Spiff]

For what it's worth I dislike von Trier as well and don't care much for his films, but the grotesqueness and ferality of Gainsbourg made this one a winner for me.

[Spinal]

But did you like the cinematography? :lol:

[Spaceman Spiff]

But did you like the cinematography? :lol:

It wasn't as good as Avatar's.

[Spun Lepton]

Raiders, your post has convinced me that watching this will be a major waste of time for me. Thanks. :)

[Ivan Drago]

This was an incredible piece of work.

I agree with this statement. But it's too graphic for me to watch again.

[balmakboor]

I agree with this statement. But it's too graphic for me to watch again.

You know, I was surprised by how little is actually shown on screen. Except for one shot, I didn't find it particularly graphic at all. Not in terms of violence anyway. There were two shots that were sexually graphic, one in a normal way and one in a disturbing way, but there were things I expected to see based on what I'd read that just weren't there.

It was kind of like Salo for me. After all the years of reading about that film, I sat down the first time and watched it almost filled with dread. What I saw instead was a very intelligent and formally beautiful film. I'm not really sure how intelligent Antichrist is, but it is undeniably a visually and structurally stunning work. It also resembles Salo in a way. Both have a prologue followed by chapters that become increasingly disturbing and end with a brief epilogue.

[number8]

Eh, this movie is just okay.

[ledfloyd]

i had a dream last night that tarantino directed this from a von trier script. and in interviews he was saying 'this is the best film von trier has ever made, alriiiight?'

[number8]

Then he squints, looks down, shakes his head, swallows, and says in a low voice, "Absolutely, absolutely!", before leaning forward, making a chopping motion while yelling, "I mean, you think AVATAR is 3D--This is three-dimensional, okaay?", followed by a hearty laugh as he slumps back to his chair to put his fingers together.

[angrycinephile]

One of the best films of last year.

There's a decent Swedish documentary available on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2JwwR8hiPk) on Lars von Trier. It's from 1997 though so it doesn't chronicle his latest work. He comes across much better in interviews where he can speak his native language: more earnest and down-to-earth. After viewing this doc I can't wait to see The Element of Crime and Epidemic. The footage shown from those two films looked interesting to say the least.

MOD EDIT: Spoiler for Trier's The Kingdom

By the way, I just finished the first series of The Kingdom. Whoa, did I just see Udo Kier's head pop out of the pregnant girls stomach?

[Pop Trash]

By the way, I just finished the first series of The Kingdom. Whoa, did I just see Udo Kier's head pop out of the pregnant girls stomach?

Yes. Yes you did. That's one of the more memorable movie (er TV I guess?) endings of the past few decades. Gozu has a similarly crazy "birth" scene as well.

[Bosco B Thug]

This film gets a little slighter each time I try to recall it. So I'm just gonna stop doing that until I get to re-watch it.

A bit surprised at how many people love this.

[Spinal]

Spoiler for Trier's The Kingdom




By the way, I just finished the first series of The Kingdom. Whoa, did I just see Udo Kier's head pop out of the pregnant girls stomach?

Please do not reveal major spoilers without using spoiler tags or warnings. Especially don't do it by tossing in an offhand comment while posting in a thread for another film.

This is not something that Match Cut enjoys.

[angrycinephile]

Please do not reveal major spoilers without using spoiler tags or warnings. Especially don't do it by tossing in an offhand comment while posting in a thread for another film.

Oops. I apologize :)

[Mysterious Dude]

My favorite part is when the toothbrush falls on her arm, causing her skin to actually ripple from the impact. Not very Dogme, Lars.

Also, I was worried when the scissors came out, but I wasn't expecting her to go that way with them.

[Spinal]

Also, I was worried when the scissors came out, but I wasn't expecting her to go that way with them.

You have been very successful at avoiding spoilers.

[Derek]

You have been very successful at avoiding spoilers.

I just realized something. With this and A Hole In My Heart, that's two films you love where labia removals are spoilers. If you hit three, we may have to have a talk.

