Lars von Trier's "Antichrist" is poised to detonate at the Toronto Film Festival. This willfully controversial director will inspire, as he often does, a storm of controversy, debate, critics clamoring to get into advance screenings that are already jammed, and a contentious press conference. Of the 400 or so films at TIFF this year, "Antichrist" was the first that sold out in advance. It was the same last May at Cannes, and that was before it has even been seen.
Von Trier was nothing if not canny in his title for the film. By naming it "Antichrist," he provides a lens through which to view its perplexing behavior. By naming his characters only He and She, he suggests the dark side of an alternative Garden of Eden, and then disturbing his ending becomes a mirror image of Christ welcoming the faithful into the kingdom of heaven. The title instructs us where to begin. If he had named the characters John and Mary, and titled the film "A Nightmare," what conclusions might we have arrived at?
On this eve of the 34th annual festival, I thought it might be useful to provide s flashback to what I wrote from Cannes in May. Fresh from my viewing, surrounded by the turmoil, this was my blog posted May 19:
¶ 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).
I rarely find a serious film by a major director to be this disturbing. Its images are a fork in the eye. Its cruelty is unrelenting. Its despair is profound. Von Trier has a way of affecting his viewers like that. After his "Breaking the Waves" premiered at Cannes in 1996, Georgia Brown of the Village Voice fled to the rest room in emotional turmoil and Janet Maslin of the New York Times followed to comfort her. After this one, Richard and Mary Corliss blogged at Time.com that "Antichrist" presented the spectacle of a director going mad.
Enough time has passed since I saw the film for me to process my visceral reaction, and take a few steps back. I can understand why this confrontational film has so sharply divided its early critics. It is fascinating to me that there's a sharp divide between American, Canadian and British critics monitored by the Tomatometer, and a cross-section of French critics monitored by Le Film Francais, a French equivalent to Variety, which is published daily at the festival. Reflect that French critics are often noted for more intellectual, theoretical reviews, and American critics are more often populist. Which group hated or approved of the movie more?Think again. A surprising 44% of the early Tomatometer critics gave positive reviews. Le Film Francais asks its national panel to vote on every film in the Official Selection and the Un Certain Regard section. They can vote as follows: (1) Must win the Palme d'Or; (2) Three stars ("Passionately"); (3) Two stars ("Good"); (4) One star ("One likes it a little"); (5) "Pas de tout"--"not at all"). The French critical consensus for "Antichrist" is... pas de tout. I can't recall when another Official Selection by an important director has been disliked so strongly.
Dafoe, von Trier and Gainsbourg at Cannes
A reader signing himself Scott D posted this comment after my first entry on the film: "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?"There is truth to what Scott D said. In the first place, it's important to note that "Antichrist" is not a bad film. It is a powerfully-made film that contains material many audiences will find repulsive or unbearable. The performances by Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg are heroic and fearless. Von Trier's visual command is striking. The use of music is evocative; no score, but operatic and liturgical arias. And if you can think beyond what he shows to what he implies, its depth are frightening.
I cannot dismiss this film. It is a real film. It will remain in my mind. Von Trier has reached me and shaken me. It is up to me to decide what that means. I think the film has something to do with religious feeling. It is obvious to anyone who saw "Breaking the Waves" that von Trier's sense of spirituality is intense, and that he can envision the supernatural as literally present in the world. His reference is Catholicism. Raised by a communist mother and a socialist father in a restrictive environment, he was told as an adult that his father was not his natural parent, and renounced that man's Judaism to convert, at the age of 30, to the Catholic church. It was at about the same age that von Trier founded the Dogma movement, with its monkish asceticism.
If you have to ask what a film symbolizes, it doesn't. With this one, I didn't have to ask. It told me. I believe "Antichrist" may be an exercise in alternative theology: von Trier's version of those passages in Genesis where Man is cast from Eden and Satan assumes a role in the world.
The Prologue, a masterful sequence lovely b&w slow motion, shows a couple, He and She, making love while their innocent baby becomes fascinated by the sight of snow falling outside an open window, climbs up on the sill, and falls to his death. This is Man's Fall from Grace. Consequently, She (Charlotte Gainsbourg) falls into guilt and depression so deep she is hospitalized. That is one half of Original Sin. The character named He (Willem Dafoe) insists she cut off her medication. He will cure her himself. That is the other half. Her sin is Despair. His is Pride. These are the two greatest sins against God.He and She go to their country home, named Eden. He subjects her to merciless talk therapy, relentlessly chipping away at her rationalizations and defenses, explaining to her why she is wrong to feel the way she does. I suspect many of the reviews will focus on the physical violence She inflicts upon He in the next act of the film. It is important to note that the earlier psychological violence He inflicts is equally brutal. He talks and talks, boring away at her defenses, tearing at her psyche, exposing her. Listen to Dafoe's voice in the trailer linked below. It could be used for Satan's temptation of Christ in the desert.
There is little sense at Eden of real lives together; He and She they are locked in combat that seems their inescapable destiny after the loss of their child. The violence in the film is explicit, but is it intended to be realistic? I don't believe you can have a hole drilled clean through your leg, an iron bar pushed through it, and a grindstone bolted to it, and do much other than be in agony. That He can even speak, let alone crawl into the woods, contend with her and defend himself, is remarkable. I think the violence illustrates the depth of her venom and that She, like He, will stop at nothing.
Images suggesting Bosch are evoked toward the end of the film. Human limbs rise up to grasp He and She as they have sex. There is a talking dog, bluebirds, a deer, inhabiting the world of Man. At the end He stands atop a hill while a legion of unnatural humans ascends toward him, evoking "Night of the Living Dead." The suggestion is Biblical, but not from the Bible we know. The human figures are not naked, climbing toward birth, but clothed, climbing toward death. After their fall in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve learned shame, and covered their nakedness. In this evil world, they are created covered, and by their sins are cast out into nakedness.
Von Trier's original intention, it's said, was to reveal at the end that the world was created by Satan, not God: That evil, not goodness, reigns ascendant. His finished film reflects the same idea, but not as explicitly. The title "Antichrist" is the key. This is a mirror world. It is a sin to lose Knowledge rather than to eat of its fruit and gain it. She and He are behaving with such cruelty toward each other not as actual people, but as creatures inhabiting a moral mirror world. As much as they might comfort and love each other in our world after losing a child, so to the same degree in the mirror world they inflame each other's pain and act out hatred. This would be the world created by Satan.
If I am right, then von Trier has proceeded with perfect logic. Just as a good world could not contain too much beauty and charity, an evil world could not have too much cruelty and hatred. He is making a moral statement. I'm not sure if he's telling us how things are, or warning us of what could come. But I am sure he has not compromised his vision. He has been brave and strong, and made a film that fully reflects the pain of his own feelings. And his actors have been remarkably courageous in going all the way with him.In his own defense here at Cannes, von Trier has described himself "the greatest director in the world." Well, if Le Film Francais says he is merde, what can he be expected to say? He is certainly one of the most heroic directors in the world, uncompromising, resolute. He goes all the way and takes no prisoners. Do I believe his film "works?" Would I "recommend" it? Is it a "good" film? I believe von Trier doesn't care how I or anyone else would reply to those questions. He had the ideas and feelings, he saw into the pit, he made the film, and here it is.
¶Who is the Antichrist?
¶
The Secret NASA-Parsons-Aleister Crowley-Von Braun-U-Boat-Titan Rocket-Jules Verne-UFO-Illuminati-Far Side of the Moon-Ivy League-Satanism Connection
¶
The trailer for Von Trier's "Antichrist" (repeated from TIFF #1)
¶
I've just finished watching "Antichrist" and I'm stunned. I'm not sure what it's going to say about me, and in advance of sharing my thoughts my only excuse will be "yeah, but I'm an artist" should any read this and be equally as stunned, in return. For is that it? Are you serious? That's what all the fuss has been about? Because I wasn't offended. I was bored. Perhaps it helps when you can imagine so much worse all on your own for possessing an imagination equal to the task. If like me, you've spent decades turning over rocks and just as long spelunking down dark rabbit holes. Maybe it's all the graphic novels I've read, or living as I do at the base of a mountain just as steep as the climb to the cabin in Eden? For I'm surrounded by old forests and all they contain by way of shadow and light. And it cannot be overstated the impact it has upon one's sensibilities. Nothing about the forest in the film was able to frighten me for being too intimately acquainted with such things; the temporal nature of life all around me and reflected in the changing seasons. If anything the forest was beautifully shot, not scary. So too, the opening B/W sequence - although the director's choice of music sadly distracting; Händel's Rinaldo felt more pretentious than poignant - I don't care if it was used in Farinelli. I'd have tried something lighter like Chopin's Nocturne Op. 9 No. 2. Either way, emotionally speaking, "Antichrist" felt like the decent into Fall. It's got that same melancholy about it, as the days grow colder, shorter, darker; bleaker. Ie: you can actually feel how depressed the director must have been. I mean, there's the movie - and then there's that, which is like a separate thing unto itself. And it gave me two different ways to feel about the film. 1. I'm not afraid of what seems to frightens Lars von Trier, and I don't have his issues, such as I perceive them. But I can't fault him for that; I know he also suffers from bouts of depression. Maybe it's an occupational hazard, he is from Denmark after all. And to that extent, the melancholy reminded me of Woody Allen's "September" with Mia Farrow, Sam Waterston and Dianne Wiest. I'll always remember the look on Farrow's face when she opened the door and saw them. And how the house felt in the final moments of the film when everyone was gone or leaving. 2. And then there's the movie Antichrist - not the director, but the film he made. Maybe you had a great idea. Maybe it was deep and richly layered, with metaphors and similes and all that stuff. Unfortunately, it didn't make onto the screen. What did, is as stillborn as the deer's fetus. And whatever was planted in the garden, doesn't grow any higher than the grass around the cabin. It's a collection of ideas, unevenly rendered and which fail to come together in a meaningful way - as I didn't care about anyone except the little boy who died at the start. I wasn't invested and so my viscera wasn't really engaged. The graphic violence left me feeling detached if anything. True, it wasn't always "nice to look at" but I didn't fast-forward, either. I watched the movie in its entirety - the embedded time clock at the top of the screen as fast as the plot was slow. Does that make me jaded? Is this what happens after three seasons of Dexter? Or watching Tarantino movies? I don't feel jaded. But regardless, I'm stunned the movie was able to generate the response it has - as graphic stuff aside, there's not enough there to get upset about or conversely, to praise. It doesn't suck, but it's not great either. It's just a tree without any fruit on it - unless you count the opening shot of the little boy falling out of the window. That was my favorite shot; but then, I cared about the little guy. P.S. I didn't find it misogynist. This will best explain why... http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/lars-von-trier-wo men-and-me-1763851.html Now, if only he'd managed to tell that story instead of this one.
I've just finished watching "Antichrist" and I'm stunned. I'm not sure what it's going to say about me, and in advance of sharing my thoughts my only excuse will be "yeah, but I'm an artist" should any read this and be equally as stunned, in return. For is that it? Are you serious? That's what all the fuss has been about? Because I wasn't offended. I was bored. Perhaps it helps when you can imagine so much worse all on your own for possessing an imagination equal to the task. If like me, you've spent decades turning over rocks and just as long spelunking down dark rabbit holes. Maybe it's all the graphic novels I've read, or living as I do at the base of a mountain just as steep as the climb to the cabin in Eden? For I'm surrounded by old forests and all they contain by way of shadow and light. And it cannot be overstated the impact it has upon one's sensibilities. Nothing about the forest in the film was able to frighten me for being too intimately acquainted with such things; the temporal nature of life all around me and reflected in the changing seasons. If anything the forest was beautifully shot, not scary. So too, the opening B/W sequence - although the director's choice of music sadly distracting; Händel's Rinaldo felt more pretentious than poignant - I don't care if it was used in Farinelli. I'd have tried something lighter like Chopin's Nocturne Op. 9 No. 2. Either way, emotionally speaking, "Antichrist" felt like the decent into Fall. It's got that same melancholy about it, as the days grow colder, shorter, darker; bleaker. Ie: you can actually feel how depressed the director must have been. I mean, there's the movie - and then there's that, which is like a separate thing unto itself. And it gave me two different ways to feel about the film. 1. I'm not afraid of what seems to frightens Lars von Trier, and I don't have his issues, such as I perceive them. But I can't fault him for that; I know he also suffers from bouts of depression. Maybe it's an occupational hazard, he is from Denmark after all. And to that extent, the melancholy reminded me of Woody Allen's "September" with Mia Farrow, Sam Waterston and Dianne Wiest. I'll always remember the look on Farrow's face when she opened the door and saw them. And how the house felt in the final moments of the film when everyone was gone or leaving. 2. And then there's the movie Antichrist - not the director, but the film he made. Maybe you had a great idea. Maybe it was deep and richly layered, with metaphors and similes and all that stuff. Unfortunately, it didn't make onto the screen. What did, is as stillborn as the deer's fetus. And whatever was planted in the garden, doesn't grow any higher than the grass around the cabin. It's a collection of ideas, unevenly rendered and which fail to come together in a meaningful way - as I didn't care about anyone except the little boy who died at the start. I wasn't invested and so my viscera wasn't really engaged. The graphic violence left me feeling detached if anything. True, it wasn't always "nice to look at" but I didn't fast-forward, either. I watched the movie in its entirety - the embedded time clock at the top of the screen as fast as the plot was slow. Does that make me jaded? Is this what happens after three seasons of Dexter? Or watching Tarantino movies? I don't feel jaded. But regardless, I'm stunned the movie was able to generate the response it has - as graphic stuff aside, there's not enough there to get upset about or conversely, to praise. It doesn't suck, but it's not great either. It's just a tree without any fruit on it - unless you count the opening shot of the little boy falling out of the window. That was my favorite shot; but then, I cared about the little guy. P.S. I didn't find it misogynist. This will best explain why... http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/lars-von-trier-wo men-and-me-1763851.html Now, if only he'd managed to tell that story instead of this one.
