Antichrist

Lysander

Lysander

Lysander

Capodecina
Soldato
Joined
1 Aug 2005
Posts
20,005
Location
Flatland
As I was walking round Odeon Covent Garden [well, they call it Odeon Covent Garden because it sounds better than Cambridge Circus] I noticed a poster for Von Trier's Antichrist which is going on general release this week. I thought this film would only hit independents but seeing as it won't, it may be useful to have a thread to discuss it, especially on the back of Hart's inflammatory article.

I was fortunate enough to see the premiere of this at the Curzon Soho a couple of weeks ago. I won't give away any spoilers but I will say the film is about a couple who retire to a cabin in the woods to get away from everything and to confront their inner demons after the neglectful death of their own son. As it progresses it gets more eerie, unsettling and ultimately painful to watch as the couple's demons manifest themselves in different ways. I'm not a massive fan of Von Trier, in fact I've never seen a film of his before, but I went to see this because it looked challenging and intriguing.

For those still interested to watch it, it should be mentioned that it's not a fast-moving film. Expect something slow-paced and thoughtful. Those of you who are used to seeing Asian [especially Korean/Chinese] films will know how slow some of those can be. It also doesn't pull any punches. It doesn't need to. It's not exploitative and it's not sensationalist - everything has its own justifiable context - though I expect one or two of you will have something to say about that.

Hopefully we can discuss some good, intelligent thoughts about it when it goes on general release in a few days' time.
 
Well, count me officially angry.

Last week I blew off the fact that "Moon" wasn't showing at Nottingham's Cineworld - but now it looks like "AntiChrist" isn't making it either. Probably due to the fact that almost half the ******* screens are taken up with Harry Potter.

There's no way I'm driving to Sheffield for the day just to see it - it's not quite that urgent. But still, ****!


...I'm sure I'll probably hate it anyway. Arthouse horror doesn't sit well with me most of the time.
 
Lysander said:
Interesting. Such as?
Click to expand...

In retrospect, I think I should have said "Arthouse film", rather than horror as, after wracking my brain for some time, I actually can't think of a single truly Arthouse horror film I've watched.

Always wanted to see Andrzej Zulawski's "Possession", but never gotten round to it.

I suppose Haneke's "Funny Games" could be construed as an "Arthouse horror", but I did rather like that.

I'm apprehensive to the max about "AntiChrist" as I really do not enjoy Von Trier's work, which I find villainously pretentious. I suppose I'm more interested in seeing it with an audience in order to "enjoy" the reactions from the general populace (which, in my own little world, I'm hoping would be hyperbolically disgusted).
 
I saw this a couple of nights ago at an advanced preview, I'm really glad I hadn't paid to see it, as I would have been asking for my money back.

It's a terrible film, the controversial scenes which are giving the film it's notieriety are few and mostly towards the end. The rest of the film is very slow and boring, actually quite painful to watch. Quite a few people left the cinema for this very reason.

Von Trier's 'Dogma' style of shooting just makes the film feel really odd. He uses lenses that distort in places, which makes it feel like they chose a bad lens to use. The camea isn't locked off, cheesey zooms etc... it's not anti-hollywood, it's just bad camera work.

It really is one of the most stupid films I've ever seen.
 
Pestilence said:
In retrospect, I think I should have said "Arthouse film", rather than horror as, after wracking my brain for some time, I actually can't think of a single truly Arthouse horror film I've watched.

Always wanted to see Andrzej Zulawski's "Possession", but never gotten round to it.
Click to expand...

I need to watch it again, the first time was pretty hard going. It's not an easy watch due to its slow pace and impenetrable themes. Isabelle Adjani's performance is impressive though.

Pestilence said:
I'm apprehensive to the max about "AntiChrist" as I really do not enjoy Von Trier's work, which I find villainously pretentious. I suppose I'm more interested in seeing it with an audience in order to "enjoy" the reactions from the general populace (which, in my own little world, I'm hoping would be hyperbolically disgusted).
Click to expand...

I didn't find anything pretentious about the film and yes - you should find the audience's reactions amusing in places.

Nexus said:
I saw this a couple of nights ago at an advanced preview, I'm really glad I hadn't paid to see it, as I would have been asking for my money back.

It's a terrible film, the controversial scenes which are giving the film it's notieriety are few and mostly towards the end. The rest of the film is very slow and boring, actually quite painful to watch. Quite a few people left the cinema for this very reason.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised the film has gone on general release since it is an 'arthouse' work. It is slow and demands patience and concentration from the audience. In the Odeon world of hard and fast blockbusters and rom-coms, it's just not going to hold most audience members' attention.
 
