criterionforum.org

It appears they're marketing it as a SAW-type film.

Not to re-open this can of worms again, but it sort of is a Saw film for the cerebral arthouse set. You might as well try to trick as many regular torture porn wingnuts into buying it as possible.

Now I have to wait for another disc from some other country. THAT cover will not enter my collection. Definitely.

Adam wrote: It doesn't really occur to me that if the events are "imagined within the diegesis" that would make it less of s world-view being expressed by von Trier.

Hmmm...for me there's always a difference between an implied authorial view - which can be (re-)constructed by interpreting and weighing all the elements and strata of a film or a book - and the possibility of an author, for reasons of his own, equipping a character with an imaginary thought process that the author doesn't share at all; you may argue - and I would even follow you here - that von Trier's film is just a long thought experiment and that the reconstruction and weighing etc. doesn't tell us a lot about the author's point-of-view. It is very obvious that the Dafoe character is misogynistic at heart, purely from the 'know-it-all' kind of treatment he gives to Gainsbourg already before the more shocking parts of the film begin. Thus ascribing what happens in these later parts purely to his imagination doesn't tell us a lot of new things; but if we are supposed to assume that these later events really happen, there is much more complexity, and as you say: it makes the events less 'powerful' if we assume they are just imagined (not just because they are less mysterious, but because the implied argumentation loses in impact). I would simply be far less interested in the film if I knew for sure that what we see are only the mental products of some over-rationalizing misogynist psychotherapist who cannot control his unconscious images and views of women any longer.

Adam wrote: the issue(s) being explored. [Which for me at this time is about gender relations and male anxieties. Your interpretative terrain may differ ]

The film is about gender relations, and also about male anxieties. But for me it also questions the possibility of finding rational answers to these relations and anxieties in a world/nature which might simply not work along the lines of enlightened views and theories of gender relations. That for me is the disturbing core of the film, but for me it's only possible to reach that core if one assumes that what happens is supposed to be 'real'.

Adam wrote: Thinking about it more, I find that Defoe's character is a very strong surrogate for von Trier, or more generally for the role of a "director" in making a film, first working at rationally analyzing an issue, and then using his imagination to come up with intriguing visual manifestations of the underlying concerns of the issue.

Yes, that's a convincing point; but then von Trier must be criticizing himself in the first half of the film (which is entirely possible, of course), because the sympathies, as far as characterization is concerned, clearly lie with the She character in my view. This only changes in the second half in which we are constantly forced to shift our sympathies from one character to the other, until we are left utterly exhausted because we simply cannot come to terms with what they do and with what seems to be happening in the nature around them and of which they seem to be a part, or whose rules they have to obey. I think of the three beggars and the final scene especially.

Perhaps that's why there seem indeed to be no self-imposed limitations in this case. "Antichrist" in directing and chanelling our emotional responses (call it manipulation if you like) is an extremely well constructed film, but still it's not a 'rational' one like some of his earlier works, say, "The Five Obstructions". "Antichrist" surely isn't cold; it's just frightening.

Tommaso wrote: Yes, that's a convincing point; but then von Trier must be criticizing himself in the first half of the film (which is entirely possible, of course), because the sympathies, as far as characterization is concerned, clearly lie with the She character in my view. This only changes in the second half in which we are constantly forced to shift our sympathies from one character to the other, until we are left utterly exhausted because we simply cannot come to terms with what they do and with what seems to be happening in the nature around them and of which they seem to be a part, or whose rules they have to obey. I think of the three beggars and the final scene especially.

More of your points call for more response, but for the moment, yes, I think von Trier is criticizing himself, or at least came to some unsavory conclusions about himself (or about "men"0 in the course of the therapy that he says he underwent to reach the point where he could make the film.

Adam wrote:That for me is the disturbing core of the film, but for me it's only possible to reach that core if one assumes that what happens is supposed to be 'real'.

I would agree, but then I would also think that this changes if we take her death as a 'real' event. That would tie in with the witch hunts, i.e., her dying because of crimes conjured by a paranoid male persecutor.

I think this reading also fits the tone of the violence. I wasn't bothered in a squeamish sense by the violence, but I was bothered that He suffered so few noticeable physical side effects from what happens to him. I hate to say that it wasn't "realistic" in a real-world sense, but at the same time it must be said that He deals with his wounds in a way that would make any Bruce Willis character admire his toughness. It's veers awfully close to the same kind of violence-without-consequences that were being asked to swallow by any number of big-budget Hollywood films.

But if what we're seeing is the result of misogynistic fever dreams, brought about by the hatred unleashed with his repressed grief, especially after

Spoiler

He finds out She had been mistreating the child, and He starts to wonder what She's capable of

then the cartoonishness of it all starts to fit in more interesting ways than it does if we take it at face value.

mfunk9786 wrote:Not to re-open this can of worms again, but it sort of is a Saw film for the cerebral arthouse set. You might as well try to trick as many regular torture porn wingnuts into buying it as possible.

Gee, I thought She just bashed He while he was unconscious, I didn't realize there was 15 minutes of bondage, humiliation and pain leading up to the act. I suppose I'll have to rethink The Devils as Torture Porn, too...

It's awesome when you're so busy being snippy that you forget to use spoiler tags.

I wonder whether Artificial Eye is doing reversible artwork for this release? There are plenty of precedents in their catalogue (Clerks springs immediately to mind), and this would seem to be a particularly obvious example of a film that could be marketed as exploitation or arthouse.

Their cover is a superior variation on the Australian poster artwork. The US poster's still better of course

French Blu Ray

Psst... That's the French flag.

Also, I don't think reviews from Svet Atanasov should be taken all that seriously, he tends to overrate every element of every disc he reviews. Almost every disc he reviewed for DVDTalk, even the unremarkable ones (Such as the nearly featureless Cache) was given the "DVDTalk Collector's Series" distinction.

mfunk9786 wrote:Psst... That's the French flag.

Sorry about that. I kind of posted this in a hurry.

Additionally, this reviewer doesn't give it the most glowing review.

Just saw this over the weekend. Wow, what a prologue. Probably one of the most impressive 10 minutes of film I have seen in a long time. Right up there Hiroshima mon amour.

aox wrote:Additionally, this reviewer doesn't give it the most glowing review.

But at least the cover design must make this the version of choice for the moment.

Tommaso wrote:

aox wrote:Additionally, this reviewer doesn't give it the most glowing review.

But at least the cover design must make this the version of choice for the moment.

Is this not the first home video release? Regardless, the French cover made me cringe. I would almost prefer the theatrical poster.

Look back on page 9 of this thread to see the UK disc cover.... you'll understand what I mean.

Tommaso wrote:Look back on page 9 of this thread to see the UK disc cover.... you'll understand what I mean.

Oh my...

I am hoping they use the alternate posters that I have seen surfacing lately for the US cover.

Spoiler

I feel the talking Fox was really what tied the film together

DVD Beaver on the first Blu-Ray release. Interesting to note that Per Kirkeby created the title cards - his paintings were previously used as the prologue of Dancer In The Dark.

Walter Chaw's rave on FilmfreakCentral:

http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/screenr ... christ.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

anyone think this could get a cinematography nod at the Oscars?

It will be shut out of every category. Mark my words

domino harvey wrote:It will be shut out of every category. Mark my words

I absolutely don't doubt it in any sense of the notion. Just immature speculation on my part. If nothing else, I thought it was gorgeous to look at. ...if nothing else.

domino harvey wrote:

knives wrote:I would like to add though I felt that Von Trier's over the toppness made the film very funny. That's where I had much of my enjoyment actually. For example the boo scare with the fox was utterly ruined for me by the 'chaos reigns' line to the point where I landed on the floor. The rest of the audience, one woman in particular, didn't appreciate that though.

You're really bragging about being that guy in the audience?

I tried my damnest to be on good behavoir (even during the various woodland Christmas critters scenes), but I was definitely that guy when the Tarkovsky card came up. Even though I knew fully well that it was coming, it was still probably the greatest punch line of the decade.

As others before me, I concur with what zedz had to say: this was an incredibly silly movie. There's not much more to add to the conversation. Perhaps the best reaction to this film is the one allegedly expressed by Manohla Dargis after the Cannes screening: humming "That's Entertainment!" on your way out the door.