Lars Van Trier's "Antichrist"

[Sunray Breaker]

This film is stirring up a lot of controversy for its intensely graphic sexual nature and bizarre sexual violence. A great performance from Willem Dafoe as "He" and Charlotte Gainsbourg as "She".

Lars Van Trier has quickly moved his way up the list of my favorite directors. Be sure you have a strong constitution and haven't been recently diagnosed with a mental disorder before viewing this film...

My buddy Russell, a film major, said he's probably going to be dissecting this flick for months...

If you haven't seen it yet, hurry down to the theatre and see one of the most amazing, disturbing, mind altering, uncomfortable and confrontational films ever made.

One of the most intense and amazing movies I've seen in years.

The trailer does it no justice but here it is!!!

From Lars Van Trier (the mind who bright you Dancer in the Dark and Dogville)

Antichrist


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5tKBGcWQZE

Has anyone else seen this yet? It stirred up quite the controversy at Cannes. Thoughts? feelings?

[applecorped]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=155904&highlight=antichrist

[Simon39759]

Not seen it, not planning but anything with both an "intensely graphic sexual nature" and Charlotte Gainsbourg is ok in my book.

[Alice Shortcake]

Sounds interesting - I'll definitely see it when it's released in England.

[Sunray Breaker]

I have a feeling that common folk will be highly disturbed by this peace...I've seen a lot of gore and banned versions of horror movies and the like (the only thing that was this disturbing by comparison was Cannibal Holocaust) But I'll be suprized to see how the public responds to this film.

[Matthew Best]

Sounds interesting - I'll definitely see it when it's released in England.

It was released in the UK back in July.

[whatthebutlersaw]

I find Von Trier interesting, because to me he seems to raise obstacles for the viewer, as if in order to weed out people who aren't willing to work to get to the story. He will have repulsive and/or unlikable protagonists (like in Idioterna or Riget) or he will do away with all realism (Dogville, Dancer in the Dark) or he will hide the story behind so much gore it requires some willpower to stay seated. (Actually, the Von Trier that "offended" me the most was Breaking the Waves.)

But the thing is, there always _is_ a story. And you, the viewer/voyeur always have to work for it.

[Sunray Breaker]

I find Von Trier interesting, because to me he seems to raise obstacles for the viewer, as if in order to weed out people who aren't willing to work to get to the story. He will have repulsive and/or unlikable protagonists (like in Idioterna or Riget) or he will do away with all realism (Dogville, Dancer in the Dark) or he will hide the story behind so much gore it requires some willpower to stay seated. (Actually, the Von Trier that "offended" me the most was Breaking the Waves.)

But the thing is, there always _is_ a story. And you, the viewer/voyeur always have to work for it.

I'm still yet to see Breaking the Waves...All I've seen besides Antichrist is Dogville and Dancer in the Dark, but he's quickly becoming one of my favorite directors...

My bandmate Chris came back from watching that flick last night and he had that same strange and intense look on his face as the rest of us...

The best way to describe it?

You'll feel repulsed, mesmerized, depressed and excited all at once. I think that duality is beautifully depicted throughout the film...

CHAOS REIGNS!!!

[Ove]

Hmmm. IMHO Lars never got out of puberty. His movies are dark, violent, confusing, bordering to insane or at least made up in a mentally unstable mind.


No i don't like him and the clips i have seen from his movies added to the two i HAVE seen has not given me any urge to se more, on the contrary.

[bluesjnr]

I have a feeling that common folk will be highly disturbed by this peace...I've seen a lot of gore and banned versions of horror movies and the like (the only thing that was this disturbing by comparison was Cannibal Holocaust) But I'll be suprized to see how the public responds to this film.

I'm being serious here and wonder who you mean when you say "common folk"?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm being serious here and wonder who you mean when you say "common folk"?

Stupid people.

[Sunray Breaker]

Either stupid people or basically anyone that can't handle seriously graphic content. Ya' know...The kind of people that would demand stronger censorship laws and MPAA standards.

[bluesjnr]

That's what I thought, I kinda opened myself up for a hit there. I think I got away with it.

:D

[Sunray Breaker]

That's what I thought, I kinda opened myself up for a hit there. I think I got away with it.

I don't make a lot of hits on JREF'ers. As a recovering Woo Addict, I know better than to mess with people that can crush me with the power of their mind...It's like Jean Grey up against an ant. But Someday, I'll be able to keep up with all you smarty pants out there.

[cornsail]

Hmmm. IMHO Lars never got out of puberty. His movies are dark, violent, confusing, bordering to insane or at least made up in a mentally unstable mind.

Sounds like my kind of director. As long as it's accompanied with artistic brilliance, that is.. I love the work of filmmakers such as David Lynch, Andrei Tarkovsky, Stanley Kubrick and Quentin Tarantino. On the other hand, I think Rob Zombie is a good example of a director with a pubescent mindset and hardly any talent.

I'll have to experience this movie.