Does this have distribution yet? I can't wait to see it. I'm worried that this and a lot of the other dark, disturbing, original films shown at festivals this year--Enter the Void, The White Ribbon, Vengeance, Un Prophete--won't be released to mass audiences. Unfortunately, there are a lot of film buffs that don't have the means to go to the festivals showing these challenging films, and although Netflix will eventually be an option, I'd be disappointed if I couldn't see the films on 35.
So I'm going to go ahead and assume this won't be coming to my little hick town cinema.
Breaking the Waves - The best movie, which needs to be seen only once.
I'm not even sure what I think of the film, to be honest. It's extremely disturbing and, similar to your own comments, I'm not sure I'll be able to forget it even if I wanted to. But I can't decide whether it's a "good" movie or a disastrous one. In any case, I'd say it's an impacting one -- and maybe that's all that matters?
I really should see Antichrist before I open my yap, but oh well (and I'm in part responding to Marie Haws' shrug directed at the offense level):
Maybe Antichrist if offensive because it's so damn Catholic. Or Puritan? You mention Bosch, but Milton also "saw into the pit," and there's some pretty stomach-churning stuff in Paradise Lost. And while Satan gets the best lines, there is little doubt that when Milton looked down he saw nothing but pride, and that is a terrible thing to see. Von Trier seems--and of course I'm shooting in the dark here--also to have been terrified, so much so that he did just what you described: Imagined the world as if Satan had not infected it but created it. The result is a wound, one big wound. And Marie, you could be right: such evil is boring--"banal," as Hannah Arendt famously put it--because it's a common thing, one that lives only to fester.
(I keep thinking of The Last Temptation of Christ--which also offended, but in a diametrically opposed fashion. It is a movie I love, my favorite Act of Contrition after Kirk Douglas' at the end of Detective Story. Imagine Scorsese and von Trier doing some kind of Catholic Grindhouse II. They'd be screaming in the streets.)
Hi Roger,
I read that von Trier is making a sanitized version of his film for American release. Is this correct? If that's the case, then I will wait until I can see it in its full form, however long that takes.
Ebert: Not that I've heard of.
This of course was an interesting "reading" of the film; however, what I'm left with after seeing it (once) is a sense that it is much more about (men and) women.
If you look at the lettering of the title, you will notice that the last letter is written combined with a female symbol. Moreover, you might want to pay additional attention at the end of the film - the "unnatural humans" that you are referring to are actually (relatively) natural looking women.
Anywise, I can't recall ever anticipiating a movie so eagerly as this one. During the viewing and immediately afterwards, I was relatively satisfied, but I was not blown away as I had hoped I would be. But what actually happened is that it stayed with me and grew and developed; it kinda like feels like the whole thing stayed pretty much present my head. Almost as if I could replay it whole in my mind; I don't know how to explain it better. A part of it must be the stunning visuals, but another part is probably the fact that it deals with things that I (we) have been dealing with as adults for some years...
As for the genital mutilation etc, the big deal that is being made of it is preposterous. Cries and Whispers was released like, half a century ago and it has been hailed as a classic ever since. It even triumphed at the Academy Awards. The reactions among the Cannes crowd maybe say more about the Cannes crowd and the festival itself than about the film.
I, as myself (which is, among other things, a largely heterosexual adult male (who used to be religious, although I wouldn't put much of an emphasis on that aspect of the movie these days - maybe I'm wrong)) seem to be rather frightened of the same things as the director. And I do think that these things are controversial; always have been.
"If you have to ask what a film symbolizes, it doesn't."
You've said this before. What if a viewer understands that a film is symbolic but for one reason or another is unable to tap into its symbolism due to age, ignorance or personal circumstance? Does the film's inability to connect with one person's reading make it a failure, or does it make the person reading the film correctly a success?
Ebert: Entirely in terms of the individual watching.
I hope it comes to my town. Any movie this profound should be seen, even if it is an unbearable experience.
Ebert: Now that's an interesting way of putting it.
My prejudice about this film is that it is prob. not as good as this review. Which for what ever reason I think is one of your best. Von Trier probably read it and said--"Yes, that is what I meant. I just didn't know it."
I'm more interested in people's reactions than the actual film.It brings out a certain group of viewers, ones willing to write paragraphs knowing or not how people could care less.
Sweet fancy Moses. Speaking as someone who was disturbed beyond words after reading Pet Semetary, I can guarantee after reading your multiple descriptions of the film that I will not see it. That's not a judgment of the film, only my admission that I am a wuss when it comes to onscreen (or apparently 'in page') violence.
If his message is that mankind is more based in sin than good, he has wasted a lot of time and money. Two hours of CNN daily will put this film to terminal shame when it comes to making that point. It has to be easier to disturb than inspire, or else we wouldn't be re-imagining Halloween 2, a movie no one wanted imagined in the first place.
Mr. Ebert what is the last movie that inspired you in that 'It's A Wonderful Life' sort of way? And how many movies like Antichrist have you seen since then? I cannot cast stones at artists work, it's their art and their voice. I just wish more artists would give us something that makes us cry with joy, not fear. They would corner that market more quickly I think.
Ebert: "It's a Wonderful Life" movies are much more rare.
I live in France, and for some marketing reason, a certain number of films often come to cinemas here long before they come out in the States (I guess these are film made in Europe or with European support). The last few Woody Allen movies worked like that. Anyhow, more to the point, thanks to this I saw both Broken Embraces and Antichrist a few months ago at almost exactly the same time they were playing at Cannes.
Regarding Antichrist, I don't quite know what to say...my reactions while seeing it were mixed: on the one hand, admiration of Von Trier's striking photography, and his general audacity. On the other hand: I admit that I knew of the "problematic" scenes before seeing the film, but even so I wasn't prepared for some of the more extreme moments (particularly the first violent scene after Gainsbourg knocks Dafoe unconscious). I'm a very open and curious person regarding movies, very willing to diverge from the mainstream (and I've seen some of the most violent movies in my sixteen years), but during the second half of Antichrist I was just keeping my eyes half shut. I can take even that kind of violence, but it did in a way distract me from what was a very intriguing story. Coming out of it I didn't quite know what to think. I tried to consider it bearing in mind the biblical angle you suggested, and I guess that makes sense. What Von Trier tried to do was quite fascinating (the more I think about it) and definitely worth seeing. I guess my immediate reaction was to be in defence of the movie.
A day or two after, the film had settled, and I had a pretty definite feeling about it (at least it felt definite at the time), which was that the film just didn't make it. I formulated my opinion in the following way: I felt that the overwhelming despair, pain, unpleasantness and violence in the film did not have a strong enough "story" (or theme, a general backround) to back them up and justify it all. Despite the sincerity with which it was made, and its intensity, I was sad to say that something there just wasn't right. The word "gratuitous" comes to mind, but I don't usually think of that word in the context of a film that I'm nearly tempted to call brilliant! For I admire it nonetheless. As you can tell, I'm still rather perplexed and (thinking about it now) not completely sure as to what I really think about Antichrist, and what I *should* think of it, as a so called artistic movie person... But I think the opinion I just stated is the one I'd stick with. Still it can be hard deciding how you feel about a movie, can't it? I'll be interested in reading your official review. A bientôt!
As a med student, I probably won't get to see this film for a long, long while. But what you describe sounds compelling.
I was originally going to ask whether you felt this film was depressing, but I found your answer in comments on your original blog entry from Cannes. So a new question: You mentioned that the French reaction was strongly negative. Were their reasons the same as ones in negative North American/Anglo reviews?
"So too, the opening B/W sequence - although the director's choice of music sadly distracting; Händel's Rinaldo felt more pretentious than poignant - I don't care if it was used in Farinelli. I'd have tried something lighter like Chopin's Nocturne Op. 9 No. 2"
Yeah so go a head and direct your own movie then. Criticize the movie for what it is, not what you thought it should have been. Just because you would have done it differently doesn't make it deficient.
Criticism 101 lady.
Okay, this sounds fascinating.
Why show a mirror world that is more cruel than our own? If Trier were to subsequently create a film called "Christ," would it be equally cruel?
Do we necessarily live in either iteration of the world? Or the middle of the spectrum?
Is the bible in some way toned down or is cruel as shown?
I haven't seen this movie yet but my mind is already... aflutter from what I've read so far.
Nuts to this Festival and waiting crap!
Come to Chicago now, please "Antichrist!" Unedited too, maybe?
If I keep reading about it, I'll go cuckoo. I've convinced my student peers - english, education, art, business students - that this movie will be worth their while. Now, if only it'd stop with the teasing...
I can't help but think about "Chaos," the brutal movie that Ebert sufficiently slammed a couple years ago. The battle between him and the director of that movie was so vehement that I couldn't help but rent the damn thing, and haven't forgotten it since, but that's not a "good" unforgettable. It's unforgettable in a brutal way, the violence bordering on pornographic, dripping from a tired movie that is well worth the zero stars it earned.
The discussion of this film has me equally curious - although I wonder, what are the fundamental differences if this is unbearable, and full of despair, and the same can be said for "Chaos?" What would the difference be? One is more "artsy" in its brutality? It is memorable due to some sort of quality instead of shock value, or is it shocking? I look forward to seeing "Antichrist" for myself.
Ebert: This is a good and perhaps imponderable question. I think "Antichrist" has a larger idea behind it.
I didn't originally read above wall of text, but scrolling down I saw: [i]the embedded time clock at the top of the screen as fast as the plot was slow.[i]
Did you really download a [i]screener[/i] and think the displayed time was a part of the movie? I wonder what sort of value you thought [i]that[/i] was supposed to have for the movie.
@Paul. I like the comparison to Paradise Lost. Do you have the motivation to write something more in-depth? Because that sounds really interesting and could be a great blog in itself.
After seeing the movie, I was left with a lot of questions that were left unaswered. I didn't find it confusing to follow, I just firmly beleive there is something Lars is not communicating.
And that's fine...we all need to draw our own conclusions and form our own opinions about art. I like Todd McCarthy's (Variety) quote, but I think he and most people will suffer the same fate.
Also, to draw comparisons to a biblical tale is to miss the point. It's a guide, but its also a red herring or a safety blanket for Lars. My conclusions of the film is that it is a personal vendetta against women (or one woman), hence the last 't' in the anti christ artwork is a symbol of a woman. I didn't find it disturbing to watch, just uncomfortable. That's my take on it
Ebert: Von Trier has a rep as a misogynist.
On the subject of emotionally-provocative films, I was wondering what is your opinion of Gasper Noe's "Enter the Void"?
Ebert: See TIFF #3.
Unbearable Experience? I should pay money for that? I get all I need, free, in the daily news.
I'm really looking forward to this year's festival as it seems to be one of the strongest that I've ever joined. This will be the seventh year that my wife and I will attend. For anyone remotely close to Toronto, getting tickets is easy via the TIFF website. We usually advance order 10-packs and then use the website to purchase individual tickets to fill any gaps in our days.
We were lucky enough to get tickets to "Antichrist" for opening night (tomorrow). "Dancer in the Dark" and "Breaking the Waves" are films that have remained with me since first viewing -- "Antichrist" sounds like it will join the list. Re-watching either film provokes a mental and physiological reaction that is usually reserved for 'real life' events; proof that these films weigh heavier than most.
Interesting that Herzog can provoke the same reaction in me (I also have tickets for both of his films this year). Perhaps it's not a coincidence that there are a few different articles talking about this year’s festival that mention Von Trier and Herzog in the same paragraph.
Note to anyone going to TIFF - the special events can be one of the best bets. A few years ago, we saw "Nanook of the North" accompanied by Inuit throat singers. It was one of the highlights that year.
If my films are in fact the most idiotic films you've ever seen, shouldn't they be considered a monumental achievement? Stupidity is such a significant aspect of the human condition (particularly in the modern western world) so how can they not be staggeringly important films, given your statement?
Ebert: Some lf them are nowhere near idiotic enough.
Nor am I, to believe this post is from Rob Schneider, you troll.
I only posted it to link this:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070507/COMMENTARY/70507001
EBERT: This is a good and perhaps imponderable question. I think "Antichrist" has a larger idea behind it.
Now that you have also mentioned Von Trier as a misogynist, it becomes even more imponderable. If I remember correctly, the director's defense of "Chaos" was that it was a "cautionary" tale, and the film was specific and intentional in being misogynistic. Strange, putting young women through hell to somehow prevent women from being put through hell in "real life."
Religion would indeed make "Antichrist" automatically aim higher, but I could imagine some would argue that "Chaos" is grounded in reality, and thus, it aims higher.
I have no doubt that "Antichrist" is a superior film, but the fact that a piece of drivel like "Chaos" and this film are bound so closely by their prodding nature makes the comparison interesting. Perhaps have a film class watch and compare, back to back . . . or maybe that instructor would immediately be fired for being deranged.
Disclaimer: I am not defending Chaos. Do not make the mistake of seeing it. Do, however, recommend it to an enemy. They will not only be mentally stained, but will avoid you in the hallway at work.
Ebert: You wonder how many viewers can be depended on to get the message.
t wrote on September 9, 2009 3:49 PM -
"Yeah so go a head and direct your own movie then. Criticize the movie for what it is, not what you thought it should have been. Just because you would have done it differently doesn't make it deficient. Criticism 101 lady."
