There's electricity in the air. Every seat is filled, even the little fold-down seats at the end of every row. It is the first screening of Lars von Trier's "Antichrist," and we are ready for anything. We'd better be. Von Trier's film goes beyond malevolence into the monstrous. Never before have a man and woman inflicted more pain upon each other in a movie. We looked in disbelief. There were piteous groans. Sometimes a voice would cry out, "No!" At certain moments there was nervous laughter. When it was all over, we staggered up the aisles. Manohla Dargis, the merry film critic of The New York Times, confided that she left softly singing "That's Entertainment!"
Whether this is a bad, good or great film is entirely beside the point. It is an audacious spit in the eye of society. It says we harbor an undreamed-of capacity for evil. It transforms a psychological treatment into torture undreamed of in the dungeons of history. Torturers might have been capable of such actions, but they would have lacked the imagination. Von Trier is not so much making a film about violence as making a film to inflict violence upon us, perhaps as a salutary experience. It's been reported that he suffered from depression during and after the film. You can tell. This is the most despairing film I've ever have seen.
If, as they say, you are not prepared for "disturbing images," I advise you to just just stop reading now.
The film involves a couple, He and She, whose infant child falls out a window and smashes to the pavement while they are making explicit love. They feel devastating grief. He, a psychologist, takes She off medications, and they go to live in their secluded hideaway in the forest, a cottage named Eden.
He subjects her to probing questions and the discussion of the Meaning of it All, which must affect her like a needle stab to an inflamed tooth. He is quite intelligent and insightful, and brings passive aggression to a brutally intimate level. Then she wounds him, and while he's unconscious she drills a hole through his leg and bolts a grindstone to it. He drags himself into the forest and tries to hide in an animal burrow. She finds him, and pounds him with a shovel to force him deeper. Then she tries to bury him alive. I won't mention two gruesome scenes involving the genital areas.
Lars and the real girl (Roger Ebert, 2003)
What does this metaphor (with a Prologue, an Epilogue and Four Chapters) mean? The dinner conversations all over town must not have been appetizing. Some read it this way: Perhaps the world began with man evil instead of good, guilty instead of innocent. That the Garden of Eden was visited by the Antichrist, not the Lord. That man's Original Sin was not eating from the Tree of Knowledge, but not vomiting forth knowledge and purging himself.
All for this will be discussed at great length. What can be said is that von Trier, after what many found the agonizing boredom of his previous Cannes films "Dogville" and "Manderlay," has made a film that is not boring. Unendurable, perhaps, but not boring. For relief I am looking forward to the overnight reviews of those who think they can explain exactly what it means. In this case, perhaps, a film should not mean, but be.
¶
You see strangely assorted films all in a row here. The first eight Cannes films I've seen have been: (a) a Pixar animated comedy about a man who ties balloons to his house and floats into the rain forest; (b) a film about the young love of the doomed John Keats; (c) a devastating African-American drama about an abused fat girl; (d) a Korean film about a mother defending her dim-witted son against a murder charge; (e) a Filipino film with 45 minutes of an impossible-to-see, too-loud-to-listen to kidnapping; (f) a Hong Kong film about a French chef's violent revenge; (g) a French bourgeois family drama about a bankrupt movie producer, and (h) "Antichrist." First thing tomorrow, the new Almodovar film, about a film director who loses his eyesight and the love of his life. At least there will be Penelope Cruz to look at, if only he could see her.
¶
Cannes has always cast a wide net. It was here I first began to learn more about violent Asian films that were not "chop-socky" trash but in fact polished genre exercises with their own auteurs. After seeing my first Takeshi Kitano film in the awesome Lumiere, I began to suspect he might become one of my favorite directors. The legions of Western fans for Hong Kong films, in particular, may have Cannes to thank.
Speaking of Western fans, this morning I saw a classic Western named "Vengeance." There were certain parallels with Clint Eastwood's "The Unforgiven;" it had gun-slingers striding down streets deserted by the townspeople, and a score (guitars and lonely flutes) that Sergio Leone might have envied. Was this film set in Durango or Tombstone? No, it was set in modern-day Macao, the Las Vegas of China. Was the hero played by Eastwood? No, he was played by the 65-year-old Johnny Hallyday, known as "the French Elvis." Who was the hero of this Western? Was he named Slade or Cain or Shane? No, he had a good French name, Costello. Who was the film directed by? Johnnie To, who has also made "The Heroic Trio," "My Left Eye Sees Ghosts," "Running on Karma," and 46 other films since 1986.
