542 Antichrist

Discuss DVDs and Blu-rays released by Criterion and the films on them. If it's got a spine number, it's in here. Threads may contain spoilers.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: 542 Antichrist

#376 Post by Michael Kerpan » Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:14 pm

But my post had the primary purpose of thanking people for providing useful links -- that these helped me decide I didn't want to see this film was a secondary point. Not sure where you got "bragging" from. I've never treated being squeamish (in films and otherwise) as a virtue (here or elsewhere).

In any event, I make a mild joke here about once every three years. I would think I have not exceeded my quota.

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

Re: 542 Antichrist

#377 Post by HistoryProf » Fri Nov 12, 2010 8:41 pm

blue lasers? How the fuck do THOSE work?

User avatar
Finch
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Re: 542 Antichrist

#378 Post by Finch » Mon Nov 15, 2010 4:08 pm

Interested in Ian Christie's essay but don't want to buy Antichrist? Worry no more. Criterion's put it on their website.

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

Re: 542 Antichrist

#379 Post by domino harvey » Tue Nov 23, 2010 6:14 pm

Thinkbach wrote:For the record, the predominant emotion I received during Antichrist was not against women, but against America and Americanism. This came to me in his quoting of Napoleon Hill in a way that clearly stands in opposition to the predominant theme of chaos. Herzog does the same thing, poking fun at contemporary nature-love gullibility, and perhaps rightly so. Triers doesn't seem to find a way to do this without some kind of hate, or at least sardonicism.
I have no idea what this means and the anti-American angle seems like a talking point left over from the aborted USA Trilogy. Could you explain in a more cogent fashion your argument?

User avatar
Thinkbach
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:10 am
Contact:

Re: 542 Antichrist

#380 Post by Thinkbach » Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:07 am

domino harvey wrote:
Thinkbach wrote:For the record, the predominant emotion I received during Antichrist was not against women, but against America and Americanism. This came to me in his quoting of Napoleon Hill in a way that clearly stands in opposition to the predominant theme of chaos. Herzog does the same thing, poking fun at contemporary nature-love gullibility, and perhaps rightly so. Triers doesn't seem to find a way to do this without some kind of hate, or at least sardonicism.
I have no idea what this means and the anti-American angle seems like a talking point left over from the aborted USA Trilogy. Could you explain in a more cogent fashion your argument?
Only my impression at time of watching, his reference to Napoleon Hill-style thinking, quoting Hill to me signaled a broad rejection of American feel-goodism, itself usually signifying other things in pop-culture these days. For me. So it's only my take, not a thing about film or work itself. In time since seeing film many other thoughts and reflections, and in some ways easier to view through lens of references to other films and styles. His grounding in horror in this to me emanates from a focus on cultural history, or baggage, yet it does operate from behaviorist ideas about animals and animal nature. A psychological probe, yet not, for me, naturalistic, which is odd for me. I do like horror associated with nature and animals and animal patterns of behavior. This had that and yet went off on literature and history etc. I found the "millstone" kind of obvious, and the bit about shoes problematic, since I'm aware that wearing shoes on wrong feet, as far as I know, doesn't in fact cause damage. I could be wrong about that, but have seen children choosing to wear shoes on wrong feet with no adverse effects. So certain things seemed unrealistic within film's own requirements for realism, which is fine, but kind of wobbled a bit for me. Strong emotions thought. And in a way I still prefer Audition, which does something similar in a more shorthand manner, at least one aspect. Ah, they're fun to compare. I'm wondering if I'll like Antichrist more on second viewing. Third time's usually the charm...

5meohd
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 10:46 pm

Re: 542 Antichrist

#381 Post by 5meohd » Sat Nov 16, 2013 11:35 am

I wish more people were able to watch films from a non-scholarly perspective. I don't know very much at all about film in that sense and I'm starting to think it gives me an advantage in certain situations. Skimming through this thread there seems to be so much reference to other films or even Lars Von Trier (as if he were a personal friend).