T, eh? Is that you, von Trier? :)
The director's choice of music in the opening scene, distracted me. Händel's Rinaldo is pretty heavy stuff, and when paired-up with a couple having sex while their little boy falls out a window to his death, well... sorry, but I can totally go Bugs Bunny on it!
Kill the Wabbit! Kill the Wabbit!
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/430148/whats_opera_doc/
And the minute that cartoon popped into my head (and it did) it was followed by the thought - had he used something "like" Chopin's Nocturne Op. 9 No. 2. instead, etc, etc.
I'm an artist and that's how my mind works; sue me. I'm quick to free-associate and why I wrote what I did. It's an honest reaction to his film. My reaction - not yours. It's what that piece of music made me think and feel. It struck me as pretentious which pulled me out of the moment and allowed my mind to wander for finding it all so MELODRAMATIC - just like a bloated Wagnerian Opera, hello Bugs Bunny! :)
And I doubt that was his intention. But music can be a tricky thing I know, as what works for one, doesn't necessarily work for another. Point is, I didn't want to be pulled out of the scene by it, and I was. So naturally and that being the case, of course I'd have preferred it had he used something lighter - like Chopin - but not literally.
You must like Händel a lot. :)
Interesting guy, Jack Parsons. Richard Hoagland makes the case that the good folks at Never A Straight Answer are still into occult beliefs and practices today. Appropriate I suppose because 'occult' is an astronomy term with a benign meaning: "hidden". Literally speaking, Jesus taught occult philosophy because he "expounded on things hidden". Only in later modern times has the word occult become associated with the demonic. Strange that NASA should still be planning missions based around ancient Egyptian astrology and such though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiBSHcZ5lkI&feature=PlayList&p=62DD161CD45974AA&index=0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHeoSGOgO5k&feature=PlayList&p=B0412C0C3C56BC58&index=0
http://www.enterprisemission.com/
This is less a comment about Lars Von Trier or "Anti-Christ" than it is about Roger. I've spent the last 12 years reading his website religiously. Initially, it was because of a shared love of movies. Over time, though, my fascination with Roger's reviews has had more to do with the wealth of life experience he brings to them...that, along with a formidable intelligence and beautiful prose, something rarely found anywhere, let alone movie reviews. And I say this as someone who's often disagreed with his opinions. I often wonder what kind of world we'd live in if Roger Ebert applied his gifts to other subjects...politics, for example. I dare say it would be a better one.
So here I am, a Torontonian eagerly anticipating TIFF, and it occurs to that there is no one attending this festival that I would be as curious to meet as Roger. I recall there is a place he visits when he comes here. I would love to know where that place is, if for no other reason than to possibly bump into him and say my life is richer because of his reviews, no matter how right or wrong I think they may be.
Ebert: I used to stop in at the Coffee Mill on Yorkville of a morning, but given the deplorable fact that I can no longer drink coffee or anything else, it's lost its charm. Try the cabbage roll.
is this film going to be rated nc-17 or unrated? Sounds to me that this film is intented for Adults only.
Ebert: It sure is. Will probably go out unrated.
I've heard about Von Trier's misogynistic tendencies in relation to other films. A friend of mine in England, a Von Trier virgin before seeing Anti-Christ, said that the misogyny here is slight in comparison to the general misanthropy throughout.
However, this is the first I've seen of the film's logo, which is somewhat disturbing in and of itself.
movies like "Antichrist" seem to defy the terms "good" or "bad" in my opinion. its sort of like Irreversible, and Funny People, and some others.
i never know what to think about films like these. it makes me re-evaluate the way i watch films and so in a way i guess its a good exercise as a viewer to see a film such as this.
So, Mr. Ebert . . . who cares less about your opinion: David Lynch or Lars von Trier? (Admission: a lot of movies bore me so I respond to directors who go all out, even if the resultant effect might not be what they intended.)
I saw the film last night and to me it was a masterpiece, though mainly for personal reasons that may not be shared by many. Its hard to really go into what I loved about this movie without spoilers, however I will refrain from doing so. What I can say is that this movie has many different levels, ranging from problems that many of us deal with in our daily lives all the way to superstition, surrealism, and even the supernatural. On the most "realistic/relateable" level the He character struggles with an interesting issue that many people may have faced, especially therapists. His wife, the She character is suffering from incredible grief from their loss, and he decides to take her on as his patient and treats her less and less as a wife and more as a patient as the movie unfolds. This makes the He character very complex as he is not dealing with their loss, hes trying to be the strong one for her, which in itself I believe made him start to lose his grip on reality caused by the pressure of trying to help his wife and simultaneously stuff down his own feelings. I saw this movie as a tale of a descent into madness more than I saw it as a biblical reference. True Eden obviously has that meaning and the symbolism to the bible is definitly there, however I saw the movie as having more in common with the Shining as anything else. Which is why I said at the beginning that this movie works on so many different levels, the character development for both He and She is incredibly well written and shown on screen, the bending of reality into the world of the supernatural, etc. The movie takes a lot from many before it and does a great job of mixing them together in a way that feels very original. I have many things Id love to comment on storywise that I thought were exceptional, however in the interest of not giving it away I'll stop here.
Roger, having not yet seen a Von Trier film, can you recommend one or more of his films I should watch beforehand? Also, if we do get Antichrist uncut in the States, is there a film that would be a good preparation for it? Netflix is no longer offering In the Realm of the Senses, but I have seen some strange and violent, 'trangressive', if you will, films such as Liquid Sky and The Fourth Man.
Ebert: His best, IMO, is "Breaking the Waves."
Thomas Ryan wrote on September 9, 2009 7:00 PM -
"Did you really download a screener and think the displayed time was a part of the movie? I wonder what sort of value you thought that was supposed to have for the movie."
Wha..?
No, of course not. To the extent I noticed the time while watching the movie though, speaks to how bored I was; the clock running as fast as the plot was slow, chuckle!
I recently watched "Miss Potter" again with Renée Zellweger. I was inspired to, after visiting the website for "Creation" - as they share a similar sensibility; namely, a sense of wonder and awe of the little things in life. And Miss Potter is a slow movie in the very best sense - they don't rush you, you're given plenty of time to appreciate everything.
Ie: I'm perfectly happy and content to watch a quiet little film.
Antichrist felt slow because I was personally bored. It might move much however faster for someone else.
There seems to be some confusion out there in regards to the level of violence Anti Christ has and its entertainment value...
Reading between the lines with some of the comments, I sense their is an expectation of titilation.
Readers who have not seen it and expecting the second coming of 'Salo' & company, this is not that type of film. Think a dour 'Misery' featuring a talking fox and other 'wise' animals.
Oh darn, now everyone's going to go out and rent Salo. You can't win.
Well, what is this film's title? What *is* the film? Is it "Antichrist", as you spell it, or "Antichris♀", as the poster indicates? Because if it's the latter, Roger, and Von Trier's work really does assert (as the current Wikipedia plot summary holds) that "women are inherently evil", then mightn't that provide an explanation for why the film left such an impression on you?
To wit: may this film be the Worst Film Ever Made?
It certainly isn't the least competently produced. But doesn't that only magnify the evil? Many serial killers, I'll bet, have personally and directly murdered more people than Hitler or Stalin ever did, but because those two dictators caused so many deaths while wielding immense power so competently, we first point to them when asked to identify the worst humans that ever lived.
Certainly "Chaos" is too pathetic a movie to warrant such a title. "Plan 9 from Outer Space"? Isn't that a bit like calling a homeless bum the worst human ever?
But "Antichris♀"? Based on what I've read, it strikes me as as solid a nomination as any.
What do you think the chances are of Charlotte Gainsbourg getting a best actress Oscar nomination? I honestly can't think of any actress whose given as much to a role (with the possible exception of Divine from "Pink Flamingos").
Ebert wrote: I think "Antichrist" has a larger idea behind it. Von Trier has a rep as a misogynist.
I've been thinking about these two comments since reading them.
I agree: I also think Antichrist has a larger idea behind it. But I had to go looking for it when I couldn't find it on the screen. And my searching led to the article I'd earlier linked to:
"Lars von Trier, Women and Me"
Is 'Antichrist' anti-women? Heidi Laura, the controversial new film's official 'Misogyny Consultant', has the last word
"Could you write a sustained argument on the evil nature of woman, based on all available Western sources? This was Lars von Trier's proposition to me, a journalist and former university researcher in cultural history. It was July 2007, he was about to finish the manuscript for his film Antichrist, and he needed me to go through as much material as I could and come up with all the facets of misogyny.
The subject is as deep and wide as human civilisation itself. There is no age without its anxiety about women, and the texts and images range from sophisticated and witty to gruesome.
Call me evil, but I think the dark shadows of civilisation deserve to be seen and reflected on rather than ignored. As I moved through the sources, I realised that the age-old dichotomy between supposedly rational man and supposedly wild and uncontrollable woman, ruled by impulse and desire, has never left us.
Sources were hardly scarce: Max Weininger's early-20th-century bio-psychological description of woman as not in control of herself was close to Nietzsche's cynical reflections on the cunning nature of woman, who wants to control men, and therefore must be controlled in turn. "You are going to women? Do not forget the whip!", says one of his aphorisms.
The disturbing texts from the witch-craze of the 17th century were inspired by older Christian texts and the Bible. Renaissance hatred of powerful women – John Knox wrote a book on the unnatural state of things in England under Elizabeth I, called The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women – drew many ideas from figures such as the patriarch Chrysostomus, who claimed that woman's beauty was just "pretty colours" disguising the "delicious poison and natural evil" within. Condemning women as witches or heretics grew from a basic fear of the incontrollable power of women. Deep anxieties about women also find expression in mythological figures such as the Furies, Pandora, the Sirens; or the many witches in European fairy-tales, whose goal is to deceive and then devour man.
Anxiety about the treacherous nature of women could also be voiced as beautifully as by Shakespeare in his Sonnets for the Black Lady: "For I have sworn thee fair and thought thee bright/ Who art as black as hell, as dark as night" – a text that is quoted in Antichrist.
The male authors all seemed to agree on one thing: woman is intrinsically more connected to nature than man. This is why man rightfully fears woman: just like nature, she is beyond control.
The indictment against women I composed for Von Trier sums up the many misogynistic views all the way back to Aristotle, whose observations of nature led him to conclude that "the female is a mutilated male". Should we avoid staring into that abyss or should we acknowledge this male anxiety, perhaps even note with satisfaction that women are mostly described as very powerful beings by these anxious men?
The American feminist Camille Paglia sees men as both attracted and afraid of the mysterious fertility and groundedness of woman. The dark realm of woman could be seen as closer to uncontrollable nature; this is the realm of the forest, where mythological creatures abound. And this is the realm that Antichrist leads its audience into, as old images and ideas are transformed into a wondrous, cinematic universe by Von Trier's imagination." - Heidi Laura. link: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/lars-von-trier-wo%20men-and-me-1763851.html
That's when the penny dropped, that's when I "got it" - this is the film he was trying to make.
But someone else had to explain it to me, even though I'd sat through the entire thing without interruption (I was alone in my apartment at the time) and thus able to give my complete undivided attention. All I saw were scattered ideas without a unifying thread. And I've watched all those Joseph Campbell shows and read Erica Jong - I've got her illustrated book Witches, which touches upon similar myths and symbols; the penny still didn't drop.
Some people believe that Art should be challenging and that the more it is, the greater it is.
I think great Art makes you feel something and gets to you think - but that doesn't mean you have to go about it with hammer. Unless you feel anything less than a punch in the face won't make a deep enough impression. But upon whom, a woman? Or is the main target male? And because men are so clueless and insensitive, anything less than a hammer to the back of the head won't get their attention?
Again; three seasons of Dexter. I don't shock easily. But I'm not typical of my gender either and I know it. I loved "Pusher" - a brilliant yet violent 1996 Danish crime film by director Nicolas Winding Refn, for example.
However "Antichrist" is not likely to appeal to most women; it's too graphic. Men will be more inclined to check it out. And if they go away thinking it was actually about misogyny - well, I suppose anything's possible. But it's also possible to tell this story without getting lost in the pit you're looking into for thinking it can't touch you.
I never knew that much about Lars, but then I did some digging:
"Lars von Trier was raised by nudist Jewish Communist parents who did not allow much room in their household for "feelings, religion, or enjoyment," as von Trier later said. The young Lars found in cinema an outlet to the outside world through which he could learn about subjects otherwise forbidden from his study by his parents. His mother revealed on her deathbed in 1995 that the man he thought was his father was not. After an initial meeting with his real father, his real father has refused to speak to him. After these revelations von Trier rebelled against his past and converted to Catholicism." - www.1worldfilms.com
Maybe that explain his approach to film-making? He's driven by his issues, phobias and ideas about Art, while striving to be an original (all his films tend to follow a pattern) but it doesn't make him a misogynist; just in your face and hamfisted.
In the end, I think Antichrist is a well-intentioned failure. And because I don't think men can't tell our stories for us. They don't see women clearly enough. He had to "ask" a woman about the history of misogyny; that's part of the problem right there - that a man needed to ask.
"All women's history is hidden to some degree." - Mary Harron, the director of American Psycho.
If you really wanted to make a movie about a misogyny, there is it. Film the answer to the question "why is that so?"
I´m going to see "Antichrist" with some friends of mine on saturday, although I´m a bit undecided about Lars von Trier.
Example. After I had seen "Dogville", I thought: Maybe it would have been better for him to direct a straight S-M-Porn-Movie, to get this stuff out of his system and move on with more interesting films in the spirit of "Breaking the waves" or "Idiots" - because to me "Dogville" was a hollow bore that only pretended to be a tale about the moral issues of mankind.
