542 Antichrist

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#301 Post by domino harvey » Sun Apr 11, 2010 12:31 am

New forum rule: No one is allowed to post about anything but ICP

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#302 Post by swo17 » Sun Apr 11, 2010 12:58 am

HistoryProf wrote:that's kind of why places like this exist
Actually, no. That's why the spaces under bridges exist. Ideally, the forum exists so that you can expand upon the rather vague and unhelpful opinion that a particular film is "silly" in a way that might even cause someone who disagrees with you to actually consider your opinion for a moment before dismissing it. Unless, of course, you think of a really, really good snarky one-liner.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#303 Post by Mr Sausage » Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:29 am

domino harvey wrote:New forum rule: No one is allowed to post about anything but ICP
It's because of you that I even know ICP exists. Um...thanks?

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#304 Post by mfunk9786 » Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:28 am

Uh, the Prologue was magnificent, but the rest was, uh, like South Park. Like, uh, some appalling stuff.
^What the CF.org forum is all about

User avatar
HistoryProf
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:48 am
Location: KCK

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#305 Post by HistoryProf » Sun Apr 11, 2010 5:56 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:
Uh, the Prologue was magnificent, but the rest was, uh, like South Park. Like, uh, some appalling stuff.
^What the CF.org forum is all about
no, what I said was that this film is a vapid exorcise in trying to shock for the sake of shocking - right down to the "dedication" to Tarkovsky - and that LVT has become so transparent in this attempt that he's practically a parody of himself - or like a South Park caricature. Nor was it appalling at all, despite all his bombastic efforts to be precisely that.

But whatever, my apologies for not liking a movie I really had high hopes for and expressing that disappointment by focusing on the director's penchant for failure. How utterly crazy and unfair of me. Next time i'll say things like "this was incredibly powerful and stayed with me for days but I don't know what to really say about it because I didn't really understand it all but man was it powerful and cinema in its truest form!"

^What the CF.org forum is all about

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#306 Post by domino harvey » Sun Apr 11, 2010 6:15 pm

I detest provacateurs as much as the next guy, but I think your line of argument for this film would be more compelling if the reason people went on record as liking it in this thread was because they were effected by the film's provocations and not, say, its visuals or acting or narrative or tone or whatever else people have singled out as being effective for them. I don't believe the film is a big joke on Von Trier's part, but even if it were, so what? We're not allowed to like it anymore? I think the film is great art. You do not. Fair enough. But please don't presuppose and summarily dismiss the reasons some have enjoyed it out of some great insight into the allegedly fraudulent motives of its creator.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#307 Post by mfunk9786 » Sun Apr 11, 2010 6:51 pm

And at least talk about the substance of the movie you're bashing.

User avatar
Tom Hagen
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:35 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#308 Post by Tom Hagen » Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:45 pm

If this movie is so silly -- and I tend to be in the camp that thinks that it is -- why spend so much energy debating about it?

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#309 Post by Mr Sausage » Sun Apr 11, 2010 11:05 pm

Tom Hagen wrote:If this movie is so silly -- and I tend to be in the camp that thinks that it is -- why spend so much energy debating about it?
Well, this assumes that because the subject of the debate is silly the debate itself must likewise be silly. I'm inclined to think that it's the approach to the subject and not the subject itself that makes a debate either worthwhile or a waste of energy.

The real problem, as we see from this thread, is when certain people think a movie's silliness gives them license to make their own arguments with a similar frivolousness.

User avatar
bnowalk
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#310 Post by bnowalk » Sun Apr 11, 2010 11:52 pm

I'll admit to being irritated with some of the film's more shocking moments (not a big fan of entrails or mutilation, but I should have known what I was getting into), but my real problem with Antichrist is that I'm not sure it knows what it's saying, or if it's saying anything. Which, to me, makes it a mite superficial, like that slick, glossy opening with putatively Important Things going on, what with a mother having sex while aware that her child is getting into danger. I'm not in the Antichrist-is-misogynist camp, but that's because I think it's too muddled to really have an opinion on anything (although I'll admit any film that so showcases a powerhouse performance like Charlotte Gainsbourg's here is probably not especially anti-women). It's a beautiful film with an admirably controlled atmosphere wasted on a succession of, there's no other word, provocations. I realize I'm not getting as specific as I should, but that's difficult when my contention is there's nothing there. What do I analyze to demonstrate absence of thesis?

But I'd love to hear what the film's fans thought of Antichrist. What did you all get from the film that I'm not seeing? More importantly, what is the movie saying?

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#311 Post by tenia » Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:23 am

Like HistoryProf.

I found the movie at best laughable, at worst ridiculous. And it's sad because it's wonderfully shot and the cinematography is as wonderful.

But the actors, the script, the fox... Moreover, as the characters enters their small house in the forest, it just gets more ridiculous.

It was just a whole blah for me. I didn't had a bad time though, thanks to the cinematography and all. But I'm far to say it's good. It's closer to "so laughable it could make a good 2nd-degree comedy".