[Sunray Breaker]

Sounds like my kind of director. As long as it's accompanied with artistic brilliance, that is.. I love the work of filmmakers such as David Lynch, Andrei Tarkovsky, Stanley Kubrick and Quentin Tarantino. On the other hand, I think Rob Zombie is a good example of a director with a pubescent mindset and hardly any talent.

I'll have to experience this movie.

In my opinion. Lars is incredible at combining extremely graphic and unconfortable imagery with the beauty of great casting, acting, writing and character development. It seems he's always got a few layers to peel through.

I just watched Antichrist again at the theatre and it was just as good as last time, without of course the initial shock of not knowing what was going to happen. This time, the anticipation of knowing what was going to happen and waiting for it, is what got to me this time.

[theprestige]

So... Is humanity better off because Lars Trier has good stories to tell, but goes to great lengths to convince people not to pay attention to them?

"I know this sounds like someone murdering babies for three hours, but if you listen really closely, you can hear one of the greatest symphonies of all time, buried in the noise. And if that's not to your taste, you're stupid. Or judgemental. Or both."

[Ove]

So... Is humanity better off because Lars Trier has good stories to tell, but goes to great lengths to convince people not to pay attention to them?

"I know this sounds like someone murdering babies for three hours, but if you listen really closely, you can hear one of the greatest symphonies of all time, buried in the noise. And if that's not to your taste, you're stupid. Or judgemental. Or both."

:D Hehehe......

[Sunray Breaker]

So... Is humanity better off because Lars Trier has good stories to tell, but goes to great lengths to convince people not to pay attention to them?

"I know this sounds like someone murdering babies for three hours, but if you listen really closely, you can hear one of the greatest symphonies of all time, buried in the noise. And if that's not to your taste, you're stupid. Or judgemental. Or both."

Whoa...Simmer down there buddy...Did you ever stop to think that the part of the masterpiece is the process of peeling through those layers? I have a lot of respect for you on these forums Prestige, but that was kind of an ignorant, unwarrented attack. I most certainly never implied someone was stupid for not liking it...I'm rather shocked that people are so harsh on his work...At least it's got more depth than Transformers for christ sakes...

Since you're such an authority on film, what do you recommend?

[theprestige]

Whoa...Simmer down there buddy...Did you ever stop to think that the part of the masterpiece is the process of peeling through those layers?
I'm sure it is. But that doesn't answer my question.

I have a lot of respect for you on these forums Prestige, but that was kind of an ignorant, unwarrented attack. I most certainly never implied someone was stupid for not liking it...

I'm pretty sure you did imply just that:

I have a feeling that common folk will be highly disturbed by this peace...

I'm being serious here and wonder who you mean when you say "common folk"?

Either stupid people or basically anyone that can't handle seriously graphic content. Ya' know...The kind of people that would demand stronger censorship laws and MPAA standards.

How are you not implying that people who don't like his work are stupid, or judgemental, or possibly even both?

I'm rather shocked that people are so harsh on his work...
Really? After making such big deal about how masterfully harsh and shocking his work is, you're surprised that some people react negatively to it?

At least it's got more depth than Transformers for christ sakes...
Unpleasant, shocking, and harsh depth, by the sound of it. Some people don't even bother to sit through all of Transformers. Why does it surprise you that some people don't bother to sit through an even more extensively unpleasant experience?

Since you're such an authority on film, what do you recommend?
Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Such is my authority on films.

[Sunray Breaker]

I'm sure it is. But that doesn't answer my question.
You're question is rather silly...Considering I'm merely looking for critiques of the film itself and instead getting a predetermined critique from people who've already decided it was a terrible movie. And yes, to decide you hate a film you haven't seen is, in my opinion, kinda stupid (no offense, I know you can destroy me with the power of your mind) But I expected to hear the opinions of people that actually saw the film and I'm not much interested in the rest.

For instance, imagine deciding not to see Lord of the Rings because you saw Bad Taste and decided ahead of time it would be a terrible movie. Your opinion of Lord of the Rings would, in this context be completely meaningless...Such as it is with Antichrist.

I'm pretty sure you did imply just that:
I was actually just including central scrutinzer's original statement that implied that I meant stupid people. I merely included stupid people into a much broader category...Common folk. Meaning the average American. The PTA wife, the football coach, the church goer, the dad with four kids, the mainstream...Which (coincidentally) includes a fair amount of stupid people. Just as nearly any category one can mention.

How are you not implying that people who don't like his work are stupid, or judgemental, or possibly even both?
I'm not...But I consider anyone in a free country that demands stronger censorship laws to be a bit naive. That's what I was implying, but your trying to simplify a broader statement.

I'm rather shocked that people are so harsh on his work...
Really? After making such big deal about how masterfully harsh and shocking his work is, you're surprised that some people react negatively to it?

I'm suprized that NO ONE has anything good to say about it, but they would rant and rave about violent films from Tarantino, Scorcese, Spielberg and such. If we're going to argue that gratuitous violence is the reason a film is good or bad, then you have to denounce many classics along with it. This seems to be the main reason you dislike his films and the main reason many dislike his films...Ironically, For the same reason that they like others...Silly I think.