The more essays I read about "Antichrist", yours included, dear Mr. Ebert, the more I´m afraid I´l come to the same conclusion again on saturday. We´ll see.
I heard sanitized version will be released in South Korea, but they said even sanitized version is still disturbing and challenging. Anyway, I am ready for the movie, and I am very curious about how people around me will react.
Antichrist is a panopticon of biblican suffering, an essay about the impossibility of salvation. Some critics compared it to Werner Herzog's "view of nature". But, I think, they are absurd. Werner Herzog sees the nature as an unfinished creation full of murder and decay but he always emphazies on the fascination that comes along with it. Antichrist,however, doesn't know amazement, it just knows the fear of the omnipresence of chaos. The antichrist becomes manifest in the failure of a stable relationship to the outside world.
A critic wrote: ,,Deep down, Von Trier may know that his film can't sustain all the religious allegorical complexities he pruports it to have." What do you think about it?
I have yet to see the picture, but I have been wondering for some time now what the "meaning" of the film is. I don't know that von Trier would make a snuff film just for the hell of it. I always assumed it had a deeper meaning. The title of the film affirmed this.
Mild curiosity about the controversy has given way to great expectations. Not that I feel any way about the picture yet, nor do I expect it to be transcendentally great; I just want to see what it symbolizes. My money is on Ebert's theory. Although I have yet to see the picture, it seems to make perfect sense. Von Trier seems to be a film maker that would use this sort of logic. Although, there is certainly the aspect of misogyny, which seemed evident to me upon my first viewing of the trailer.
We'll just have to wait and see.
Ebert: Question: Is misogyny as valid as feminism for a director?
Since you're there anyway, you'll be asking your Canadian chums about the quality of their health care, no?
Incidentally, the Blue Jays magic number is 51.
Von Trier's spirituality has always kind of bothered me. I should mention that my experience with his films is relatively light (I've seen Breaking The Waves, Dancer In The Dark, Boss Of It All, The Kingdom, and Dogville). But being the Prankster that he is, I can't help but feel as though it's a put on.
It really came in focus for me in Breaking The Waves. He made Watson's convictions a matter of madness not faith (though I will concede that the line there is exceedingly thin). By making God literally be just a big scary voice that chastised her, it hamstrung the movie for me. Couple with the fact that The Boss Of It All is kind of an obvious satire of religion, I feel uneasy considering Von Trier in terms of religion.
And it's not as though I demand movies take religion seriously. I'm Catholic but I can enjoy a movie that comes as a serious artistic statement from an Atheist . Just like I hope most Atheists can appriciate a Tarkovsky or Scorsese film.
Let me put it this way, when Bergman declared God a spider I believed him with all my heart. When the bells rang at the end of Breaking The Waves I felt like he was smirking at me.
Ebert: That one got to me.
Dear Miss Marple, thanks for the text by the misogyny consultant lady. I was originally so glad that I had decided to pay attention to the credits. They are rather interesting, and confirm that this was one serious project from one serious man.
I cannot, however, resonate with your reference to Erica Jong. I can't see how her writing might be particularly relevant to any of this. Please please no offense, but it's a bit like saying "you know, I really don't get this Vang Gogh painting, although I am very familiar with the work of my neighbor, who paints ad hoc portraits of tourists."
Now Camille Paglia - that's someone whose reaction to this film I would like to see! By the way I don't understand why this woman is called a feminist - from what I have read by her, she hates women more than myself and Von Trier combined.
Kidding, of course.
Anyway, beside all the things that are taking place in this movie, there is one thing that is consistently and thoroughly (as far as I recall) *not* happening - and that's her asking him how he feels about anything. Loss of their child, for example. Not even before the smashing, drilling and chopping begin, when they're... in love?
I like this movie more and more.
I think that misogyny can be as valid as feminism for a director if he really knows what kind of story he wants to tell.
I still admire Neil LaBute for "The shape of things" - in my opinion it was his own antithesis to his other movie, "In the company of men". To me it seemed as if he was trying to discuss this topic - feminism vs. mysogyny - with himself and the audience in two very different but strangely related movies.
I am a film critic from India and I recently met the actress Sharmila Tagore, who was on the jury in Cannes. She told me that all the women in the jury loved Antichrist while all the men hated it. Mr Ebert Sir, do you think the film's content can instigate a gender divide in the audience?
Ebert: Yes, but I would have bet it cut the other way.
What an intriguing superposition: Darwin's natural selection and the idea of "misogyny" through the ages (aside: can only males be misogynists? and why isn't there an equivalent term for the converse...isn't a "misanthrope" a hater of all humanity, not just men? but I digress...)
A superficial reading of natural selection for sexes might have males either preening to win attention, but then being useless after mating; or males being really devoted providers (i.e., one "gene survival strategy" is to impregnate as many females as possible in hopes that some offspring will survive; another "gene survival strategy" is to exercise direct hands-on personal responsibility to improve the chances that offspring will survive).
Might one female "gene survival strategy" be to use their wiles and their sexuality to trick and flatter males into staying around as protectors; might another female "gene survival strategy" be to use their ability to intimidate men into staying around out of fear of vengeange if they leave?
Perhaps tension between the sexes throughout the ages is inevitable? What "works" to promote the survival of male genes is not necessarily what "works" to promote the survival of female genes (especially if more than one strategy "works" for each)??
...but you see, dear Roger, the supernatural IS literally present in the world—and walking to and fro, and up and down in it.
...these enemies that are conjured up—whether they be enemies of the Right, like Terrorism, Islamofascism—or enemies of the Left, like Bankers, the Insurance Industry, the "Illuminati," and so on—these are not the real enemies.
...it is the same Enemy as ever—He and His cohorts, whose names I dare not mention—and only until we begin to recognize who it is that opposes us, can we begin to resist.
...I shall not see this film. I do not need no see it. But I am glad it was made. I think, after all, that for von Trier, it his his reach for...holiness...
A correction or two on the Jack Parsons clip:
Parsons was an interesting character, and much of the biographical information given is accurate, but as a Third Degree member of the O.T.O., I feel I have to respond to some of the misleading statements in the clip above. First, the O.T.O. is not "satanic," whatever that word means, nor is it a secret organization--many of the rituals, classes, and events offered by its local bodies are open to the public. Also, it is not a "cult." In its contemporary sense, a cult is an organization that takes over a person's life and requires considerable and mandatory devotion of a person's time in its service. Any O.T.O. member can tell you that if you stop showing up to meetings, you're unlikely to even receive a phone call wondering where you've been. On the contrary, the O.T.O. encourages people to follow their own will and avoid blindly following the dogma of others.
Even calling it an "occult" organization, given the negative connotations of that term these days, is misleading. Would it sound as sinister if described as an "hermetic and alchemical philosophical society?" It is descended from organizations such as Freemasonry and the Golden Dawn, hardly sinister groups--at least to people who actually know something about them.
Finally, Parsons was never the leader of the O.T.O.; although he briefly headed the U.S. lodge, he eventually broke with Crowley to form his own organization. It was in this period that he declared himself to be the Antichrist, but this was not a literal claim--it was symbolic of a metaphysical transformation he was undergoing.
Check out www.oto-usa.org for more information on the O.T.O.
Roger, you might as well make clear your opinions of the film. By the time it gets a release, most (but not all) will have forgotten your initial reaction anyway.
"Antichrist" is about the rationality of the irrational, the meaning behind the meaningless, and the logic of illogicality. This is what psychology aims to explore: The contradictory nature of human beings. How we struggle to make sense of the world by combining two opposing forces: science and religion/magic. The fathomable and the inconceivable. The left and the right side of the brain.
The most shocking aspect of the film is that it challenges us to accept this dissonance or disorder.
The word 'misogyny' is an easy way to categorize and dispose of the real controversy in this film and in this world: It is not about men that hate women; It is rather about human beings that loathe unfathomable, irrational aspects of existence. Yet the pursuit to irradicate all meaninglessness is meaningless in itself. Any attempt to do so only leads to more meaninglessness.
He realizes this paradox, but only in the end and at a high price. Some viewers will never accept the existence of evil/meaninglessness. But that doesn't really matter. Meaninglessness doesn't really care if people accept it's existence or not.
"By Miss Marple on September 10, 2009 4:38 AM"
Oh how cute! You remembered my nickname and changed Marie Haws to "Miss Marple" in the wake of all my curiousity-driven digging around online, chuckle! Digging for which I was rewarded, I might add; as I now understand what his movie was "supposed" to be about.
However whatever satisfaction there was to be had and enjoyed for having solved that puzzle, was immediately pushed aside by yet another burst of curiousity! As I don't quite understand what you're asking here:
Ebert: Question: Is misogyny as valid as feminism for a director?
I called my friend Cheryl to ask what she thought you'd meant; she wasn't sure either - as maybe you meant misogyny as a topic or conversely, as a point of view. And so we mused over it for about an hour until at one point and for having digressed by then, Cheryl paused to share the following with me:
Martha Stewart was on David Letterman last night. They did a cooking segment, during which he suddenly asked her -
"Hey Martha, ever been to a steak n shake?"
The audience burst out laughing and in a knowing sort of way. :)
Then it was back to your question! And another 30 minutes went by. In the end, after circling round it and flipping it over like a Rubik's cube, I declared defeat. "I shall I have to ask him."
And so here I am!
P.S. "Festival opener "Creation" - billed as part ghost story, part psychological thriller and part love story about the life of Charles Darwin - launched the festival on a high note Thursday after finding a Canadian distributor earlier this week in Toronto-based upstart D Films.
(Hurray!)
Films already causing waves among insiders include a campy Ethan Hawke vampire film called "Daybreakers." - Cassandra Szklarski, THE CANADIAN PRESS
Ooo, vampires. :)
Hi Roger -
When you say, "If he had named the characters John and Mary, and titled the film "A Nightmare," what conclusions might we have arrived at?" do you mean "John and Mary" as in Christ's parents or "John and Mary" as in very bland generic names? If the former, I have no idea how I might answer your rhetorical question, and if the latter, I think the choice definitely illuminates the way in which this film has reached your subconscious.
Ebert: With the middle name of Joseph, I have never been under the impression that John was the name of Jesus' father...
Hi Roger,
I recently saw 'Antichrist' and wonder how does a critic go about reviewing such a film. The way I see it, this sort of film can only rank at either extreme of the star rating system; either this film is worthy of 4 stars or 0 stars (immoral), which this film is obviously candidate for both.
I look forward to reading your review of this film
Ebert: It definitely falls within that range.
That's why I could never be a film critic, even though I love films and would enjoy writing about them: I'm afraid to scar my mind. Reading reviews of items like Antichrist, Funny Games, and the Saw franchise make me cringe enough, I can't imagine what its like to view such sadism and go home to your wife and children at night whole. I guess I don't have the chops to be a true film critic because of it, but at least I won't have reruns of Salo playing in my mind while I'm playing with my children. How do you do it Roger?
I want to see this SO BAD! According to the wikipedia page for this film Von Trier has already made a censored version (called the 'Catholic' version, interestingly) - but who knows if this is the version that will get distributed here? If so, I will be very mad indeed. Give me the real stuff, I say, I can handle it.
After hearing all the hype about this film and after enjoying many of Von Triers earlier works, I totally braced myself for a grueling experience as I sat down to watch it. I am really sorry and perhaps I am not as smart or aware as Ebert is, but I was completely bored. I found He and She completely unsympathetic characters, the shock sequences totally unecessary and just there to shock, and just did not get it. So I am not an artist, I´m a nurse who works with sick people every day...granted the people in the film are very sick and suffering from a horrible tragedy, but I just could not see them as real people..at least not anyone I have ever met. So then perhaps they were symbolic of something else, as Ebert says, then how should I relate to them? Should`nt I be able to understand why they are acting like they do? Isn´t it the power of a gifted director to take an incomprehensible experience and allow us as the audience to live it and become disturbed by it as well? I have no problem with an unhappy,shocking film when it makes me unhappy and shocked...this just made me look at my watch.
Ebert: Nothing to do with smart or aware. Just a difference of opinion. Still, I don't expect many will be bored by it.
I tend to side with Jay Faulconer. I see enough disturbing behavior and I get more than my fill of sorrow and loathing for the human condition watching the race in the daily grind. I don't need to see this film. I was filled with an intense rage when, as a youngster, came to the concluding pages of The Grapes of Wrath and could not fathom why an author would leave a book to end in this fashion. To me it was like creating the Mona Lisa, and then dabbing in some zits, "because that's the way the world is sometimes." Life runs the gamut from the extremely painful to the wonderfully heroic. But I turn 49 tomorrow. If I die the following day, I wish to die with the memory that being Human was a good thing, despite some our proclivity for embracing damnation.
Regards
Dave
In my opinion, it will not change the impact of the movie if it were to be edited. The scenes or frames that 'could' be cut are of no significance to the outcome on the viewer. The scenes linger (which is good these days) so the implication of what does happen is fully transparent.
So, countries or cities with strict censorship should enjoy/not enjoy the experience just the same.
On another note, I keep making comparisons to Bunuel, and that's probably not fair to Bunuel or Lars, but that last scene on the mountain gave me the same feeling during the last 5 minutes of L'Age D'or, just needed some drums beats. Now, that scene was disturbing...Does anyone share my comparison during those final moments?
@ Marie Haws
Thank you for fixing my tags, they've been bugging me.
Well, I knew that wasn't really what you were trying to say. But I said to myself: is she saying that the movie is as slow as time? Which is either redundant or incorrect, since there are only a few movies that actually do this.
I thought it was a silly thing put into your criticism. But that's okay because I messed up my tags :).
See you around.
