Lars Von Trier's Antichrist

is the genital mutilation really bad? that's the only thing that's put me off seeing this. also a reviewer called the movie a "fartbomb", which is just lol.

no it's not bad at all, in my opinion. I think it's pretty tame, actually. In fact no-one has mentioned the most glaringly weird thing about another apparently scandalous sequence, which is: how in the hell does Charlotte Gainsborough knock out Willem Dafoe by hitting his groin? I really want to understand the physiology here, can you get knocked unconscious by a blow to your crotch, or did Von Trier do a ham-handed job of communicating that she was hitting his head?

I was just looking over reviews on rottentomatoes and reading them is a good way to get depressed about the human condition. Everyone trying to one-up each other in claiming the moral high ground. Pathetic. I didn't think the film was a flawless masterpiece, but at least it got more measured reviews on watmm than in most of the press at large.

I've come to the conclusion that people just don't "get" Von Trier. He's not dour and artsy-fartsy, really; he has a very pronounced dark sense of humor. You could say he's immature and it'd be hard to argue with that, but I don't think he's truly advocating violence against women. He's just a bad boy, not that unlike a European Tarantino. I don't get a lot of hate seething from his films. The thing that bugs people is his style is so effective that it gets people emotionally engaged with his characters, so that when he does something horrific - and he always does something horrific - and then mocks what happened, it's easy to feel abused yourself. I think people just need to chill and watch his films with kind of a wry and knowing "aw Von Trier, calm down, the modern world isn't as bad as all that" sensibility.

Personally, I like the fact that he tries his damndest to blow up hypocrisy wherever he sees it, and make a big violent artistic mess. It reminds me of when I was a kid and would spend hours drawing out a bunch of soldiers and then have them start firing on each other in a mess of scribbles. Frankly, Antichrist *is* a bit misogynistic, especially if you think women are the fairer sex. But so fucking what? Are people not able to watch provocative cinema anymore without a guilt reflex kicking in? I'm starting to feel like Von Trier, the modern world is pretty fucking dismal, a bunch of people trying to out-PC each other. Why not just say "it's not my cup of tea," or "some of the visuals were stunning, and I really liked the switcheroo, man she reminded me of that crazy woman I used to date", which is what I did.

Fucking Mick Lasalle from the SF chronicle went ballistic over Gainsborough's nude masturbation scene in the forest...what's wrong with that? I seriously think many modern men have had their balls cut off and they don't even realize it.

another thing (I know I'm pushing it with these multiple posts): I've sat through numerous films with an arguably "feminist" bias - The Piano, Thelma and Louise (though I'm sure a bunch of feminists would say that one was fake-feminist), Silence of the Lambs, American Psycho, etc. etc. and never had a problem with them. I judged them on their artistic merit. If an artist has really fleshed out his or her world view, then I'll pay attention, even if I don't ultimately agree.

there's a nude masturbation scene in a forest? i'm in

  On 10/26/2009 at 5:57 AM, zaphod said:

there's a nude masturbation scene in a forest? i'm in

the funny thing is you'll be disappointed, which is why I find it hilarious people are applying the "torture porn" label to Antichrist, as if anything it's rather understated. Irreversible is far more graphic than this film.

plus it's got a cute talking fox.

  On 10/26/2009 at 5:57 AM, zaphod said:

there's a nude masturbation scene in a forest? i'm in

you should definitely watch "AntiChrist" Zaphod, I would love to hear your opinions on it.

to be fair, pbn was here a lot longer than rook. I like both of them and wish they posted more (I like most of the banned/deserting members). I bet Lars Von Trier likes the pbns and rooks of the world too; without them his perspective wouldn't have any traction.

It's not really them that bother me, as I think they both have well developed systems of thought that are more complex than the PC reflex. The thing that drives me insane are the reviewers who attack Von Trier now but liked him before. Let me get this straight - in his new film which you abhor, a character cuts off one of her body parts and masturbates under a tree; in his previous film which you didn't have any objection to, a woman killed an entire town including women and children. Grr.

I thought some parts of this movie, especially the prologue, were pretty great. Overall though I was disappointed at how thin the whole endeavor was.

can I just say this was one of dafoe's better performances? I thought he did better than gainsborough, actually.

HA! Torture Porn?

Anyway, I think people are putting too much into it which makes it fall to the ground and the genital mutilation has been blown out of proportions. Just watch the movie. It's pretty.

  On 10/26/2009 at 5:28 AM, lumpenprol said:

how in the hell does Charlotte Gainsborough knock out Willem Dafoe by hitting his groin? I really want to understand the physiology here, can you get knocked unconscious by a blow to your crotch, or did Von Trier do a ham-handed job of communicating that she was hitting his head?

I think it was passing out from the pain. Which, considering that circumstance is very likely.

