November 14th, 2009 / 12:57 am
Snippets
Snippets
Blake Butler—
Antichrist is by far the best and most well made film I’ve seen in at least a couple years.
Damn. I wanted to see it, but it was in and out of the theatres over her (DC). details?
Damn. I wanted to see it, but it was in and out of the theatres over her (DC). details?
hm, i would say don’t get any details until you see it. things always seem more powerful that way, and there are a lot of surprises here. but it is a really powerful film, that is flawless in execution of vision, and does something i haven’t seen in a film in a while. it had me in its teeth the whole time, and i will be thinking about it for a long while, as well as with images that i will not forget. it’s been some time since i felt that way about a new film.
hm, i would say don’t get any details until you see it. things always seem more powerful that way, and there are a lot of surprises here. but it is a really powerful film, that is flawless in execution of vision, and does something i haven’t seen in a film in a while. it had me in its teeth the whole time, and i will be thinking about it for a long while, as well as with images that i will not forget. it’s been some time since i felt that way about a new film.
better than you the living?
better than you the living?
You need to watch more movies. That’s the problem.
You need to watch more movies. That’s the problem.
blake, do you like von trier’s films generally? i dug him a lot before, but now not so certain. not because of antichrist, it is like you say, especially the images. just not sure about the whole package that is von trier anymore. curious as to your thoughts, feelings.
blake, do you like von trier’s films generally? i dug him a lot before, but now not so certain. not because of antichrist, it is like you say, especially the images. just not sure about the whole package that is von trier anymore. curious as to your thoughts, feelings.
Well David, the reason I think you don’t care for the package is because you’re not familiar with the wrapping. No one is yet. That’s why Von Trier is such an interesting character. Because he refuses the option of solidity. At least, that’s what he says. And I agree. Only the young dream of establishing who they are in no uncertain terms. Von Trier knows that there is nothing to establish. It’s not supposed to be funny when the fox says chaos reigns. Von Trier is serious. We are not. He’s a romantic.
Well David, the reason I think you don’t care for the package is because you’re not familiar with the wrapping. No one is yet. That’s why Von Trier is such an interesting character. Because he refuses the option of solidity. At least, that’s what he says. And I agree. Only the young dream of establishing who they are in no uncertain terms. Von Trier knows that there is nothing to establish. It’s not supposed to be funny when the fox says chaos reigns. Von Trier is serious. We are not. He’s a romantic.
Yessssss, I saw it a couple months ago and am still thinking about it a lot.
Did they show the uncut version there? They did in the UK, and the French DVD (out now or soon, I think) is uncut too. Worth getting someone to send you Blake.
Yessssss, I saw it a couple months ago and am still thinking about it a lot.
Did they show the uncut version there? They did in the UK, and the French DVD (out now or soon, I think) is uncut too. Worth getting someone to send you Blake.
Really? I was completely neutral about it. It started out really beautifully and then it just kind of spiralled out of control and became like a thousand different splatter movies I’ve seen. And, even though some people had extreme reactions to it, I felt neither one way or another: I know it had all these “themes” in it but when it comes to Von Trier it’s just so hard to give a shit about them. I guess I thought it was a heavy-handed, art house wannabe, beautifully filmed but poorly stated movie that pretended to be serious until, of course, it turned into a rambling, even more heavy handed blood fest that, when “She” cuts off her clitoris, you can’t help but laugh at just like you laugh at the fox when it utters its two word acting debut.
Really? I was completely neutral about it. It started out really beautifully and then it just kind of spiralled out of control and became like a thousand different splatter movies I’ve seen. And, even though some people had extreme reactions to it, I felt neither one way or another: I know it had all these “themes” in it but when it comes to Von Trier it’s just so hard to give a shit about them. I guess I thought it was a heavy-handed, art house wannabe, beautifully filmed but poorly stated movie that pretended to be serious until, of course, it turned into a rambling, even more heavy handed blood fest that, when “She” cuts off her clitoris, you can’t help but laugh at just like you laugh at the fox when it utters its two word acting debut.
Haha, maybe I’m not so neutral after all? I think I really disliked it. But it was very interestingly filmed and stated during the first half.
Haha, maybe I’m not so neutral after all? I think I really disliked it. But it was very interestingly filmed and stated during the first half.
I love that laugh. It’s like the expression of the discomfort with the unreal that’s churning inside. I’d say whether you liked the movie is moot, it already did its job.
I love that laugh. It’s like the expression of the discomfort with the unreal that’s churning inside. I’d say whether you liked the movie is moot, it already did its job.
I don’t know that the movie did it’s job on me or not. I’m familiar with the same type of laugh because I’ve had it as a reaction to other movies where the laugh was a feeling of self-defense or discomfort such as with “Salo” (a movie that I feel also had its issues–mainly because of its adaptation of the far superior book it was based on–but that was much more effective on me overall). My laughter at “Antichrist” was more of the type of laughter I feel toward “Martyrs” or a Rob Zombie movie–the type where I feel that the director has just crossed a line between being intelligent with disturbing material and becoming juvenile in their attempts to “justify” their use of such content in a faux intellectual way. I had the same reaction to Von Trier’s “Dogville”.
I don’t know that the movie did it’s job on me or not. I’m familiar with the same type of laugh because I’ve had it as a reaction to other movies where the laugh was a feeling of self-defense or discomfort such as with “Salo” (a movie that I feel also had its issues–mainly because of its adaptation of the far superior book it was based on–but that was much more effective on me overall). My laughter at “Antichrist” was more of the type of laughter I feel toward “Martyrs” or a Rob Zombie movie–the type where I feel that the director has just crossed a line between being intelligent with disturbing material and becoming juvenile in their attempts to “justify” their use of such content in a faux intellectual way. I had the same reaction to Von Trier’s “Dogville”.
*doubling over*
Oooh, don’t mention that film! Now I’ve got to walk around like this for two days!