Unpleasant, shocking, and harsh depth, by the sound of it. Some people don't even bother to sit through all of Transformers. Why does it surprise you that some people don't bother to sit through an even more extensively unpleasant experience?
Meanwhile Halle Barry's rape scene earns her an Oscar...I'm simply addressing the double standard in here. For instance, I'd most certainly consider Antichrist a better film than Monster's Ball and I'm just suprized not to hear much buzz about it. If you remove your preconceptions of Von Trier and look at it simply as a film and critique THAT respectfully, than you actually might end up liking it. But it really all boils down to taste.

Antichrist definitely has more depth than Pulp Fiction and the violence in Antichrist (as opposed to Pulp Fiction) all has a specific meaning and purpose behind it...How does this not at least warrant the same amount of attention before complete, close minded dismissal?


Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Such is my authority on films.
Haven't seen it yet But I'd like to. But of course I'm thinking along the lines of the kind of films that really confront the mind...Complicated films, films that are required viewing for scholars in the field. I consider Antichrist to be one of these films.

Ya know like:
Citizen Kane
Clockwork Orange
2001
Dr. Strangelove
etc. etc.

[Sunray Breaker]

Here is the opening scene for the film. I think it's beautifully done and it made me cry...

There's only a very quick graphic scene in the beginning, but it's tastefully shot. Viewer discretion advised (this is being displayed for artistic reasons only, my apologies if I'm violating any JREF rules) But if it's available on You Tube without a password, can't be too bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-ulwxbF0To

[cornsail]

I'd most certainly consider Antichrist a better film than Monster's Ball
This only indicates that Antichrist is not the worst film ever made.

[Sunray Breaker]

Sounds like my kind of director. As long as it's accompanied with artistic brilliance, that is.. I love the work of filmmakers such as David Lynch, Andrei Tarkovsky, Stanley Kubrick and Quentin Tarantino. On the other hand, I think Rob Zombie is a good example of a director with a pubescent mindset and hardly any talent.

I'll have to experience this movie.
It seems this film would be more up your alley than some of the others I've come across.

This only indicates that Antichrist is not the worst film ever made.
Fair enough, I didn't like Monster's Ball at all...But that's exactly my point, there was more publicity and buzz for it being so great, meanwhile I can't find a single opinion about it on here...By the way, Ebert wrote a good article about it...

Lars von Trier's new film will not leave me alone. A day after many members of the audience recoiled at its first Cannes showing, "Antichrist" is brewing a scandal here; I am reminded of the tumult following the 1976 premiere of Oshima's "In the Realm of the Senses" and its castration scene. I said I was looking forward to von Trier's overnight reviews, and I haven't been disappointed. Those who thought it was good thought it was very very good ("Something completely bizarre, massively uncommercial and strangely perfect"--Damon Wise, Empire) and those who thought it was bad found it horrid ("Lars von Trier cuts a big fat art-film fart with "Antichrist"--Todd McCarthy, Variety).

here's the link:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/05/a_devils_advocate_for_antichri.html

[fuelair]

Not seen it, not planning but anything with both an "intensely graphic sexual nature" and Charlotte Gainsbourg is ok in my book.

You certainly show good taste there:):)!!

[cornsail]

Interesting--Von Trier has an intense fear of flying, like Kubrick. Dude must be good.

I remember seeing this weird movie about a gun club that had Trier's name associated with it, but maybe didn't direct. Lot of subtle sexual tension between the main character and his gun. Any help?

[Sunray Breaker]

Interesting--Von Trier has an intense fear of flying, like Kubrick. Dude must be good.

I remember seeing this weird movie about a gun club that had Trier's name associated with it, but maybe didn't direct. Lot of subtle sexual tension between the main character and his gun. Any help?

I've never heard of it or seen it, but after a quick google search...the film Dear Wendy came up.

Written by Lars Von Trier, Directed by Thomas Vinterberg...

I also recommend Von Trier's Dogville, Dancer in the Dark (with Bjork in the lead role), Breaking the Waves and The Idiots.

[Pardalis]

This time, the anticipation of knowing what was going to happen and waiting for it, is what got to me this time.

Why do you feel so compelled by graphic violence?

ETA: I'm not making any judgements, I just want to know why some people are willingly subjecting themselves to such imagery (you said you were waiting for these scenes to come).

[Pardalis]

Antichrist definitely has more depth than Pulp Fiction and the violence in Antichrist (as opposed to Pulp Fiction) all has a specific meaning and purpose behind it...

I can definately see that in a Von Trier film, as he does have an artistic vision, and something to say, but what would be the specific meaning and purpose (if there is any beyond just shock) of the violence in movies like Cannibal Holocaust and Martyrs, which you also seem to enjoy?