  On 10/26/2009 at 9:46 AM, Obel said:

  On 10/26/2009 at 5:28 AM, lumpenprol said:

how in the hell does Charlotte Gainsborough knock out Willem Dafoe by hitting his groin? I really want to understand the physiology here, can you get knocked unconscious by a blow to your crotch, or did Von Trier do a ham-handed job of communicating that she was hitting his head?

 

I think it was passing out from the pain. Which, considering that circumstance is very likely.

yeah, that's what I concluded after rewinding it twice...still made me confused rather than shocked...

  On 10/26/2009 at 9:49 AM, lumpenprol said:

  On 10/26/2009 at 9:46 AM, Obel said:

  On 10/26/2009 at 5:28 AM, lumpenprol said:

how in the hell does Charlotte Gainsborough knock out Willem Dafoe by hitting his groin? I really want to understand the physiology here, can you get knocked unconscious by a blow to your crotch, or did Von Trier do a ham-handed job of communicating that she was hitting his head?

 

I think it was passing out from the pain. Which, considering that circumstance is very likely.

 

yeah, that's what I concluded after rewinding it twice...still made me confused rather than shocked...

Yeah same. It's not what you're used to seeing. Especially considering that it's a torture porn movie and in other torture porn movies like Saw 3 people magically stay conscious through having every limb twisted 360 degrees!

This is not a "torture porn" film!

This film is meant to be a dream...

or a nightmare...

Looking at it as meaning only one thing, trying to rationalize the linearity of the plot line is not what Antichrist is about...

It is abstract and full of symbolism, so therefore it can mean a million different things....

This is why I love this film....

It can't be pinned down by any one person...

Nor is it exclusive to a genre of film...

It is a very human film, not a misogynistic one...

I interpret it as being mostly about facing fear....

Which is something most of us will never do...

Von Trier loves to make us face our dark self...

Psychotherapy on film....

....

Chaos does reign in times of vulnerability, if we are feeling sorry for ourselves or going through tough times....

Everything seems like it is falling apart...

Everything seems dark...

Chaotic....

Since we humans fear the unknown, what can be more unknown than chaos or infinity or uncertainty?

Antichrist hurls these dilemmas at us with precision....

It wants us to face our fears!

but it is just great art...

SOME SPOILERS: It is a very human film however I understand how it could be construed as misogynistic in the sense that not only does it have a crazy/wicked female lead, but it hints that all women have the potential for deep, dark, uncontrollable wickedness. But I would argue, so what? As a man, I am very sympathetic to that perspective, as *I've seen it with my own eyes.* (in some ways I think it's a film only guys who've been with crazy women can appreciate). Furthermore, feminists would look at the same traits but try to put only a positive spin on them, talking about how women are "special" and "more intuitive" and "more in touch with their emotions" and so on. It's just two sides of the same coin, the bottom line being "women are different from men." The interesting thing is I think that, inasmuch as he sees them as embodying the wildness of nature, Von Trier has a certain sort of peculiar regard for women. He certainly doesn't shy from showing men as shallow, self-righteous hypocrites.

Which I think leads to the main point of the film. I think Antichrist, like Dogville, is primarily a critique of excessive rationalism. In both films the male character thinks he can control events/nature, only to find he's in way over his head. I think Von Trier's point is nature is explosive, possessive, volatile, and amoral, and we try to deny or suppress that at our peril. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if this just came from his irritation at people trying to medicate him for depression! For me Von Trier's main shortcoming as an artist (but also one of the things that makes him entertaining), is that I never feel he is truly wrestling with his own demons - he thinks he's more insightful about the human condition than others, and he's damn proud to let you know it! I find that swagger pretty entertaining. If he wants to make a film about a know-it-all guy who climbs up a mountain, encounters a madwoman and barely makes it back alive, then that's fine by me! That's how I read the final scene too - all these other people headed up the same mountain, for their own personal encounter with nature in its wildest and rawest form. Lol.

But really, that's not a bad subject for a film is it? At some point most of us will probably encounter something that falls outside the realms of all our previous experience. That's what the film seems dedicated to.

well I'm not sure I agree on the last point, I don't think he's arguing for a return to a more "earthy" state in society. I think perhaps he's saying, people have forgotten how wild and dangerous nature, including human nature, really is.

Lars Von Trier's Antichrist Is Going To Change My Life!

i can not wait for this film!

i have a feeling it's going to be very encoded with downloads.

we must look into darkness ....so our light has a reason to be down here!

is it weird that I found Willem Dafoe more attractive than Gainsbourg in that movie??

not at all, by Dafoe standards it was a really soft and subtle performance, I liked it a lot.

I was joking about the torture porn thing.

I can't wait for my wife to hate this film as much as I hated "The Wicker Man".

I love Willem Dafoe's voice. Harsh yet soft.

Willem Dafoe is a mans man.And he was fucking awesome in this film.