542 Antichrist

[Ted Todorov]

Ok, so now some IFC insider is saying the film won't be cut.

Defoe specifically said during the NYFF Q&A that the film was not cut and would be released by IFC uncut.

[Tribe]

From the Gothamist:

Is Lars von Trier's Antichrist Causing Seizures?

Lars von Trier's provocative new film Antichrist has revolted film festival audiences around the world, prompting booing at Cannes, vomit in Toronto, and now seizures in New York, according to multiple reports. Is von Trier the new Mary Hart? Indiewire files this report from Friday night's New York Film Festival premiere:

Sometime in between on-screen mutilations, I hear this loud moan coming from behind me, followed by a loud thud. Immediately the entire audience at Alice Tully Hall was in a frenzy, most of us unsure as to what happened (I had thought someone fell off the balcony considering how loud the thud was), though it later became clear a man had a seizure. People starting screaming “Call an Ambulance!”; “Call 9/11” (including the familiar voice of actress Lili Taylor, who was apparently beside the man) as Charlotte Gainsbourg continued on her psychotic onscreen mission.

Finally the film was shut off and the house lights came on, and 4 or 5 policemen entered the theater, helping the man (who was apparently okay) out. And then, after a few moments of whispering between audience members trying to figure out what had happened, “Antichrist” came back on.

Didn't any of these people see Saw? A commenter on Hollywood Elsewhere says he was at the screening and confirms the chaotic scene, and Indiewire later heard rumors that it was just "a panic attack." Either way, it wouldn't have been the first such audience freak-out at the NYFF; in 1994 someone either fainted or had a heart attack during the Uma Thurman syringe scene in Pulp Fiction.

And Gothamist's Jen Chung tells us when she saw Auto-Focus at NYFF, her friend started to have some sort of seizure. Oddly, Auto-Focus and Antichrist both star scary actor Willem Dafoe. Coincidence? Or is Dafoe the new Mary Hart! (Someone has to be.) Watch the trailer for Antichrist below, and try not to swallow your tongue.

[Nothing]

Frankly the least risible film Von Trier ever made was The Five Obstructions

Ah yes, Dogville and Manderlay, criticising American imperialism, how risible.

[Ted Todorov]

Frankly the least risible film Von Trier ever made was The Five Obstructions

Ah yes, Dogville and Manderlay, criticising American imperialism, how risible.

Criticizing American imperialism, slavery, etc. are fine and dandy -- there was nothing wrong with Von Trier's themes -- its how he executed them. OK, Dogville was a very moving, well acted if overblown and overwrought film -- but yes, I fully stand by calling Manderlay risible. Politics has nothing to do with it -- what Von Trier put on screen, does.

Didn't any of these people see Saw? A commenter on Hollywood Elsewhere says he was at the screening and confirms the chaotic scene, and Indiewire later heard rumors that it was just "a panic attack."

Speaking for myself, no I didn't see Saw -- why would I or anyone who values their time? "Chaotic scene?" Don't know about chaotic, but it enhanced the whole experience. And the report is inaccurate -- the moaning went on for quite a while before the guy finally keeled over.

[brendanjc]

Speaking for myself, no I didn't see Saw -- why would I or anyone who values their time?

I can't help but call this out, don't you just love offhanded dismissals of things people haven't even seen? Way to keep an open mind. Why bother actually going to see any film if you already know how you'll feel about it beforehand?

As far as the The Five Obstructions comment, well, the only thing better than an offhand dismissal is a completely unfounded assertion of one's opinion. These forums are a lot more interesting to read when people explain why they like a certain film more than others - simply stating that you do and leaving it at that is a waste of your valuable time.

[Tommaso]

Speaking for myself, no I didn't see Saw -- why would I or anyone who values their time?

I can't help but call this out, don't you just love offhanded dismissals of things people haven't even seen? Way to keep an open mind. Why bother actually going to see any film if you already know how you'll feel about it beforehand?