A stranger in town (Click to enlarge)
This was really a good film. The plot is off the shelf: Costello's family is murdered, and he vows revenge. But the twists, now, that's where the pleasure comes. And the acting, dead serious and low key, but with some jovial fat men allowed. And a stunning visual sense. And pacing that made it compulsively watchable--just the curative for me after the previous evening's excruciating "Kinatay."
This is not the place for my review. Let me just mention two details. If you know Johnny Hallyday, picture him standing over a dying crime boss in the street. He has plugged him with about a dozen rounds. And before firing a final fatal round, he thoughtfully and quite seriously observes, "that's your coat."
And then imagine a gunfight in a vast open field, seen from a high angle. Three men surrounded by enemies. The field containing for some reasons tightly-compacted bales of waste newsprint, almost as high as a man. The three in the center using three bales as cover. The dozens around advancing in a wall of forward-tumbling bales, and firing from behind them. Words do not convey the macabre visual effect of this scene.
The film involves professional killers quite prepared to sacrifice their lives for their values. No, not for their criminal code. For their deep human values. They are craftsmen who respect their work. They will perform it well and faithfully even if the man who hired them knows nothing of it, and is away playing with some little children on the beach. These are values that could come from...a Western. And recall that the Western began with Greek drama.
¶The "Antichrist" trailer
Lars von Trier's Antichrist - Official Trailer from Zentropa on Vimeo.
¶
Johnny Hallyday in the "Vengeance" trailer.
¶
"Costello" is the last name of Alain Delon's protagonist in "Le Samourai"; that may be as much a nod to Melville as Trier's "Von" is to "Von Stroheim."
Gee; maybe I should've waited to read this before my comment on Kinatay. Von Trier is a provocateur I can get behind. It seems that whenever he's being unpleasant he's somehow looking directly at me, as though it's all my fault. I think Kubrick is the only other filmmaker who can get away with that kind of thing. Watching their work is like being "sinners in the hands of an angry God"--and we can fret and fume, but we are--here comes Hamlet again--being treated according to our desert--and so none of us escape whipping.
Sounds like Antichrist will hurt so good.
This news of Von Trier's film only cements the fact that, love him or hate him, he is a filmmaker that cannot be ignored. I personally have a really hard time finding anything great about his films, but they are almost always intriguing exercises (or should I say experiments?). Sometimes I think he muddles his own commentary on whatever it is he feels like commenting on, but I liken him to a car crash: he is one of the most rubberneck inducing directors I can think of, and even though most of the time I wish I would have just driven by without looking, it's nearly an impossible task to do just that. I'll almost always want to see what he's putting out, even if I know, in hindsight, there was definitely a better way to spend my two hours. These updates have been great. I Can't wait to read more.
Great article, Rog. I'm excited to see both of these films and have fun not only with the visceral experience, but the interpretations. That's part of the fun of a Von Trier movie. Sometimes you just need to sit back and admire/absorb chaos and insanity and general weirdness.
However, the trailer link at the bottom of this page is for the wrong "Vengeance" movie. The trailer is some urban indie flick with Danny Trejo and Jason Mewes (!!). Yeah, zero interest in this, as opposed to French Elvis + Guns. Hope they replace the link soon.
Wow. Well, that preview will almost certainly give me a nightmare. So, as much as I would like to think of the Fall and Eden and the Scorcese's Jesus.... I will have to abstain.
a french chef played by danny trejo? I'm there.
Ebert: That Johnny Hallyday, what an actor.
I'm speechless.... but I can still type.
This movie looks fascinating, and Willam Dafoe only makes it look creepier. Do you think it will play here in Chicago, or any of it's 'burbs?
I can't help but think that Costello is a reference to Le Samourai
Ebert: Yes, and Melville was referring to New York mob boss Frank Costello.
It is a relief to hear that von Trier is back to challenge his audience. It is so much more satisfying to work one's way through the dragging "Manderlay" or argue with friends over whether there is any artistic value in the "Idiots" than ... than do most other things in life and cinema, really. Of course he is often a charlatan, but I appreciate him pulling my leg if that forces me to question everything I get. He keeps his audience on the alert, and in this is continuously more interesting than a, say, Greenaway. In that respect I appreciate his devote approach to art: everything can be art of greatest order, but nothing needs to be, especially not just because it comes with a name tag on it.