I think there's a difference between artistic violence and exploitive violence. The two movies I just mentioned use the latter. I will have to see the film (I had decided I wouldn't but on second thought I think Von Trier as an artist deserves to be seen), but from what I've read of Antichrist, this time Von Trier is meddling in both.

Exploitation movies are unhealthy IMO, they use violence for violence's sake, it's enjoying violence for what it is. It's to test the audience's physical resistance. Artistic violence on the other hand is used to express something else, a broader meaning of the story, with a context. Kind of like the difference between porn and art.

[cornsail]

I think there's a difference between artistic violence and exploitive violence.

I agree, although it's hard to really determine where the line is. I turned off "The Devil's Rejects" part way through, because it seemed like it was intended as some sort of pornography. A violent scene with innocent people involved should raise tension and emotional involvement in the audience, not help them jerk off.

Then again I liked Ichi the Killer, so I don't know.

[cornsail]

I've never heard of it or seen it, but after a quick google search...the film Dear Wendy came up.

Written by Lars Von Trier, Directed by Thomas Vinterberg...

I also recommend Von Trier's Dogville, Dancer in the Dark (with Bjork in the lead role), Breaking the Waves and The Idiots.

Dear Wendy! Thanks. That was a really unique movie.

[Jono]

I've always thought of Lars Von Trier as a strange mix of Bergman, Cronenberg and Russ Meyer.

In general, I think he's a uniquely gifted director and stortyteller with his danish mini-serie "Riget 1-2" (the Kingdom) being my favourite. I didn't particulary like Breaking the Waves, however Dancer in the Dark was interesting as was Dogville.
Antichrist is a cinematic feast, no doubt, which left me impressed of his expression of visual storytelling. But... beyond that it didn't really entertain me very much.

I don't know why there's been as much controversy about it gorey/sexual/violent content. For crying out loud, your average B-horror flick of the 80's delivers such by the truckloads. Perhaps his "Antichrist" causes so much stirr because it was done by the clear mark of artistic and cinematic mastery?
Maybe if a movie combined the story of "Agnes of God" in a disturbingly tranquil/schizo setting with "Friday the 13th" people would be throwing up too?
Hmm no it's like the controversy of "Passion of the Christ", drama queens working over-time. E.g those who go to great length in fueling the controversy, I can understand people not liking Antichrist for a variety of understandable reasons, and I can understand vice versa as well. All in all it was an interesting combination, but lodged inbetween stones of horror fluff that's done better by others.

[Jono]

Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Such is my authority on films.

Hey, V-ger rules! (of the original motion picture)

[ThatSoundAgain]

Why do you feel so compelled by graphic violence?

If I may answer this; I haven't found a good English term for the German word Angstlust (http://dictionary.reverso.net/german-english/Angstlust).

(Please forget the word's associations with psychoanalysis, sometimes those guys do provide succint and useful terms.)

I'd describe my own enjoyment and reasons to seek out these movies as a result of a fascination with the human capacity for violence, destruction and sadism. I'm exploring my own reaction to evil and destructive acts, both my fear of them, and my impulse to perpetrate them. Horror movies lets me do that in a form where nobody gets hurt in reality. It's essentially a play setting.

Then, once in a while, a horror film comes along that disregards the conventions of the genre so completely that all your jaded horror-fandom defenses fall apart, and forces you to react to it anew. Antichrist is such a movie.

It's also stunningly beautiful, and told with such visually and dramatically unconventional and brilliant means that it seems equally fresh outside the narrow confines of genre.

And, like Roger Ebert, I found that the film not only stunned me momentarily - it hasn't left me alone since. It is stunning, and it is haunting.

Don't watch Antichrist for the controversy, or to prove to yourself that you can handle the gore (of which there's very little, incidentally). Watch it because it is a brilliant work of drama and visual art.

[dann]

I tend to agree with Ove on this one, I think.
Lars von Trier is one of the most overrated movie directors. Not unlike Lynch he never has a real story to tell but is very good at hiding the fact behind pretentious camera work. I saw Breaking the Waves and Dear Wendy against my better judgement, and they were both more boring than an ordinary night of Danish TV.

[Jono]

Not unlike Lynch he never has a real story to tell but is very good at hiding the fact behind pretentious camera work. I saw Breaking the Waves and Dear Wendy against my better judgement, and they were both more boring than an ordinary night of Danish TV.

I disagree, but it's taste so I do not believe there is a quantifable right or wrong. I never saw Dear Wendy but I also thought Breaking the Waves had a heavy flirt with boredom.
I recommend you watch "Riget". However, you might as well avoid it since, come to think of it, it has this eari Twin Peaks feel to it, something the american version completely failed on and made a typical Hollywood rape-the-storytelling variant.

[Sunray Breaker]

If you didn't like Breaking the Waves, I at least recommend Dancer in the Dark (especially if you're a Bjork Fan) and Dogville...

Why do you feel so compelled by graphic violence?

ETA: I'm not making any judgements, I just want to know why some people are willingly subjecting themselves to such imagery (you said you were waiting for these scenes to come).

