| |
| Author |
Message |
|
| gromit |
 Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:49 am |
 |
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9010
Location: Shanghai
|
Mirgun:
I reviewed Anti-Christ here:
http://www.thirdeyefilm.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=194200#194200
And if that's too long or disjointed, my next comment below that one summarized my dislike of the film.
It's completely not my type of film. I thought it had many pretentious ideas muddled together. I thought the Tarkovsky homages were overdone and didn't really amount to much. But then again, aside from the impressive Andrei Rublev, I don't get too much out of Tarkovsky films either.
I think von Trier is an interesting film-maker, but subtle he is not. I was fascinated with about 2/3rds of Dogville. And I liked how simply Europa turned the ordinary into a different world -- easily my favorite von Trier. But LvT usually goes off the rails at some point in his films. I think Anti-Christ was incoherent almost from the start. But there are a few scattered visual moments which resonate.
I don't watch horror films much, and try to avoid gore.
Have never seen Ichi, Henry, Saw, Blair Witch, Ed Gein, etc. -- with no intention to. |
_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
| Back to top |
  
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:08 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
| Again, how does the title relate to the movie? I can't figure that out from anything I've read. |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| gromit |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:12 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9010
Location: Shanghai
|
Joe Vitus wrote: Again, how does the title relate to the movie? I can't figure that out from anything I've read.
Maybe someone who liked the movie should answer, but I'll give it a prod:
SPOILERS, Baby, Spoilers:
Quote: The film's message and metaphors seem rather muddled to me. But Von T presents a man and woman, married, who go off to Eden, the name of their cabin in the woods. She is researching women in history and whether they have been constant victims or are in fact bearers of sin/evil.
Bad vibes flow from, and maybe even originate in, nature. Is there a God? Nature speaks up for Chaos. And God is suggested mostly by absence and these off-beat biblical references LvT cooks up.
Von Trier rips through the history of mankind and the historic battle of the sexes. The woman dooms the Man (a la Eve & Adam) by piercing a hole in his body and bolting him to a grindstone, burying him in a cave complete with stone across the entrance, and then digging him out -- clearly making the Man a Christ figure. Man = Adam + Christ + this guy in the film, all conflated. As penance, She undergoes a clitorectomy and then, in revenge for her deeds, is burned like a witch (symbolizing all the punishment/abuse women have endured in history).
But the Man is a psychologist suggesting the modern world and secular notions of its all in our heads, and we can cure ourselves. So is he a false Christ, a secular denier of God, an anti-Christ? He thinks he has the answers and acts as an authority while mouthing psychobabble. The nice thing about this interp is then LvT purposely makes the Man's authority and psychology awkward and absurd (which is better than believing von T is on board with that New Agey-psychology).
The central conflict would seem to be whether Women should rebel against the false and self-assumed authority of Males. That is, Christian patriarchy is false, eating from the Tree of Knowledge is Good, William Blake was right, etc. Or whether Males are rightfully in control of the world, as Christianity ordains. But if Christianity is just a man-made conception, wouldn't Christ and a Christ-figure necessarily be an impostor, an anti-Christ? Shrug. Since von T puts Males and Females in such violent opposition, it could also be argued that the Man represents Christ and the Woman therefore is the Anti-Christ.
Maybe the godless world of natural chaos is anti-christian?
If that all sounds a bit muddled, it's the best I can parse out of LvT's schematics. Maybe it's all open-ended and vague enough that I can come up with a full handful of possibilities on who/what the title refers to ....
I also construed an additional biblical reading. It's the conception of the second child which kills the first-born, in a rather von Triery symbolic/compressed take on Cain and Abel. |
_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:28 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
| Thanks, Gromit. Considering all the references to this being a kind of horror movie, I couldn't figure out if the title was symbollic or the movie really jumps the shark at some point. |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| gromit |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:36 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9010
Location: Shanghai
|
I thought it jumped the shark when the torture/violence kicked in.
Seems that my answer was much more than you needed. |
_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Befade |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:05 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 3784
Location: AZ
|
Mirgun and Gromit.........I'm glad you posted on Antichrist. I just read the New Yorker review (Anthony Mason). Dancer in the Dark is an unforgettable film. Mason writes about the theme connecting sex and loss and mentions other films that do.......He neglected to mention Last Tango in Paris which to me highlights the way grief can be overcome.....or handled....with sex (the life force insisting on overcoming death). I'm not keen on seeing what sounds like unnecessary violence with scissors, etc. Marc.......will be interested to know that Mason compares Antichrist to Don't Look Now.
Apparently the film was booed in Cannes but the actress got an award.
Lady and Lissa.......I was disappointed in Coraline. I'm trying to remember why.......Maybe there was too much emphasis on her physical change with the other parents.......and not enough about the psychology of going from bad parents to worse parents or better parents in a child's mind. (I mean what if you actually don't have good parents......do you happily go back to them after the better parents disappoint?)