When I watch this film I can only see what is happening on screen and I can only hear what is coming through the sound system.

What I experience is nothing short of AWEsome. From opening to closing the film is showing me things that would not otherwise see. Maybe I am the most simple minded Criterion fan of all time, but I can objectively say that Antichrist is gripping and sends physical sensation through my body.

On the flip side, I'm trying to get through Element of Crime and I just keep falling asleep. I think I'll go skim that thread!

User avatar
AlexHansen
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:39 pm
Location: Idaho

Re: 542 Antichrist

#382 Post by AlexHansen » Sat Nov 16, 2013 11:24 pm

5meohd wrote:I wish more people were able to watch films from a non-scholarly perspective.
I'd argue that most people (and by people it's safe to say you specifically mean members of this forum) do watch films from a non-scholarly perspective. At least the first time through. When they watch a film all they can see and hear is what's on screen and coming out of the speakers. Ideas may pass through their minds. Some might even jot down notes in order to remember these ideas. It's after the movie is over that the "scholarly perspective" comes into play. They want to explore the fleeting ideas from the screening more thoroughly, and a lot of the time those ideas incorporate elements from other films, arts, philosophy, etc. Hence their coming to this forum or others like it. To enrich their ideas with the ideas and perspectives of others. Why else would someone wade through page after page of said ideas and perspectives?

And I have to ask, what are these "certain" situations are, because I can't imagine "being a productive member of a forum where in-depth discussions of world cinema take place" is one of them?

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: 542 Antichrist

#383 Post by colinr0380 » Sun Nov 17, 2013 9:24 am

I'm just nervous that 5meohd has read the Element of Crime thread in which I argued that by far the best way to watch that film was with the commentary track from the Tartan Video/Electric Parc boxset running so you get all of the Tarkovsky and Third Man references!

There's advantages and disadvantages to experiencing things in isolation and to fitting them into a wider filmic (and beyond film) context. There might never be the 'wow factor' of having the maximum impact from experiencing a film's techniques the first time around (or even, say, seeing Manderlay after the theatre-space of Dogville has already been presented, though Manderlay is just as great a film and does different things with its partial sets that build upon what was laid down in Dogville), and I'd agree about trying to go into films fresh and open for anything, but there is still great fun to be had from revisiting films once you have experienced the first time, whether that is from seeing different things, or making wider connections, or just enjoying taking the journey in that specific film over again.

5meohd
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 10:46 pm

Re: 542 Antichrist

#384 Post by 5meohd » Sun Nov 17, 2013 2:25 pm

AlexHansen wrote:They want to explore the fleeting ideas from the screening more thoroughly, and a lot of the time those ideas incorporate elements from other films, arts, philosophy, etc. Hence their coming to this forum or others like it. To enrich their ideas with the ideas and perspectives of others. Why else would someone wade through page after page of said ideas and perspectives?

And I have to ask, what are these "certain" situations are, because I can't imagine "being a productive member of a forum where in-depth discussions of world cinema take place" is one of them?

Thats the small point I was trying to make, being ignorant of such a vast amount of "other films, arts, and philosophy" allows me to appreciate things in a different way. I guess I should leave out the "advantage" statement and simply argue that it is different.

Sidenote: Its extremely ironic that I was thinking of this film enough to be commenting here yesterday and then my manager decided to do a "anti-holiday" 1 year anniversary of our opening day screening for employees at my work. Guess which film was played in 35mm.. and I wasn't there. I guess I need to check my email on the weekends :/

User avatar
AlexHansen
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:39 pm
Location: Idaho

Re: 542 Antichrist

#385 Post by AlexHansen » Sun Nov 17, 2013 10:27 pm

5meohd wrote:I guess I should leave out the "advantage" statement and simply argue that it is different.
Around these parts, choosing your words wisely often leads to a path of least infighting & navel gazing. That and having a thick(ish) skin are the best things a new poster can have. And also a ditto to what Colin said (I can't remember if I've listened to that commentary or not, think I just went straight for the Udo/Barr/LvT track on Europa, so thanks for the reminder sir). In any case, I'd be interested in hearing how and why you found the film gripping. What struck me most about my last viewing was how much of a presence "nature" had in the film. Trier creates a palpable sense of menace to Eden and its surroundings, that I find somewhat unexplainable. He's conjured the old "ghost makes a room cold" trope and managed to insert it into the screening space.

