love

Author Topic: Antichrist (Lars von Trier, 2009)  (Read 19683 times)

FifthCityMuse

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3375
  • Good work, sycophants!
Antichrist (Lars von Trier, 2009)
« on: August 05, 2009, 09:29:09 AM »
I'm creating a spoiler post so I can come back soon-ish and be free and open about what I say. So if you want to avoid serious spoilers, I'd stay away.

Cheers.

FifthCityMuse

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3375
  • Good work, sycophants!
Re: Antichrist (Lars von Trier, 2009)
« Reply #1 on: August 05, 2009, 10:00:30 AM »
A few things to begin with.

I've said it elsewhere, but Gainsbourg is brilliant. It may not only be the best performance I've seen this year, it may be the best of the decade. At the end she is absolutely out of her tree, and it is so great. Defoe... well, any guy could do what he does here, really. It's all about Gainsbourg, all the time.

I didn't find it as shocking as people make out, but I think there's been so much foreshadowing. Yeah, it's not pretty, not in the slightest, but I expected to lose my lunch, and I didn't. I suppose that's why people go to Cannes tho. To have that completely blank experience.

Technically, it's absolutely freakin amayzin. The way it's shot is absolutely great to look at, especially when it gets all foggy towards the end, and even occasionally when the subject is grotesque, it still manages to look gorgeous. The editing is also great, really great. I noticed it most in the beginning, but it was pretty awesome. The music is so atmospheric. The sound design is great. The grade, the lighting, etc etc etc. There were a few moments where it was obvious this was shot on digital, and they were jarring for me, but for the most part you can't tell at all.

Narratively it starts out as kinda boring. But it reaches a point, when they go out to Eden, when it just takes off, and the setup of the first chapter is exposed. I also felt that the strong story helped in "justifying" the gore. I feel like Hostel, for example, is gore for the sake of it. Here, the moments of extreme gore (the drill, the scissors) have a reason within the narrative, beyond just torture. I feel like the money shot especially, whilst totally gratuitous, is really important in the larger themes of the film, and present something really intelligent and interesting.

I'm not sure whether I found it misogynistic or not. I think it's very easy to make that argument, and it's not wrong, but I also suspect that von Trier may be being more pro-feminist than it initially seems. Although the more I think, the more I think I decide it does have an essentially anti-feminist message. It is given a lot of richness tho, and that's what makes it really great.

I can't wait for more people to see this and the discussion to begin. Bring it on.

joker

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1957
  • CINECAST! off
Re: Antichrist (Lars von Trier, 2009)
« Reply #2 on: August 05, 2009, 12:42:53 PM »
litteraly the worst movie I have ever seen..... it was pure shit...

I honestly beleive that this film, much like the saw and hostel films, was made just to shock people..

the baby dieing, the sex scenes, the genital mutalation... I think the narrative was written after these sick ideas were put on paper... kind of a connect the dot game that people like michael bay do when making movies...

I honestly took a long shower after this film, and made my self intake three pixar movies to remove this utter shit from my brain...

sure the cinemtpgraphy was nice, and "She" had a hot, naked body to look at, but this movie is just trash...
"This movie made me laugh so hard, I had mild headaches. So I went to the doctor to get checked out, I'm currently awaiting results"
-Gene Siskel

joker

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1957
  • CINECAST! off
Re: Antichrist (Lars von Trier, 2009)
« Reply #3 on: August 05, 2009, 12:43:32 PM »
I'm creating a spoiler post so I can come back soon-ish and be free and open about what I say. So if you want to avoid serious spoilers, I'd stay away.

Cheers.

what did you get from the ending.... the blurred faces....???  what did that mean to you...
"This movie made me laugh so hard, I had mild headaches. So I went to the doctor to get checked out, I'm currently awaiting results"
-Gene Siskel

FifthCityMuse

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3375
  • Good work, sycophants!
Re: Antichrist (Lars von Trier, 2009)
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2009, 06:18:08 PM »
I'm creating a spoiler post so I can come back soon-ish and be free and open about what I say. So if you want to avoid serious spoilers, I'd stay away.

