542 Antichrist

[HistoryProf]

blue lasers? How the fuck do THOSE work?

[Finch]

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

[domino harvey]

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?

[Thinkbach]

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]

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!

[AlexHansen]

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?

[colinr0380]

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]

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 :/

[AlexHansen]

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.

[Zorn]

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?

[swo17]

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

[domino harvey]

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

[tenia]

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.

[ermylaw]

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.

[tenia]

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.

[ermylaw]

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.

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

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.

[ermylaw]

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.

[R0lf]

It would be hilarious if it got a lower rating.

[tenia]

It would be hilarious if it got a lower rating.

It wont. It will either get the same or get a 18+.

[Mr Sausage]

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.

[mfunk9786]

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

[DarkImbecile]

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.

[mfunk9786]

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

[HitchcockLang]

After seeing mfunk's enthusiastic rallying cry in the Criterion Store thread for more participation here, I decided last night to watch Antichrist for the first time and invited my wife to join me. We love to watch horror movies in the month of October and I need to get my money's worth out of that Criterion Channel subscription anyway. The Criterion FIlm Club is also exactly the kind of thing I would like to participate in more but, to be frank and a little vulnerable, I'm awfully intimidated posting on this forum. I knew almost nothing about Antichrist going in (and so my wife knew even less). I had seen only one Lars von Trier film before (Dancer in the Dark) which I would say neither thematically nor stylistically prepared me for Antichrist.

Even though this is in no way intended as a review, I will begin with my more positive feelings before circling back around to the issues I had with the film:

Since my wife and I were approaching it as a horror film for October, even though it would seem Trier has distanced himself from that label (a fact I didn't know until searching up information on the film after watching), I was paying a bit more attention to genre convention than I may have ordinarily. I appreciated how Trier used many of the more cliche conventions of the horror genre (the rustic cabin in the woods, dissonant music, and even a jump scare--I physically jerked when the teddy bear transformed into the talking self-mutilating fox) but presented a film that did not feel like a conventional horror film in the least. This also really made me question what is and isn't a horror film. I've always found horror difficult to define. It's a bit like English adjective order, we recognize it when it's there but most people would have trouble explaining it to the satisfaction of all.

I also found myself wondering why horror is so often turned to for dealing with grief. Off the top of my head, Don't Look Now, The Babadook, both Hereditary and Midsommar, Spoorloos, Mike Flanagan's The Haunting of Hill House, and heck even the Saw franchise all use horror to address grief and loss. Is horror as a genre defined by fear? And if so, is that the connection? We fear grief and therefore grief can be appropriated as the next movie monster to stalk and destroy characters? I'm actually not so sure that fear is truly the defining feature of the horror genre, and interestingly enough, I found Antichrist to be almost intentionally bereft of fear. Previously noted jump scare notwithstanding, I never felt fear or even anxiety during my viewing of Antichrist and I am terrified by many films that my students would think were laughable (Universal classic monster movies still tingle my spine). I felt as though Trier were intentionally creating a sense of clinical dissection not only of the characters' psyches but of the genre itself, infusing horror with detachment and boredom, and therefore as a genre study, I found it fascinating.

Also, as you can see from my last two paragraphs, I really have more questions than answers on this topic and would love to hear what others of you have to add to the notion of genre regarding this film. Unfortunately, the meditation on genre is about the most valuable thing I gleaned from the film.

The symbolism (perhaps approaching allegory though I'm not sure) felt wildly inconsistent. Occasionally, I found a symbol to be eye-rollingly obvious (the grind stone attached to the male character's leg felt like a clear symbol for how we trap others in our grief, often hurting the ones we love the most), whereas much of the film felt impenetrable with some images feeling either too personal to the filmmaker or too obscure as to intentionally obfuscate any deeper meaning from the audience without offering any kind of key or path to understanding. In short, it's one of those films that made me feel stupid. I like a good challenging film and often find their layers peeled back through repeat viewings but the stomach-churning gruesomeness here feels almost like a feature designed to discourage revisitings.

My wife could barely make it through the first viewing. She recoiled at the bloody ejaculation and when Gainsbourg's character began drilling a hole in Dafoe's character's leg, my wife jumped up from the couch and said, "Yeah, I'm out." I pointed out that there was only a half hour or so left and she decided, having come this far, to finish it. She did not watch the genital mutilation scene, sensing what was about to happen. I did and rather wished I hadn't. My wife remarked that the sequences of gore only served to nauseate her. She also said that the film put her in a bad mood, a similar reaction, she noted, to her viewing of Michael Hanake's Funny Games US.

After the film was over, my wife and I discussed the film a little, both perplexed by some of its intended meanings, and both agreeing that the black and white slow motion prologue was beautiful and perhaps the best part of the film. That scene sparked an interesting conversation about how sex is the force which brings life to children and in this case, it was interesting that the same force (sex) that brings life to Nic also takes his life away, perhaps a meditation on the irony that we enjoy sex but that its result (children) can often curtail our sex lives or even imbue us with sexual guilt. Certainly Gainsbourg's character seems to be struggling with the guilt of her sexual desires which "killed" her son, ultimately rejecting pleasure through the removal of her own clitoris.

My wife also found all of this to be terribly misogynistic: the portrayal of a hysterical, sex-crazed woman unable to cope with her own grief who must be tempered by the calm rationality of the perfect man. While I don't disagree with her assessment of misogyny (opining that Trier perhaps doesn't know how to write women), I also did not view Dafoe's character as infallible as my wife did. I found him to be rather aloof with his son's death, and perhaps he was feeling intense grief as well, but his coping mechanism was to micromanage his wife's grief, a move which I thought may have been Trier's attempt at criticizing misogyny in relationships rather than perpetuating it.

Weirdly enough, the movie my wife and I found most similar to this dynamic was Ordinary People, in which my wife and I both found Mary Tyler Moore's character to be written so badly and with Donald Sutherland's written as the heroic, stable man who must set aside his own grief in order to be emotionally available to his hysterical wife's needs. It rang false in Ordinary People, and it rings false to me in Antichrist.

One last thing: I also noted the Biblical allusions, particularly the title and the cabin named Eden, but struggled to understand what religious subtexts were intended. It almost felt like a reverse of the exile of Adam and Eve: two lovers in shame return from exile to Eden. I found myself thinking of Aronofsky's mother!, another film which deals (to a much lesser extent) with grief and poses a stress on defining horror cinema. Aronofsky's film's religious allegory felt much clearer, if a bit obvious. Trier's film, conversely would have had almost the same impact on me without the religious nods as I found them merely distractions.

Overall, I wonder how much my first viewing of the film may have been compromised by my reading it as a horror film, but while I do not regret watching it, I cannot imagine wanting to revisit it, certainly not any time in the next several years.