Did Mark Kermode stand up again and shout insults at the screen?
(d) a Korean film about a mother defending her dim-witted son against a murder charge
How was the reactions at the screening of this movie? I heard some good news. It will be released in Korea next week. I have seen the trailer two or three times in theaters, and it seems "Mother does(or knows) the best".
Meanwhile, I'm curious about how people at the festival think about "Thirst", which has divided Korean critics and moviegoers. I gave three stars of four and called it "the funniest movie of the week". This is another vampire movie better than "Twilight"; strange conjugation of black comedy, horror, and melodrama. Although it's spinning out of control later, it is quite compelling. It makes you laugh, then it makes you nervous, then it makes you cringe. It's fascinating mess.
Ebert: Barbara Scharres has written about both films and another Korean film on the blog she is writing for us:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/scharres/
This is definitely not a trailer for the same 'Vengeance' Ebert saw.
Here is the one played at Cannes:
http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/vengeance/international-trailer
Ebert: ThanksI I repaired. Working too fast at 2 a.m.
"There's nothing wrong with a movie going crazy along with its characters...but von Trier doesn't have the craft to bring the moviegoer along in the most extreme parts of Antichrist. The thought was that we were being subject to the spectacle, not of a woman going mad, but of a director."
This comment by Richard and Mary Corliss of Time magazine is one of the more decided of all the ones I've read. It's telling in itself that the critics are mutually forgoing their usual reflections on this one.
Very excited for "Vengeance". Johnny To is one of the most under appreciated directors working in Asian cinema today. Every chance I get, I recommend his films to someone.
Different 'Vengeance' in your trailer there - not exactly guitars and flutes, and Danny Trejo is not exactly Johnny Halliday either!
You can find the trailer you wanted here: http://www.vengeance-lefilm.com/_en/vengeance.html
Ebert: Fixed!
Are you sure whether it's good or bad is beyond the point? And does being particularly disturbing make it audacious? Isn't the shock factor the most commonplace, worthless characteristic of nowadays films, the one using humanity's abject inclinations for the purpose of attracting and selling? What makes this film different from the decades-long of small-budget horror movies, from Cannibal Holocaust to Audition? Does it try to go one step beyond what is possible to show on-screen and pretend it's still ok, like Internet does everyday?
I have no respect for Mr. Von Trier as a film director. His new endeavour just fits perfectly with the rest of his products, his galery of fake art, now using a strong legacy of horror movies to pretend to create something new and add artistry where art, in truth, has been long before.
She drills a hole through his leg, not his keg. I'm sure that's what you meant. Usually I don't ask you to correct your distracting typos (as opposed to the minor ones that aren't distracting,) even though they throw me off the horse for a second and make me review things for a moment before I get back on. But this time, you had me stopping and thinking for a moment about why She would drill a hole through He's beer keg and attach a grindstone to it. That seems like a truly pointless thing to do. At first I thought she was maybe drilling the hole to drain it, but no, she's leaving the beer in there. And she's attaching it to a grindstone, which must serve as an anchor. But what purpose does that serve? 'I'll anchor down his beer keg so he can't carry it with him anywhere. That'll show him.' Oh, his leg. That makes more sense.
But hang on. A grindstone weighs... several hundred pounds, at least, for sure. So how can he crawl away? Did he rip the hole?
The French Elvis played a character named Costello. Read that over as many times as you need to.
Ebert: My sloppy copy reading. I'm seeing at least three movies a day, managing three blogs, and posting all my own entries. That's also why I'm commenting on posts less than usual.
"our undreamed-of capacity for evil" reminds me of the end of blood meridian where the judge dances in the bar saying that he will live forever, and dances and dances. it sounds like the internalization of the very immediate and threatening external evil mccarthy tries to work out.
i would like to see antichrist. i suppose "like" is not entirely accurate. when i read the last chapter of blood meridian, i felt queasy and drained, but i wanted to finish. something like that. a confrontation of sorts.
Roger: I would be interested in your thoughts on the mental state of those who can dream up such images as in the film you wrote about in this post. I consider myself a reasonably normal human being, and I could never even consider that a sane person might think of anybody doing this.