*doubling over*
Oooh, don’t mention that film! Now I’ve got to walk around like this for two days!
not sure if it was uncut or not. seemed uncut. lots of things that would normally get cut. :)
yes
not sure if it was uncut or not. seemed uncut. lots of things that would normally get cut. :)
yes
i always liked the way his films ‘looked’ but did not like the films as films because they were either cold or too hysterical or just downright cheesy in their application. this had it all for me: beautiful images and style like he is known for, with a story and otherworldliness that really engrossed and stung me. so yeah, his best film by far for me. seems like he really stepped up.
i always liked the way his films ‘looked’ but did not like the films as films because they were either cold or too hysterical or just downright cheesy in their application. this had it all for me: beautiful images and style like he is known for, with a story and otherworldliness that really engrossed and stung me. so yeah, his best film by far for me. seems like he really stepped up.
interesting jesse. that’s how i usually respond to his films actually. they seem forced or over the top usually. the fantastical elements in antichrist and the subject matter with delusion and possession really made those moments okay for me though, and even awesome in their applicaton. it was definitely absurd at points, and i was laughing, but had the feeling ani was talking about, like it was the kind of extreme that haunts for a reason rather than is just splatter as you said. i don’t know, there was so much ‘other’ and aura in the film that surrounded those violent moments that it really came together for me. so many tiny moments packed in. i don’t know, just really worked for me in a way his stuff usually does not.
interesting jesse. that’s how i usually respond to his films actually. they seem forced or over the top usually. the fantastical elements in antichrist and the subject matter with delusion and possession really made those moments okay for me though, and even awesome in their applicaton. it was definitely absurd at points, and i was laughing, but had the feeling ani was talking about, like it was the kind of extreme that haunts for a reason rather than is just splatter as you said. i don’t know, there was so much ‘other’ and aura in the film that surrounded those violent moments that it really came together for me. so many tiny moments packed in. i don’t know, just really worked for me in a way his stuff usually does not.
I want to see this but can’t. I live in a rural area and the theaters here don’t show good movies. 2012 will be on 14 screens.
I want to see this but can’t. I live in a rural area and the theaters here don’t show good movies. 2012 will be on 14 screens.
von Trier in the Boston Phoenix:
As for Dafoe, I wouldn’t let him treat her in any other way than with his dick; he has an enormous dick. We had to take those scenes out of the film. We had a stand-in for him because we had to take the scenes out with his own dick.
You had a stand-in dick for Dafoe?
We had to, because Will’s was too big.
Too big to fit on the screen?
No, too big because everybody got very confused when they saw it.
von Trier in the Boston Phoenix:
As for Dafoe, I wouldn’t let him treat her in any other way than with his dick; he has an enormous dick. We had to take those scenes out of the film. We had a stand-in for him because we had to take the scenes out with his own dick.
You had a stand-in dick for Dafoe?
We had to, because Will’s was too big.
Too big to fit on the screen?
No, too big because everybody got very confused when they saw it.
Is it absurd the way Miike or Bunel can be absurd? If so, I need this movie
Is it absurd the way Miike or Bunel can be absurd? If so, I need this movie
hm, sort of. it’s closer to Miike than Bunuel i think, but still not quite that terrain. something a little off from it, maybe more emotional? or at least more founded in myth. but definitely if you like Miike i think this will be for you.
hm, sort of. it’s closer to Miike than Bunuel i think, but still not quite that terrain. something a little off from it, maybe more emotional? or at least more founded in myth. but definitely if you like Miike i think this will be for you.
for theater released films–which i havent seen tons and tons of lately, but enough–i cant remember feeling actually having seen something in that ay since inland empire, and before that i cant remember.
for theater released films–which i havent seen tons and tons of lately, but enough–i cant remember feeling actually having seen something in that ay since inland empire, and before that i cant remember.
The film was inextricable from its context in the UK. You couldn’t see it without knowing most of what was going to happen. I think he knew this would happen. The film signals its biggest moments. It became funny for that. ‘Funny’.
The film was inextricable from its context in the UK. You couldn’t see it without knowing most of what was going to happen. I think he knew this would happen. The film signals its biggest moments. It became funny for that. ‘Funny’.
Confusion in the face of enormity is comedy gold.
Confusion in the face of enormity is comedy gold.
Dafoe is is like 5’3″. They must have been confused about his being so disproportionately endowed.
Dafoe is is like 5’3″. They must have been confused about his being so disproportionately endowed.
Really?? I don’t know, man. I was cringing by the end, and not out of disgust… out of embarrassment for von Trier. He did a Q&A after the screening I saw, and he basically apologized for the film. He said something to the effect of, “I was very depressed when I made the film… normally I would’ve edited the script more carefully. I would’ve cut a lot of that shit out. Why is the place called Eden? Oh, I don’t know. I wish I hadn’t done that actually. It sucks, I know.”
I didn’t hate the film or anything. I just thought it got pretty silly. The talking fox… honestly, come on.
And that opening sequence with the black & white and slow-motion stuff set to bombastic/iconic music? Gah!
Really?? I don’t know, man. I was cringing by the end, and not out of disgust… out of embarrassment for von Trier. He did a Q&A after the screening I saw, and he basically apologized for the film. He said something to the effect of, “I was very depressed when I made the film… normally I would’ve edited the script more carefully. I would’ve cut a lot of that shit out. Why is the place called Eden? Oh, I don’t know. I wish I hadn’t done that actually. It sucks, I know.”
I didn’t hate the film or anything. I just thought it got pretty silly. The talking fox… honestly, come on.
And that opening sequence with the black & white and slow-motion stuff set to bombastic/iconic music? Gah!
i loved it.
i loved it.
the fox was radical. in both ways.
weird commentary on his part there, though. sounds still depressed. i think the parts that ‘should be cut’ are the parts that make it powerful.
the fox was radical. in both ways.
weird commentary on his part there, though. sounds still depressed. i think the parts that ‘should be cut’ are the parts that make it powerful.