[Mysterious Dude]

This movie has badly affected my sex life. How long is it going to take me to get over this?

[Spaceman Spiff]

This movie has badly affected my sex life. How long is it going to take me to get over this?

Spaceman Spiff likes this.

[Raiders]

I watched Dogville last night to remind myself that not everything Von Trier has made is as bad as all that. In fact, it was even better this time around.

[Dukefrukem]

The Criterion Collection Releasing 'Antichrist'!

[Russ]

I watched Dogville last night to remind myself that not everything Von Trier has made is as bad as all that. In fact, it was even better this time around.
Have you seen Riget?

[Ivan Drago]

The Criterion Collection Releasing 'Antichrist'!

Yes, and the cover is kind of awesome, despite the font.

http://criterion_production.s3.amazon aws.com/release_images/3049/542_box_348x490.jpg

[transmogrifier]

Eh.

It's pretty brazen in its desire to be "shocking" that none of the violence (sexual or otherwise) feels organic with the rest of the film - you can see the grubby little fingerprints of an auteur who is just dying to be talked about over every frame of the film. On the other hand, it is shot very well, and the two leads are excellent.

I don't care much for psychological horror in the first place, and coupled with the fact that I found the central themes to be a confused mess - I don't really get what the film is trying to say with regards to nature and human grief (to me, grief acts as a wall to everything else around you, cocooning you in a hollow type of despair, but it is also quintessentially human) - the film was equal parts, frustrating, funny and just kind of there.

In other words, eh.

[MadMan]

I'll admit I haven't watched this movie yet simply because I'm not sure it can live up to the hype. Tough to try and objectively view a movie when its inspiring different extremes.

[MacGuffin]

I'll admit I haven't watched this movie yet simply because I'm not sure it can live up to the hype. Tough to try and objectively view a movie when its inspiring different extremes.

How is it tough? That just makes me want to watch a movie more.

[B-side]

Tough to try and objectively view a movie when its inspiring different extremes.

I don't think you'll ever have to worry about objectively viewing a film.

[balmakboor]

Something odd is I was dying to see this and watched it the day it became available on instant watch and pretty much loved it, but I've never had any desire to watch it again. I've watched Breaking the Waves, Dancer in the Dark, and Dogville many times. I'm not sure what Antichrist is missing in the rewatchability department.

[Spun Lepton]

Antichrist

I can not deny the technical mastery. But I am annoyed by von Trier's need not to connect with the audience, but to childishly evoke outrage. And not at the themes or story elements he's using, but at the film itself, and at himself.

He's a troll with a great film crew. That's not something to be proud of.

[MacGuffin]

He's a troll with a great film crew. That's not something to be proud of.

It is? People sure seem to love F for Fake.

[Raiders]

It is? People sure seem to love F for Fake.

... huh? How is that applicable?

[Spinal]

Antichrist

I can not deny the technical mastery. But I am annoyed by von Trier's need not to connect with the audience, but to childishly evoke outrage. And not at the themes or story elements he's using, but at the film itself, and at himself.

He's a troll with a great film crew. That's not something to be proud of.

There is nothing childish about that film. But yes, it is filled with outrage. I felt a deep connection to it. It strikes at the core of what it is to be human and have desires and aspirations and yet feel abandoned on this planet without purpose or hope. Trolls are not this sincere. To be able to dig this deep and successfully communicate truths this painful is absolutely something to be proud of.

[Raiders]

Don't worry Spun. I didn't get anything out of it either.

[Spun Lepton]

There is nothing childish about that film. But yes, it is filled with outrage. I felt a deep connection to it. It strikes at the core of what it is to be human and have desires and aspirations and yet feel abandoned on this planet without purpose or hope. Trolls are not this sincere. To be able to dig this deep and successfully communicate truths this painful is absolutely something to be proud of.

Vague, unfocused, adolescent outrage at EVERYTHING! NATURE IS EVIL! REALITY IS EVIL! SEX IS EVIL! LIFE IS EVIL!! Nothing challenging, here. No new ideas, no new avenues to explore, just all the same crap you read on LiveJournal, but this time it's on film.