The same reason ANYONE goes to a horror film or to see something like Shindler's List or Amistad. There are certain horrors people don't want to forget, certain horrors that leave you feeling different after you watch them. Feeling a combination of sickness and amazement. That combination keeps me coming back. Antichrist is the perfect film for feeling uncomfortable and in awe at the same time.

I can definately see that in a Von Trier film, as he does have an artistic vision, and something to say, but what would be the specific meaning and purpose (if there is any beyond just shock) of the violence in movies like Cannibal Holocaust and Martyrs, which you also seem to enjoy?

I never saw Martyrs...but Cannibal Holocaust was a sick brutal flick, not a film a really enjoyed. Cannibal Holocaust (although I've watched it more than once and own the film) is not particularly a film I enjoy. Most people don't enjoy it. They watch it one time and tell their friends to watch it almost as a joke. To see if they can handle it and to see how they react...Like the whole 2 girls 1 cup reaction meme.

[Sunray Breaker]

If I may answer this; I haven't found a good English term for the German word Angstlust.

(Please forget the word's associations with psychoanalysis, sometimes those guys do provide succint and useful terms.)

I'd describe my own enjoyment and reasons to seek out these movies as a result of a fascination with the human capacity for violence, destruction and sadism. I'm exploring my own reaction to evil and destructive acts, both my fear of them, and my impulse to perpetrate them. Horror movies lets me do that in a form where nobody gets hurt in reality. It's essentially a play setting.

Then, once in a while, a horror film comes along that disregards the conventions of the genre so completely that all your jaded horror-fandom defenses fall apart, and forces you to react to it anew. Antichrist is such a movie.

It's also stunningly beautiful, and told with such visually and dramatically unconventional and brilliant means that it seems equally fresh outside the narrow confines of genre.

And, like Roger Ebert, I found that the film not only stunned me momentarily - it hasn't left me alone since. It is stunning, and it is haunting.

Don't watch Antichrist for the controversy, or to prove to yourself that you can handle the gore (of which there's very little, incidentally). Watch it because it is a brilliant work of drama and visual art.

I couldn't have said it better...I've always had a similar fascination. I read serial killer biographies, watched some of the "banned from tv" clips and such, as a kid and it seems it was just a weird curiousity I always had.

I've always had a certain tendency to see how far I could push myself as well. How much my own mind could handle observing. Afterall, I'm most certainly not the only in the room that wants to look at something right after someone said:

"eww, disgusting!!!, you don't wanna see this"!

In fact I'm actually curious as to WHY I wouldn't want to see this, and what effect seeing it would have on me...So I look.

[Pardalis]

If I may answer this; I haven't found a good English term for the German word Angstlust (http://dictionary.reverso.net/german-english/Angstlust).

[...]

I'd describe my own enjoyment and reasons to seek out these movies as a result of a fascination with the human capacity for violence, destruction and sadism. I'm exploring my own reaction to evil and destructive acts, both my fear of them, and my impulse to perpetrate them. Horror movies lets me do that in a form where nobody gets hurt in reality. It's essentially a play setting.

[...]

Don't watch Antichrist for the controversy, or to prove to yourself that you can handle the gore (of which there's very little, incidentally). Watch it because it is a brilliant work of drama and visual art.

Aren't you contradicting yourself here?

You have admitted to intentionally seeking out these movies expressly for your enjoyment of the extreme gore, and then you turn around and say you didn't watch it for that but for the artistry?

The same reason ANYONE goes to a horror film or to see something like Shindler's List or Amistad. There are certain horrors people don't want to forget, certain horrors that leave you feeling different after you watch them. Feeling a combination of sickness and amazement. That combination keeps me coming back. Antichrist is the perfect film for feeling uncomfortable and in awe at the same time.

I completely disagree. I didn't see "Schindler's List" to intentionally be sickened and amazed, I watched it to understand what happened, I watched it to see what and how Spielberg would tell the story.

I didn't enjoy the violence, I endured it, like I'm going to have to endure Antichrist's violence in order to understand the story and the artist's vision.

Cannibal Holocaust (although I've watched it more than once and own the film) is not particularly a film I enjoy. Then why did you buy and keep watching it? That's what I don't understand. Why subject yourself to something you don't enjoy? Is repulsion itself a form of enjoyment?


BTW, do you know the films of Karim Hussain? If not I think you may enjoy his work. I didn't see his first feature "Subconscious Cruelty", I can't stomach it, but his second one "Ascencion" is pretty good, as it has an actual interesting story to tell, and it's a bit milder on the gore for my tastes ;).

I remember he was there at the projection, and before the film began, he said we would not forget the film, that it would be like a poison, slowly making its way into our bloodstream. I said to myself he was being pretentious, but it turns out he was right! Weeks later I still was thinking about it, feeling its atmosphere.

So I kind of know what you are talking about, but I don't think it's the gore that did it, I think it was more the general feeling and tone of the movie that messed with my mind.