Mr. Ebert, quite surprising to hear that you liked "Vengeance" that much, especially considering you slammed one of the director's previous films, "Exiled" for all the reasons you laud this film for - the acting among other things.
Anyway, good to know you've had some fun with it - judging from the general critical reaction you were in the minority, which is too bad.
But it's just overall nice to hear of a renowned critic who openly admits his appreciation of what most of his colleagues would call a "lowly genre film that has no place in Cannes". I hope I will still live long enough to witness a change in this mentality.
Ebert: AllI know is, I had a good experience.
VENGENCE is a great movie by johnie to.
he's a great hong kong movie director
At times I think it would be interesting to be a film critic, then I hear about movies like Antichrist.If I were a critic I would have insightful reviews of great and mediocre films, and then summarize the bad ones with time viewed: 'Antichrist- left after twenty minutes, threw up and cried'. If someone can't base a decision on whether or not to se THAT movie to hell with 'em.
Glad to hear about Vengeance, so far one I hadn't heard of that should be good. And God Bless Pixar. God Blees 'em.
My goodness, it sounds, at least, like a mighty violent bunch of films in Cannes this year. Can it be that the filmmakers of the world have been infected with the violence bug, or are they commenting on the violence our world has suffered in recent years? I somehow hope it's the latter; and if it is, I hope they're succeeding with their commentaries.
It was interesting reading this post on 'Antichrist' right after reading your previous post on 'Kinatay.' Without seeing either films, and going just on your words, it seems as though both directors were seized by 'an idea.' What do you consider the difference to be? The execution? The director's body of work? The perception of the director as an 'artist?'
It reminds me of the doc 'Who The #$&% is Jackson Pollock.' If Pollock painted it, it's genius and worth millions. If he didn't, it's garage sale material. But it looks the same either way.
Being an admirer for Von Trier's work, I look forward to seeing Anti-Christ though at the same time, I can already feel my face wincing knowing about its imagery.
The reports I've seen have suggested that the Cannes audience reception to Antichrist was strongly negative. In your opinion, Roger, was this the case?
Ebert: Uh, huh.
Roger, I was one of the (apparently) few admirers of both Von Trier's DOGVILLE and MANDERLAY - indeed, not so easy to watch as they may be, they are well-made and thoughtful art, in my humble opinion. As for ANTICHRIST, I've been intrigued since I first heard about this and between reading your report from Cannes on this blog and now having seen the trailer (Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg having sex against an apparent tree trunk with bodies underneath? I'm there!), I am more intrigued and - yes - excited to see this than ever before! :)
VENGEANCE by Johnnie To looks pretty frickin' cool too! :)
Great article Roger, thank you. I hope you will not delay in telling us how "Enter the Void" is. My anticipation for that film is becoming unbearable.
Roger wrote: Thanks! I repaired. Working too fast at 2 a.m..
Hi Roger, typos are okay. Please take it easy and watch out for your health. (I wrote my good wishes to you and your family at your granddaughter Raven's blog, but for some reasons, the entry didn't go through.) Like you, Raven writes very well.
I am looking forward to Tsai Ming Liang's Face. I have been to the Cannes website thrice, but can't find the screening schedules for the upcoming days.
Your very short synopsis of Lars von Trier's Antichrist do sound like that Biblical Eden where Eve played the less savory part of being the unwitting accomplice of Evil. Following this line of thought, am I correct in guessing that the wife's violence towards her husband was uncalled for, or maybe an excessive response of rage? If so, that would indeed put the film's "Eve" in a bad light. Oh dear, I wonder what Marie (Haws) would be saying about this? There is also this entry at Wikipedia about the pre-Cannes accidental revealing by the executive producer concerning the movie's ending (*spoilers ahead): that Earth was created by Satan rather than God. Hmmm, this is interesting. At any rate, one has to see this in order to give a justified interpretation of the movie. Can't wait for Face and Antichrist.
Random question. What film are the images from for the Cannes 2009 poster? The black and white picture of the woman in the black dress. Is that L'Avventura? Something Bergman, maybe?
Ebert: A canny speculation. The festival says it was "inspired" by "L'Avventura." It's one of my favorites from over the years.
In the spirit of constructive criticism brought here by Raymond Ogilvie, I will criticize his comment:
"A grindstone weighs... several hundred pounds, at least, for sure. So how can he crawl away?"