What about this film’s extreme aspects could have been lifted from supposedly “other” splatter flicks? Plenty of critics went at this film in this myopic way, that it have a relationship to present-day horror and its torture porn. No idea where they’re getting that from. I found the violence supremely honest and I’m not afraid to say so. You are given so much time to watch that couple spiral in a direction engendered by, on the one hand, psychoanalytic reductionism, and on the other, notions of evil incarnated in nature (especially humans) which in the film positions a wholly Christian derivation. The people who laughed during the clitoridectomy were either responding with shock, or are cynical to their absolute detriment. So much phantasmagoria still lingers, why the roaming souls up the hill, and why female? Has this always been about “He”? What are those highly stylised reposes with mythic animals, which after a time reveal their putrefaction? Why is it the animals (the fox) speaking about chaos and not the two human beings? But, Jesse, what was over-intelligent about this film? What was arbitrarily included without substantiation, or absurdly tacked on? Clearly Von Trier has followed two main logics and pursued them into hell.
What about this film’s extreme aspects could have been lifted from supposedly “other” splatter flicks? Plenty of critics went at this film in this myopic way, that it have a relationship to present-day horror and its torture porn. No idea where they’re getting that from. I found the violence supremely honest and I’m not afraid to say so. You are given so much time to watch that couple spiral in a direction engendered by, on the one hand, psychoanalytic reductionism, and on the other, notions of evil incarnated in nature (especially humans) which in the film positions a wholly Christian derivation. The people who laughed during the clitoridectomy were either responding with shock, or are cynical to their absolute detriment. So much phantasmagoria still lingers, why the roaming souls up the hill, and why female? Has this always been about “He”? What are those highly stylised reposes with mythic animals, which after a time reveal their putrefaction? Why is it the animals (the fox) speaking about chaos and not the two human beings? But, Jesse, what was over-intelligent about this film? What was arbitrarily included without substantiation, or absurdly tacked on? Clearly Von Trier has followed two main logics and pursued them into hell.
what you say here and below to jesse is really interesting. i liked the look of antichrist more than anything vt has done since his europa stuff. but for me it didn’t feel like a step up from prior stuff, it felt like a repeat. a very accomplished repeat but a repeat nonetheless. in fact, it made me see for the first time that most of vt’s cinema has been very accomplised repeats. and for someone who claims such high ground, the fact he keeps treading the same territory over and over as if it were groundbreaking has made me – reluctantly – come to think his thing is actually pretty hollow. but i dont mean to say your strong reaction to antichrist is wrong. because i don’t think ‘wrong’ is the right way to express my reservations. like, when you speak about the other and aura, i know what you mean and it had me held too. it’s almost like that atmospherics hints at the vt film i wanted to see, though i’m not sure it was the film i did see. but with lars, what i find is that you get a plurality of directly opposed reactions to the films he makes. and i wonder whether this is part of what has made me unsure about the package of von trier of late. like, is the point of vt films only to cause this kind of polarity and argumentation and not much more besides? von trier has this quote where he says he wants to make cinema that’s like a stone in a shoe. i’ve admired that difficulty in the past and like that approach of a petty grating that becomes a transcedental nightmare because no one was doing that in cinema – and, like a stone in a shoe, von trier is certainly an irritant that, left to abrade, could rub you raw. but even when i was a committed vt fan, i never liked how that very fact led vt worshippers to condescend to his critics with this sentiment: ‘the fact you hate his films means they worked on you anyway’. no, just because they receive the message of the film does not thereby mean the message is smarter than them. and i do have to say i don’t know whether i can seperate that attitude from von trier himself anymore. it’s like the fox: it’s vt’s analogue in the film. he always has an analogue of himself. but as mocking of himself as its faux though absolutely meant proclamation is, i cant help but wonder if the scorn is just kind of a wobbly rotation around the same axis he’s been traversing since he took on the role of the jew in europa or the doctor in epidemic. and whether basically it just hasn’t become plainly attention-seeking. it’s weird.
what you say here and below to jesse is really interesting. i liked the look of antichrist more than anything vt has done since his europa stuff. but for me it didn’t feel like a step up from prior stuff, it felt like a repeat. a very accomplished repeat but a repeat nonetheless. in fact, it made me see for the first time that most of vt’s cinema has been very accomplised repeats. and for someone who claims such high ground, the fact he keeps treading the same territory over and over as if it were groundbreaking has made me – reluctantly – come to think his thing is actually pretty hollow. but i dont mean to say your strong reaction to antichrist is wrong. because i don’t think ‘wrong’ is the right way to express my reservations. like, when you speak about the other and aura, i know what you mean and it had me held too. it’s almost like that atmospherics hints at the vt film i wanted to see, though i’m not sure it was the film i did see. but with lars, what i find is that you get a plurality of directly opposed reactions to the films he makes. and i wonder whether this is part of what has made me unsure about the package of von trier of late. like, is the point of vt films only to cause this kind of polarity and argumentation and not much more besides? von trier has this quote where he says he wants to make cinema that’s like a stone in a shoe. i’ve admired that difficulty in the past and like that approach of a petty grating that becomes a transcedental nightmare because no one was doing that in cinema – and, like a stone in a shoe, von trier is certainly an irritant that, left to abrade, could rub you raw. but even when i was a committed vt fan, i never liked how that very fact led vt worshippers to condescend to his critics with this sentiment: ‘the fact you hate his films means they worked on you anyway’. no, just because they receive the message of the film does not thereby mean the message is smarter than them. and i do have to say i don’t know whether i can seperate that attitude from von trier himself anymore. it’s like the fox: it’s vt’s analogue in the film. he always has an analogue of himself. but as mocking of himself as its faux though absolutely meant proclamation is, i cant help but wonder if the scorn is just kind of a wobbly rotation around the same axis he’s been traversing since he took on the role of the jew in europa or the doctor in epidemic. and whether basically it just hasn’t become plainly attention-seeking. it’s weird.
i like most of the way you said this
i have no thing else to say except this film rips. as always critics should be avoided, and the film taken on in full.
i like most of the way you said this
i have no thing else to say except this film rips. as always critics should be avoided, and the film taken on in full.