[Sunray Breaker]

I completely disagree. I didn't see "Schindler's List" to intentionally be sickened and amazed, I watched it to understand what happened, I watched it to see what and how Spielberg would tell the story.
And we're you not sickened and amazed by the way he told the story? I thought the film was beautifully shot and disturbingly real...It seems like sickened and amazed would be (granted a very rough) but accurate interpretation of what he was going for, and most certainly how I felt after Schindler's List.

I didn't enjoy the violence, I endured it, like I'm going to have to endure Antichrist's violence in order to understand the story and the artist's vision.
That's essentially what I was trying to get at originally. That this film is violent and graphic, but that it's worth seeing because of it's artistic merit, then we strayed off topic into violence in films and where one draws the line bewtween trash and art.

The violence is just as necessary in this context, but I don't consider it something to be endured, but merely, observed. It helps to keep a balanced perspective, to try to set aside the emotional response to these images and look at them differently.

Kinda like the artist Joel Peter Witkin...He takes disfigured and deformed people, corpses, fetuses and turns them into beautiful photographs. The grotesque becomes the beautiful, in essence, IS beautiful in its own bizarre, macabre way.

I just think it's wierd that it seems perfectly acceptable to enjoy horror movies, without striking up too much of a controversy, but when that horror blurs the line between reality and fantasy, people seem to get a bit turned off by it. It makes sense, I suppose, enjoying a fictional film is a subtle form of escapism, to lose oneself in alternate reality. To have that safety barrier removed is a quite overwhelming for most who endure it...(including myself) And that overwhelming inner conflict is either inspiring and fascinating or revolting and disgusting. It seems there would mainly be one of these two extreme ways to react to such a film.


Then why did you buy and keep watching it (cannibal holocaust)? That's what I don't understand. Why subject yourself to something you don't enjoy? Is repulsion itself a form of enjoyment?
Because when I see a film that shocking, I can't simply tell my friends about it. I want to see their reaction. I bought the film BEFORE I ever watched it, I had friends over on a couple of occasions that wanted to see it. Plus it's a bit harder to find (or was at the time) and I like collecting rare flicks. I think Cannibal Holocaust is just a mindlessly violent film (good for a gross out prank on friends), but Antichrist is a beautiful and confrontational film. It would seem (at least IMHO) that they represent either side of that line between senseless graphic violence and artistic expression.

BTW, do you know the films of Karim Hussain? If not I think you may enjoy his work. I didn't see his first feature "Subconscious Cruelty", I can't stomach it, but his second one "Ascencion" is pretty good, as it has an actual interesting story to tell, and it's a bit milder on the gore for my tastes .

Never heard of it. But I'll look into it. Ever watch Takashii Miike's Visitor Q? That's a another weird one, we watched it last night...Miike is one of my other favorite directors.

I remember he was there at the projection, and before the film began, he said we would not forget the film, that it would be like a poison, slowly making its way into our bloodstream. I said to myself he was being pretentious, but it turns out he was right! Weeks later I still was thinking about it, feeling its atmosphere.

That's exactly how Antichrist made me feel.

So I kind of know what you are talking about, but I don't think it's the gore that did it, I think it was more the general feeling and tone of the movie that messed with my mind.

I agree completely, the gore is merely the part of the film that one needs to tell people about so they know what their in for. For instance, my mom would love this film if the graphic scenes we're edited. I assume that's why the gore and violence is what seems to get the most publicity with films such as these.

[cornsail]

Not unlike Lynch he never has a real story to tell but is very good at hiding the fact behind pretentious camera work.

I disagree with this take on Lynch. Although, I'm not sure what you mean by "a real story".

In two of Lynch's films (Lost Highway and Inland Empire) the overall plot does not seem to be sensical, but even these have compelling sub-stories. Mulholland Drive appears not to make sense at first, because it consists mostly of a dream and flash-backs, but it's actually a very powerful story that makes perfect sense once you figure it out. And most of the rest of his films (Blue Velvet, Wild at Heart, Elephant Man) have pretty straightforward plots.

[ThatSoundAgain]

Aren't you contradicting yourself here?

You have admitted to intentionally seeking out these movies expressly for your enjoyment of the extreme gore, and then you turn around and say you didn't watch it for that but for the artistry?


Hmm.. I don't think so, but I may be getting my point across poorly. The main problem is that I'm not necessarily talking about "extreme gore". Let me explain:

The first part of my post was a general attempt at explaining why I would willingly seek out an unpleasant experience. You know, an answer to the question "Why would you pay to be scared / grossed out / disturbed?"

The answer to that question relates to that word, Angstlust, but that's of course the analytical way of thinking of it. The emotional truth of it is that being confronted with unpleasant scenarios in this manner can be very thrilling and gratifying, and I feel this in the gut in the theater lobby or video store (or book store, or video game store, for that matter).

I mean this in a very general sense - I like good thrillers, I like good horror movies, I like good, campy seventies terror movies, I like good campy eighties gorefests - and I like a good drama flick. Operational word here is "good".