Last edited:
Just come back from seeing this. It was worth seeing and I'm pleased I went, but I wouldn't rate it much above 'good', there was a lot more that could have been done with Willem Dafoe I thought. And there was too much ambiguity between whether what was happening was as a result of the crazy woman possibly having some sort of witch thing going on, or whether it was the forest itself, or whether it was the whole good/evil nature concept. Although it did provoke a pretty high concept discussion afterwards between the three of us that went to see it, so I guess it was interesting enough. I also liked the way it played on basic insecurities we all feel about the woods, about our own capacity for evil etc, I also appreciated the way suspense and the feeling of dread associated with the woods was built up very simply, but very effectively with the almost still shots of the woods and the drone/ambient sounds. I also reckon there's more significance to the fact the woods were called Eden, and I think the physical place played a part in the events of the film and it wasn't simply one crazy woman, because why would Wilem Dafoe see those droves of people at the end (and to a lesser extent the animals, although those were tied into the three Beggers and the good vs. evil in nature and how we view it)? He wasn't mentally unstable, but he was still having visions, why? I also liked the way it was suggested that his therapy with her might have made her worse and led to the break, but then he finds the stuff in the loft and suddenly you realise she's been insane for a while + the shoe thing.

I had always suspected that women were inherently evil however, and this film confirmed it for me :p


(I made several edits to this to keep adding stuff, I guess on reflection the film was better than I thought.)
 
Last edited:
Makunouchi said:
there was too much ambiguity between whether what was happening was as a result of the crazy woman possibly having some sort of witch thing going on, or whether it was the forest itself
Click to expand...

The ambiguity is intentional and a lot is open to interpretation by design. Like whether the entire events in the film are real or inside his/her psyche.

Makunouchi said:
(I made several edits to this to keep adding stuff, I guess on reflection the film was better than I thought.)
Click to expand...

I find the films I rate the most are those which keep me thinking and discovering things after I've watched them - not only during.
 
Last edited:
Lysander said:
The ambiguity is intentional and a lot is open to interpretation by design. Like whether the entire events in the film are real or inside his/her psyche.
Click to expand...

I think I used the wrong word, perhaps it wasn't ambiguity so much that I sensed that the possible interpretations weren't made solid enough, the links were a bit floaty. I felt like the film was constantly holding itself back from going too far down any one direction, which as you say might have been intentional but there were things that might have been taken further (when she lay down in the grass, her concept of nature and it 'attacking' her or at least causing fear in her and being at odds with nature but also her nature as a woman and the link between the two - stars + night time being important to the cycles of woman etc) and I felt it probably would have benefited the film, but who am I to say.


Also the only part that I felt might have been part of her delusion was when she ran off into the woods and they had sex against the tree, the rest of it seemed very much to be reality. I think a film should present you with several interpretations, not simply make it totally unclear. Maybe there were other parts that were possibly hallucinations/dreams but if there were I didn't pick up on it.
 
Last edited:
Makunouchi said:
and I felt it probably would have benefited the film, but who am I to say.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But that's a fair point. I think sometimes directors hold back on things like that in order to make the audience feel slightly undernourished, left to wonder how it would have gone, in what way it would have been taken if explored. Would it have met or thrown their preconceptions? Would they then have to re-evaluate their interpretations in other areas too? Great to have loads of questions of this sort after a film. It's better than overegging it and handing everything to the audience on a platter [enough of those films around already!].
 
Nexus said:
It's a terrible film, the controversial scenes which are giving the film it's notieriety are few and mostly towards the end.
Click to expand...

I really disagree with this, the sex scenes were all completely integral and justified in building up a picture of their relation ship and the way the female character views and used sex. And the violence/gore of which there was little for a 'horror' film, was nothing compared to something like Saw, and all the better for being understated.

Or maybe it's just you were uncomfortable seeing a man get smashed in the gonads and then come blood. I know I was :eek:



Ah, Charlotte Gainsbourg, that's her name. She was good in I'm Not There as well.
 
Last edited:
The wife is off for a day trip tomorrow so, if I can manage to get out of bed, I might drag myself off to see this at the Broadway tomorrow.


EDIT: Actually, ****, I can't. I need to watch "Albino Farm" again in order to write a review. I probably won't be able to stomach any more films after that. For anyone who likes horror - for the love of God, don't watch it.
 
Last edited:
Makunouchi said:
I really disagree with this, the sex scenes were all completely integral and justified in building up a picture of their relation ship and the way the female character views and used sex. And the violence/gore of which there was little for a 'horror' film, was nothing compared to something like Saw, and all the better for being understated.

Or maybe it's just you were uncomfortable seeing a man get smashed in the gonads and then come blood. I know I was :eek:



Ah, Charlotte Gainsbourg, that's her name. She was good in I'm Not There as well.
Click to expand...

Nah, it was just a crap film.
But people seem to be hailing it as the best film ever due to it being so anti-hollywood.
 
Nexus said:
Nah, it was just a crap film.
But people seem to be hailing it as the best film ever due to it being so anti-hollywood.
Click to expand...

While I don't think it's the "best film ever", it's certainly better than most drivel that oozes out of Hollywood.

It is well-shot, acted, scripted and themed. I will agree that anyone expecting anything like a normal 'horror' is likely to have been disappointed. I also agree that a lot of people would have found it boring because of its slow pace - but such pacing is de rigeur in a lot of arthouse films. As are obscure imagery and conceits.

I hope that some of the audience had their preconceptions of horror revised in a positive way and it gave them something to think about. It certainly sounds like it did. Calling it a 'crap' film means you should just go back to watching Americanised horrors. There's nothing wrong with that, this type of film just isn't for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom