542 Antichrist

[fiddlesticks]

SpoilerShow

So the uncut version will retain the cuts, and the cutting will be cut from the cut version?

[med]

Otherwise it would be impossible to sell (it) to prude markets like southern Europe, Asia and the United States, where you can't show a naked man from the front

Is he really under the impression that the mere sight of penis is what's going to make this film difficult to sell to "prude markets"? Perhaps there was a sarcastic tone the article didn't pick up.

[mfunk9786]

I was really looking forward to seeing this one in the theater, too.

[kaujot]

I'm willing to bet some theaters can get their hands on an uncut print. I know that, if able, the Drafthouse in Austin will bring in an uncut print. It's odd, because the only theaters that wouldn't show "male frontal" are the ones that wouldn't screen Antichrist whether cut or not.

[Fierias]

from Indiewire's story about IFC picking up the film:

IFC said the cut will be the same version screened in Cannes.

[kaujot]

I smell a Blockbuster exclusive.

[knives]

from Indiewire's story about IFC picking up the film:

IFC said the cut will be the same version screened in Cannes.

Let's hope. Honestly, why bother with an alternative cut if just the name Von Trier is going to prevent it from showing in most if not all theaters that wouldn't otherwise be just as willing to show Porn?

[tartarlamb]

Hey now. Some of us are actually rooting for the cut version. Some things you really don't want to see on a big screen (or at all). Von Trier is not a subtle director; I think I'll get the point without having to lose my lunch on the theater floor.

[Antoine Doinel]

The question isn't what cut IFC will show theatrically or on VOD, but what cut makes the DVD especially with their ever increasingly annoying exclusivity deal with Blockbuster.

[James]

The question isn't what cut IFC will show theatrically or on VOD, but what cut makes the DVD especially with their ever increasingly annoying exclusivity deal with Blockbuster.

I don't think they're completely exclusive — I rented Les chansons d'amour, a movie distributed by IFC, from Netflix.

[Cde.]

Hey now. Some of us are actually rooting for the cut version. Some things you really don't want to see on a big screen (or at all). Von Trier is not a subtle director; I think I'll get the point without having to lose my lunch on the theater floor.

I think a lot of people (including myself) would rather skip the film than watch a censored version.

[Nothing]

The Danish DVD will be preceed all of this, presumably, ala. Dogville & Mandalay.

[tartarlamb]

I think a lot of people (including myself) would rather skip the film than watch a censored version.

I definitely don't want to open the free speech/censorship can of worms, especially since I understand the desire to see what is understood as the intended cut of the film, but I don't know that "censored" is the right word for this. Von Trier is cutting the film himself per an agreement he made well before he even made the original cut of the film:

"We reached an agreement with Lars more than a year ago to make a 'Catholic' version of the movie, to cut some scenes and replace them with others," Peter Aalbaek Jensen, the head of the Zentropa production group, told AFP."

Which is common sense. A film that is hard to watch is hard to sell. And since I consider Mr. Trier to be a somewhat irritating, albeit very talented, charlatan, I don't think its entering conspiracy territory to suggest that maybe he brought a cut of the film to Cannes that he knew he probably wouldn't keep to provoke and generate controversy, and a helluva lot of free publicity, in a room full of journalists.

Or maybe I'm just one of the prudes that Zentropa is complaining about, backward reasoning my way into seeing a toned down version of a film that, I think, looks very interesting aside from its more Abu Ghraib-chic elements.

[PaganPoet]

TrustNordisk signs deals on Antichrist despite mixed reviews

21 May, 2009 | By Geoffrey Macnab

Days after the stormy screening of Lars Von Trier’s Antichrist, a film that fiercely divided critics, two major deals have been concluded on the film.

TrustNordisk has found a UK buyer with increasingly voracious distributor Artificial Eye. The film has also gone to the US to IFC, which has been on a mini-buying spree of Cannes competition titles.

Earlier this week, some distributors expressed severe misgivings that they would be able to release the film in the version shown in Cannes, which includes

SpoilerShow

shots of genital mutilation and the ejaculation of blood as well as penetrative sex.