Brendan, I'd normally agree totally with you on all you write.I always criticize people who dismiss things on hearsay myself. For instance, I have a good friend who is a film lover but doesn't want to see any Rivette, because he 1) heard a dismissal about "La belle noiseuse" from some other person who doesn't like Béart, and 2) accidentally watched a 10-minute excerpt from that film while zapping on TV and somehow didn't like what he saw. All my clamouring for the director hasn't made him borrow a single Rivette disc from me yet (though he normally is very open-minded about suggestions and always asks for new 'good stuff').

But with "Saw", I can totally understand anyone who doesn't want to see it. Extreme violence on screen for me must somehow be justified, and when I read reviews over reviews over opinions that that film, let alone its sequels, has little or nothing to offer in terms of making me think (yes, I know, there are some who think it's a media critique or something), and if its director hasn't got a track record like Pasolini in whom I at least invested some hope that the experience of "Salo" would be worthwhile before I saw it (and it surely was), then as long as someone doesn't give me a truly good reason to watch "Saw", well, I think I better 'protect' myself from it. I may be totally wrong, but from what I heard I simply can't imagine it is worth watching in the same way that "Antichrist" is. It may be stupid and narrow-minded of me and so on, but I simply don't want to invest my time in something which by all accounts I'm aware of is simply torture for sensationalism's sake.

[swo17]

If you consider yourself above watching something like Saw, then presumably you should also be above evoking it in a discussion of another film.

[Tommaso]

Well, I only responded to Brendan's post, and wanted to point out my personal impressions on what I heard about "Saw". It's not about 'considering myself above watching it', which would be an intellectual or elitist stance, but simply an emotional reaction: if I am to submit to extreme emotional stress, someone should at least give me a good reason for it. The reviews of "Antichrist" convinced me immediately to watch it, while those of "Saw" didn't. As already said, I may be totally wrong in this case, but I still feel that need for self-protection.

[MichaelB]

I have a friend who refused to watch Ryszard Bugajski's Interrogation, purely on the grounds that although he completely accepted (correctly in this case) that there was probably strong contextual justification for relentless scenes of humiliation and torture, he didn't think he'd be able to sit through them. Which is fair enough in my book.

[brendanjc]

Well, I only responded to Brendan's post, and wanted to point out my personal impressions on what I heard about "Saw". It's not about 'considering myself above watching it', which would be an intellectual or elitist stance, but simply an emotional reaction: if I am to submit to extreme emotional stress, someone should at least give me a good reason for it. The reviews of "Antichrist" convinced me immediately to watch it, while those of "Saw" didn't. As already said, I may be totally wrong in this case, but I still feel that need for self-protection.

I think your stance is perfectly reasonable. Certainly people need to use some criteria in order to choose which films to watch; there are far too many and there's far too little time in the day to see everything. I completely understand making that choice based on ones personal tastes and beliefs, I don't see how it could be any other way! I just took umbrage at the way Ted's post generalized that something he had no experience with wasn't worth anyone's time. It's just the kind of snobbish attitude that really gets to me - I don't begrudge other people's interest in things I don't like myself.

That said, I'm looking forward to see Antichrist whenever it shows up out here in Seattle and I'll be sure to post an in-depth comparison of its merits, or lack thereof, vis a vis Saw when I have

[swo17]

It's not about 'considering myself above watching it', which would be an intellectual or elitist stance

I didn't necessarily mean to suggest an air of elitism in refusing to watch a certain film. Just that if a film really doesn't interest you, it seems like you should shut it out completely. In addition to not watching it, this includes keeping it out of the conversation as well. Imagine if I decided I never wanted to watch Citizen Kane because it looks boring, and then I started saying that other films "don't look boring like Citizen Kane." A comment like this doesn't provide any real insight because, at the heart of it, I don't have any real insight into Citizen Kane.

Shit, did I just compare Saw to Citizen Kane? Uh...