Quote...Roger's review of Anatomy of Hell; The Woman makes an offer to The Man. She will pay him good money to watch her, simply watch her, for four nights. He keeps his end of the bargain, but there were times when I would have paid good money to not watch them, simply not watch them....
The Woman believes men hate women, and that gay men hate them even more than straight men, who, however, hate them quite enough. Men fear woman, fear their menstrual secrets, fear their gynecological mysteries, fear that during sex they might disappear entirely within the woman and be imprisoned again by the womb.
I haven't seen Antichrist, but from what I've read I'm reminded of Roger's review of another film (quoted above). Antichrist was directed by a man, Anatomy of Hell was by a woman. That being said, I don't think either of these films are about men or women.
Yet are they attempting to approach similar ideas? Leaving aside for the moment the question 'did they succeed?' Look at the parallels.
-Starting the film with tragedy. Attempted suicide in one, the death of an infant in the other.
-Proceeding to an isolation of the characters. Alone in a room, alone in a cabin.
-Nameless characters. Woman/Man , Him/Her.
-Expressions of hate towards the Other. Humiliation, Violence.
Marshall McLuhan said "Violence, whether spiritual or physical, is a quest for identity. The less identity, the more violence". Both these films, seem to me, to be a quest for identity by their respective directors. Some directors quest, and some explore. To explore means to travel through an unknown terrain in order to familiarize, to quest means to embark on a long and arduous search for something. When you explore, every step and turn fills in the picture. When you quest, nothing is resolved until the object is obtained. I think films like this are not about two separate characters. It's actually only one character, split into two personas. It's an internal battle laid bare between the anima and animus, not of the audience, but of the director.
It's hard for me to enjoy films like this, because the whole point of them is to keep you in that suspended state, waiting for....what? The Holy Grail that the director is supposed to hand you at the end. When they do hand it to you (2001-A Space Odyssey, Castaway) it's a wonderful experience. In those cases they work because the director is not on the quest as the film is being made. When they do not work (Anatomy of Hell, certainly) it is because the director is just as clueless as the audience when it comes to what is being quested for within the film.
Saw "Antichrist". A terrific film.
Very Tarkovsky I thought but maybe I'm alone in thinking that wasn't just an audacious, cheeky middle finger to critics at the end. I understand completely why some cannot watch the movie. I don't feel this in any way makes it bad. It's tough for us to tell them to see the movie either. That would be like He telling She "it's all just in your head." Doesn't make it any easier for them if the film is profound.
Did von Trier know this movie would upset people? Sure. Did he make it for that reason? Absolutely that was one of the reasons. Was he self-conscious about it from the get-go? Wouldn't you be if this is what you were writing? None of that ruined the movie for me because what is there is so haunting... and not just because of the disturbing images. It's provocative on a spiritual level. The idea of irrational fears not being made any less scarier by rational thought is at the heart of the movie's worries... and, alright, films like "It's a Wonderful Life" are much more rare... but don't tell me people are always staring off into the abyss these days either. Not like this. Not when the main Toronto news station featured swooning over George Clooney and Megan Fox all day today.
How does it stack up against other von Trier though? I'd say it's his "Synecdoche, NYK". The lost masterpiece. Lost because audiences didn't get it... or refused to. But his "Europa" and "Breaking the Waves" are greater achievements as films. Still, this is quite the chapter in his legacy. Adds a whole other layer to our view of him as an artist... Err, I guess for some, it stripped a few layers off.
I think society has become too practical, cynical and distant to allow themselves to sink into a film like this. What's all this talk about "nature is Satan's garden"? Must be an art fart. And how offensive this material is. Just like "Knowing"...
Bill wrote on September 10, 2009 7:29 PM
"I have no problem with an unhappy, shocking film when it makes me unhappy and shocked...this just made me look at my watch."
That's how I felt, too!
I couldn't connect emotionally to He and She, despite Charlotte Gainsbourg and Willem Dafoe's courageous performances. And now that I know what Antichrist was meant to be about (misogyny) had I been armed in advance with that information, I still don't think it would have changed anything for me.
Antichrist explained in 46 words, as I understand it:
Men have a love/hate relationship with female power for admiring what they cannot control. This conflict creates fear which gives rise to misogyny; a negative force in the world which has been around for as long as the religion it gave rise to. The end.
Since you've seen the movie, you'll know what I'm referring to when I say:
The penis, deer fetus, talking fox, screw-drill, bolted millstone, blow to the testicles, masturbation, blood ejaculation, fox hole & crow, shovel, female self-mutilation, choking, fire scenes.
Did any of that stuff make you think you were watching a film about misogyny - say, the way "In the Company of Men" is clearly about misogyny?
I've seen that one too by the way, and it's one of the hardest, most challenging movies I've ever sat through in my entire life. I hated the behavior so much. It took a while before I was able to watch Aaron Eckhart in another movie; his "Chad" was so vile.
Roger's Question: Is misogyny as valid as feminism for a director?
A good director with a decent script should be able to make a movie about either, no? :)
Thomas Ryan wrote on September 10, 2009 9:54 PM -
"Well, I knew that wasn't really what you were trying to say. But I said to myself: is she saying that the movie is as slow as time? Which is either redundant or incorrect, since there are only a few movies that actually do this. I thought it was a silly thing put into your criticism. But that's okay because I messed up my tags :)"
I never thought of it that way! As slow as time. They show the seconds in the time clock, and it was speeding along - making me wish the story would too! Instead, I was sitting there on my sofa going: "Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?" - you know, like the proverbial annoying kid in the backseat of a car.
In the past, I always used these guys [ and ] for html code. I never used but that's because the above were used inside Forums like "Television Without Pity" etc. It took me ages to figure out WHY my text wasn't showing up correctly in here! :)
Oh hey, and while we're on the subject - can you click on a link inside a post and have it take you there? I don't know what happened but a few months ago, and save for Roger's links inside his entries, any links posted by a reader are "dead". Ie: I have to copy & paste them into a new browser window, if I want to see a video or read an article, etc.
Is that happening to anyone else? Or did the evil spam filter cut a side deal with the code and in a bid to drive me insane.
Karl-Heinz wrote on September 10, 2009 11:03 PM -
"Marshall McLuhan said "Violence, whether spiritual or physical, is a quest for identity. The less identity, the more violence". Both these films, seem to me, to be a quest for identity by their respective directors. Some directors quest, and some explore. To explore means to travel through an unknown terrain in order to familiarize, to quest means to embark on a long and arduous search for something. When you explore, every step and turn fills in the picture. When you quest, nothing is resolved until the object is obtained. I think films like this are not about two separate characters. It's actually only one character, split into two personas. It's an internal battle laid bare between the anima and animus, not of the audience, but of the director."
OMG! That is brilliant!
And the Gods smile upon us with ironic delight - for when YOU wrote that, and because "I" didn't know who Marshall McLuhan was, and because I'm pathologically curious and thus Googled him - my explorations led me to a YouTube link for Woody Allen's Annie Hall which of course I played!
And it's the scene outside the movie theater with the pontificating professor who knows nothing about Marshall McLuhan, and whom Woody Allen magically pulls into the scene, so that McLuhan can tell him off!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpIYz8tfGjY
The irony: Karl-Heinz + von Triel + Marshall McLuhan + my curiousity = explore not quest = finding Woody Allen clip of Annie Hall featuring Marshall McLuhan! :)
Note: I do think you understand McLuhan's work, by the way, as otherwise you wouldn't have made any sense.
Here are my thoughts following the 9PM screening of “Antichrist” at the Toronto Ryerson Theater:
After months of post-Cannes chatter hinting at the shock quotient delivered in Lars von Trier’s, “Antichrist”, I often found myself thinking, “could this film actually surpass the grotesqueries seen in such films as Gaspar Noe’s, “Irreversible”, Pascal Laugier’s, “Martyrs”, or even “Salo: 100 Days of Sodom”, the 30 year old film by Pier Paolo Pasolini”. Well the answer is, decidedly, no. This is not to say that “Antichrist” does not have it’s moments (it does). What is evident, however, is that the droning chorus of expressed horror by the peanut crunching throngs has, alas, been mostly dubious hyperbole, much like the arrogant psycho-babble of the psychiatrist/husband, the other half of the male/female equation, here, played by Willem Dafoe. I’m sure most of you know the plot: a couple (while having, to say the least, florid sex) lose a child to accidental death. Their guilt and grief
force them to look for some kind of solace, which leads them to their lush, ethereal country getaway (Eden) where they will excorcise their demons, each with his and her agendas, which include the ‘nasty’ and some violent nastiness. What could have been just an exploitation film is often bouyed by Von Trier’s direction, and Anthony Dod Mantle’s (Slumdog Millionaire) eerily, off-kilter cinematography (you often get the feeling that some omniscient being–-antichrist?-–is viewing surrepitiously with adolescent glee the goings-on from a cosmic/underworld telescope). Also, it must be said that Charlotte Gainsbourg (playing a variation on the madonna/whore theme prevalent in Von Trier’s films) gives a pungent and torturous performance, the likes not seen since Ingmar Bergman’s unhinged women of the 60’s and 70’s. But ultimately, it was not the violence/S&M that shocked me (perhaps it should have). What jolted me most was the sudden vision of Willem Dafoe’s erect penis, and perhaps this response is what von Trier intended, knowing that much of the audience for the film would be, like most provincial westerners, people who were raised in bourgeois judeo-christian homes (where violence is more acceptable then sex, pornography is more objectional than war, and the male sex organs are more consciously hidden than the females’, especially in film). One must remember that Von Trier’s most loathed and least successful film, “The Idiots”, a film about catharsis and fakery, was loaded with sexually explicit imagery, which ultimately doomed the film. Von Trier, I am assuming, must have surmised, at one point, that said film would have done better had it included some blood with it’s debauchery. These hypocrisies, I am convinced, are what Von Trier wanted to expose with this new film. In other words, much like the omniscient viewer who’s lens we are forced to see through and, thus, identify with, we, the collective audience, with our manufactured, jaundiced, and
skewed opinions on morality, are the true antichrists. In fact, our moral compass, with all of its exaggerated, self-righteous indignation, is more in league with the devils’, and to Von Trier, we are legion.
I like Mathew D.'s comment about "the worst film ever made." Haven't had a chance to see Antichrist, but I always bring up "Breaking the Waves" when a discussion of "bad" films comes up--certainly, it was well made, thought provoking, and a work of intelligence. But moral relativism is a losing proposition and "bad" can mean more than shoddy or stupid: it can refer to evil. The moral convictions and message of Breaking the Waves are bad and evil--no quotation marks necessary--and to excuse them as art or a director's testing of us or as a smirk is to suspend our moral responsibility (when we should only have been suspending our disbelief). Film viewing can be a serious business, but if so it involves serious decisions and conclusions--art is purposeless if it is "just art." The message of Breaking the Waves is nothing less than that god approves of the rape, torture, and sexual killing of women. That conclusion is manifestly bad, in the strong sense of the word. Am I glad von Trier made me think about this question? Perhaps. Do I regret seeing the film? No. It's value is, as Roger likes to say, in a sense "imponderable." However, the film asked me to face a moral question, and for me the answer to the question is resounding: suggesting that sexual murder submitted to in order to save a man's life is pleasing to god is evil. That seems like an easy one to me, even if the movie is not.
I'll probably end up seeing Antichrist. But I visited the Killing Fields too. That's an unfair conparison--von Trier is no Pol Pot. But I'm saying we have many duties in this life: one of them is to recognize evil in the sense of staring it in the face to learn its qualities. Another is to confront evil in the sense of calling it by its name.
Having not seen the film and only reading your descriptions and interpretations of it, it sounds to me like the director is making an argument for the existence of a benevolent God who is active in this world. By showing just a sampling of the possible imagary of an equivalent world absent God, he is making the case that what beauty, love, sacrifice we do have in our world is because of God.
Just a thought. I'm curious to watch the DVD several months from now.
I've posted an essay on Antichrist on my blog...darwingoestothemovies.blogspot.com. I appreciate your looking at my stuff and your kind comments. This was a tough one, though. And, BTW, I'm taking the 5th on how I managed to view a copy of this film...!
(Sorry for posting this on your blog twice but I was late to realize that this thread would be the best place for this comment.)
@Magnus:
I think the misogyny and gender focus in the film are too blatant (and important) to dismiss, but I agree with you that it can all be seen as symptoms of the larger existential concerns you cited in your post. Meaninglessness, freedom, isolation, death: all forces that manifest, specifically, in different ways. It’s always tempting to existentially over-reduce elements, distill them down to something vague and universal, losing the specificity. And in this case, I think, the gender subject is more the point, looking at the tree rather than blurring the eyes for the whole forest.
You said, “It is rather about human beings that loathe unfathomable, irrational aspects of existence.” But I think that the movie makes great pains to portray one gender’s embodiment of irrationality and the other’s anxiety of that embodiment, which is all about misogyny. Not saying that Von Trier is a misogynist—I don’t think he is—but that he has made art that is in dialogue with this.
But kudos to you for citing an angle that no one I’ve read has much mentioned.
@Mary Haws Sept 11 at 2:56am
Re Marshall McLuhan comments
Canadian's take pride in MM's work and of course the Annie Hall clip is classic. To close the loop, re: Mr. Ebert's TIFF commentary, it is the Toronto film fest, and Marshall McLuhan taught at the University of Toronto!
"If I am right, then von Trier has proceeded with perfect logic."
That comment has me curious. Is logic a valid way to judge or study a religion? Not the logic of its grander claims (floods, fire, brimstone) but of a religion's moral logic.
If so, then Antichrist becomes a tool of studying Christ, for if the Antichrist, or an anti-religion works on a defined logic, then our religion and its key figure should too.
