Antichrist

[rok]

I watched the un-cut screener of this over the weekend, and now I can see what all the fuss is about and why it was banned in, of all places, Japan.

Just when I thought I had already seen the most disturbing film ever, this comes along. It is intended to be a fable about the fall of man, set in a mirror-world where chaos and satan reigns, not god. In actuality, it is the bizarro story of Adam and Eve told very much in reverse chronological order to the biblical story. The characters have no names, so I will just refer to them as He and She. Anyway, a couple are grieving the accidental (or is it?) death of their child, so they set out for their country home, in a place called Eden in order to get away from it all and save their marriage. He is a therapist and feels that only He can get through to his wife, who has now become physically ill after their child's death. He is a man of reason. She is very much driven by emotion. What follows is a series of bizarre interactions with nature, failed attempts at therapy (of the verbal, sexual, and physical varieties), and then a very disturbing climax. The film is beautifully made and the musical black & white prologue and epilogue are great, but some of it is so over the top (going way beyond torture porn IMO), that it ruins the experience for me. There is an anti-women theme that goes a bit too far just to fit neatly into the biblical story, and though I can understand that the characters are more symbolic than anything, it wouldn't have hurt to add a touch of humanity to the story from time to time. As was the case, I found it very hard to care what happens to the couple and to the human race in general. There was one scene involving a forest animal that made me laugh out loud (a fox uttering "chaos reigns!" in a deep, demonic voice), and at that point I started to feel that the movie might be one big inside joke that I wasn't getting. Also, the title, Antichrist is misleading. Aside from the biblical themes, the name itself is meaningless, but it is possible that Von Trier came up with it to get the public's attention and to remind the audience that this is not a traditional morality tale where good and evil are clearly defined.

I won't give away any spoilers, and I can't recommend this to anyone who is easily disturbed or offended, but I also feel that there is a lot going on in this movie beneath the surface, much more than I was able to grasp in one viewing. It isn't really horror, but more of an art film. Anyway, I will resist giving this film a rating because I haven't yet made up my mind, but it sure will stay with me for a long time.

[liner]

how did you get the screener? any way to make a copy? i like von trier and a lot of the "dogma" films, or am at least very intrigued by them.

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=60843:date=Aug 31 2009, 01:12 PM:name=liner)-->QUOTE (liner @ Aug 31 2009, 01:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->how did you get the screener? any way to make a copy? i like von trier and a lot of the "dogma" films, or am at least very intrigued by them.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Downloaded it off Demonoid. You want a copy?

[liner]

<!--quoteo(post=60845:date=Aug 31 2009, 01:21 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Aug 31 2009, 01:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=60843:date=Aug 31 2009, 01:12 PM:name=liner)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (liner @ Aug 31 2009, 01:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->how did you get the screener? any way to make a copy? i like von trier and a lot of the "dogma" films, or am at least very intrigued by them.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Downloaded it off Demonoid. You want a copy?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
very much, if it's not much trouble. i could send you some cash for mailing or whatever

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=60846:date=Aug 31 2009, 01:30 PM:name=liner)-->QUOTE (liner @ Aug 31 2009, 01:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=60845:date=Aug 31 2009, 01:21 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Aug 31 2009, 01:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=60843:date=Aug 31 2009, 01:12 PM:name=liner)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (liner @ Aug 31 2009, 01:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->how did you get the screener? any way to make a copy? i like von trier and a lot of the "dogma" films, or am at least very intrigued by them.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Downloaded it off Demonoid. You want a copy?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
very much, if it's not much trouble. i could send you some cash for mailing or whatever
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't worry about it, just PM me your address and I'll put it in the mail tomorrow.