[Tommaso]

I didn't necessarily mean to suggest an air of elitism in refusing to watch a certain film. Just that if a film really doesn't interest you, it seems like you should shut it out completely.
In addition to not watching it, this includes keeping it out of the conversation as well.

Oh, I agree with you completely here. But I didn't want to make any statement about "Saw" in the first place, or its relation to "Antichrist" (it actually only occured to me that von Trier might have seen "Saw" after I read some comparison between the two films in a review), but I wanted to defend the idea that it is legitimate to decide NOT to watch a certain film if you think it might emotionally disturb you too much, especially if you know of only few intellectual counter-arguments that might make you think the disturbance is worthwhile. And as an additional note: I was weak-hearted enough to simply put my hands over my eyes in two moments of "Antichrist" because I knew from reviews what was coming.... call me a wimp ; but these extreme moments and my reaction to them didn't reduce my admiration for von Trier's film at all; it was only my knowing about what I can stand seeing and what not that made me do it. Two sleepless nights at age 20 after first seeing "Salo" were an experience I don't necessarily want to repeat twenty years later...

[Ted Todorov]

Speaking for myself, no I didn't see Saw -- why would I or anyone who values their time?

I can't help but call this out, don't you just love offhanded dismissals of things people haven't even seen? Way to keep an open mind. Why bother actually going to see any film if you already know how you'll feel about it beforehand?

As far as the The Five Obstructions comment, well, the only thing better than an offhand dismissal is a completely unfounded assertion of one's opinion. These forums are a lot more interesting to read when people explain why they like a certain film more than others - simply stating that you do and leaving it at that is a waste of your valuable time.

So I have to see every movie ever made/released just in case I am incorrectly prejudging something? I hate horror/splatter/extreme violence -- do I have to justify that too? I watch movies in those genres if they are somehow exceptional cinema -- say Kioshi Kurosawa's Kairo (Pulse) is an amazing film that happens to be a horror film -- are you telling me that Saw is in this category? And oops, I did it agin, mentioned liking something without writing a bunch of paragraphs (in a thread about an unrelated film), explaining why.

I enjoyed the The Five Obstructions because it is a fine example of a genre I do love -- the movie-movie. It worked on several levels -- both the resulting short films were good, some like the "no shot long then 12(?) frames" downright great, and as a character study/narrative. It made sense, and it was dramatic without melodrama or over the top nonsense (ringing bells in heaven -- Breaking The Waves, or "Chaos reigns" from Antichrist).

Yes, in general one shouldn't criticize movies one hasn't seen -- but do I really need to see Saturn 3 to determine that it is a worthless piece of shit and say so out loud? There are other signs -- reviews, who's involved, etc. The reason I mention Saturn 3 is I still remember (after 29 years!) the put down I read in Time or Newsweek (don't remember which -- neither is available on line, alas) that was an all time negative review classic. Ebert gives it one star. Really, it may shock everyone here, but chances are Saturn 3 is a worthless piece of shit and we don't need to waste two hours of our lives confirming that so we can say so out loud.

[MichaelB]

Yes, in general one shouldn't criticize movies one hasn't seen -- but do I really need to see Saturn 3 to determine that it is a worthless piece of shit and say so out loud?

Yes. You can certainly say - as you have done - that you are under the impression that it's a worthless piece of shit, but unless you've actually watched it yourself, you can't definitively say that it is.

There are other signs -- reviews, who's involved, etc.

Kirk Douglas, Harvey Keitel, Stanley Donen, Martin Amis, Billy Williams, Elmer Bernstein. That's actually quite an enticing combo on paper, over and above Farrah Fawcett getting 'em out. (Then again, I was twelve when I first saw it)

The reason I mentio Saturn 3 is I still remember (after 29 years!) the put down I read in Time or Newsweek (don't remember which -- neither is available on line, alas) that was an all time negative review classic. Ebert gives it one star. Really, it may shock everyone here, but chances are Saturn 3 is a worthless piece of shit and we don't need to waste two hours of our lives confirming that so we can say so out loud.