Quote: If a movie really pisses me off because it is bad and insulting my intelligence
Gary.......sometimes you are so funny.......(woe be it to the movie who insults your intelligence!) I don't walk out of movies.......but Lucy and Wendy or Wendy and Lucy had a horrible aftertaste and just remembering it is unpleasant. I did fall asleep once in a movie: Lord of the Rings.....the animated version. |
Last edited by Befade on Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
_________________
Lost in my own private I dunno. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:07 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
gromit wrote: I thought it jumped the shark when the torture/violence kicked in.
Seems that my answer was much more than you needed.
I think the sexual violence (which I've read about) would make me physically sick, so I'm not likely to watch the movie. |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
| Betsy, I have no idea who Wendy and Lucy are. Lovers of Keats or what? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Nothing interesting seems top have opened here. Drag Me To Hell opened, but i saw it.
What is Ghosts of Girl Friends Past like. Has anyone seen it? I think I remember it getting panned. Maybe not. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| mirgun |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:19 pm |
|
|
Joined: 23 Oct 2009
Posts: 165
Location: New York City
|
gromit wrote: Joe Vitus wrote: Again, how does the title relate to the movie? I can't figure that out from anything I've read.
Maybe someone who liked the movie should answer, but I'll give it a prod:
SPOILERS, Baby, Spoilers:
Quote: The film's message and metaphors seem rather muddled to me. But Von T presents a man and woman, married, who go off to Eden, the name of their cabin in the woods. She is researching women in history and whether they have been constant victims or are in fact bearers of sin/evil.
Bad vibes flow from, and maybe even originate in, nature. Is there a God? Nature speaks up for Chaos. And God is suggested mostly by absence and these off-beat biblical references LvT cooks up.
Von Trier rips through the history of mankind and the historic battle of the sexes. The woman dooms the Man (a la Eve & Adam) by piercing a hole in his body and bolting him to a grindstone, burying him in a cave complete with stone across the entrance, and then digging him out -- clearly making the Man a Christ figure. Man = Adam + Christ + this guy in the film, all conflated. As penance, She undergoes a clitorectomy and then, in revenge for her deeds, is burned like a witch (symbolizing all the punishment/abuse women have endured in history).
But the Man is a psychologist suggesting the modern world and secular notions of its all in our heads, and we can cure ourselves. So is he a false Christ, a secular denier of God, an anti-Christ? He thinks he has the answers and acts as an authority while mouthing psychobabble. The nice thing about this interp is then LvT purposely makes the Man's authority and psychology awkward and absurd (which is better than believing von T is on board with that New Agey-psychology).
The central conflict would seem to be whether Women should rebel against the false and self-assumed authority of Males. That is, Christian patriarchy is false, eating from the Tree of Knowledge is Good, William Blake was right, etc. Or whether Males are rightfully in control of the world, as Christianity ordains. But if Christianity is just a man-made conception, wouldn't Christ and a Christ-figure necessarily be an impostor, an anti-Christ? Shrug. Since von T puts Males and Females in such violent opposition, it could also be argued that the Man represents Christ and the Woman therefore is the Anti-Christ.
Maybe the godless world of natural chaos is anti-christian?
If that all sounds a bit muddled, it's the best I can parse out of LvT's schematics. Maybe it's all open-ended and vague enough that I can come up with a full handful of possibilities on who/what the title refers to ....
I also construed an additional biblical reading. It's the conception of the second child which kills the first-born, in a rather von Triery symbolic/compressed take on Cain and Abel.
well, you seem to have great insight into this movie, but i cannot find your reason for not wanting to see it, maybe Only that you don't like LVT... ok by me..I have seen the movie.. but many of you have a lot of knowledge on the subject matter by way of other critiques or maybe your religious views you seem to have are clouding your pre-judgement. When you say "God is suggested mostly by absence LTV cooks up.". EXACTLYt. HE doesn't COOK it up. It's what we all think at certain times Haven't we all questioned the presense or the absence of god or a higher being, during many hard moments of our lives?
The movie, by way of the title and subject matter, does take on the age -old "problems "or questions LTV has had being a Christian (I think) and me being .. a secular person. Christ was made into a trilogy/God ( by other men) and he couldn't possibly have had sex with a woman, so the men in charge made Mary into a whore ..I'm saying this in a simple way but.. excuse me..... and by doing so, women have become Antichrist or have been chastised through centuries for being a part of nature.(un god-like) When they are in their cabin, in Eden, she says "Nature is satan's church" which is said by a woman,, but written from a man's point of view. "Okay, true, in the movie, it's an all out battle of the sexes ,power of men over women, women over men. She(the wife) has done research for her book and they have a tragedy, she does go..way overboard..to put it lightly. And some scenes are gruesome to watch.I did think there was a lot of pycho-babble in the middle, I agree..But when the tragedy/loss happens ;the feelings, their faces ,the sex to feel and heal something, to watch C.Gainsbourge's performance was heart-wrenching. Charlotte Gainsbourg especially and Williem Defoe give a great performance.I still don't get why it was booed in Cannes. |
Last edited by mirgun on Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
_________________
Mirgun |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Befade |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:26 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 3784
Location: AZ
|
Quote: Betsy, I have no idea who Wendy and Lucy are
You continue to provide laughs, Gary. Wendy (Michelle Williams) and Lucy (her dog) was it's own film......no relation to Keats.