Sir, perhaps you are thinking of a millstone...a grindstone is used to sharpen blades and can be any size. I am guessing the object used here an 8 inch wheel used with a power grinder?
Ebert: It's nowhere near as big as a millstone, and yet I'm amazed he was able to crawl anywhere with it.
As regards Antichrist, I will show my pedestrian outlook by agreeing wholeheartedly with Sanjuro's low regard for this film. Maybe it is just cheap-thrill pornographic violence and nothing more.
No clothes! No clothes! The Emperor's got NO CLOTHES!!
I am so tired of films with explicit gore and violence that seem to do it for no reason whatsoever. How is this film any different from Kinatay? Please explain. Or don't. I don't plan to see either one, anyway.
"Von Trier is not so much making a film about violence as making a film to inflict violence upon us, perhaps as a salutary experience."
Perhaps Lars Von Trier is the spiritual descendant of Antonin Artaud, the French theatrical theorist whose experiments in the "Theatre of Cruelty" had audiences vomiting in the isles. Artaud's inovations are certainly not among those popularly explored by Hollywood. His theatrical touches, and indeed, his strange, strange life can be comically bleak to read about. I suppose the experience must have quite a different effect when viewed in the theatre or cinema rather than read on from a safe distance.
Roger,
Thank you SO MUCH for warning us "disturbing images adverse" types away. I love reading your blog, but I skipped this one, and can only thank you for your thoughtfulness.
I hope Cannes provides you with something beautiful.
I've seen the kung-fu movie, "The Heroic Trio", and I'm proud of Johnny To because he didn't keep himself boxed in as a filmmaker.
"This is the most despairing film I've ever have seen." An astonishing statement -- even the typo adds to the impact ( it should say either "...I've ever seen" or "...I have ever seen", but it's sloppy copy, I know).
When considering the staggering significance that the role of depair has played in philosophy and the arts for the past two centuries, doesn't your statement alone demand that you hail this film as a masterwork of art?
The question is not a challenge, as I haven't yet seen the movie and you haven't yet written your full review, but if it is in fact the most despairing film you've ever seen, shouldn't it be considered a monumental achievement? Despair is such a significant aspect of the human condition (particularly in the modern western world) so how can this not be a staggeringly important film, given your statement?
It's strange what has happened with Von Trier, after making few noteworthy film.
"Despair is such a significant aspect of the human condition (particularly in the modern western world) so how can this not be a staggeringly important film, given your statement?"
The fact that a work of art evokes despair or channels it does not automatically make it great. It simply makes it despairing.
The human longing for transcendence, as René Girard as clearly shown in his mimetic theory, has a long, sad history, normally culminating in human sacrifice. Girard came to his faith via literature and anthropology; namely, he was first an academician. It was only in studying the New Testament that he saw a renunciation of the scapegoating mechanism in the vindication of God who, acc. to the NT, never asked for or demanded such blood sacrifice. It stood as the culmination of the Old Testament prophets; namely, the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection.
There is a parable of Jesus about the demon who left a man who then spruced up the place. The demon returned with seven buddies and the man was worse off than before (Mtt 12, 45f).
The sad, secular West has swept itself of nearly all of the influence of its Christ-haunted foundations. Too bad. The seven demons (times seventy) have come and made themselves at home. Theaters are now routinely re-enacting the human sacrifice of Euripides' THE BACCHAE. But that's okay, isn't it? It's just "entertainment"...
I've not seen the film, obviously. But going simply from your description it sounds kind of like the dreaded 4-P film (precious, pretentious, pompous, and profound) that first-year film students tend to make, rather than something that an experienced and skilled director-storyteller would bring to us.
I'm willing to give it a chance, but I'm thinking that if even you, clearly an admirer of the director, can't make it sound like it's not an eye-roller, there's not much hope for it.
It's been reported that he suffered from depression during and after the film. You can tell. This is the most despairing film I've ever have seen.
A disturbing reflection on social desensitization: this comment made me MORE excited to see the movie.
Perhaps some Yeats.
The Second Coming
TURNING and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
"The fact that a work of art evokes despair or channels it does not automatically make it great. It simply makes it despairing."