I'd say "huge disappointment" rather than "worthless piece of shit" - though it's weirdly fascinating listening to Martin Amis's idea of what constitutes convincing sci-fi dialogue. But he and Donen were clearly working way outside their usual comfort zones (Donen had more excuse, since he was a last-minute replacement for the late John Barry, whose directorial debut it was supposed to be).

But there are quite a few people out there who genuinely love it.

[Mr Sausage]

but do I really need to see Saturn 3 to determine that it is a worthless piece of shit and say so out loud?

You do realize what forum you're on? If you're going to criticize movies you haven't seen, you're going to get called on it. That's how this forum works. That's how it's always worked. If you don't want members calling you on this stuff, don't say it. No amount of self-justification on your part is going to stop anyone. Especially not when those justifications amount to demanding other people prove to you the worth of a movie you still aren't planning to see. Who would bother?

[brendanjc]

So I have to see every movie ever made/released just in case I am incorrectly prejudging something? I hate horror/splatter/extreme violence -- do I have to justify that too? I watch movies in those genres if they are somehow exceptional cinema -- say Kioshi Kurosawa's Kairo (Pulse) is an amazing film that happens to be a horror film -- are you telling me that Saw is in this category? And oops, I did it agin, mentioned liking something without writing a bunch of paragraphs (in a thread about an unrelated film), explaining why.

I enjoyed the The Five Obstructions because it is a fine example of a genre I do love -- the movie-movie. It worked on several levels -- both the resulting short films were good, some like the "no shot long then 12(?) frames" downright great, and as a character study/narrative. It made sense, and it was dramatic without melodrama or over the top nonsense (ringing bells in heaven -- Breaking The Waves, or "Chaos reigns" from Antichrist).

Yes, in general one shouldn't criticize movies one hasn't seen -- but do I really need to see Saturn 3 to determine that it is a worthless piece of shit and say so out loud? There are other signs -- reviews, who's involved, etc. The reason I mention Saturn 3 is I still remember (after 29 years!) the put down I read in Time or Newsweek (don't remember which -- neither is available on line, alas) that was an all time negative review classic. Ebert gives it one star. Really, it may shock everyone here, but chances are Saturn 3 is a worthless piece of shit and we don't need to waste two hours of our lives confirming that so we can say so out loud.

If you'd read the rest of the posts immediately following mine you'd see that I clearly wasn't saying you need to see every film released in order to judge something. I haven't seen any of the Saw sequels because they sounded like shitty retreads, but I'm still not going to come out and say that they are shit and discourage other people from watching them until I've seen them myself. What I am saying is that making blanket statements about how other people will judge the worth of a film you haven't seen is asinine. You effectively said "No I didn't see Saw because I'm a discerning cineaste and obviously anyone who HAS seen it wasted their time." If instead you had said "No I didn't see Saw, why would I since I don't like extreme horror films and it got poor reviews?" I wouldn't have bothered to post. I hope I'm making the difference clear - maybe this should get moved to the "how do I decide what to watch?" thread. In any case, I don't mean to jump on your back and I appreciate your comments about The Five Obstructions enough to pop it into my queue, which is ultimately what forums like this are all about (though I may have also put Saturn 3 in my queue which could be a net loss overall ).

To steer this back on topic a bit, I'd like to point out that the reviews for Antichrist are only slightly more favorable than for Saw at this point (Rottentomatoes has it at 52% vs 46%), and when you take into account that the latter film was a low-budget horror debut by a first-time director from Lionsgate who releases tons of genre crap (much of which I've seen ), while the other is released by a more respectable label, had ten times the budget, is from a well-known auteur, has internationally lauded stars and is playing in art-houses, I wouldn't be surprised if critics are biased towards being willing to read more deeply into it and justify better reviews such that the critical reaction is negligibly difference overall. I'm also a bit bemused by the double-talk in this thread, there sure are a lot of people who hate extremely violent movies going to see a film that's generating buzz mostly because it's extremely violent .