I've found worthwhile movies of many genres and any magnitudes on the thrill/repulsion scales. Sometimes I think the violence, psychological terror, manipulation or gore is excessive or handled in a poor way. By that, I mean that it can be exploitative, excessive, too confrontational, out of place, or not serving the message of the film (or serving a message that's repulsive ito begin with). In those cases, that's enough to preclude a film from ending up in the "good" category.

To return to Antichrist, I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's something worthwhile in there, in general, and that the controversial aspects are there but justified. Really, what you read about Cannes and media figures flaunting their offense from up high is irrelevant.

It's not for everyone, but they should at least know that it's different (and more worthwhile, in my opinion, or at least worthwhile for different reasons) than the latest Saw movie.

Incidentally, the production company behind the film did this the last time they were in grave financial trouble, too - squeeze a masterpiece out of Trier in some genre other than "arthouse flick". Then, play the media for all it's worth with weird stories about the personalities involved. Really, the Cannes opening couldn't have gone better for them, and because of this movie they could announce they were in the clear due to international sales already during Cannes.

[Pardalis]

And we're you not sickened and amazed by the way he told the story? I thought the film was beautifully shot and disturbingly real...It seems like sickened and amazed would be (granted a very rough) but accurate interpretation of what he was going for, and most certainly how I felt after Schindler's List.

I think the difference here is that Schindler's List's violence is not meant to be enjoyed. If you are looking for that then you've missed the point of the movie. The violence in there makes you feel every loss of life, it makes you understand the gravity of the crimes being committed, it makes you see how horrible the act of murder is, while exploitation movies makes you enjoy it, and at times makes it look appealing, which is a totally different thing.

That girl that is hot in the head by the Nazis was a beautiful promising engineer a few seconds earlier, and there's nothing beautiful about that. Movies like "Martyrs" and "The Last House on the Left" for example (and there are hundreds of them) do the total opposite. Their goal seems to be to show how one can mutilate and degrade a woman's body in as many ways as possible (always more complex and aesthetic). I cannot see what is the appeal, or the justification for that, except maybe alleviate teenage sexual frustrations.


The violence is just as necessary in this context, but I don't consider it something to be endured, but merely, observed. It helps to keep a balanced perspective, to try to set aside the emotional response to these images and look at them differently. I have no problem with violence in movies, when it is necessary to the plot, but sometimes, it is just for shock value, and I hope that is not the case with "Antichrist". From what I've read and seen, Von Trier seems to have an interesting allegorical vision of nature, and its blind cruelty, and I hope that is why the film is so graphic, and not to attract media attention or to repulse the audience just for the fun of it.

It makes sense, I suppose, enjoying a fictional film is a subtle form of escapism, to lose oneself in alternate reality. To have that safety barrier removed is a quite overwhelming for most who endure it...(including myself) And that overwhelming inner conflict is either inspiring and fascinating or revolting and disgusting. It seems there would mainly be one of these two extreme ways to react to such a film. I guess that answers my question quite well. Kind of like sky diving, the thrill of seeing death without the actual thing. These movies make the spectator feel they're allowed to see something he wouldn't be able to see otherwise, but I'm not sure it's a good thing though, it desensitizes the person to violence, and sometimes as I said, glorifies it. And the more one watches, the more one becomes endurant, and the filmmakers have to deliver, that's why I think these days there is an escalation of gore to meet the public demand, which shows it's not an artistic decision, but a mercantile one, it's exploitation.

I know there is cruelty and insane sadism out there in the world, I just don't necessarily want to see it. But in the case of Lars Von Trier, like you said, I think he may have something interesting to say, that the violence is part of a broader more meaningful process, and not just an end by itself.

Never heard of it. But I'll look into it. Ever watch Takashii Miike's Visitor Q? That's a another weird one, we watched it last night...Miike is one of my other favorite directors.I think I'll pass on that one, from what I've heard, this one is of the exploitative kind.

You'd love it in Montréal, we have a film festival full of that stuff!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasia_Festival

[Checkmite]

Here is the opening scene for the film. I think it's beautifully done and it made me cry...


Is this 1000fps, continuously-intercutting style representative of the entire film? If so, I will certainly not like it.

[Sunray Breaker]

These movies make the spectator feel they're allowed to see something he wouldn't be able to see otherwise, but I'm not sure it's a good thing though, it desensitizes the person to violence, and sometimes as I said, glorifies it. And the more one watches, the more one becomes endurant, and the filmmakers have to deliver, that's why I think these days there is an escalation of gore to meet the public demand, which shows it's not an artistic decision, but a mercantile one, it's exploitation.

Mind my rambling here, it might not even make sense but I had to get these words out of my brain somehow.

It raises the question...Do violent films desensitize society to violence? Or is a society desensitized to violence reflected in our films? Granted there's not exactly more violence in the world than there ever was, but the widespread documentation of that violence is spreading.