I agree with this statement -- but I didn't say or imply that a work that evokes despair or channels it is automatically great. What I asked (because I really don't know the answer) is how a film that is the most despairing film ever seen by Roger Ebert cannot automatically be a tremendous achievement or masterwork of art in some sense? If he had said it was the most joyful film he'd ever seen, or the most frightening film he'd ever seen, or the most wondrous film he'd ever seen, etc...any of these statements would most certainly imply an important if not monumentally important film. Why not because it is "the most despairing"? Especially, as I pointed out, given the tremendous import the concept of despair has had in philosophy and the arts (and therefore human life) for the last two hundred years?
Ebert: See Cannes #6.
It sounds to me that "Anti Christ" is like those dreadful torture porn movies like Saw. Is this the case? Is it at least thought provoking? If not, I have no desire to see it at all. After Hostel, I'm done giving that garbage a chance.
Ebert: No, not torture porn.
I think that we originally were and still are selfish and greedy. Man has never been innocent. Even the monkeys are not innocent. But I don't think greed and selfishness are the same thing as evil. Lars Von Trier went too far in his pessimism. He is the one who shouldn't have stopped taking his antidepressants.
But still, the movie is very interesting because it goes against christian values. I am eager to watch it.
Von Trier's work has been bold and unrelenting. I cannot fucking wait for Anti Christ.
When you said that Antichrist is the most despairing film you've ever seen there were two films that immediately came to mind, Salo and Caligula, which tie in my book as the most despairing films I've ever seen, but with a key difference. Salo is a film I can appreciate for the statement it makes on the evils of fascism and the sense of despair rises from observing human nature at its most savage. Caligula on the other hand is despairing (or perhaps depressing, a word I use by your definition) because it is the most disgusting display of pointless exploitation I have ever seen in a film. I noticed you were reluctant to specify which way Antichrist swung. Given that the film is directed by Lars Von Trier, I'm inclined to think it leans towards Salo, but it seems you haven't made up your mind.
I'm curious, Roger, have you seen Pascal Laugier's "Martyrs"? What did you think of it?
[i]Von Trier is not so much making a film about violence as making a film to inflict violence upon us,[/i]
Didn't Mel Gibson do that with "The Passion of the Christ"?
"The excitement derives entirely from the awareness of nitroglycerin and the gingerly, breathless handling of it. You sit there waiting for the theatre to explode."
I borrow from the final line of Bosley Crowther's review of the 1953 Grand Prix/Palm d'or winner,the fabulous "Wages of Fear."
Sounds like I might sense the metaphorical clangor of audience detonations at this year's festival. Sure hope so for your sake.
Never was a big fan of Lars whatshisname, but his new film appears to have put something of a charge in the house. Kinda reminds me of Haneke's Funny Games-once was enough for that one. Don't know if it was nominated for anything or not.
Sure been fun following your various reminiscences and observations. Any specific memory when a theatre did really explode, either in excitement or controversy or maybe both?
And finally a quote from THE Heidegger whose namesake was kind enough to comment earlier:'The German people must choose its future, and this future is bound to the fuhrer.'
"It says we harbor an undreamed-of capacity for evil." Ebert
After NCOM, Silence of Lambs not to speak of Exorcist and my yet waiting to be seen Rosemary's Baby(Schindler's List too) the present one seems to be in logical progression.Whatever a human being can imagine is a potential reality as history as well as the tabloids attest. Each human being is all human beings and thats why John Donne said if the bell tolls it tolls for me.
In the Mahayana philosophy, the human experience is divided into Ten Worlds or life-states:hell, hunger, animality, anger, humanity, rapture,learning, partial enlightenment, altruism and the final enlightenment. According to the principle of the Mutual Posession of these ten worlds, these are not rungs in a ladder one has to ascend in a pilgrim's progress but rather our life is a phenomenon in which each of these subjectivities are simultaneously existent in each augenblick in each living entity including you and me, and one keeps hopping from state to state, at times abruptly and thats life. How best to deal with this ofcourse is the most non trivial issue.
From this perspective both Christ and Antichrist exist in our own lives and all authentic literature and cinema is exploration of oneself. Donne again, nobody is an island, everyone is a piece of the continent and a shareholder in the fullness thereof.
Ebert: You so consistently evoke a useful philosophical serenity. You're sort of like this blog's counselor on karma.