User avatar
HistoryProf
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:48 am
Location: KCK

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#312 Post by HistoryProf » Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:04 am

domino harvey wrote:I detest provacateurs as much as the next guy, but I think your line of argument for this film would be more compelling if the reason people went on record as liking it in this thread was because they were effected by the film's provocations and not, say, its visuals or acting or narrative or tone or whatever else people have singled out as being effective for them. I don't believe the film is a big joke on Von Trier's part, but even if it were, so what? We're not allowed to like it anymore? I think the film is great art. You do not. Fair enough. But please don't presuppose and summarily dismiss the reasons some have enjoyed it out of some great insight into the allegedly fraudulent motives of its creator.
If I suggested no one else could like it I most certainly am sorry...I would never begrudge anyone their likes or dislikes when it comes to movies, lord knows I love the hell out some shitty ones. By all means you or anyone else is free to love the living hell out of this movie and believe firmly it is a masterpiece. That's the beauty of opinions!

I can understand that some people might find it a compelling piece that asks challenging questions - I'm just not one of them. That doesn't mean i'm right...Just that it didn't work for me for reasons I have already stated: I didn't connect to it, thought that aside from some pretty images - of which there were a few, some quite striking - I found it ultimately vapid and a rather puerile attempt at shocking an audience with grotesque misogynistic violence to reflect some kind of meta narrative of humanity's failures. that's all - nothing more, nothing less.

So go ahead and love it, be glad it's coming out from Criterion, and buy 5 of them for gifts...I'll do the same for Everlasting Moments and we'll call it good :)

User avatar
HistoryProf
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:48 am
Location: KCK

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#313 Post by HistoryProf » Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:05 am

mfunk9786 wrote:And at least talk about the substance of the movie you're bashing.
but what If I found that it was devoid of substance? that's kind of the whole point of the criticisms in this thread - most long before I chimed in. In other words, Tom answered you already,
Tom Hagen wrote:If this movie is so silly -- and I tend to be in the camp that thinks that it is -- why spend so much energy debating about it?
For me, there isn't much to debate. But I do take umbrage with being so snidely dismissed and called out for thinking as much.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#314 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:22 am

But the mark of poor criticism is not being able to explain why you like/dislike something. The film obviously isn't devoid of substance - no film is devoid of substance. Every film, even the worst ones, require work from dozens of people over months or years. Even the worst films have some content over the course of 90 minutes that's worth discussing. Saying you didn't like a movie and found it devoid of substance is just as bad as saying "This movie was great!"

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#315 Post by zedz » Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:34 pm

mfunk, aren't you being a little disingenuous here? It's pretty clear that what HistoryProf means by "lack of substance" is lack of intellectual substance: coherent ideas, systematic thought, meaningful psychology. It's hardly a novel criticism of this film! He's not complaining that the screen was white for a couple of hours, or that the set designers took their paycheck and disappeared. His complaint, and that of many others, is that the film lacks intellectual content worth engaging, so it's no surprise if he doesn't want to engage with the intellectual content he can't find!

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#316 Post by aox » Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:43 pm

The entire movie couldn't be more stuffed with Pagan and Judaic-Christian symbolism. How could one possibly gather that this film has zero intellectual substance? There is so much to think about in regards to this film. Now, a valid complaint I could see is that it throws too much in and Von Trier is merely trying to see what will stick when thrown against the proverbial wall. I digress however... I don't think it lacks cohesion. Multiple interpretations hardly warrant a dangerously hollow criticism.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#317 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:50 pm

Even if a film lacks what one perceives as intellectual substance, does that warrant an evaluation of the film that amounts to "It was so bad it's not even worth discussing - it was just made to provoke the viewer"? No movie deserves that kind of vague dismissal without some examples to back it up.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#318 Post by zedz » Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:54 pm

Just because something's stuffed with signifiers doesn't mean it means! And isn't it the job of the film's defenders to establish just how earth-shattering deep and meaningful the film is? Go right ahead.

Really, this insistence that nobody's allowed to criticise the film unless they write a thesis about it is just bizarre. The people who think Antichrist is shallow and immature see all that very obvious symbolic window-dressing aox cites as evidence for its shallowness and immaturity. Or do we now have to assume that every Hollywood pic with a Christian analogy in it is Paradise Lost Redux?

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#319 Post by aox » Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:57 pm

You can call it 'shallow' and cite everything I talked about as evidence. That doesn't mean it lacks intellectual substance. You just happen to thin the substance is shallow or undeserving of praise. Baby Geniuses as far as I know lacks intellectual substance but I am more than willing to read an essay to the contrary. I think we are saying the same thing, just approaching it from different points.