My generation for example (Generation Y I guess you call it, 1982 born) sort of grew up with this huge beast on our laps called the Internet. We, unlike any other generation before us, have had instant access to quite literally ANYTHING we want to know about for the majority of our adolecent and adult lives.

And we saw it all. We saw the banned news footage, the amateur recorded death films, rotten.com, pornography beyond anything we could ever comprehend, some of us saw all of this before even reaching critical stages of our development. Our parents tried to keep it from us, to hide it, but we knew the technology better than they did, and still do.

But their efforts to hide it all were pointless. Because most of us had already scene whatever they we're concerned about months before they even heard about it...Many of these things that we watched, we watched without supervision, secretly, while the parents weren't looking. It's still this way. Many of us went through a sort of hidden, unspoken, collective shock from having this ability to see anything our minds we're curious about. Including the very dark and gruesome sides of nature that most parents are not comfortable talking about or presenting to children.

I think the increased violence and sexual gratuity in films is ultimately reflective of how jaded we are. How overwhelmed and disensitized, so to speak, we are to all of the ugly things we've seen in our world. It is no longer as much of a shock factor as it once was. It takes so much more to convey a strong message to a mind that's absorbed real decapitations, tons of holocaust and vietnam footage, car accidents, scared straight programs, drive by shootings, police brutality, etc at a faster rate than ever consumed in history.

The news these days only talks about whatever will get them ratings and what sells is violence, mud slinging, competition, drama, failures, disasters and controversy. And we see this type of programming and the people with this type of mentality get rewarded for their actions. This is what we have been raised on. 24 hour news networks bombarding us with footage of 9/11, footage of the bombings in Bagdhad, of bombs exploding in the London train stations, riots, Katrina, conspiracy theories a mile high that spook people into fight or flight mode, STD panic and Swine flu panics, several theocracies with their finger close to the panic button, expecting the rapture right around the corner, etc, etc. This a stressful uncertain time...And the films themselves, really do seem to reflect that.

Our generation was raised to be feared, not respected. To be fierce and competitive, not diplomatic and understanding. We've been told we're special, that we can be whatever we want, that we can go to College and get a degree doing something we love (then we learn early on that psychology, music and art degress are practically worthless on the job market and now we owe 30,000 dollars in student loans). So what you love is no longer an option, what pays is all you have left.

We are tired of dissapointments that have resulted from pussyfooting around reality. We want the real. Even our fantasy films are becoming increasingly realistic and culturally reflective. Directors and Artists are taking more chances, paying closer attention to the little details, portraying a more blunt and honest image. Because they know that's what we want. They know that anything else doesn't quite feel as genuine as it once did, as sincere as it once did.

I think the increased violence in our films and media today stems from that need to shock, suprize and capture the imagination of an entire generation that's simply seen too much, too fast.

[Jono]

It raises the question...Do violent films desensitize society to violence?

I think violent films desensitize society to violent films, the same with music and books, art etc. I don't necessarily think that a person would be notably less sensitive to actual violence in real life, not as a general rule.

[Matthew Best]

Kind of like sky diving, the thrill of seeing death without the actual thing.

Sorry for the derail, but you have a very weird idea (to me, at least) of the appeal of skydiving. Have you ever done any?

[Pardalis]

Sorry for the derail, but you have a very weird idea (to me, at least) of the appeal of skydiving. Have you ever done any?

I'm sure there are many emotions and justifications involved in skydiving, but I'm sure the main one is the thrill of falling to one's death while being protected by the chute.

ETA: maybe I should have used the comparison with bungee jumping instead.

[Jono]

I'm sure there are many emotions and justifications involved in skydiving, but I'm sure the main one is the thrill of falling to one's death while being protected by the chute.

ETA: maybe I should have used the comparison with bungee jumping instead.

I don't think there's necessarily a death-quest inherent per se, there might very well be, but with sky divers and practicioners of various activities like that I think plain adrenaline addiction explains the kick recieved and thus the motivation.
Maybe you think there is a paralleled "kick" from staring at death? I think curiosity and fascination of the macabre (as with accidents, disasters, humiliation) is a common enough 'eccentricity' of the human psyche, more pronounced in some minds than others though.

[Matthew Best]

I'm sure there are many emotions and justifications involved in skydiving, but I'm sure the main one is the thrill of falling to one's death while being protected by the chute.

You're completely wrong.

[Sunray Breaker]

You're completely wrong.
Oh yeah? Well...Your opinion is wrong!!!

[Matthew Best]

You're completely wrong, too! :D

[Micromegas]

I liked Von Trier's earlier films, like Zentropa and Element of the Crime. They seemed like haunted, obsessive, tormented works. His more celebrated films haven't been as interesting to me.

Dogville was an enormous disappointment, a truly laughable debacle. I was reminded of the feeling I had when Gus Van Sant went downhill: a formerly unique imagination putting out utter garbage.

Maybe Antichrist is a return to more disturbing subject matter. I'd be interested to see it.

-Mike

[joobz]

is it out yet?