[liner]

oh boy. just finished this and i actually really liked it. i would go as far as saying it's a great movie but the main reason i like it is because i love seeing someone with as much or more of a fucked up imagination than most of us be able to translate it onto film, plus have the balls and talent to get it done.

the opening scene is the most beautiful yet haunting and disturbing scene. it seems von trier has abandoned a lot of his "dogma" rules from before which is good because in a movie like this they would be more restrictive than anything. a lot of it was still minimal and seemed to be shot in the moment so that's good as well.

i think the "antichrist" thing may have been briefly alluded to in a scene involving the child's feet, but that's all a few of the ideas he tries to convey are - whispers and hints. above all i think it's about the basic evil in humankind which is why it's set in nature, namely, eden. when she was talking about her project and the revelation that women were inherently evil, that's when the adam and eve stuff started to form a little more clearly for me. i'm probably wrong on all counts, but it is a thinker.

as for the performances, defoe loves shit like this and is able to go deep enough to make it work. charlotte gainsbourg seems to completely abandon herself in everything i've seen her in. you would basically need to be able to become a crazy person, almost for real, to play this role and not seem fake, thus ruining the whole thing. she is amazing. thanks again rok, i'm sure i'll watch it again soon.

[rok]

No problem dude. I'm just glad you were able to appreciate it for what it was, an allegory, not a horror film. A few of my friends who I've shared this with haven't been the same since watching it, so it's a relief that I'm not the only one who could find beauty out of such chaos, even though I still have mixed feelings about it. I've actually grown to appreciate the film more and more in the past few weeks.

I definitely need to watch it again as well.

[Butcher]

******SPOILERS INCLUDED BELOW********

Well, I went ahead and watched this movie.

There were some interesting things going on, but for the most part I thought it was garbage. The thing is...most of the criticisms I have of the film would probably be responded to by saying, "Well, that's how Von Trier intended it to be." And maybe that's true, but here are a few of the many issues I had:

- the cinematography seemed to jump back and forth between a Calvin Klein ad style and the "Dogma rules" style -- natural lighting, hand-held camera, no visual effects, etc. It was jarring, to say the least. Intentional? Maybe.

- the "nihilism of nature" theme was sort of interesting, but I felt like Von Trier didn't give enough credit to his audience -- especially with the fox scene. It wasn't enough that the fox is disemboweling itself -- it also has to spell it out for us by speaking, "Chaos reigns?" C'mon. You've got the acorn storm, the falling trees, the attacking bird, the stillborn deer hanging out of the momma deer, the growth on DeFoe's hand...we get it. No need to spell it out for us.

- the genital mutilation scenes. Did we really need to see: 1) She jerk off his dick until he came blood? Was the wooden plank to his erect penis not enough? and 2) An extreme close-up of She cutting off her own clitoris? I'm not sure why it had to go that far -- not that those things couldn't happen in the story, but I feel like both scenes would have been more effective if it left a little more to our imaginations (think the ear-cutting scene in Reservoir Dogs). To me, the SOLE purpose of those two scenes was to shock and to generate controversy/buzz.

- overall, I felt that the whole treatment of the child's death was heavy-handed and overly melodramatic. But again -- maybe the whole movie was just an allegory and therefore beyond criticism in a way.

I think Von Trier has serious female issues. Dancer in the Dark and Breaking the Waves were both very good movies (I liked both of them a lot more than this one), but they both put the female lead through a lot of physical/emotional/mental torture.

You may think my reaction to this film is somewhat "puritan"...and maybe it is, but I felt cheap and dirty after watching it and I sort of wish I didn't see it (not blaming you, rok). No offense to anyone else who liked it (including liner). It's just my personal opinion.

To sum up, I felt it was a cheap exploitation flick disguised as an intellectual art film.

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=64411:date=Sep 25 2009, 05:25 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Sep 25 2009, 05:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You may think my reaction to this film is somewhat "puritan"...and maybe it is, but I felt cheap and dirty after watching it and I sort of wish I didn't see it (not blaming you, rok). No offense to anyone else who liked it (including liner). It's just my personal opinion.

To sum up, I felt it was a cheap exploitation flick disguised as an intellectual art film.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your thoughts are very close to how I felt when I first watched it. The extreme anti-feminism and the exploitative, almost japanimation-like, violence and the overt use of some of the animals and nature in general as symbols of chaos (the talking fox scene made me piss myself) had me scratching my head several times, but it truly was all intended to be allegorical. I don't believe it is a cop-out either. Notwithstanding, I still have mixed feelings about the movie overall.