Is Von Trier making a moral statement as you say, or merely showing that in fact, a truly infernal religion could be as perfect in its cruelty as our religion is supposedly perfect in its beauty.
Having not seen it (not playing my town yet), I can't say whether it is a moral tale as you say. To me it seems like its more an excessive exercise in exegesis.
Regardless of what its true nature is, my curiosity is sparked, and that's a fine result for any film I think.
Ebert: Aquinas, the most influential of all theologians, depended on logic. A religion that cannot withstand logic cannot be debated.
Nick H wrote on September 11, 2009 2:45 PM -
"Canadian's take pride in MM's work and of course the Annie Hall clip is classic. To close the loop, re: Mr. Ebert's TIFF commentary, it is the Toronto film fest, and Marshall McLuhan taught at the University of Toronto!"
I did not know that! And I'm sure there's a word for that sort of Ebertonian-trippyness, but I don't know that either. :)
I read Marshall was Canadian though, and went down the rabbit hole over at Wiki, but then kinda got lost. It's pretty deep stuff, eh? But I did learn that he's the dude who made this quote famous:
"The medium is the message." That, I can wrap my head around.
Which of course, is akin to what's partly happening in Antichrist. All these disturbing images are taking on a life of their own, and ironically because Lars von Trier can't control them, anymore than men can control mother-nature - and for the images meaning different things to different people; just like his choice of music.
The medium (violence) has become the message (misogyny.) And I think it transcends the director's original intentions.
I say that, because I believe Lars wanted to make a film about misogyny but he lost control of it for using too much graphic violence to do it, and in the process some misogyny escaped from the pit he was staring into.
And why more than few saw it when the film premiered in Cannes.
If you stare into the sun and then quickly close your eyelids - the sun will stare right back at you for having burned an imagine of itself onto your eyes.
The dark can do the same.
Ebert: Readers, now re-read last two sentences immediately after clicking this.
Ebert wrote: Readers, now re-read last two sentences immediately after clicking this.
CHUCKLE!
And now you've got me free-associating and trying to think of what was the most bizarre episode of the Twilight Zone?! This is gonna bug me for hours!
I know! I'll ask Google and see what happens!
GASP!
"A Stop at Willoughby" - season 1, episode 30
"Opening narration"
"This is Gart Williams, age thirty-eight, a man protected by a suit of armor all held together by one bolt. Just a moment ago, someone removed the bolt, and Mr. Williams' protection fell away from him and left him a naked target. He's been cannonaded this afternoon by all the enemies of his life. His insecurity has shelled him, his sensitivity has straddled him with humiliation, his deep-rooted disquiet about his own worth has zeroed in on him, landed on target, and blown him apart. Mr. Gart Williams, ad agency exec, who in just a moment will move into the Twilight Zone — in a desperate search for survival."
He works for an Avertising Agency and the train he's on is taking him to his own DEATH! (I read the the synopsis!)
Okay, I'm just gonna call this "Ebertonian" from now on, whenever it happens in the blog! It was "Ebertonian" in it's trippyness.
P.S. One of the most memorable Twilight Zone episodes ever, "The Eye of the Beholder" (originally broadcast as "A Private World of Darkness") is my personal favorite - the woman who thinks she's ugly and undergoes all these operations, but when the bandages comes off, we see she's actually beautiful and everyone else is freaky looking.
Remember back when Sci-Fi was written that well, Roger?
Uh oh...
Vomit at the TIFF 'Antichrist' Screening!
Published on: September 11, 2009
Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg: Antichrist
"There has been a lot of speculation about the content in Lars von Trier’s Antichrist. The film stars Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg and tells the story of a couple who lose their young son and retreat to a remote cabin in the woods to repair their broken hearts and troubled marriage. After that, things go from bad to worse. Featuring several scenes of raw sex and violence, the film has provoked a slew of negative reactions from audiences and critics, but none so radical as at the Toronto International Film Festival, where a man in the audience at the Antichrist screening vomited on the viewers in front of him." - By Shannon Nystedt movieset.com
Well, that's bound to sell some tickets now.
I have seen "Antichrist" today, with two friends of mine, one of them is a woman. Our reactions are all over the place. Many other people left the cinema before the end because they couldn´t stand the violence.
The woman says: The movie is bullshit, and Von Trier is hiding his fear of the female world behind a wall of symbolism to come across more profound.
The male friend says: This movie is great, because Von Trier shows the courage to put his neurosis on the screen, unfiltered and without compromise.
My thoughts (I´m am man, too): "Antichrist" stands in the middle between being bullshit and a good movie. It seems that von Trier forgot to tell a story when he designed this nightmarish place. But there are some pictures in this film I´ve never seen before. That´s what I like about "Antichrist".
And I´m amazed, Mr. Ebert, by the fact that you could read that much into this movie.
René wrote on September 12, 2009 3:34 PM -
"The male friend says: This movie is great, because Von Trier shows the courage to put his neurosis on the screen, unfiltered and without compromise."
Question: what if the director had been a woman and the topic her issues with men? And the screen filled with that instead; all unfiltered and without compromise?
Rage instead of fear? And for having to contend with it, and everything else, that goes along with being on the receiving end misogyny and sexism? A non-stop explosion of violence directed at men as seen through the female gaze but no less graphic than "Antichrist"?
Assuming of course, such a film could find the financing required to produce it, if YOU had to sit there and watch, as a female protagonist shoved an electric blender onto the penis of a man strapped to a chair (just trying to imagine the most horrible thing I can, to give you an example) and then listen as she turns it on (but he's unconscious) - would you stay or walk out?
As the next scene will show him regaining consciousness. And the camera showing us what he sees when he does.
We know of course it's not real, just props and fake blood. That the actor is fine and no one was hurt. We know there was a reason for it showing it, it represents something deeper - how this woman's hatred of bad behavior as turned into her hatred of all men, etc. But could a rationalization such as that, supplant the sheer HORROR of having to watch something so uber-icky? Would it be able to brush aside complaints that she's having her cake while eating it too, and at the expense of men?
Antichrist ends with the man on top; literally, he's on top of a hill. He may have gone through hell to get there, but he's also last man standing. Imagine the film I've just described with a woman occupying that spot?
Would a man still find such a body of work courageous?
Personally, I don't think it's courageous to admit you're afraid of women if you go about it using images of violence to do it. I think it's more courageous to admit the truth without them:
"I'm very surprised with [the positive reaction]," Von Trier said after hearing about Thursday night's screening at Ryerson, before joking, "if the North Americans are happy about it, then I'm not happy. I made a mistake."
While most of the event shifted between softball questions and observations about Dafoe's genitalia (courtesy of a giggling Denmark reporter), a bit of serious discussion was squeezed in regarding the film's portrayal of women, which some critics have called misogynistic.
"I hate women and I love them, come on, but we all do," Von Trier said before Gravestock quickly offered a defense about how the picture offers a "nightmare vision of both genders." - Barry Hertz, 'TIFF Press Conference Diaries: Antichrist' National Post
And so there you have it.
"I hate women and I love them, come on, but we all do."
Lars von Trier does indeed have a reputation, and it's for being a "l'enfant terrible" as the French call it. Some even see his approach to film-making as akin to being a troll - and for always putting a cat amongst the pigeons, looking to get a reaction.
Me? I see an older version of the some of the young artists I went to Art school with. Young men hungry for recognition. So eager to make a name for themselves in the world. They wanted to be seen as great artists and to hear themselves described as "original".
But if that's the case, then all you have to do is live an authentic life. Just be true to yourself. If no one recognizes you for it, it doesn't make you any less of an original. Talent doesn't give a crap about fame or recognition - only ego and pride do. If I'm going to put my name on something, I care enough to take some pride in it; I want it to be done well. But if no one's standing around applauding me for it, my ego can still be content: for the pride I took in the making of it feeds my ego, you see?
I think Lars knows exactly what he's doing at these Press Conferences. But I haven't decided yet what's ultimately behind the pathology of it all: if it's courageous, or a shameless attempt to gain attention, or if he's being an "enfant terrible" or just working through his issues with his parents.
Maybe a combination of the above.
Perhaps we'll never know until he gets over his fear of flying. As I suspect his movies will change, once he does.
I have a begrudging admiration for him, but it's accompanied by equal amounts of pity and sheer weariness; as after a while, his issues get the better of me, and I get bored and want no more of it. That's how his movies leave me feeling. That I want no more of Lars and I'm glad to see him go.
A far cry from David Cronenberg.
You've said a whole ton about this film in a relatively short space. I saw it this morning and am hoping for the kind of good sleep I often have after powerful movies. When that happens, I am prone to waking up with a whole new spin on a film. I hope that's true because, try as I have since 11am this morning, I can't get myself around the view that at it's very heart, von Trier's film is suggesting that studying the history of violence against women makes a woman hate herself as woman. Some of the things you've said above will give me fodder for my dreamstate ruminations. Thanks!
Also, I really appreciate the comment above quoting Heidi Laura's defense. Unlike the commenter, however, I saw a ton of that stuff in the movie before reading the quote. I'm just convinced (as of now) that von Trier has devilishly twisted it into an argument against feminism. And another thing, the parallels between Antichrist and the Darwin movie seem rather stark to me, even if entirely different in terms of genre (rationality versus irrationality after the death of a child, the cruel beauty of nature, etc.).
This may very well be a separate incident than the one reported above, at the Sep10 screening of Antichrist at TIFF, in Ryerson theater, of a gentleman sitting in the middle-front block of balcony seats. He sat second from top row in, let's say, seat F. My two friends and I sat top row, in seats EFG.
Shortly after the grindstone scene, as He was regaining consciousness, this gentleman's head slowly cocked backwards, as how I've seen some of my friends in undergrad lectures catch sleep spectacularly. What I initially thought was snoring turned out to be the gurgle of a person who'd fallen unconscious with something at least partly obstructing his breathing. His friend, sitting beside him, quickly after receiving no response to nudgings and callings of his name, stood up and alarmingly but courteously asked for immediate help, to which several audience members complied by calling the ushers to attention. One of my friends jumped the railing behind us to attempt the same while my other friend and I rose to either assist or move out of the way. Then as one of the ushers came by to see what was happening, all the while his friend continuing efforts to regain his consciousness, the gentleman jumped out of his seat and started violently flailing both of his arms in the air. His friend, my friend, the stranger in seat E and I recoiled in fright as the gentleman continued for several seconds before coming still. He then sat down calmly, checking in with his concerned friend who soon escorted him out of the theater.
Given how Antichrist was ratcheting up to that point, there was a part of me that could not dissociate the two events--something like suspension of disbelief for both the flickering forest and what had happened in the seat in front of me. The other part of me momentarily considered whether someone hadn't conspired across an ocean to plant a more tactile fright into his North American premiere. For the remainder of the film, I believe I mistook it as some sort of seizure. But in replaying it in my head after the film, the motion was much too controlled to be epileptic; it resembled something like how one might try to wrestle out of the clutches of, oh, I don't know--considering the frames that had just rolled by--an undesirable creature.
I hope he is well. I enjoyed the film. My evening's experience was, quite genuinely, absurd.
Ebert: Most exceeedingly strange.
Marie Haws wrote:
"What if the director had been a woman and the topic her issues with men? And the screen filled with that instead; all unfiltered and without compromise?"
This is an interesting question, and you have a strong point here. The result would be something like "Baise Moi", I think, where the women are cruel to men in general because of some bad experiences with the other sex. I hated "Baise Moi", and I can imagine that many women hate "Antichrist" for the same reasons, only mirrored from a different gender. Like my female friend said after the screening we attended: Lars von Trier tries to hide his fear behind a wall of symbolism.
I took a different message out of this movie, but I know what she means.
@ Dan...
What if he'd fainted? If watching the millstone scene proved too much for him - and he'd passed out? And the noise you heard, his tongue partly blocking the air in his throat? And when the man's friend tried to wake him, you caught a glimpse of what made him pass out in the first place - the horror of being helpless - and so his mind took him to a place where he'd be able to defend himself and fight her off.
Doug Johnson wrote on September 13, 2009 12:09 AM -
"You've said a whole ton about this film in a relatively short space. I saw it this morning and am hoping for the kind of good sleep I often have after powerful movies. When that happens, I am prone to waking up with a whole new spin on a film. I hope that's true because, try as I have since 11am this morning, I can't get myself around the view that at it's very heart, von Trier's film is suggesting that studying the history of violence against women makes a woman hate herself as woman. Some of the things you've said above will give me fodder for my dream-state ruminations. Thanks!"
I found Antichrist boring but also something of a puzzle for not understanding the director's intentions and being unable to connect the images together. So I went looking for some string. Trying to understand the movie, and owing to where I've taken myself in the process, has given me something to write about. :)
Note: I say that knowing of course that the only thing I can ever really own, is my subjective slice of truth. For maybe it's a GREAT movie and like Roger's review of Harold and Maude, I simple can't see it? I don't think I'm wrong, but then neither does he.
However that's no reason not to be verbose. :)
(Besides, I find this more interesting than Creation; that's too much an exercise akin to banging your head against a brick wall.)
Doug Johnson wrote on September 13, 2009 12:23 AM
"I can't get myself around the view that at it's very heart, von Trier's film is suggesting that studying the history of violence against women makes a woman hate herself as woman."
"Also, I really appreciate the comment above quoting Heidi Laura's defense. Unlike the commenter, however, I saw a ton of that stuff in the movie before reading the quote. I'm just convinced (as of now) that von Trier has devilishly twisted it into an argument against feminism."
