Antichrist

[Lysander]

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.

 

[Lysander]

Arthouse horror doesn't sit well with me most of the time.

Interesting. Such as?

 

[Lysander]

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 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.

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

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.

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.

 

[Lysander]

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

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.

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

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.

 

[Lysander]

and I felt it probably would have benefited the film, but who am I to say.

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!].

 

[Lysander]

"Albino Farm" again in order to write a review.

Which webzine/magazine do you write for?

 

[Lysander]

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.

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.

 

[Lysander]

Says a man with Mandelbrot fractals in his signature.