And you asked about The Shack........It's a popular book about a man's rediscovery that God is really a big black Mama who can cook. |
_________________
Lost in my own private I dunno. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| gromit |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:42 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9010
Location: Shanghai
|
I should add that at least for me the violence in Anti-Christ seemed movie-style fake and therefore was not really disturbing. That is, there were obvious cuts to close-ups where fake body parts, etc could be inserted and mauled.
You could see the film mechanics of substitution and illusion creation fairly easily. I lean toward believing that this was an intentional filmmaking decision ... but wonder if others had the same reaction I did.
What was much more real and unpleasant for me were a few images of the brutality/horrors of nature. On the Dvd I have, an extra feature showed how the deer incident was filmed using some CGI to erase tether and rope lines. I would have liked to have seen how the baby bird scene was filmed. Those were the images which really stood out for me. The people and the plot were ugly and unattractive and juvenile.
Quote: I still don't get why it was booed in Cannes.
Maybe because the French actually take philosophy seriously and recognize an incoherent mish-mash when they see it. I think Anti-Christ works best for those who can take in the emotions and visual dynamics without worrying about the symbolic and religious themes too much. |
_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| gromit |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:04 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9010
Location: Shanghai
|
Joe, I forgot that you are Christian or at least interested in Christianity. Would be interesting to hear your take on the movie, though as I mentioned its very schematic and symbolic in its relationship to religion. It's intentionally provocative towards religion. Von Trier seems to posit that Nature is inherently chaotic and primal forces lurk within Mankind. As a counter, Christianity is the order that Man has imposed, which has its limits and own evils (especially the way women are treated).
But it's all so open-ended, that I think many interps could be applied. Someone more knowledgeable about Christianity might have different thoughts and reactions. I would assume that most believers will be pretty repulsed by the pagan depictions of nature, sex, and violence.
I don't really have any interpretation of the film's final image, but it seems rather pagan. |
_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:15 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
Gromit,
I don't think I'm much of a religious person, at all, to tell you the truth. Though maybe, as Whiskey suggests, I'm not seeing myself as clearly as other people do. I respect the intellectual side of Catholicism and think it gets short-shrifted because people can't distinguish between the institution as a whole and whatever problem Father Timmy or Sister Grace once gave them. There are a lot of "daddy issues" involed in the attacks. I also think it's a mistake to toss out religion (and I mean all the major western and eastern religions) because they obviously have a lot of wisdom in them whether because they are revelations of God or man's inner psyche. They are deep works that have contibuted positively in a huge way to the development of the world, something hostile atheists of the Richard Dawkins/Christopher Hitchens variety often discount in their simple-minded attacks...which is not to say all atheists are either angry or simplistic.
I tend to avoid movies that ponder religious issues just because the nature of movie-making tends towards the didactic, so we get a skewed perspective either pro or con. I also think the so-called intellectual filmmakers are really more visual craftsmen then ideological contemplatives. Fellini is the most obvious example, but I don't even think Bergman is a deep as so many other people do; he's compassionate, so that makes his characters compelling, but his ideas are generally pretty simple. Through A Glass Darkly is probably his most compelling philosophical work.
So when I find out a controversial director is dealing with a religious allegory...well, I think we all know how that is going to turn out. To tell you the truth, while I'm sometimes drawn to allegory, I worry about its use, particularly in movies or theater. When I find out characters are called He and She, I'm already on guard. We're going through a weird thing in the world today where allegory and romance are taking over. If you look at contemporary American novelists, no one seems to want to write novels any more. They are all allegories or fables or something. It feels like a worrisome shift towards a Dark Ages mentality as far as I'm concerned. But then a fair amount of my own writing is allegorical, so I'm just as guilty as anybody else. I'd rather see a movie that dealt with specific, well-realized people than stylized, abstract beings.
But I will say that your description of the violent imagery makes it sound easier to take than I was worried about. And as I've never seen a Lars von Trier movie, it might be a good idea to check it out just to see one. |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| gromit |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:35 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9010
Location: Shanghai
|
Might as well opt for a good von Trier film instead.
I'd rec Europa which just came out in a nice Criterion edition. I've been meaning to re-watch this.
Dogville is certainly interesting-- especially its Brechtian theater style-- though over-extended, imo. Or try the more mainstream Dancer in the Dark which was a little obvious and clunky imo.
I have Epidemic and The Five Obstructions in my to-watch pile, but no idea when I'll get to them. I probably also have Breaking the Waves here somewhere if I hunt around. |
_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