Cheers.

what did you get from the ending.... the blurred faces....???  what did that mean to you...
It was keeping the women anonymous. The point at the end was that it was women, not specific women. Remember, we only see three faces in this: Defoe, Gainsbourg, and the baby. That's it.

I'm surprised you really didn't like it. Yeah, I can definitely see the point that he came up with scenes first and then strung them together later, but I think it's richer than that, especially with Gainsbourg's performance. I think the fact that he has gone back and created a narrative that has a level of social and cultural complexity lifts it way above Hostel.

I forgot to mention yesterday the bad CGI. It's obvious, and awful. When their child, Nic, falls out the window, it's done in CGI and looks awful. There's a few similar moments later on as well that disappointed. For the most part, it was awesome.

Clovis8

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11719
Re: Antichrist (Lars von Trier, 2009)
« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2009, 09:46:33 AM »
I'm creating a spoiler post so I can come back soon-ish and be free and open about what I say. So if you want to avoid serious spoilers, I'd stay away.

Cheers.

what did you get from the ending.... the blurred faces....???  what did that mean to you...
It was keeping the women anonymous. The point at the end was that it was women, not specific women. Remember, we only see three faces in this: Defoe, Gainsbourg, and the baby. That's it.

I'm surprised you really didn't like it. Yeah, I can definitely see the point that he came up with scenes first and then strung them together later, but I think it's richer than that, especially with Gainsbourg's performance. I think the fact that he has gone back and created a narrative that has a level of social and cultural complexity lifts it way above Hostel.

I forgot to mention yesterday the bad CGI. It's obvious, and awful. When their child, Nic, falls out the window, it's done in CGI and looks awful. There's a few similar moments later on as well that disappointed. For the most part, it was awesome.

The child is not CGI, it is a lifesize model so it is real. The way it is shot gives it a surreal quality on purpose.

I honestly have no idea how this movie could be viewed as the slightest bit misogynist. Nearly all the violence is by her. When he does hurt her it is by request except the ending which is certainly justified. Throughout the movie he is loving (if pompous) and wants only to help his wife.

As for the violence and gore it is NOTHING like Hostel. Every act of violence has an important role in the story.

1) She hits his testicles and cuts off her own clitoris because she thinks their sexual desire caused the death of their child.

2) She drills his leg so he cannot leave her as she is emotionally broken and cannot take any rejection

3) When he kills her its basically self defense but also some rage as he blames her for their childs death.

This is not torture porn in any way. The violence in this film is psychologically justified and not meant to titillate at all. It is horrific.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2009, 09:52:06 AM by Clovis8 »

Clovis8

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11719
Re: Antichrist (Lars von Trier, 2009)
« Reply #6 on: September 13, 2009, 01:56:22 PM »
I have been reading some of the reviews of the film and it seems its detractors are focused on the genital mutilation as the main reason it is misogynist. They dont seem to realize that it is the woman doing the mutilation in both scenes and both make sense in the context of the film.

Yes female genital mutilation, as practiced in many African and Near Eastern cultures, is predicated on a hatred of female sexuality. However in those cases it is not voluntary and certainly not done by the victim on themselves.

These critics are confusing two things which are similar in kinda but very different in context. 

FifthCityMuse

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3375
  • Good work, sycophants!
Re: Antichrist (Lars von Trier, 2009)
« Reply #7 on: September 14, 2009, 08:15:10 AM »
The easiest reading of the film is that the antichrist of the title is Women. That's why people are calling it misogynist. I suspect there may be deeper readings, but I really need a second viewing to confirm or deny. Personally, I don't think the misogyny has anything at all to do with any of the genital mutilation.

And if you don't agree with the reading that women are the antichrist (or antichrists), I point directly to the final scene. There's others as well, but I'm struggling to think of them (damn my poor memory). I think there is something about the way her violence is treated as well. It's linked to the thesis on gynocide and the way she goes crazy, and that definitely points to at least her as the antichrist.