"The traditional cultural practice of Female circumcision predates both Islam and Christianity. A Greek papyrus from 163 B.C. mentions girls in Egypt undergoing circumcision and it is widely accepted to have originated in Egypt and the Nile valley at the time of the Pharaohs. Evidence from mummies have shown it was done. Note: the earliest evidence of male circumcision is also from Ancient Egypt. Amnesty International says that the prevalence of the practice is unknown, and that the procedure is now only practiced by some Muslims and Animists. Amnesty International estimates that over 130 million women worldwide undergo the procedure, which is mainly practiced in African countries (eastern Africa) with cases in the Middle East and Indonesia too." - wiki
If you're educated, you don't allow it. It's a case of "enforcing the observation of a thing" for reasons that are stupid, but you do it anyway, 'cause that's how we did things 4,000 years ago, how dare you question my authority, blah blah. And the ONLY reason a woman would allow it, is because she's been conditioned into doing what she's told.
In the film, I assumed "Her" reason for doing it, was as follows:
I did what I did to my husband and now I hate myself for it. I'm going to punish myself and in this way, my suffering is how I can maybe try to atone for treating him so horribly - despite all that crap he was pulling on me.
As that's what women "tend" to do. We tend to punish ourselves; we internalize it. That being the case, cutting off her own clitoris wouldn't serve to support "an argument against feminism" in a film reportedly meant to be about misogyny - unless - it was actually a backhanded way of being BOTH about misogyny, and misogynistic, at the same time.
Have his cake and eat it too.
Note: whenever I've studied the history of violence against women, I just feel really sorry for everyone involved. And of course angry at the ignorance that causes it. It also hardens my resolve not to enable it in my own life, and to speak up, don't take any crap, embrace my inner Buffy; smile.
THEANTI-CHRIST CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS BACONIAN CULTURE, AND AL-SAMARI'S RESEMBLANCE TO THE SCIENTISTS.
By Allama Muhammad Yousuf Gabriel
Yousuf_gabriel@yahoo.com
The Gospel has used the term Anti-Christ, and no doubt the Baconian philosophy is an exact antithesis to not only the teachings of Christ but every revealed religion of God. But the term used by the Gospel is simple. The Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him) has a prophecy about Anti-Christ and he has named the Anti-Christ as Massih-id-Dajjal, that is a lying, swindling, simulating Christ, to mean that he will appear in the garb and guise of Christ, yet he will be opposed to Christ. This is very interesting as well as instructive. But remember, I say not to you that this is the same Massih-id-Dajjal as was predicted by the Holy Prophet of Islam. But I cannot desist from telling, that this Baconian culture has the characteristics so deceptively Anti-religious as well as so manifestly destructive that in itself it deserves its destruction by this mankind if this mankind has to be saved. Now I will cite every characteristic feature in this Baconian culture which the Holy Prophet of Islam has attributed to the Massih-id-Dajjal.
(a) This Baconian culture, this Baconian philosophy, this Baconian science are one and all one-eyed, left-eyed , while on their right eye there is a growth like the grape. All these are based on materialism, and have to do nothing with spiritualism or the resurrection or the next life in heaven. This science is actually blind outside the sphere of five senses and can see nothing in the field of the spiritual.
(b) The Baconian culture is the culture of loaves, of bread and may be seen distributing food all over the world. They who follow this Baconian culture of the world, they receive loaves of bread in abundance, but they who decline its teachings are refused the loaves of bread.
(c) Canals of water accompany this culture. Crops are grown with wonderful rapidity and in amazing magnitude. Artificial rain is caused in the clouds.
(d) This culture moved on its tour of the world and ultimately occupied the entire earth.
(e) This culture presents its teachings on the lines of Prophet-hood, and then occupying all the resources of the world raises itself to the place of God-head. Today the confidence and trust of this mankind is not so much in God as is in this science and this culture.
(f) It has its own paradise and its own hell. It actually has made this earth its material paradise. They who believe in it and follow it are entered in its material paradise. But they who decline its teachings are cast into the hell of poverty, misery and disgrace. Its paradise, however, now is visibly in the range of the atomic hell as a result of appropriate retribution.
(g) The letter K.F.R. that is Kefir (infidel) are written on its forehead. A believer though illiterate can read these letters, while a Non-believer even if literate fails to see this mark.
(h) This culture is basically the Jewish culture, based on the love of this world, its wealth, greed, a world in the skin of sheep. The Christendom and the rest of the world have come to a compromise with the Jewish spirit and are reconciled to it and have followed it. The Jew is the Creator, Master and Guide of this Baconian culture.
(i) Its most radical sign against every pre-modern age is its mode of conveyance and transport. Donkey has been the symbol of conveyance and transport in the world. But this Baconian culture has devised its own mechanical mode. There is simply a mechanical donkey against the biological donkey. Only a man completely devoid of understanding and imagination could fail to observe this very manifest resemblance.
(j) So fascinating and magnetic is this culture that none can escape its fascination except him who turns from it and takes refuge in the mosque. Today inside the mosque is the hold of faith, but outside everywhere this Baconian culture has its sway. How this culture---- had fared if it had appeared during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet of Islam, is the question that deserves speculation. The Massih-id-Dajjal means simulating Christ and we will now see that all that was done by Christ has been taken up by this Baconian culture to affect resemblance:-
(a) Like Christ it gives health to the sick, sight to the blind and makes the lame people sound in hospitals.
(b) It shows miracles like Christ, see its science.
(c) Christ fed huge crowds, so does this Baconian culture. Its policy rather is based on supplying food to mankind.
(d) Christ made forms out of clay like birds and breathed in them, so that they went flying. This culture has caused aircraft to fly.
(e) Christ could hear mysterious voices. This culture has devised radio.
(f) Christ had conversed with Satan in a dialogue. This culture has developed its television.
And despite this resemblance, the opposition therein is, that whereas Christ had achieved these things spiritually, this culture has employed the material agency. And also, that the eye of Christ was lifted upward toward heaven and resurrection, while the eye of this Baconian culture is revitted to earth. Also that this culture could be destroyed only by the spirit of the otherworldliness which is generally associated with the name of Christ. No other power could destroy this Baconian culture. When the Muslims shall have discovered the spirit of otherworldliness in the Quran, a spirit which abounds in the Quran, then this Baconian progress will be done away with, and done away with will be the atomic threat to this mankind.
Samari was a character in the time of Moses and was the maker of the golden lowing calf for the worship of the children of Israel. Real resemblance exists between the mind of and work of Samari and this modern scientist. Some of the commentators of the Quran have been of the opinion that the Anti-Christ will rise among the Jews to complete the work of Al-Samari. This character, that is Al-Samari and his queer workmanship has been mentioned by the Quran only, and no allusion thereto could be found in the Bible.
Allama Yousuf Gabriel
Adara Afqar e Gabriel quaid e Azam Stree Nawababad Wah Cantt Distt Rawalpindi Pakistan
www.oqasa.org
yousuf_gabriel@yahoo.com
Marie:
though I can't speak for what he dreamed, I am rather certain that that's what happened.
YOUSUF GABRIEL wrote on September 14, 2009 1:39 AM -
"The Gospel has used the term Anti-Christ, and no doubt the Baconian philosophy is an exact antithesis to not only the teachings of Christ but every revealed religion of God. But the term used by the Gospel is simple. The Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him) has a prophecy about Anti-Christ and he has named the Anti-Christ as Massih-id-Dajjal, that is a lying, swindling, simulating Christ, to mean that he will appear in the garb and guise of Christ, yet he will be opposed to Christ. This is very interesting as well as instructive. But remember, I say not to you that this is the same Massih-id-Dajjal as was predicted by the Holy Prophet of Islam. But I cannot desist from telling, that this Baconian culture has the characteristics so deceptively Anti-religious as well as so manifestly destructive that in itself it deserves its destruction by this mankind if this mankind has to be saved."
I was raised Roman Catholic and so I'm more familiar with the bible's version of the Anti-Christ, as opposed to any mentioned in Islam by the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him.) That said, I think one thing is shared by all religions; they regard the "Anti-Christ" is being really bad!
Also, I think here in North America (I notice you're from Pakistan) there is a lot of hypocrisy when it comes to Christianity, that's true. People don't always practice what they preach; they don't always "do unto others" as they'd like to be treated, themselves.
However and speaking for myself, I also think it's true that you can find hypocrisy in the East, too. For I have read the Quran (an english translation) and my understanding of it, is that the message of Prophet (peace be upon him) is that God would like everyone to be kind to one another and not cruel.
However...
Not every Muslim is kind.
Not every Christian is kind.
Not every Jew is kind.
Not every Hindu is kind, etc etc.
I'm sure you could find a Buddhist who isn't kind either, if you looked.
And so what needs to stop (be destroyed) is cruelty, itself. I think that's how we'll save ourselves as people. We need to find our mutual humanity and focus on that, and religion less.
And I could not desist from telling you that, for I am Canadian. :)
Hamlet:'Sblood, do you think I am
easier to be played on than a pipe?
There was no avoiding so see it I did today. It's unfair to demean it as a horror movie, or to interpret and seek "meanings" in a work brimming with such elemental energy. To call it despairing also seems off the mark since it celebrates the vastness and grandeur of the human being's innerscape caught in a particular stormy mood. One can take or leave the controversial sections according to one's inclination. A work of art is either authentic or fake, and this one is not fake. Like every authentic drama or film it holds a mirror unto us. He and She as well as the sombre wilderness with its animal cries and whispers is Us. As a Buddhist scripture states, all the 84,000 scriptures and volumes( one could add the great movies and literature) are the diaries of one's own life. Otherwise what interest could they possibly hold.
For myself, I was held in rapt attention throughout. The prologue is haunting, melodious and beautiful. The violence and explicitness nowhere descends to a level of cheapness or sensationalism. It leaves one with a permanent imprint of its disturbing but natural beauty.
SPOILERS!! SPOILERS!! SPOILERS!!
Ebert: Question: Is misogyny as valid as feminism for a director?
I would'nt be able to provide you with a percentage, but Von Trier leans more towards art than storytelling and art can spare no one and nothing is beyond the remit of art. Of course Von Trier's art (as almost all good art) contains broader thematic allusions. I think that the key to the entire film lies in the chapter entitled Pain (chaos reigns), where She says "Oak trees grow to be hundreds of years old, they only have to produce one single tree every hundred years in order to propagate; it may sound banal to you but, it was a big thing for me to realise that when I was up here with Nick. The acorns fell on the roof and kept falling and falling and dying and dying and I understood that everything that used to be beautiful about Eden was perhaps hideous. Now I could hear what I could'nt hear before, the cry of all the things that are to die." One gets the feeling that this is what Von Trier feels about nature and by extension all existence, that it is cruel, unrelenting and unforgiving, there are many very well stylised sequences which specifically reference this and the whole film is essentially about the pain this causes him and his sharing inflicts this pain upon us; does'nt all sharing of pain have mutually codependent elements of sadism and masochism to it? All other perspectives seem somehow peripheral to this particular one.
I also found very interesting how there is role reversal on different levels, i.e. He is shown to be bawling first and She is depicted as the
more together of the two, that is until She collapses and subsequently falls apart; later He is shown to be passive-aggressive and She the more stoic. There were I thought two very significant markers, one is the scene where He hypnotises her and She merges with the green of the land signifying nature and then when supposedly at the end of their session He actually asks her to perform a role-playing exercise in which He becomes that which She fears most i.e. nature thereby justifying what is to follow, given the rather chequered history of the persecution of the feminine by the masculine. Moreover the entire film is like you say an alternative theology of sorts, i.e. it is Christianity and humanity in reverse order; this is my only concern about the film - it does not reach it's logical conclusion - the logical conclusion of the
film would have She truly portrayed as evil incarnate, instead what it does is go the much travelled route of victimising the woman and consequently martyring her, this is more the norm than a reversal of the norm (this might perhaps be more the fork in the eye of the French
than anything else in the film). There is a contradiction here, on the one hand the film suggests that She is the devil, hence the fire into
which she is cast at the end after being strangled, this would suggest that He is god, which is not reverse at all. There is no resolution to this story or perspective on religion, just as the religion it draws upon gives you no resolution to one of it's central problems - why does god permit and/or commit evil? Because the universe is essentially evil? That for obvious reasons is as much of a resolution as saying "god works in mysterious ways". I do not think however that it need have reached a logical conclusion, it would belittle the grand themes and the disturbing way in which they are presented by making it too obvious.
The film both begins and ends with death and the biggest sin that the film portrays is death both natural and unnatural. This and misogyny in reverse is sly, but it is definitely 100% there and this alone should dissuade people of the charges of misogyny that are levelled against him. Yes there is misogyny in the film, but the film itself is not misogynistic, because Von Trier's ideas of himself and of his film are far too big for that; if anything there is misogyny in reverse in this film. That said, I would not be opposed to films made entirely from the hellcat feminist perspective or entirely from the chauvinist pig of a misogynist perspective as long as they are made well. It has to in the end be about something and if that something documents the grotesqueries of any form of barbarism through superb cinematography, it can have my seal of approval (not that that would/should amount to much), just as my admiration for Nostalghia is justified. In art everything can be
justified, whether it should be is a different question..
All that notwithstanding, I felt myself drifting to a place of utter spiritual desolation and was glad for the several interruptions I had in my viewing of it, else I should have been afraid for my life at the end of it. I agree with you Roger, this is a deeply unsettling film and it is a very powerful film. I think that Von Trier is now equal to the very high standards set by Bergman, Herzog etc. and in some limited respects has exceeded them both. It reminded me of Egon Schiele and his Death and the Maiden. How do you call something like Antichrist good or
bad, success or failure? It laughs in the face of such criticism and it is a hollow deathly laugh the echoes of which I will hear right up until my demise.