Ok, here’s my problem with the movie in a nutshell:
1. Von Trier, as with all of his movies, starts out really beautifully and subtle and then, by the second half, he beats you over the fucking head with his theme over and over and over–like he thinks you are too fucking stupid to understand what he’s saying when, in all actuality, it’s been said before and much better . I don’t like a director who wants to pretend as though I’m stupid and he practically has to rape me with his theme. I get his point. Eden this and Chaos that. Clit, testicles, fox, cannibalism, nature, blah, blah, blah. Have you ever seen Dogville? Like always, it starts out very interesting and then BAM he slaps you with the theme over and over like you’re a stupid child. I like directors, such as, say, Kubrick, who have respect for their viewer. And, as always with Von Trier, you dislike one of his films and his apologists (not Corey) crawl out and say “well that means that it did it’s job blah blah blah”. Bullshit. That is a completely illogical train of thought. My complaint with the movie is that it DIDN’T work for me. I don’t like Sarah Palin’s politics so does that mean she’s done her “job” and is really a great politican? Fuck no. I don’t like “Antichrist” so does that mean that my reaction to it (which, immediately after viewing it, was apathy) means it worked? Fuck no.
2. As for my laughter at certain scenes in the movie…. Shock? Most certainly not. And, therein lies my other problem with the film. As hard as Von Trier is jerking off thinking that he’s offending you, there is nothing shocking here, not visually and not thematically. Now, that’s not a problem. A movie doesn’t have to have something shocking in order to be effective. But Von Trier tried to be shocking and failed. Because, as I said before, by the time he’s gotten to the clit scene, he’s already beaten me over the head with his theme about 500 times. So the clit thing is just another time he’s trying to hit me with that same theme. Therefore, it’s not effective (it’s too obvious to be effective) and certainly not shocking. That’s why it degenerates into splatter–it is so poorly stated that there might as well not be a theme behind it at all. .
Ok, here’s my problem with the movie in a nutshell:
1. Von Trier, as with all of his movies, starts out really beautifully and subtle and then, by the second half, he beats you over the fucking head with his theme over and over and over–like he thinks you are too fucking stupid to understand what he’s saying when, in all actuality, it’s been said before and much better . I don’t like a director who wants to pretend as though I’m stupid and he practically has to rape me with his theme. I get his point. Eden this and Chaos that. Clit, testicles, fox, cannibalism, nature, blah, blah, blah. Have you ever seen Dogville? Like always, it starts out very interesting and then BAM he slaps you with the theme over and over like you’re a stupid child. I like directors, such as, say, Kubrick, who have respect for their viewer. And, as always with Von Trier, you dislike one of his films and his apologists (not Corey) crawl out and say “well that means that it did it’s job blah blah blah”. Bullshit. That is a completely illogical train of thought. My complaint with the movie is that it DIDN’T work for me. I don’t like Sarah Palin’s politics so does that mean she’s done her “job” and is really a great politican? Fuck no. I don’t like “Antichrist” so does that mean that my reaction to it (which, immediately after viewing it, was apathy) means it worked? Fuck no.
2. As for my laughter at certain scenes in the movie…. Shock? Most certainly not. And, therein lies my other problem with the film. As hard as Von Trier is jerking off thinking that he’s offending you, there is nothing shocking here, not visually and not thematically. Now, that’s not a problem. A movie doesn’t have to have something shocking in order to be effective. But Von Trier tried to be shocking and failed. Because, as I said before, by the time he’s gotten to the clit scene, he’s already beaten me over the head with his theme about 500 times. So the clit thing is just another time he’s trying to hit me with that same theme. Therefore, it’s not effective (it’s too obvious to be effective) and certainly not shocking. That’s why it degenerates into splatter–it is so poorly stated that there might as well not be a theme behind it at all. .
Is my reaction cynical? I don’t think so. Well, I guess you could say that my reaction to this movie is cynical. Cynical where it concerns Von Trier. But am I a cynical person? I don’t think so. Similar themes in other movies (provided, of course, that they’re stated better) have a huge, almost devastating effect on me. Like Noe’s “Irreversible” for instance.
If movies are going to either 1) work on you because you didn’t like them or 2) be free from critics entirely, then you might as well start calling Wolf Creek and Hostel “art”.
Is my reaction cynical? I don’t think so. Well, I guess you could say that my reaction to this movie is cynical. Cynical where it concerns Von Trier. But am I a cynical person? I don’t think so. Similar themes in other movies (provided, of course, that they’re stated better) have a huge, almost devastating effect on me. Like Noe’s “Irreversible” for instance.
If movies are going to either 1) work on you because you didn’t like them or 2) be free from critics entirely, then you might as well start calling Wolf Creek and Hostel “art”.
Is everything Blake makes for it. For W. Mass–it’s playing at Pleasant St. at the night 9:30 all week. We will go again.
Is everything Blake makes for it. For W. Mass–it’s playing at Pleasant St. at the night 9:30 all week. We will go again.
Dogville was unbearable. Like you said, great start, but rapid slide into crap. And it went on forever!
Dogville was unbearable. Like you said, great start, but rapid slide into crap. And it went on forever!
the last film that made me feel like i’d seen something was where the wind blows. you can
watch it here, i’d be interested to know if it matches antichrist’s power for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EbsrJuAoQo
the last film that made me feel like i’d seen something was where the wind blows. you can
watch it here, i’d be interested to know if it matches antichrist’s power for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EbsrJuAoQo
Woah there, pilgrim. I didn’t mean any offense with my comment, I hope you didn’t take it as such. I am not an ‘apologist’ for anyone, and certainly not for this movie, because I don’t feel there’s anything to apologize for.
I just meant that it didn’t seem you were at all apathetic, because you seem to be (fairly passionately) discussing it in a public forum some time (?) after watching it. Part of the job of a movie like this – or a book, or music, art, whatever – can be to engender discussion. In that sense Antichrist obviously succeeded. That’s different from whether it ‘worked for you’ personally.
Also, a lot of the points (yours and others’) are about around Von Trier, his motives, etc., which I don’t really care to comment on; I take the movies on their own. I saw Antichrist at the premier and painstakingly avoided all press beforehand so that my reaction could be as much my own as possible.
I am interested in what you feel was the theme of the movie that you were being ‘beaten over the head’ with? For me, there were a lot of themes, a lot of unanswered questions, many many interesting things to think about. Movies like Wolf Creek and Hostel certainly didn’t do that. Whether that means people can call it art cinema or whatever they want to call it, doesn’t interest me.