I was interested to hear about the child being a model. It kinda makes sense, but it totally took me out of the film at the time. And I think we agree on it not being torture porn, cause I definitely agree with the stuff you said (although I'm not sure about her hitting him in the testicles - I think that's more linked to the ides of not wanting him to leave than the death of their child - personally, I thought that was something she definitely pointed solely at herself). And I think the money shot is hugely foreshadowed, and in the best way possible.

I think the discussion to do with the idea of female genital mutilation and it's practice in certain countries is interesting, but personally, I think there is a more interesting discussion to be had about how the idea of that can lessen the impact of these scenes. Personally, I was confronted, but I wasn't necessarily shocked in the way a lot of people are, and I wonder if, in part, it's because I am familiar with the idea as it is practiced in certain cultures. Or maybe it's just that all the hype from the IFC Podcast geared me up for something far worse - although again, I wonder if this didn't strike me as the worst... I'm going in circles.

But yes, Clovis, I think I agree with you. I think it's easy to see why critics see the genital mutilation as misogynist - especially reading it as von Trier imposing himself/his own ideas on the film as opposed to viewing it in the context of the film and the characters. I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt there, but, as I said above, I don't think it's the only time in the film he's being a misogynist - or rather, I think the overriding implication of the film is misogynist.

crschan

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 3
Re: Antichrist (Lars von Trier, 2009)
« Reply #8 on: September 17, 2009, 01:21:43 AM »
But yes, Clovis, I think I agree with you. I think it's easy to see why critics see the genital mutilation as misogynist - especially reading it as von Trier imposing himself/his own ideas on the film as opposed to viewing it in the context of the film and the characters. I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt there, but, as I said above, I don't think it's the only time in the film he's being a misogynist - or rather, I think the overriding implication of the film is misogynist.

I agree that the theme, and thesis proposed by this movie is misogynistic, but there's plenty of anti-patriarchy as well.
The misogynistic thesis is that women are irrational (She goes apeshit, while He tries to understand her and cure her). The fact that the violence is almost completely inflicted by her doesn't mitigate any claim of misogyny, rather it is evidence of misogyny in that von Triers is highlighting her irrationality.

Not commented upon by the critics I've read is that the Male way of thinking is also condemned. The domination/torture of women that is documented in Her research isn't that different than the tortuous way His therapy tries to control Her emotional (i.e. feminin) response to the death of their baby.

Of course, none of this explains the deer, bird and fox.

FifthCityMuse

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3375
  • Good work, sycophants!
Re: Antichrist (Lars von Trier, 2009)
« Reply #9 on: September 17, 2009, 01:59:49 AM »
But yes, Clovis, I think I agree with you. I think it's easy to see why critics see the genital mutilation as misogynist - especially reading it as von Trier imposing himself/his own ideas on the film as opposed to viewing it in the context of the film and the characters. I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt there, but, as I said above, I don't think it's the only time in the film he's being a misogynist - or rather, I think the overriding implication of the film is misogynist.

I agree that the theme, and thesis proposed by this movie is misogynistic, but there's plenty of anti-patriarchy as well.
The misogynistic thesis is that women are irrational (She goes apeshit, while He tries to understand her and cure her). The fact that the violence is almost completely inflicted by her doesn't mitigate any claim of misogyny, rather it is evidence of misogyny in that von Triers is highlighting her irrationality.

Not commented upon by the critics I've read is that the Male way of thinking is also condemned. The domination/torture of women that is documented in Her research isn't that different than the tortuous way His therapy tries to control Her emotional (i.e. feminin) response to the death of their baby.

Of course, none of this explains the deer, bird and fox.
I'm really glad you posted this, as it goes a way to alleviate some of the issues I've had with the film and the reading I mentioned above. I hadn't thought about the deconstruction of the patriarchy in the film, and I think you're right. It is strong and interesting, and counters some of the misogyny.

 

love