[Spinal]

Vague, unfocused, adolescent outrage at EVERYTHING! NATURE IS EVIL! REALITY IS EVIL! SEX IS EVIL! LIFE IS EVIL!! Nothing challenging, here. No new ideas, no new avenues to explore, just all the same crap you read on LiveJournal, but this time it's on film.

No, sir. It's a thoughtful work that is specific in the way it examines one's couples agony and rage at being intelligent, sentient beings that are nonetheless trapped by their own desires and nature's need for them to procreate and make more. They experience unbearble suffering in losing a child and deep guilt in having brought that child into the world to begin with. The damage they inflict upon each other is not random or unfocused or mere audience-baiting. It targets the direct source of their misery. The setting is not random or unfocused. It is a representation of their unbeatable enemy. The animals they encounter are not random or unfocused. They mirror the suffering of the central couple.

These are not adolescent ideas. These are feelings that require life experience to fully understand and express.

[D_Davis]

One of these reasons I don't want kids is the fear of something happening to them. I couldn't deal with that.

[Rowland]

Fucking love this movie. Might sound silly, but as someone who grew up with a mother afflicted with frequent anxiety attacks and depression, who currently lives with a girlfriend who suffers from the same, and has in the past seriously considered (and ultimately rejected) the field of Psychology for his career path, Von Trier really cut me deep here. It's hypnotic, primal, and reflects my understanding of the universe with an unsettling clarity that I'm not sure I could ever express with half as much potency. And that Lars manages to imbue it all with a puckish undercurrent, entirely to the film's benefit as a rich, densely textured work of palpably personal art, is really amazing.

[Spinal]

From the Criterion essay (http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/1650-all-those-things-that-are-to-die-antichrist):


Antichrist certainly provokes and disturbs. But does this make it a work of genius or merely sensational, cynically putting censors and audiences to the test? Like Kierkegaard, von Trier has always thrived on assaulting “good taste” and conventional pieties, and here he has mobilized the resources of horror cinema to delve into the long history of “monstrous femininity” and misogyny—not to reassure us that it’s all in the past, or easily curable by therapeutic platitudes, but to make us feel the true horror of facing our buried fears and conflicts. And that is surely the aim of art that matters.

[D_Davis]

From the Criterion essay (http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/1650-all-those-things-that-are-to-die-antichrist):

I think one could write a similarly-themed essay about A Serbian Film.

[Spinal]

I think one could write a similarly-themed essay about A Serbian Film.

I want to see that.

[D_Davis]

I want to see that.

I want to see Antichrist. However, I've never liked a Von Trier film. But it's weird because I always enjoy the discussion surrounding his movies. I love reading this thread, and about the ideas his movies provoke, but based on my past experiences with him, I am finding it hard to get motivated to see this.

Maybe I should give his filmography another go. It has been a very long time since I've watching any of his movies.

[Russ]

Maybe I should give his filmography another go. It has been a very long time since I've watching any of his movies.
I would recommend you start with Riget. For one thing, it contains a good amount of humor, which is something rarely found in Von Trier's stuff (he's not given sole directing credit, so maybe that's the reason, but still...very highly recommended).

[Raiders]

Dogville is the only Von Trier film I have really liked. I did respect Breaking the Waves as well. Everything else... no. I do still want to see Manderlay.

[Winston*]

I would recommend you start with Riget. For one thing, it contains a good amount of humor, which is something rarely found in Von Trier's stuff (he's not given sole directing credit, so maybe that's the reason, but still...very highly recommended).

Yeah, I think you'd really like this, Davis. It's kind of Twin Peaksy.

[Winston*]

Did anyone see Trier's film prior to Antichrist, The Boss of it All? It wasn't very good.

[D_Davis]

OK - I'll check that out.

I'm also interested in Von Trier's ideas of Christianity and religion, and I think I'll be able to get more out of his films on this level now.