User avatar
Zorn
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:18 am

Re: 542 Antichrist

#386 Post by Zorn » Thu Feb 04, 2016 11:05 am

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/fe ... promouvoir

Antichrist banned from France until they can re-certify it due to a Traditionalist Catholic group's pressuring. It's insane that this film, Blue is the Warmest Color and even Fifty Shades of Grey can be banned from a country like France.


What century are we in?

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

Re: 542 Antichrist

#387 Post by swo17 » Thu Feb 04, 2016 11:14 am

The 21st. Presumably in some previous century, von Trier would be beheaded instead.

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

Re: 542 Antichrist

#388 Post by domino harvey » Thu Feb 04, 2016 11:16 am

"I see a lot of myself in Vikings," Von Trier told a shocked Norman council

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

Re: 542 Antichrist

#389 Post by tenia » Thu Feb 04, 2016 12:23 pm

Gaspar Noé's Love and more recently, the movie Bang Gang (A Love Story) also had to be re-classified from 16+ to 18+.

Unfortunately, as long as this juridic loophole isn't closed, Promouvoir will be able to do these actions and make the French Classification Comittee look silly.

Note however that they're not banned per se (like it was the case for Hooper's TCM back in the time). They can't be shown into theaters before a new classification is emitted, a new classification which can very well be the same 16+ than before. Since Antichrist theatrical career is long gone, and that the movie have a wide circulation on video (DVD, BD, VoD), it won't hurt it at all. They won't recall the physical video releases, or anything (unlike what The Guardian is saying).


But in terms of symbol, yes, it's pretty worrying.

User avatar
ermylaw
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:58 am

Re: 542 Antichrist

#390 Post by ermylaw » Thu Feb 04, 2016 1:03 pm

I am a traditionalist Catholic (in the US), and I don't agree with banning films.

Since I recognize that film is art, I see it as analogous to other forms of art that have existed throughout history. The Catholic Church has always promoted art in various forms, such as painting and architecture and even film. Obviously, some art will be considered indecent for the consumption of children, but that does not mean that the art should be banned.

I own Antichrist. And I have seen Blue is the Warmest Color. I wouldn't watch either for family movie time, but I don't think they should be banned.

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

Re: 542 Antichrist

#391 Post by tenia » Thu Feb 04, 2016 3:02 pm

ermylaw wrote:Obviously, some art will be considered indecent for the consumption of children, but that does not mean that the art should be banned.
That's actually (to be fair with them) what Promouvoir is doing.
They want these movies to have a 18+ rating. They don't want (in the facts) more than that. To them, a lower classification than "Restricted to adults" is too low in their eyes for the movies they're attacking.

The issue in France is that despite the X rating having been reformed and transformed into the 18+ rating (in the 80s IIRC), there still are plenty of constraints linked to having such a high classification. Distibutors (if this happens before the theatrical career) won't take the movie, theaters won't show it, you'll be restricted in the advertising you can do about it, etc etc.

That's, in fine, the main issue with this. Other than that, to be honest, it's not so much of a problem. For instance, in the case of Gaspar Noé's Love, the 16+ rating could arguably been seen as too low considering the amount of non-simulated sex in it. I'm fine with it, but my girlfriend thought that 18+ wasn't unjustified either.

Same for Blue : in France, the movie is only restricted to 12+. Arguably, this could be amped up to 16+ without being unjustified. But Promouvoir really wants the 18+ rating, and I can't think of any other reason than hurting these movies' visibility, not just "protecting the children". That's, currently, my main concern over this association's actions.