Did Von Trier actually say that he is ( or considers himself ) " the greatest director in the world " as has been reported round the internet ? hope it was simply a case of a quote way out of context as it's quite disappointing and one of the most immature and small-minded remarks that i think i have read in recent years attributed to any internationally recognized artist. as much as i have enjoyed some of his work , and even consider some of it truly brilliant ( Breaking The Waves ) ... that kind of idiotic statement is very off-putting , and frankly , makes me cringe.
Takeshi Kitano was doing an interview for a French program after making "Zatoichi". They said, regarding the musical numbers, "You must have been influenced by Lars Von Trier's 'Dancer in the Dark', right?"
"No, it was too depressing. I skipped ahead to the dance numbers and said 'Why couldn't the whole movie be like this?'"
Kitano's an interesting guy. He was a comedian, and after a motorcycle accident/attempted suicide, he can only smile with the left half of his face. He created a video game that opens with the message "WARNING: This was created by a man who hates video games", and features challenges like holding a single button down for an entire hour, and hitting the final boss twenty thousand individual times. The whole point of the game was to frustrate, confuse and enrage the player.
I'm glad to hear you liked "Vengeance". I remember you weren't impressed by To's "Exiled", and while I loved it, I completely understood your point of view. I love that whole genre, but those Hong Kong Pistol Opera movies have a fatal flaw in being completely incoherent and inaccessible to nearly anyone who isn't already familiar with the entire genre. If "Vengeance" breaks that mold and gets back into where the genre really started (Classic Westerns in a modern setting), then I'm all the more excited for it, as both a Hong Kong movie fan and as a movie fan.
Ebert: "Vengeance" makes perfect sense.
Some Westerners are entranced by so-called poverty porn from Third World countries. In the case of Brillante Mendoza, whose films "Serbis" and "Kinatay", the director and his French producer try to pass off lurid melodrama as provocative art. Mendoza is an inept moviemaker. His visual style is hailed as "gritty", a supposed hallmark of his films' social consciousness". To me, it's more of amateurishness and crumminess. He gets into the main competition because of the ties of his French producer to the filmfest organizers.Surely there are more deserving Filipino filmmakers who should represent the Phiippines at Cannes. Enough of Mendoza. He isn't brilliant at all.
".....our lives are of a mingled yarn,
both good and ill together...."
Alls Well that Ends Well
I think it's great that Antichrist and that Filipino movie had been screened before Tarantino movie, so that people can see difference between his use of bloody-but-harmless violence and will stop trashing him for that. Roger, I hope you'll have a chance to be there tomorrow and share some thoughts with us about that basterd movie...
Dear Rog,
Thanks for the heads up on Kinatay. It sounds very much in the same realm as "Wolf Creek" and "Captivity", two films that i had the misfortune of seing and was APPALLED at the sheer irresponsibility of the treatment of characters in the movie. I understand about filmmakers having the right to be artistic about their work, but senseless torture and the infliction of pain (on the characters and the audience too) for the sheer sake of it all is not only offensive and in bad taste but it is in my opinion an irresponsibility on the part of the filmmaker. There is a difference between the depiction of inhumanity and cruelty versus the total disregard for portraying something in bad taste when it is uncalled for and especially for doing so on film which due to its own nature will tend to glamorize and add a touch of glee to the whole thing. Reading your review of Kinatay brough to mind Wolf Creek and the recent Michael Haneke movie "the strangers" and now I find I can't even blog straight because I am consumed by an air of distaste and all I want to do is confront these filmamkers and tell them to grow up because its not funny and it sure ain't cinema!
Ebert: There's a Haneke movie coming up here this week. "Cache" was some kind of brilliant.
"......a useful philosophical serenity."..Ebert
Not entirely. I was at one time described as having the mind of "a rat with tail on fire", which is still not far from the truth. My understanding of philosophy western or eastern is epsilon and even my own thing is at best average(when the house is afire you need a solidity of philosophy which is better described as faith). In all humility and accuracy I could describe myself as a person who through the ups and down of life was able to establish a modest internal citadel of faith, thanks to the unparralelled mentorship I encountered. That must be the source of my apparent serenity and maybe thats what you mean by karma.
"Cache" is where I'll give Haneke a chance when I get around to seeing it, but most of his movies seem to be either depressing, insulting, or both.
Whose is that unusual and forceful painting on the top of the page ?