Woah there, pilgrim. I didn’t mean any offense with my comment, I hope you didn’t take it as such. I am not an ‘apologist’ for anyone, and certainly not for this movie, because I don’t feel there’s anything to apologize for.
I just meant that it didn’t seem you were at all apathetic, because you seem to be (fairly passionately) discussing it in a public forum some time (?) after watching it. Part of the job of a movie like this – or a book, or music, art, whatever – can be to engender discussion. In that sense Antichrist obviously succeeded. That’s different from whether it ‘worked for you’ personally.
Also, a lot of the points (yours and others’) are about around Von Trier, his motives, etc., which I don’t really care to comment on; I take the movies on their own. I saw Antichrist at the premier and painstakingly avoided all press beforehand so that my reaction could be as much my own as possible.
I am interested in what you feel was the theme of the movie that you were being ‘beaten over the head’ with? For me, there were a lot of themes, a lot of unanswered questions, many many interesting things to think about. Movies like Wolf Creek and Hostel certainly didn’t do that. Whether that means people can call it art cinema or whatever they want to call it, doesn’t interest me.
Excellent reply, Jesse. You excited more questions in me.
1: Irreversible was devastating for you, and you didn’t feel as if the theme had been just about bludgeoned into your brain? I find whenever I speak to anyone about this film, Irreversible comes up (mostly on my part) in a discussion of an excitation of sensitivity or a dulling of sensitivity. I’m not saying sensibility, although in some ways it could be used synonymously, but all of that productive ambiguity of sensation’s longevity in the psyche, I use a more privileged word sensitivity in this case in speaking of the mind’s galvanisation into articulation, analysis, creative production, and awareness of detail arising from the artwork. What was it about Irreversible that redeemed the protracted repetitions of the theme, in different incarnations, clearly rendered more and more severe in the desire to shock.
2: Did you feel like the clit scene was just another act of unnecessary mutilation? Or was is it female castration, the cruellest and only possible apex to the collision of two foregrounded themes (which happen not to being the only) The grossest indignity possible forced on a living woman – if we are to consider fundamentalist male discourse – as well as the “forcing” of the Freudian castration on the woman, arguably the final indignity put on women by Freudian psychoanalysis and his silliest notion. In archetypal female manner (as a part of these traditions) She enacts the mutilation herself. Why is it these actions are just further provocations without significance (not just as expository of these themes, but subversive of them due in part to their interweaving in this film, the determinism of one on the other, their co-impositions) for you? And why wasn’t Irreversible seen to you like this?
3. Personal questions: You weren’t shocked by shooting blood from a cock, clitoridectomy on a large screen close-up, the crushing of the crotch with a log of wood, a deer carrying her stillborn as it protrudes from her, the smashing of a skull on a bathroom sink neither for explicit pleasure or pain, the forced wearing of opposite shoes on an infant, the (possible) choosing of making-love over the life of your child, the beating of a crow in close quarters for sometime until it finally stops? I’d be interested to hear why these did not live as events for you, and rather as meaningless provocations.
4. I would see your point about being bludgeoned by the theme if it was an arbitrary Battle of the Sexes tale that spiralled into torture porn. But there is too much happening, each event is too self-enclosed (in terms of significance) and there is too many additional inscriptions of place, history, the sublime in nature, etc. all of which cohere to making this film and this world to make this just that. If this was a film made for the pornographic pleasure of a battle of the sexes without all these meanings, and all of these spectres and ambiguities, I would feel the same as you Jesse. My problem with popular stagings (mostly dangerously benign) of sexual politics and conflict is that there are no meanings or paradigms of ambiguity behind what conservatives like to put simply as “incompatibility”, men are from Mars and women are from Venus, that kind of bullshit. Maybe the makers of Saw will catch a glimpse of this idea from Antichrist and stage a bunch of impossible traps for men and women to get out of, requiring them to act out ideological roles of man and woman and their “innate” differences. If Antichrist was like this for you, then that’s a real shame I guess, that it didn’t capture you.
Fair enough that you responded as you did, because if the film never grabbed you then you’re bound to feel assaulted (though in a way you say not assaulted enough, not meaningfully enough). I have to say I’m baffled by your privileging of Irreversible over Antichrist. I spoke to a woman who felt like her experience of watching Irreversible was a profound one, that she learnt something about rape that she could never come to terms with before having seen the film. You can’t disparage the response, that is such a meaningful response to a film and courageous since it hardly comes from a place of pleasure or pleasurable analysis. But my problem with her position was that if she was handed a snuff film of a real rape then what happens for her will be much the same, except that she would learn more from the real rape. If you want to discuss needless provocation, then the set of events that arise from – in reverse – the rape, but also the circumstances of the relationship, the vision as we receive it leads us only back to our original suspicion: that rape is repugnant and damaging of many lives, potentially ramified into multiple narratives of violence. What has occurred expect multiply the provocation? Draw a linked narrative? I would be interested to know. In Antichrist, the consequences of each expression exascerbates the other, both are haunted by ghosts of entirely different kinds, and the conflicts force us to look at nature differently, at shelter differently, at a vision of motherhood and mastery differently, at self-harm differently. My problem is I favour art that forces me to re-consider what I knew and felt, not that which consolidates what I knew and makes me more certain. But I have to say Jesse that your comparison of thematic ramming if you will is untenable in the case of Irreversible and Antichrist, I would go about a favouring of Irreversible for entirely different reasons I think, its anti-aestheticism, its realism, its madness I suppose.
Excellent reply, Jesse. You excited more questions in me.
1: Irreversible was devastating for you, and you didn’t feel as if the theme had been just about bludgeoned into your brain? I find whenever I speak to anyone about this film, Irreversible comes up (mostly on my part) in a discussion of an excitation of sensitivity or a dulling of sensitivity. I’m not saying sensibility, although in some ways it could be used synonymously, but all of that productive ambiguity of sensation’s longevity in the psyche, I use a more privileged word sensitivity in this case in speaking of the mind’s galvanisation into articulation, analysis, creative production, and awareness of detail arising from the artwork. What was it about Irreversible that redeemed the protracted repetitions of the theme, in different incarnations, clearly rendered more and more severe in the desire to shock.