User avatar
ermylaw
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:58 am

Re: 542 Antichrist

#392 Post by ermylaw » Thu Feb 04, 2016 3:08 pm

It seems that "banned" is not really the right word, as someone mentioned above.

If the goal is to keep children from seeing things that the parents find objectionable, then parental responsibility is the key. The situation in France for my confreres in the traditional Catholic circles is rather daunting, so I understand their motivation for these sorts of things. I tend to think that, in the case of art (or what is arguably art), the better course is to engage in the discussion and not try to use governmental regulatory authority to accomplish your goals, especially considering that it is that same government, among other things, against which they are struggling.

User avatar
The Fanciful Norwegian
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:24 pm
Location: Teegeeack

Re: 542 Antichrist

#393 Post by The Fanciful Norwegian » Thu Feb 04, 2016 5:42 pm

I just find it weird that they're going after a seven-year-old movie. The Idiots got a 12-and-up rating too, so are they going after that next? But then they might be making a special case of Antichrist due to the "sacrilegious" elements.

User avatar
ermylaw
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:58 am

Re: 542 Antichrist

#394 Post by ermylaw » Thu Feb 04, 2016 5:47 pm

From what I could tell, they began this venture against the film nearly 6 years ago. It has just now culminated in some action. Google led me to some articles from 2010 and 2011 on this same issue.

User avatar
R0lf
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 7:25 am

Re: 542 Antichrist

#395 Post by R0lf » Sun Feb 07, 2016 5:41 am

It would be hilarious if it got a lower rating.

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

Re: 542 Antichrist

#396 Post by tenia » Sun Feb 07, 2016 1:00 pm

R0lf wrote:It would be hilarious if it got a lower rating.
It wont. It will either get the same or get a 18+.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Antichrist (Lars von Trier, 2009)

#397 Post by Mr Sausage » Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:03 am

DISCUSSION ENDS MONDAY, October 28th.

Members have a two week period in which to discuss the film before it's moved to its dedicated thread in The Criterion Collection subforum. Please read the Rules and Procedures.

This thread is not spoiler free. This is a discussion thread; you should expect plot points of the individual films under discussion to be discussed openly. See: spoiler rules.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

I encourage members to submit questions, either those designed to elicit discussion and point out interesting things to keep an eye on, or just something you want answered. This will be extremely helpful in getting discussion started. Starting is always the hardest part, all the more so if it's unguided. Questions can be submitted to me via PM.

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

Re: Antichrist (Lars von Trier, 2009)

#398 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:59 pm

I'm sure LQ is going to be thrilled that we're watching Antichrist again soon.

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Antichrist (Lars von Trier, 2009)

#399 Post by DarkImbecile » Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:09 pm

It's one of the only films about which I decided "Well, that was great, but once is enough" after my first viewing, but here I am getting ready to do it again!

Quick comment before I rewatch:
In an upset, the thing from this film that has viscerally lingered with me as long as the more infamous scenes are the damned shoes. To this day when my kids wander up to me with their shoes on the wrong feet or even leave them on the floor next to each other that way, I involuntarily shudder.

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

Re: Antichrist (Lars von Trier, 2009)

#400 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:21 pm

I agree, having seen the film a few times, it's the cutaway to the shoes and the child crying that upsets me the most. I went back and read my original evaluation of the film, which I usually hate to do (especially from when I was 23 years old) and while I'm not too embarrassed with myself, one thing I failed to see the first time is that it's far more believable to have cast Dafoe and Gainsbourg as the chilly, academic couple rather than warmer and/or more open actors. Yes, I do think we experience empathy for these people's grief a bit differently than we would for more emotionally accessible characters, but the film doesn't invite us into their grief, nor does it want us to try to enter it. Instead, by accessing it from afar, it is far easier to understand and analyze their flaws as they become apparent throughout the second and third acts of the picture.

Came across this quote in my brief initial travels into reading about this film today, by the way:

"I am really the wrong person to ask what the film means or why it is as it is. It is a bit like asking the chicken about the chicken soup." - Lars von Trier

Post Reply