[D_Davis]

Ah, silly me. I've seen Riget - The Kingdom as I, an American, call it. ;)

Yes, I liked this quite a bit. Completely different from the two films I've seen - Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark.

[Spinal]

Did anyone see Trier's film prior to Antichrist, The Boss of it All? It wasn't very good.

No, it wasn't.

[MacGuffin]

I just realized something. With this and A Hole In My Heart, that's two films you love where labia removals are spoilers. If you hit three, we may have to have a talk.

Catherine Breillat, make it happen.

[Spinal]

IMDb's Most Popular Genital Mutilation Titles (http://www.imdb.com/keyword/genital-mutilation/?sort=num_votes):

1. Angel Heart
2. Antichrist
3. Narc
4. Dirty Pretty Things
5. Feast

[number8]

But Angel Heart was off-screen.

[jamaul]

I picked up the Criterion disc on Friday after months of anticipation to watch this again. My first viewing I enjoyed as a sick endurance contest, and considered most of what Von Trier was doing as more of a put-on than a serious exploration into the various forms of grief, anxiety, despair featured in the movie, and the mental and psychological breakdowns of its characters while surrounded by the complex evils of nature. Its images stayed in my mind, and the film grew in stature for me.

Upon subsequent viewing, I'm convinced this is a masterpiece. The only similarities aside from occasional visual references to the films of Tarkovsky (for whom the film is dedicated) is that Tarkovsky explored and sought spiritual resolution through his work much in the same way Von Trier seeks therapeutic relief through the exploration of the darker themes of this complex film. In the end, chaos may reign, but I don't see the film is wholly pessimistic, or anarchic, and certainly not misogynistic. It's apparent that Von Trier holds as much contempt for Dafoe's character and his arrogant psychobabble as he does for the Paul Bettany character in Dogville.

On a side note, I also see allusions all over the place to the films of Kubrick, Polanski and Lynch--but the influences enrich the film. Antichrist seems to me to be on the same level as Von Trier's Breaking the Waves and Dogville.

[Dukefrukem]

I also just got the Criterion Blu and watched it last night with my gf who hadn't seen it. The fox scene scared the shit out of her. But wow what a transfer! Having watched both this and Melancholia recently it makes me excited for Trier's next film, even tho Shia is in it.

[Spinal]

IMDb's Most Popular Genital Mutilation Titles (http://www.imdb.com/keyword/genital-mutilation/?sort=num_votes):

1. Angel Heart
2. Antichrist
3. Narc
4. Dirty Pretty Things
5. Feast

Updated:

1. Antichrist
2. Angel Heart
3. I Saw the Devil
4. Narc
5. Dirty Pretty Things

[number8]

How is The Isle not even on the list.

[Spinal]

How is The Isle not even on the list.

IMDb's Most Popular 'Fishhook Inside a Vagina' Titles (http://www.imdb.com/keyword/fishhook-inside-a-vagina/?sort=num_votes)

[Skitch]

How is The Isle not even on the list.

List disqualified.

[MadMan]

This reminds me that I'm still pissed that Netflix has Breaking The Waves on save and not available. Guess I'll just watch the other movies of his that I can get my hands on. And Antichrist is on my Top 20 Horror Movies of the 2000s list.

[Yxklyx]

This reminds me that I'm still pissed that Netflix has Breaking The Waves on save and not available. Guess I'll just watch the other movies of his that I can get my hands on. And Antichrist is on my Top 20 Horror Movies of the 2000s list.

I just re-watched this from Netflix- DVD though...

[MadMan]

I just re-watched this from Netflix- DVD though...Well shit last time I tried to put it on my queue I got stuck with the whole "Not available" bullshit. I'll try again.

[EyesWideOpen]

It's also on instant watch.

[Yxklyx]

Well shit last time I tried to put it on my queue I got stuck with the whole "Not available" bullshit. I'll try again.

Maybe if all their copies are out at homes it shows like that.

[Spinal]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScHS1HVhFiA

[TGM]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI5WGxKQ4kM