User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#320 Post by Tommaso » Mon Apr 12, 2010 4:03 pm

aox wrote:The entire movie couldn't be more stuffed with Pagan and Judaic-Christian symbolism. How could one possibly gather that this film has zero intellectual substance? There is so much to think about in regards to this film. Now, a valid complaint I could see is that it throws too much in and Von Trier is merely trying to see what will stick when thrown against the proverbial wall.
Indeed, that is the single greatest quality "Antichrist" has, apart from the images, of course, which still stick in my mind so many months after seeing it in the cinema, and in a way it's a sign of at least cinematic quality if a film achieves that. And I'm not speaking of the two or three shock moments here, but of the film in general: its colours, its performances, its imagery in general. There certainly is a lack of intellectual cohesion in the sense that von Trier is precisely not putting forward any thorough intellectual argument, and I suppose he himself is as puzzled about what this film might 'mean' as most of its viewers. But isn't art there to raise questions, not to answer them? Indeed, "there is so much to think about in regards to this film", and that thinking becomes pretty independent of the film and its quality (or absence of such quality) rather soon. And the questions the film raises go far deeper than say, the intellectual puzzles a film like "Inland Empire" may raise or not raise, though I think that all in all the Lynch film is superior, if only because it's more 'controlled'. Von Trier's film is far more intuitively driven, particularly in its use of symbolism (which indeed may be somewhat all-over-the-place), and thus more prone to failure. Perhaps it does fail in some moments indeed, but if it does, it does in an interesting way.

But in any case one shouldn't judge the film by its maker and his public (or real) persona. Von Trier's self-stylisation as both a tortured genius and a depressive character in need of filmic self-therapy doesn't help to appreciate the film on its own terms, for sure.

User avatar
Svevan
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#321 Post by Svevan » Mon Apr 12, 2010 4:05 pm

So now that we're arguing about HOW to argue about the film, we've gotten even further away from discussing the film itself. Somewhere in Denmark, Von Trier is laughing at us.

User avatar
bnowalk
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#322 Post by bnowalk » Mon Apr 12, 2010 5:13 pm

So...anyone want to put forward any ideas as to what Antichrist has to say? For all the talk that it's got too much going on or it's at least interested in a lot of different ideas, I'd love to hear more. It's been a while since I saw it, but here's what I could glean: there's a whole lot of dualities/dichotomies at play, and they all correspond to the essential male/female relationship. I'm not sure what the purpose was, and I have trouble lauding a film for making interesting connections if it has no purpose (not to say there's no purpose, but if that's the case, it's hardly great art). Then there's the history of gynocide element which expounds and recreates/supplements a history of western civilization subjugating women. Hardly novel, so what does the film do with this motif? I have no idea. Again, it's been a while for me, which is why I'd like to hear from the film's defenders.
But isn't art there to raise questions, not to answer them?
The essential task of art is to express. Asking questions is a nice start, but it ultimately doesn't say much more than a film/filmmaker is interested in some things and isn't sure how to go about answering them. Besides, if the argument is that the film is great art, not just art, then I'd suggest the film needs to do more than just ask some questions. Relatedly, what are the questions the film raises?

User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#323 Post by Tommaso » Mon Apr 12, 2010 5:28 pm

This has all been looked at in detail early in this thread when it was still in the 'New Films' section, so I'm not repeating it all here. But the two main questions the film raises are (in a nutshell): 1. What is our conception of madness and rationality, and how valid can it be? 2. What is the fundamental nature of the world we live in in terms of 'good' and 'evil', or is there a third option, namely, 'chaos'? Related to those are probably questions about the relationship of men and women, the family, spirituality etc.
bnowalk wrote:Then there's the history of gynocide element which expounds and recreates/supplements a history of western civilization subjugating women. Hardly novel, so what does the film do with this motif?
It asks the provocative question whether misogyny/gynocide is justified, necessary or even inevitable if you take the point of view of Western rationality. The film is extremely distrustful of 'enlightenment' in my view.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#324 Post by domino harvey » Mon Apr 12, 2010 5:53 pm

zedz wrote:Really, this insistence that nobody's allowed to criticise the film unless they write a thesis about it is just bizarre. The people who think Antichrist is shallow and immature see all that very obvious symbolic window-dressing aox cites as evidence for its shallowness and immaturity. Or do we now have to assume that every Hollywood pic with a Christian analogy in it is Paradise Lost Redux?
But this isn't my problem with his comments. I objected to the idea that the film is merely a joke on the viewers, because this comment attempts to invalidate anyone who enjoyed the film and subjects them to a "Wake up, sheeple!" shoulder-shaking. It's a positively crummy way to criticize a film because it posits that not only is the film shit, but so are its fans for falling for such japery. But HistoryProf already replied and elaborated on his argument and people have posted defenses several pages back and will no doubt continue to do so, so this "Art or Fart?" back-and-forth seems like a bit of dead debate now...

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#325 Post by knives » Mon Apr 12, 2010 8:53 pm

As a fan of Goddard I thought you wouldn't mind someone calling a movie a joke on the audience. While I think in this case, because the joke is based in provocation provocation's sake with no care for what the provocation means outside of the fact that it will provoke people, there are hundreds of films, and other arts, that can be described as one big joke on the audience.

Post Reply