Antichrist (Lars von Trier, 2009)

[PrayforMojo]

I see the Daily Fail are at it again, calling for a film to be banned that they haven't seen...

I haven't seen it myself, nor shall I - and I speak as a broad-minded arts critic, strongly libertarian in tendency. But merely reading about Antichrist is stomach-turning, and enough to form a judgment.

Warning - article includes massive plot spoilers...and ****ty journalism!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...nned-days.html



Think this looks amazing. Reminds me of Nic Roeg's Don't Look Now - one of my all-time faves. I'll deffo be there opening weekend, as I'm sure countless others will be - thanks to the free publicity that articles like the one in the Mail so kindly provide.

[SmokeMeAKipper]

A friend from Uni works for Absolute Radio (blatant plug out of the way) and interviewed Willem Dafoe about it. Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQu8s1Uoz2k

[abigsmurf]

Seen a lot of hype about this. Have no idea what it's about really.

[Dogg Thang]

Von Trier is like the KLF of movies. Only, for me, his stunts haven't yet been as entertaining in their own right. I do, however, think he has been hugely influencial and helpful in bringing about other movies and certainly Zentropa is like a little empire now, though I'm not sure the younger Von Trier would approve.

I actually know very little about this movie except that people are expecting it to be 'shocking'. The trailer looks quite beautiful but I'm old enough to be quite indifferent to 'shocking' movies so I'll wait until people start replacing the word 'shocking' for 'good' before I check it out.

Though, with Von Trier, I always wonder if it's more about the stunt than the movie.

[JP]

Really can't wait for this as von Trier is easily one of my favourite Directors.

I've never really found von Triers work shocking as the Dogme '95 Manifesto was really about being shocking through the accepted techniques used to make the films and by the fact that they chose to spend almost nothing making them in response to the mess that was Hollywood at the time and not just the subject of the films.

A side note for whoever thought that Stephen King's The Kingdom had potential, watch von Trier's original from a decade ago as it really is incredible from start to finish.

[PrayforMojo]

There is only one cinema showing this within a twenty mile radius of where I live. None of the big chains have picked it up. The one and only arthouse cinema in the region has had the guts. Disappointing but hardly a surprise. Oh well, at least it has a bar, and by the sounds of it, I might need a stiff drink.

[cutmymilk]

cineworld have been advertising it for a while and have had a few posters up for the last few weeks. I will probably see it.

[fuse]

Quite interested to catch this - mainly out of intrigue after hearing of Von Trier's mental state during the making of. Whilst I'm not a fan per se, I did enjoy Dogville, and love Dancer in the Dark.

I'm guessing being in London will make it considerably easier to find a showing.

[PrayforMojo]

What is it with The Daily Mail, do they purposely hire cretins to write for them? Christopher Tookey's review is printed in today's edition, and it contains huge plot spoilers, including giving away the ending. To be fair, it is a much more balanced piece than Christopher Hart's absurd rant from the other day, because, well, he's actually seen it, but I'm still furious. I've no problem with a review that discusses sensitive plot points, as long as a warning is issued first, but this common courtesy has been willfully ignored so Tookey could appoint himself as a moral guardian.

I know it's my own fault for reading the rag in the first place, but I just couldn't help myself, it's like trying to avert your gaze from a car pile-up. Tookey even seems to aim a dig at his colleague, Hart, with this choice quote...

In its defence, Antichrist turns out to be not the picture that I have seen vilified in the press, sometimes by writers who lack any context of recent cinema with which to compare it, and in at least one case by someone who hadn't even taken the elementary step of seeing it.

Von Trier must be laughing his ass off somewhere.

Anyway, off to see this tonight, will report back with my thoughts. Spoiler free.

[abigsmurf]

The Daily Mail aren't stupid, they're incredibly clever. Their special brand of right wing reporting has a lot of effort put into it, twisting around stories, finding anything they can that shows how immigrants are all evil criminals stealing our jobs whilst claiming benefits because they don't have a job and the whole "PC Brigade" thing.

Ah but they reported on Stephen Lawrence a decade ago so they're not racist!