2: Did you feel like the clit scene was just another act of unnecessary mutilation? Or was is it female castration, the cruellest and only possible apex to the collision of two foregrounded themes (which happen not to being the only) The grossest indignity possible forced on a living woman – if we are to consider fundamentalist male discourse – as well as the “forcing” of the Freudian castration on the woman, arguably the final indignity put on women by Freudian psychoanalysis and his silliest notion. In archetypal female manner (as a part of these traditions) She enacts the mutilation herself. Why is it these actions are just further provocations without significance (not just as expository of these themes, but subversive of them due in part to their interweaving in this film, the determinism of one on the other, their co-impositions) for you? And why wasn’t Irreversible seen to you like this?
3. Personal questions: You weren’t shocked by shooting blood from a cock, clitoridectomy on a large screen close-up, the crushing of the crotch with a log of wood, a deer carrying her stillborn as it protrudes from her, the smashing of a skull on a bathroom sink neither for explicit pleasure or pain, the forced wearing of opposite shoes on an infant, the (possible) choosing of making-love over the life of your child, the beating of a crow in close quarters for sometime until it finally stops? I’d be interested to hear why these did not live as events for you, and rather as meaningless provocations.
4. I would see your point about being bludgeoned by the theme if it was an arbitrary Battle of the Sexes tale that spiralled into torture porn. But there is too much happening, each event is too self-enclosed (in terms of significance) and there is too many additional inscriptions of place, history, the sublime in nature, etc. all of which cohere to making this film and this world to make this just that. If this was a film made for the pornographic pleasure of a battle of the sexes without all these meanings, and all of these spectres and ambiguities, I would feel the same as you Jesse. My problem with popular stagings (mostly dangerously benign) of sexual politics and conflict is that there are no meanings or paradigms of ambiguity behind what conservatives like to put simply as “incompatibility”, men are from Mars and women are from Venus, that kind of bullshit. Maybe the makers of Saw will catch a glimpse of this idea from Antichrist and stage a bunch of impossible traps for men and women to get out of, requiring them to act out ideological roles of man and woman and their “innate” differences. If Antichrist was like this for you, then that’s a real shame I guess, that it didn’t capture you.
Fair enough that you responded as you did, because if the film never grabbed you then you’re bound to feel assaulted (though in a way you say not assaulted enough, not meaningfully enough). I have to say I’m baffled by your privileging of Irreversible over Antichrist. I spoke to a woman who felt like her experience of watching Irreversible was a profound one, that she learnt something about rape that she could never come to terms with before having seen the film. You can’t disparage the response, that is such a meaningful response to a film and courageous since it hardly comes from a place of pleasure or pleasurable analysis. But my problem with her position was that if she was handed a snuff film of a real rape then what happens for her will be much the same, except that she would learn more from the real rape. If you want to discuss needless provocation, then the set of events that arise from – in reverse – the rape, but also the circumstances of the relationship, the vision as we receive it leads us only back to our original suspicion: that rape is repugnant and damaging of many lives, potentially ramified into multiple narratives of violence. What has occurred expect multiply the provocation? Draw a linked narrative? I would be interested to know. In Antichrist, the consequences of each expression exascerbates the other, both are haunted by ghosts of entirely different kinds, and the conflicts force us to look at nature differently, at shelter differently, at a vision of motherhood and mastery differently, at self-harm differently. My problem is I favour art that forces me to re-consider what I knew and felt, not that which consolidates what I knew and makes me more certain. But I have to say Jesse that your comparison of thematic ramming if you will is untenable in the case of Irreversible and Antichrist, I would go about a favouring of Irreversible for entirely different reasons I think, its anti-aestheticism, its realism, its madness I suppose.
Oh, a good review I discovered if you’d like to read it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-vazquez/on-lars-von-triers-anti-c_b_318748.html
Oh, a good review I discovered if you’d like to read it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-vazquez/on-lars-von-triers-anti-c_b_318748.html
Antichrist is also on On Demand via IFC’s In Theaters + On Demand if you have that on your TV. Unrated.
Antichrist is also on On Demand via IFC’s In Theaters + On Demand if you have that on your TV. Unrated.
Whew, these are some incredible questions! I’m not sure, first of all, that I’m completely qualified or capable of replying to them as intelligently as they were posed.
First, Ani: Oh no, I didn’t take offense at your comment at all. And, yes, you are totally right when you say that, perhaps, I’m not as neutral about this movie as I claimed to be. The odd thing was that, after first viewing it (I downloaded it), I felt strangely apathetic towards a movie that, because of its subject matter, I expected to be very excited about. I’m not entirely sure why I felt apathetic at first but, regardless–I discussed the film with people who basically shared the same opinion with me on Von Trier’s work (in relation to this particular film). And then, for the first time, I saw that someone whose opinion I respect (Blake) enjoyed it. And, instead of pondering the film, I immediately reacted to the way that the movie made me feel at first–apathetic and, after a little time, slightly irritated by it. I realize now, for one thing, that I need to see this film again and soon. But, if I consider my first reaction (and not the ones I’ve expressed on here), then I would use that feeling alone as my reasoning for ‘disliking’ the movie. It caused no emotion in me whatsoever whereas (and this relates to a portion of Corey’s question) movies such as, once again, Irreversible caused an intense reaction. As for books that I have had this reaction too, I became so angry with Delany’s “Hogg” that I threw it across the room. And I think my feelings towards that book and towards Antichrist are somehow related: I KNEW that it meant something and I knew that, in some way, it was working towards a goal. And yet, as with Delany’s Hogg (which, like Antichrist, I am thinking about totally reconsidering), I felt that the theme (which, ignoring for the moment all of the intriguing ones that I am now beginning to see, I thought was, overall, a comment about Nature/anarchy and how, despite the rules and meaning humans infuse into their everyday life and relationships, that that anarchic force is always seething underneath—as well as some of the more obvious religious connotations/themes) was allowed to stagnate over the course of the film/book until, by the end (or in Delaney’s case, middle), it was never taken to a more sublime level. Now, in the case of Irreversible, I feel that that new lever was reached in the closing scenes when, in stark contrast to what has been shown during the first part of the film, “love” is captured and shown convincingly. I think the juxtaposition of rape and humiliation/murder and revenge with tenderness and true feeling for another person were really potent in that film. Now, with Antichrist, there is nothing to contrast the darkness that is portrayed and, therefore, there is nothing to really make the viewer empathize or (in my case) even care about what has or has not been lost/destroyed between He and She. That’s really only a small point but, like I said, I am going to be re-watching this film. (Corey: does that answer, at least, your first question?)