Ebert: A detail from "The Scream," by Edvard Munch.
Brendan, the Yeats was appreciated. I was thinking the same thing--in that the second birth of the poem is nothing like Christ, sort of akin to Ebert's description of the end of the film where the clothed "others" come forward. A mirrored abomination.
And as an atheist (some sort of version of one) who went to Catholic school, I'll admit I had uneasy sleep last night, this blog being the last thing I read before turning out the lights. Maybe I _shouldn't_ see the film.
Dear cheZ,
I saw the mentioned quote (Von Trier hailing himself as the best director in the world) appear in a brief Antichrist-focused part of the daily news in Denmark, and though it was aired out of context, it seemed like a sarcastic and humorous remark targeted towards a journalist, who had just asked him an un-aired question. I can't promise that it's exactly how the scenario played out, but it seemed rather harmless to me.
I've read a lot of the reactions to Antichrist and some comments made by von Trier are always included in them, where upon they are either attacked furiously by the person who wrote the article or the people commenting on them. von Trier is a strange man, very damaged in some way obviously, but I found it hard to believe that the context these comments were put into were really true. I was rather astonished to see the actual press release (were you there?) and see the context these comments were made in, or how he made them. It was then so obvious to me that all these comments were pretty much taken out of context and then used to beat von Trier with, repeatedly and entirely unjustifiably. Especially his now infamous comment "I'm the best director in the world" which he says may not be true, but you have to think it is to be able to do your best.
Does that not bother anyone? It just seems downright dishonest and despicable.
Also as a final note, I really enjoyed reading this article. It's the first article I've read on Antichrist that actually has ANY original thought to it. I'm glad that you got past the shocking visuals and tried to look at the actual movie instead of just joining the band wagon. Then I'm also sad that the rest of the damn critics have joined that band wagon.
Rog,
Correction on my earlier posting regarding Michael Haneke. The movie I was referring to was "Funny Games" and not "The Strangers". I do agree that Cache was a smart and brilliant film, but I found Funny Games to be distasteful and moreover it did not play fair. After investing two hours watching the film, I found it to be an affront to my intelligence and my good naturedness (in having the patience to tolerate shit in the name of artistic integrity.) What I found to be morally reprehensible about the movie was the smugness, the sense of glee and reckless insouciance about how torture and inflicting pain on others was treated. [I doubt that even our very own Karma counsellor Mr. Rana, would find anything philosophically serene about such senseless torture porn in the name of art]
That being said, Asian Cinema can be very violent too - rarely do I see a Korean revenge picture that is short on sadism ("Old Boy" and "The Isle" comes to mind), but there is often a poetic quality to it. The violence seems in service of something bigger in the movie.
A lot of quotes have been floating around recently on von Trier, unfortunately many of them are pulled out of a context that would put them in a much more understanding light. If you have the 30 minutes to spare, I recommend that you watch the press meeting after the viewing. It will help you judge for yourself how to interpret what von Trier said himself and I am sure that you will come to understand that the quotes that have so offended people are in fact not very offensive at all. At least, that is how I perceived it.
http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/mediaPlayer/9902.html
I told my mum about "Vengeance," and that Johnny Halliday is playing a Man With No Name type of character. I think she's still in some sort of euphoric state.
Whenever I think of Lars von Trier, I'm reminded of Picasso mocking Matisse's goal for his art to be a nice, comfortable armchair for the tired business man at the end of a long day. Picasso wanted to challenge, excite and shock his audiences, and for me, that's what von Trier usually does.
"I AM THE BEST DIRECTOR IN THE WORLD" - Think about it. It's Von Trier. He always fucks with your mind ;)
However watching Antichrist yesterday - i wouldn't disagree that he indeed is the greatest director in the world!!
Watch it
In case you don't follow history, there is some provocateur movie debuting every year at Cannes. Lars Von Trier is finally in the right place at the right time. The world could only ignore his talent for so long and are now labeling him the violent new "It" auteur. Von Trier can sometimes be the movie industry equivalent of an Internet troll. He goes for a visceral reaction, making the audience experience strong emotion for his own personal thrill, and along the way captures great insight. Honestly, he's the closest thing we have to Kubrick, since many of the new age Kubrickians borrow his techniques, without every truly embodying his revolutionary spirit.
Takeshi Kitano is GOD.
Wonderfully informative.