All that said, and I know it's asking WAY too much from the viewer, but I started to appreciate the film more and more after I read up on some of the lost books of the Bible, stories about Lilith (the supposed first mate of Adam), and about early gnostic Christian thinking about the physical/spiritual world, human flesh, etc. From what I've read of him personally, it's clear that Von Trier's religious beliefs are quite unorthodox, extreme even in his affinity for Old Testament morality and storytelling, and it definitely shows. I can appreciate what he was trying to do, but I still wouldn't recommend the film to anyone. A film should stand on its own and shouldn't require a person to have a degree in ancient Christian literature and also be a fan of torture porn, so I definitely think this film is only accessible to a tiny % of the public.

[liner]

i agree, with both of you on some points. i think von trier makes movies for himself, well, i know he does because he says that over and over. i watch his movies with that in mind, that he's not trying to get people to see his movies per say but to show off how "deep" he can get plus how artistic some of his shots can be. i don't really rate or judge my experience with this movie based on comparisons with films in general but more how much was i moved, be it disgusted, confused, riveted, shocked, interested or all out fascinated. it did those things to me a bunch and then some. it just feels pretentious and lame to say this but i watched it and have been reflecting on it more as a work of art from the fucked up scenes to the artsy filming technique to the flat out incredible acting performances than an actual movie for public consumption.

again, i agree with a lot of what you said butch, and i think a few of those points are why i think of this film in a really positive light. it's not that i enjoyed some of those things but that they were able to actually shock and do other things to me and it takes a lot to do that these days. can i say that it's not so much that i enjoy the film but still think it's really good? obviously i can't really explain what i think about it very properly. i could probably talk about it for days but to sum it up in a post like this is proving pretty difficult.

[bz]

Would I like this movie? It's on demand right now.

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=68878:date=Nov 13 2009, 03:05 AM:name=bz)-->QUOTE (bz @ Nov 13 2009, 03:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Would I like this movie? It's on demand right now.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It depends. It veers HARD into the torture porn genre, though that isn't the only notable aspect of the film. The main characters are very much caricatures of a man and a woman. Much of what they say can be interpreted to mean several different things, but many critics believe it is just poor writing. I disagree. Anyway, the movie is beautifully filmed, especially the beginning and ending sequences, and it is much deeper than a lot of people want to admit. It is very much a parable. It may appear 2-dimensional, but in fact it isn't. If you can get past the ultra violence and some of the corny scenes involving forest animals, I think there is a lot to admire about this film. I still wouldn't recommend it though unless you have a high tolerance for torture and don't mind slow-developing, artsy films.

[Coldneck]

<!--quoteo(post=68881:date=Nov 13 2009, 10:45 AM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Nov 13 2009, 10:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=68878:date=Nov 13 2009, 03:05 AM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ Nov 13 2009, 03:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Would I like this movie? It's on demand right now.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It depends. It veers HARD into the torture porn genre, though that isn't the only notable aspect of the film. The main characters are very much caricatures of a man and a woman. Much of what they say can be interpreted to mean several different things, but many critics believe it is just poor writing. I disagree. Anyway, the movie is beautifully filmed, especially the beginning and ending sequences, and it is much deeper than a lot of people want to admit. It is very much a parable. It may appear 2-dimensional, but in fact it isn't. If you can get past the ultra violence and some of the corny scenes involving forest animals, I think there is a lot to admire about this film. I still wouldn't recommend it though unless you have a high tolerance for torture and don't mind slow-developing, artsy films.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rok, you need to give up investment research and become a film critic.

[veryzer]

I never saw "Dogville" but I've heard that the woman in that gets put through the ringer as well.

I the violence that bad? i love violence, but some of the new torture porn makes me uncomfortable.

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=68895:date=Nov 13 2009, 10:34 AM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Nov 13 2009, 10:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I never saw "Dogville" but I've heard that the woman in that gets put through the ringer as well.

I the violence that bad? i love violence, but some of the new torture porn makes me uncomfortable.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are 2 scenes in particular, both involving sexual organs, where I almost turned it off and felt a little queasy. And I'm someone who watches a ton of violent movies. It takes a great deal to disturb me. That said, the rest of the movie is not what you would consider horror or torture porn at all. That's what makes the violence stand out. It seems a bit out of place given the pacing of the movie, but it does have a purpose, even though Von Trier probably should have held back a little and just alluded to it, and not blatantly revel in it just for the sake of shock value.