[PrayforMojo]

They're not that clever if they don't see the irony in whipping up a storm about a film that would probably be widely ignored if only they had shut up about it. But by protesting so much, they've played right into von Trier's hands, and given him exactly what he wants.

I don't know how many people will go and see this over the opening weekend, but I bet for a lot of people who venture out this weekend to see what all the fuss is about, it will be their first time they've come into contact with a Lars von Trier film. I only hope they don't go expecting something Saw or Hostel-ish, because they will probably be seriously disappointed if they do.

[JP]

It'll be a shame if people go to see it hoping to be shocked, I'd much rather see a load of people wanting to watch the work because it's made by von Trier. When I first read the Mail's response it made me think of this.

[PrayforMojo]

Well, unlike the Daily Mail's Christopher Hart, I've seen it. It's an unconventional horror film, more interested in exploring deep psychological and philosophical issues than making people jump, but it still hit all the right notes for me, even the trees have an air of portentous menace. Von Trier uses symbolism, unsettling images and unnerving sound design to evoke a sense of impending doom, it feels like walking down death row, or worse, going to the dentist.

The performances are first rate. Willem Dafoe has to be one of the most underrated actors around. So funny that a guy who once played Jesus is in this. Anyway, Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg play a grieving couple who retreat to an isolated cabin in the woods to heal their wounds. Of course, it's a terrible idea, and things soon spiral out of control. If only they had seen The Evil Dead, and sorted out their problems at home instead.

It does contain some genuinely unpleasant moments - strong sexual scenes, sickening, unflinching violence, and lingering shots of Dafoe's bobbing arse, but it's what is implied, rather than what is shown, that really got under my skin.

There will be those who will right it off as pretentious, slow and laborious arty-farty guff. Others will warn, "From the eternal sea he rises, creating armies on either shore, turning man against his brother, 'til man exists no more." And they might be right. After all, the opening title card does announce the director's name next to the word Antichrist. But for me personally I found it fascinating and exciting to spend a couple of hours in the presence of a director who is either bat**** insane, a genius, or perhaps a bit of both.

As an aside, a list of cinemas where it's playing -

http://www.artificial-eye.com/film.p...ere=antichrist

Look forward to other people checking it out and having their say.

Edit - just read that they're making a videogame spin-off -

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/06/17/...he-video-game/

Lol, wtf, actually sounds quite good though.

[fuse]

Saw this last night, and thought it was excellent. So many of the stills were absolutely gorgeous, there are strong performances from both actors, and the actual plot and themes were interesting. Even by doing my best to avoid the media hoo-hah, I knew there were going to be unpleasant moments, and whilst they were present, I would agree with PrayforMojo in saying a lot of what goes unsaid is far more unsettling - I spent nearly the entire film on edge, and whilst I was enjoying it, I did breathe a sigh of relief once it was over. Part of me does wish the more extreme moments were toned down to let it stand on it's own a little more, but there we go.

The most offensive moment for me was listening to a pair of bellends talking about it in the lobby of the Curzon whilst I had to wait for my mate taking a piss.

->Open Spoiler<-

The scene at the end of chapter 2 with the fox saying "Chaos reigns" was absolutely brilliant

[PrayforMojo]

Part of me does wish the more extreme moments were toned down to let it stand on it's own a little more, but there we go.

I was going to say the same thing but didn't want sound like a puss.

While I don't think the much talked about bits are as bad as the press have made out, there is stuff in there that's definetly not for the faint of heart. But to be honest, the thing that bothered me the most was the inclusion of the brief penetration shot. I've been umming and ahhing over whether it was necessary to show it or not, and after much agonising I've come to the conclusion that it wasn't. I'm not saying that von Trier should have cut to a train entering a tunnel, or something, but surely you can depict the sexual act on screen without actual showing 'it', or should there be nothing out of bounds if it's in the name of art? Not an easy question to answer.

Btw, Amazon have the dvd/blu-ray listed for November 23rd, which isn't too long to wait if peeps are interested in seeing this but can't find anywhere nearby showing it.