Ok, assuming that I’ve answered your first question, Corey, (and if I haven’t, let me know) I’ll move on to the second:
Ok, this is a little simplistic but: While one might also argue that the rape scene in Irreversible could be seen as being too long, I think that the suffering of the female in Irreversible is ‘balanced’ due to the way she is portrayed in the latter half of the film. Once again, there is a juxtaposition at the heart of Irreversible that, more or less, makes it feel balanced and more humane. Now, of course, I don’t think that a movie has to, in every way, balance the light with the dark. But I do think that it’s more effective that way. As for the theoretical implications of the clitoridectomy, I’ll have to admit that I think your thoughts on that are incredibly fascinating and something that, without a doubt, I’ll have to consider. Perhaps this is an unfair criteria I’m requiring of the director—asking to balance things so that the dark seems darker and more potent and the light seems much brighter and its loss is more devastating. But perhaos that contrast is achieved in Antichrist—the persistent darkness of the film is in contrast with the optimism/light in the viewer—a despair of humanity’s collective unconscious felt towards the loss of “Eden”.
3. Ok, as a viewer (and reader and writer), I feel that such subject matter needs to be justified effectively in order for its gratuitousness to be enticing and meaningful. And when I first saw Antichrist, I didn’t feel as if it justified them well enough for me personally. And, therefore, I was completely turned off—not repulsed or repelled, just bored with it. And, like I said previously, I will have to go back and reexamine some of the meaning behind these scenes. But if I don’t find those meanings to be enough justification or don’t find them to be executed well enough, I will have the same reaction: boredom. I think that the reason I feel so strongly about subject matter such as this is because I have devoted the last few years of my life to reading and studying transgressive literature, from de Sade to Sotos. (That also means, of course, that when it comes to these images, I am relatively jaded and, therefore, no, it doesn’t shock me in the slightest). Now, of course, I have to consider that the literary techniques that justify this material are probably inherently (if not radically) different from the techniques that would justify such material in a film. But that’s where I need to study the film more closely because I have seen the cinematic techniques for justifying taboo subject matter used effectively in other films (like, say, Kubrick, Lynch –taboo or radical filming techniques as opposed to taboo subject matter–, or, in some cases, Paosolini). I don’t know why I failed to recognize them in Antichrist—because, as your critique of the film has shown me, they are there, at least, to some extent.
Now, haha, I need to take a break and probably go on to bed. Can I reply to the rest of your question in the morning when I am adequately coffee-ed up?
Thanks.
Whew, these are some incredible questions! I’m not sure, first of all, that I’m completely qualified or capable of replying to them as intelligently as they were posed.
First, Ani: Oh no, I didn’t take offense at your comment at all. And, yes, you are totally right when you say that, perhaps, I’m not as neutral about this movie as I claimed to be. The odd thing was that, after first viewing it (I downloaded it), I felt strangely apathetic towards a movie that, because of its subject matter, I expected to be very excited about. I’m not entirely sure why I felt apathetic at first but, regardless–I discussed the film with people who basically shared the same opinion with me on Von Trier’s work (in relation to this particular film). And then, for the first time, I saw that someone whose opinion I respect (Blake) enjoyed it. And, instead of pondering the film, I immediately reacted to the way that the movie made me feel at first–apathetic and, after a little time, slightly irritated by it. I realize now, for one thing, that I need to see this film again and soon. But, if I consider my first reaction (and not the ones I’ve expressed on here), then I would use that feeling alone as my reasoning for ‘disliking’ the movie. It caused no emotion in me whatsoever whereas (and this relates to a portion of Corey’s question) movies such as, once again, Irreversible caused an intense reaction. As for books that I have had this reaction too, I became so angry with Delany’s “Hogg” that I threw it across the room. And I think my feelings towards that book and towards Antichrist are somehow related: I KNEW that it meant something and I knew that, in some way, it was working towards a goal. And yet, as with Delany’s Hogg (which, like Antichrist, I am thinking about totally reconsidering), I felt that the theme (which, ignoring for the moment all of the intriguing ones that I am now beginning to see, I thought was, overall, a comment about Nature/anarchy and how, despite the rules and meaning humans infuse into their everyday life and relationships, that that anarchic force is always seething underneath—as well as some of the more obvious religious connotations/themes) was allowed to stagnate over the course of the film/book until, by the end (or in Delaney’s case, middle), it was never taken to a more sublime level. Now, in the case of Irreversible, I feel that that new lever was reached in the closing scenes when, in stark contrast to what has been shown during the first part of the film, “love” is captured and shown convincingly. I think the juxtaposition of rape and humiliation/murder and revenge with tenderness and true feeling for another person were really potent in that film. Now, with Antichrist, there is nothing to contrast the darkness that is portrayed and, therefore, there is nothing to really make the viewer empathize or (in my case) even care about what has or has not been lost/destroyed between He and She. That’s really only a small point but, like I said, I am going to be re-watching this film. (Corey: does that answer, at least, your first question?)
Ok, assuming that I’ve answered your first question, Corey, (and if I haven’t, let me know) I’ll move on to the second:
Ok, this is a little simplistic but: While one might also argue that the rape scene in Irreversible could be seen as being too long, I think that the suffering of the female in Irreversible is ‘balanced’ due to the way she is portrayed in the latter half of the film. Once again, there is a juxtaposition at the heart of Irreversible that, more or less, makes it feel balanced and more humane. Now, of course, I don’t think that a movie has to, in every way, balance the light with the dark. But I do think that it’s more effective that way. As for the theoretical implications of the clitoridectomy, I’ll have to admit that I think your thoughts on that are incredibly fascinating and something that, without a doubt, I’ll have to consider. Perhaps this is an unfair criteria I’m requiring of the director—asking to balance things so that the dark seems darker and more potent and the light seems much brighter and its loss is more devastating. But perhaos that contrast is achieved in Antichrist—the persistent darkness of the film is in contrast with the optimism/light in the viewer—a despair of humanity’s collective unconscious felt towards the loss of “Eden”.