However, Von Trier has already prepared a “nice Catholic” version in which the four most extreme sequences have been excised The version here in Cannes is “the naughty Protestant one”.

An upbeat Peter Aalbæk Jensen, co-boss of Zentropa, which produced the film, said that the distributors that have acquired bought the film can release either version.

Aalbæk Jensen said that TrustNordisk had received “one of the highest prices we have got in many years” from the UK for Antichrist.

He also revealed how Von Trier had changed the screenplay for Antichrist after Aalbæk Jensen inadvertently gave away the ending to journalists.

SpoilerShow

He added: “the element of female being Satan was not part of the first film. Satan was nature.

Actually, I think we got a much better film out of me telling the ending…even if Lars punished me by making Manderlay.”

[colinr0380]

From the sound of it, this song by Charlotte Gainsbourg seems strangely appropriate to the film!

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

The question isn't what cut IFC will show theatrically or on VOD, but what cut makes the DVD especially with their ever increasingly annoying exclusivity deal with Blockbuster.

I don't think they're completely exclusive — I rented Les chansons d'amour, a movie distributed by IFC, from Netflix.

IFC and Blockbuster can't stop Netflix or anyone else from buying a previously viewed copy at Blockbuster and renting it out, but it was still unavailable through normal U.S. distribution channels during the exclusivity period. Netflix may also have imported it from Canada, where IFC's titles are handled by different local distributors and aren't subject to any exclusivity deals.

[Antoine Doinel]

The film gets smacked down by the ecumenical jury at Cannes who call it "the most misogynist movie from the self-proclaimed biggest director in the world".

[Nothing]

What a bunch of fucking pricks. Who the hell is Radu Mihaileanu to judge Lars von Trier, anyhow (the inherent problem with the whole jury approach).

[zombeaner]

The film gets smacked down by the ecumenical jury at Cannes who call it "the most misogynist movie from the self-proclaimed biggest director in the world".

Now, I haven't seen the film, BUT, in the many MANY reviews I've seen, none of them seem to mention the apparently explicit meaning of the film as written in the first line in this article

CANNES, France -- Antichrist, the controversial movie that suggests women are evil beings who deserved their persecution throughout history, has caused another mini-scandal at the Cannes Film Festival.

[Camera Obscura]

Interesting. Not the official jury, though. Anyway, they're doing Von Trier a favour. This so-called anti-award will only boost the film's notoriety (and potential box-office appeal) even further.

To be honest, it's the first time I've heard of this so called 'ecumenical' jury of do-gooders. I'm sure they mean well, but handing out anti-awards isn't likely to help their cause at all. Even if it turns out, Von Trier is burning actual women on screen, they're not gonna get any sympathy from me (like they care). I doubt if Ken Loach is on friendly terms with Von Trier (very few are), but Loach should flat out refuse his award if he's got any self dignity.

[luridedith]

This is the first film I've seen in a while where the negative publicity is completely working in the film's favour in a massive way. Everyone I know wants to see it. I can't wait, although it'll probably never get a release in Australia.

[Cde.]

This is the first film I've seen in a while where the negative publicity is completely working in the film's favour in a massive way. Everyone I know wants to see it. I can't wait, although it'll probably never get a release in Australia.

Nah, I think some little distributor will try and sneak it through. As you say, everyone you know wants to see it (the same can be said for everyone I know who cares a little about cinema). Of course, A Current Affair will be out in force to protect our borders from this filth, but I think it will make it through amid much pitchfork waving.

[Antoine Doinel]

Cannes director Thierry Fremaux doesn't react kindly to the ecumenical jury, saying it was a "...ridiculous decision that borders on a call for censorship, (it is) scandalous coming from an 'ecumenical' jury which what is more is headed by a film-maker".

[ABOVE LINK SPOILS FINAL SHOT]
[ed. - Jeff]

[FerdinandGriffon]

Goddamnit and send it all to hell, spoiler alert. Through careful parsing of articles and reviews I'd been able to avoid the final scene up until that last one. Even the journalists who are friendly to the film don't seem to realize that we might actually want to see Antichrist.

[justeleblanc]

So, wait for the DVD?

Well, IFC has stopped releasing DVDs of their films, so maybe wait for the Danish DVD.