Marie, I think I'm making the presumptuous mistake of second guessing Roger, but I don't think he meant misogyny as an either/or scenario as concerns topic or point of view; logical loop/paradox - how can you have one without the other? Not possible, methinks. I think the question is quite straightforward and asks if it is legitimate or justifiable to reference the topic of misogyny from a single or several
perspectives given that the writer-director has been previously accused for misogynistic characterisations. Question is do you draw the line
at some point and if you do, where and why? Clearly the answer is that there can be no rigidly definable line but certain parameters need to
be observed. Your point about men not understanding women is well taken, but if you wished to make a film about war/battle strategems do
you think that a woman/women would be your first point of call? Might I gently suggest that the fact that you say that you cared about the
little guy shows that perhaps you don't understand men all that well? Not that I'm saying that I did'nt care about Nick, but the boy is a plot device and if you get as involved with the film as the writer-director imagines you will and wants you to, you're supposed to forget about the boy somewhere around the 20-30 minute mark.
Tom: "I don't know that von Trier would make a snuff film just for the hell of it."
A snuff film is generally defined as one in which the life of a person has been "snuffed out" for direct sexual gratification. To my knowledge, to date no one has actually ever made or, even found a snuff film. I'm quite sure you're not Tom Dark, he would probably have known this.
Bill said: "..then how should I relate to them? Should`nt I be able to understand why they are acting like they do? Isn´t it the power of a
gifted director to take an incomprehensible experience and allow us as the audience to live it and become disturbed by it as well?"
It takes one to know one, I guess. Yes, you should be able to understand why they are acting like they do; why you don't, might have
something to do with the way you think or, the events that have shaped your life.. This is not an incomprehensible experience, in fact this is
one of the most obvious experiences of life that anyone who removes themselves from society in more ways than one and views it from several lenses with a very detached mind is liable to have. Society and manic activity are some of the many defences that we have built up in order to shield ourselves from the terror that is raw existence and this terror is most visible in society itself, like I said you have to look at it differently.
Karl-Heinz, McLuhan is speaking in quite a specific context when he makes his statement about violence being a quest for identity, i.e. media theory. The portrayal of violence can also draw upon real life while being informed by media theory. While I'm not entirely disagreeing with you, because what you say is quite true in many respects, I think that this is more of an exploration into the nature of existence. one of the many lenses it uses is religion. You can't enjoy a film like this, that is the opposite of it's objective. If you think that 2001: A Space Odyssey gives you a 'holy grail' at the end, I'm not sure you understood it like I did.
I've only seen Antichrist once and am going to wait a good while before I watch it again. I watched In The Realm Of The Senses twice at the age of 15 and have'nt quite fully recovered from that yet, so I'd say about a good year's wait should be appropriate for this.
The abyss beckons, I am obliged to look in,
Indian Idiot (H.W.)
I am LIVING for this film's Chicago debut in late October.
SPOILERS
it's entirely possible that i'm not reading between the lines enough, but the Christ comparisons were inescapable to me.
He is given his cross to bear, which He suffers with for a distance. He is tortured. He is cast into a "cave", shut in by a boulder.
He is risen, triumphs over evil and then met with followers. followers who can be assumed were previously left in despair (lying naked on the ground).
again, im far from an expert but the conclusions i drew seemed too obvious to not get involved.
considering the buildup i wasn't as shocked as i could have been. that being said, there were scenes that made me very uncomfortable. not in the sense that they were too much, but mainly because i'd previously never seen anything similar.
it is an amazing movie, but one that is not for the faint of heart.
Of all the movies that feature the relentless death throes of a generation of acorns, this one was my favourite.
As someone who has admittedly not spent years studying acorns and their makers, I have underestimated their potential for shocking resonance. A wake-up call of Freudian irony, ie, Was "Freud dead" or does Von Trier have a sense of humour ? Full credit to those magnificent acorns, and their understudies. Playing the role of Nadir so well, within one man's pendulum swing of natural fantasy.
On a less pretentious note, this film ticks all the boxes of what well made Art should be about, and Von Trier deserves full credit for that. The art of metaphor deftly handled. Sure, it is indeed quite a handful, but so what ? Should Art placate ?
I would love a Q and A with Von Trier, Kubrick and Lynch. Fingers of the same hand, if you ask me.
Ebert: Most thought-provoking.
Expectations... and surprises.
I went into "Antichrist" last week (the same TIFF screening at the Ryerson a few other posters have referenced) with quite mixed expectations. I expected to be surprised, to be challenged, to see a brutal film (but one crafted with great care), and a dogmatic film (in many senses of the word). I also had a suspicion that my mother (78 years old, English, a retired teacher, a grandmother of 6) mightn't stay until the end.
And I was surprised. The film was NOT a Dogme film, making (over)much use of the familiar cinematic tricks to 'build tension' and 'heighten suspense'; and Von Trier rather uncharacteristically telegraphed several plot twists.
I was not surprised that such a graphically brutal film was visually beautiful, nor that the performances were equal parts riveting and harrowing.
So the weaknesses in the experience had more to do with my expectations - expected more Dogme form, etc - than with the film itself.
Oh, and my mother stayed, commenting only that "it wasn't one of his better films".
Ebert: You have a remarkable mother.
I just finished watching Antichrist here in Brazil.
The one thing I probably find most interesting about this film is that I read this article before seeing, it, found it quite plausible, had it in mind when I attended the screening and, although I completely agree with the probability of your interpretation, still saw a whole different film in it. Just to think about that, I had a well-thought religious interpretation in mind which really fits the movie well but couldn't see any other thing than this movie being about the mistreatment of women by men and the religious themes being just an undertone of this.
HE represents the patriarchy, he is the example of the modern man, loving his wife and trying, yet never accomplishing to understand her because of his arrogance towards her feelings an emotions, relying completely on his rational standards as being the only real way to view the world.
She is, in fact, the Antichrist. But this has to be viewed from a position outwards of the religion itself. Being the Antichrist means representing all things that are the enemies of christian religion. The christian religion has always oppressed women, represented strongly in the movie by the topic of witch burning, which steered women, who live in a christian society, to adapt a victimized stance towards moral encounters. She obeys Him, torturing herself for the sins she feels she has committed, because the world tolds her that it is that way.
I really think that a big argument of this movie is that you can't be a sane woman if you're a christian. Women are the Antichrist, because the western world is a patriarchal system, founded on christian beliefs.
I can't even begin to dive into all the thoughts I had during the screening, so I won't. I can just say that never before has a film touched me in the way Antichrist did: I felt embarassed, tortured, stupid, intelligent, sad, full of pain and relief all in a short span of time.
In my opinion, Lars von Trier is not a mysoginist, he just shows the extreme consequences of the mysoginist world we live in in a very brutal way. I haven't seen Breaking the Waves or Dancer in the Dark, yet loved Dogville, which I adore, and find a strong display of human behaviour fueled by patriarchal gender structures. Antichrist seems to me to be an expansion of the discourse on the most intimate behaviour of humans towards the other sex. I feel that even if we know the implications of our world, we can't escape them. Willem Dafoes character is displayed as a modern, fully rational and very intelligent atheist, yet can't reach out towards his loved one because of his internal beliefs in the patriarchic values.
Maybe this interpretation may strike one as not fully supportable because of a few scenes but it sticked to me in a way I just felt to be the big topic of the film. Religion is just the base for what is being shown.
As a person who sees men and women as being almost identical from a genetical standpoint, but formed and parted by society, this movie probably had to have this impact on me. It will definitely stay with me forever and produce a long array of other thoughts over the next days, I'm sure.
Ebert: Your response is probably more inscapable than my somewhat theoretical one.
Ebert: Question: Is misogyny as valid as feminism for a director?
I'd say that's parallel to this question:
Is white supremacy as valid as civil rights for a director? Or this one: Is antisemitism as valid as, er, anti-anti-semitism for a director?
If by valid you mean is it legitimate for a director to explore male anxieties about women, then sure that seems valid to me. Just as it seems valid to explore white anxieties about other ethnicities in a film. A valid subject of research, of public discourse, of reflection and examination. But if by valid you mean morally legitimate, then no. No way! Obviously not, right? Right?? Hopefully I'm just belaboring a point that was so obvious you simply went without mentioning it. The ambiguity troubled me, because it seems that many otherwise tasteful people find "artistic misgyny" brilliant and insightful, whereas they would blanch at something like "artistic racism".
Ebert: We agree. It's not what it's about, it's about how it's about it.
I come at things from the viewpoint of Girard's mimetic theory much of the time. If any others have commented thus, I apologize for the repeat; I don't read all the comments.
David P. Goldman - 'Spengler' to those who followed him in the Asia News - points out that the horror / gore / slasher genre has increased sixfold since 1999. René Girard, anthropologist, Catholic, and recent inductee to L'Académie française, says in dealing with violence which is at the heart of all conventional religion one should always pay closer attention to the surreptitious structure than the ostensible themes.
That is, victimizers/sacrificers always mythologize their violence, painting themselves in glowing terms. Their violence is "righteous" agaist a certifiable and duly sanctioned "bad guy." This is the realm of Satan, literally, since the Greek word - ha satan - means "the accuser." "It's HIS fault!" is the least common denominator for bringing the mob together in a minimal form of unity. Or as Girard quips, "unanimity minus one."
But for Girard at the heart of understanding human behavior is mimesis: contagious imitation.
My concern about Antichrist and the plethora of other films of its ilk - paying attention to the structure a la Girard rather than what you, Von Trier or others may say about its themes - is that element of being human: our mimesis.
Even Euripides knew it about us, as evidenced in THE BACCHAE. He has Cadmus say, "No amount of reveling can corrupt our Theban women." Yeah, right.
So, no. I have no plans to let my mind let alone my mirror neurons have access to Antichrist. I agree with Girard, and a fellow who wrote:
...whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Cheers
Being that I haven't seen this film, I love hearing about what it symbolizes. I don't know why I am drawn. I have always been drawn to movies that talk about the dark side of spirituality. I can't stand gore and violence, so obviously I will not being seeing this movie. But I figure from what I have read around and what I have seen in snip-its here and there, I would give some of my thoughts on your review and some of my insights to a movie that apparently is really deep.
I think that even if it envisions Satan being the ruler of the world, he is already from most Christian point of views unless Christ saves that person. The idea of a hell that exists is apparent in selfish action in humanity on this earth. Guilt and pride both exist as part of the stem of selfishness, which is what sin really is... an act of the self. If we look at that whole prologue, it could be said that it is a whole combination of the original sin. The fall of man as you say. I think you are spot on in your review about everything. This is an alternative view of Satan ruling and his manipulation of the human mind to cause complete chaos of the psyche... and a deeper thought of what the embodiment of a hell actually means. My thoughts are that what if the idea of a hell truly exists? In many ways, it already does. Violent and sadistic abuse of babies, children, women, and men around the world. Murder on streets in our cities. Genocide. Poverty in third world countries due to our need for materialistic things. Racism, prejudice, intolerance... even people getting killed with machetes in Kenya because of tribalism or people in orphanages who managed to escape from being killed and having their body parts sold on the market and people who were unfortunate to not be able to... and the list goes on and on to families affected by divorce, infidelity causing an end to a relationship and perhaps leaving a person to raise children on their own, neglect, depression, low self-esteem, etc. In all honesty, when I think of the amount of pain and pride in this world, I think there is already a piece of hell in what we are living in now... Perhaps what this director might be conveying is that personal hell is not just a thing to imagine... perhaps it is right at our doorstep and he is wanting us to open our eyes to see what truly exists in how people act towards one another in an allegorical sense. That evil is very much capable of ruining this world... in my opinion it already is.
ps. It sounds like I may be some dark, depressing person who isn't happy in this life, evil or not. I am actually a happy person who embraces life and cherishes each good memory and does her best to make the world a better place. I just don't wish to ignore the apparent evils that exist in the here and now.
Regarding physical reactions to Antichrist:
I don't know if you have heard, but the Friday night screening of Antichrist at the NY Film Festival had to be stopped midway as there was a man in the audience who was thought to be having some kind of physical attack--stroke, heart attack. People were calling for help. The lights went on and theater personnel finally figured out that, in all the yelling and confusion, the man had walked out, along with a few others...then the film resumed. No vomiting but a definite sense that the film was driving some people into a bad state...
Me, I loved it-- but when the credits rolled, I could hear the woman behind me quietly laughing to herself. I understood that reaction. Then I turned around and realized she was sobbing. I could understand that too...
The real point here is that I appreciate your initial review from Cannes. I hated watching Dancer in the Dark because I found it simplistic and agonizing. Antichrist is very painful but is a much more supple, complex film. It kept me on edge and thinking hard until the very end.
I am always impressed with your ability to embrace many disparate kinds of films. Long may you write!
Roger, I know I read your review of this film and you gave it two thumbs up so I saw this film last night. And I wished I had not. It is the most disturbing film I have ever seen and it is quite hard to stop thinking about it. It was more than I thought it could be, whatever that means. I thought both characters, He and She, were deeply psychotic and really had no true love for each other, the sex is what they seemed to live for. And towards the end when it replayed the actions of their child and the window sequence and the camera slipped to She's face, I felt from the beginning that She had seen him and that was really all that I wanted to know about her character. (Sorry if this is some kind of a spoiler for people but maybe someone else remarked on this, I did not read all of the comments.) This is truly an "X rated" movie. The disclaimer read "for mature adults only" but no one will know how mature he/she is until watching this film. One can be mature and still think this film is definitely not for everyone, even themselves. I do not agree with you that Lars Von Trier is a great director and this film should not be considered great, either.