3. Ok, as a viewer (and reader and writer), I feel that such subject matter needs to be justified effectively in order for its gratuitousness to be enticing and meaningful. And when I first saw Antichrist, I didn’t feel as if it justified them well enough for me personally. And, therefore, I was completely turned off—not repulsed or repelled, just bored with it. And, like I said previously, I will have to go back and reexamine some of the meaning behind these scenes. But if I don’t find those meanings to be enough justification or don’t find them to be executed well enough, I will have the same reaction: boredom. I think that the reason I feel so strongly about subject matter such as this is because I have devoted the last few years of my life to reading and studying transgressive literature, from de Sade to Sotos. (That also means, of course, that when it comes to these images, I am relatively jaded and, therefore, no, it doesn’t shock me in the slightest). Now, of course, I have to consider that the literary techniques that justify this material are probably inherently (if not radically) different from the techniques that would justify such material in a film. But that’s where I need to study the film more closely because I have seen the cinematic techniques for justifying taboo subject matter used effectively in other films (like, say, Kubrick, Lynch –taboo or radical filming techniques as opposed to taboo subject matter–, or, in some cases, Paosolini). I don’t know why I failed to recognize them in Antichrist—because, as your critique of the film has shown me, they are there, at least, to some extent.
Now, haha, I need to take a break and probably go on to bed. Can I reply to the rest of your question in the morning when I am adequately coffee-ed up?
Thanks.
Superb reply. Maybe there is something to your chiaroscuro point, along with your concessions that it isn’t required, rather, descriptive about it. You are not fair (in a good way) including Kubrick, since he is perhaps the pre-eminent director of elegance. In The Shining, for example, I don’t give a fuck about the dishevelled Nicholson, I’m watching the interior architecture and begging the blood to splash over me!
I’m with you on tendentious literature, and of course cinema. Thankfully, although replete with analysis of certain logics of human determinism, the point was Antichrist was no treatise in the conventional sense, if it was, it was a treatise of the most open-ended kind, thoughftully-drawn to ask further questions. You’re right, this is a far more difficult film than Irreversible to glean its purpose, but that is the beginning of its complexity which I think if you’re committing yourself to transgressive literature then I’m sure you’ll discover more on your second viewing. And if it isn’t so shocking for you as for some of us, then it isn’t as daunting a task as it is for me! To continue the thought on Irreversible: I think it’s worth remembering analyses of human behaviour – although Irreversible is in the guise of the universal “human story” and neo-realism without supposed intellectual basis or bias – are just as discursively endowed, and just as potentially intellectual. In cinema, positioning yourself as a neo-realist is one of the most intellectual decisions you can make. I think Irreversible has very clear purposes in its construction of human tendency, human inevitability, and the embodiment of evil in us as causal and circumstantial. But each to their own, I think perhaps your analysis of Noe’s film is better than mine.
Superb reply. Maybe there is something to your chiaroscuro point, along with your concessions that it isn’t required, rather, descriptive about it. You are not fair (in a good way) including Kubrick, since he is perhaps the pre-eminent director of elegance. In The Shining, for example, I don’t give a fuck about the dishevelled Nicholson, I’m watching the interior architecture and begging the blood to splash over me!
I’m with you on tendentious literature, and of course cinema. Thankfully, although replete with analysis of certain logics of human determinism, the point was Antichrist was no treatise in the conventional sense, if it was, it was a treatise of the most open-ended kind, thoughftully-drawn to ask further questions. You’re right, this is a far more difficult film than Irreversible to glean its purpose, but that is the beginning of its complexity which I think if you’re committing yourself to transgressive literature then I’m sure you’ll discover more on your second viewing. And if it isn’t so shocking for you as for some of us, then it isn’t as daunting a task as it is for me! To continue the thought on Irreversible: I think it’s worth remembering analyses of human behaviour – although Irreversible is in the guise of the universal “human story” and neo-realism without supposed intellectual basis or bias – are just as discursively endowed, and just as potentially intellectual. In cinema, positioning yourself as a neo-realist is one of the most intellectual decisions you can make. I think Irreversible has very clear purposes in its construction of human tendency, human inevitability, and the embodiment of evil in us as causal and circumstantial. But each to their own, I think perhaps your analysis of Noe’s film is better than mine.
Don’t you think the ‘light’ is sufficiently represented by the baby, the mother/baby relationship, the femininity and seeming frailness/helplessness of the woman, even some of the animals such as the deer? Few things are more affecting (i.e. make you care more about the characters) than the loss of a child. I think any more light and I would’ve felt hit over the head with that.
And regarding your initial apathy, Jesse, one possible interpretation is that you needed time for the ideas to soak? (Not presuming to know you or your thoughts and not presuming that you are going to change your mind and love this movie suddenly but–) I know I am still turning it over and over inside.
Don’t you think the ‘light’ is sufficiently represented by the baby, the mother/baby relationship, the femininity and seeming frailness/helplessness of the woman, even some of the animals such as the deer? Few things are more affecting (i.e. make you care more about the characters) than the loss of a child. I think any more light and I would’ve felt hit over the head with that.
And regarding your initial apathy, Jesse, one possible interpretation is that you needed time for the ideas to soak? (Not presuming to know you or your thoughts and not presuming that you are going to change your mind and love this movie suddenly but–) I know I am still turning it over and over inside.
That’s not to say that I agree with your point that the dark needs to be justified. Because I don’t. :)
That’s not to say that I agree with your point that the dark needs to be justified. Because I don’t. :)
I see tons of movies and LOVED this. Explain your thesis.
I see tons of movies and LOVED this. Explain your thesis.
YOU are not serious. Don’t generalize.
YOU are not serious. Don’t generalize.