[swo17]

It all boils down to this: If you haven't seen a film, and yet you insist on dragging its name through the dirt, how is this any different than those people that boycotted Last Temptation of Christ, or those blind people that boycotted Blindness, or those retarded people that boycotted Tropic Thunder?

[mfunk9786]

those retarded people that boycotted Tropic Thunder?

Smartest retards ever.

[zedz]

but do I really need to see Saturn 3 to determine that it is a worthless piece of shit and say so out loud?

You do realize what forum you're on? If you're going to criticize movies you haven't seen, you're going to get called on it. That's how this forum works. That's how it's always worked. If you don't want members calling you on this stuff, don't say it. No amount of self-justification on your part is going to stop anyone. Especially not when those justifications amount to demanding other people prove to you the worth of a movie you still aren't planning to see. Who would bother?

Further to this, I seem to recall an eloquent and surprising defence of the Saw films (or at least some of them) on this very forum (colin, was that you?) which certainly made me reconsider my reflex dismissal of them.

[sammy h]

You could make a case for this movie being overwrought, muddled, sleazy, preposterous, ridiculous, but it's such of a piece, so particular in it's distinct style, and so committed to it's intent-Von Trier has no need to pretend his film is anything but what it is-that Antichrist an exhilarating, exhausting, powerful piece of work.

[colinr0380]

Yes, on the recurring motifs of 2000s cinema thread. I wouldn’t blame Tommaso for not particularly wanting to watch them though, I suppose as a horror fan I’ve more of a stomach for some of the gore and slightly morbid interest in watching the films to keep up with genre trends. Perhaps I’ll be able to add my take on the Saw films to the discussion (since I suppose I might one of the few here to have all five on DVD!) before we move back to Antichrist in particular, though unfortunately I haven’t seen that particular film yet so I can’t really comment on it beyond what I’ve read.

My perception of this debate is that it’s a high vs low culture one – that the Von Trier film might just be worth suffering through for a higher goal set against a trashy populist horror piece with little redeeming merit whose reason for being is only to appeal to the baser instincts (in sci-fi terms it’s 2001’s battle of wits with a computer vs Saturn 3’s getting molested by one while wearing skimpy clothing!)

I do see Von Trier’s film as distinct from a Saw or Hostel, but then I see the Saw and Hostel films as ploughing different furrows from each other too. Noting that all the films have a torture theme in a way obscures the more interesting differences, and while ‘torture porn’ is a fun phrase to throw around I do feel it is a reductive one.

The Saw series, for all its edginess and hyper-nasty marketing, is now the epitome of a mainstream horror franchise – you can’t reach Part VI (out this Halloween with tie in interactive video game!) of any series without it becoming a staple of the genre, whatever your feelings about its merits. Perhaps the most disturbing thing about the entire Saw series for me is a film based on relatively ‘real world’ torture can have begat such a long running series – there is something a little more perverse and troubling about that than a more fantastical horror sequel such as a Nightmare on Elm Street 6, Exorcist 4 or Halloween 5 in some ways. At the same time it is one of the few mainstream American horror films released this decade (beyond one-offs like The Mist) that wasn’t a remake, so at least it has that going for it! (though I think the first film was an Australian co-production?)

Yet of course Saw is not really that ‘realistic’ - with its complex and intricate traps that would take a degree in engineering to create and its vision of the US as a dank cityscape filled with crumbling derelict houses and warehouses in which to build elaborate contraptions it is probably best to approach the series as a melding between the serial killer thriller genre but with the emphasis on the horrific aspect as the audience is much more focused on the bad guy's (or girl's) perspective and is often wryly detached from the fates of many of the victims in the series, which makes it akin in some ways to the Friday the 13th films, since in that series there is some dark amusement in just seeing how the next interchangeable cast member is going to be bumped off!

The series could be seen as skating along that same boundary of legitimacy versus exploitation that Silence of the Lambs did (Oscar winning respectable thriller or trashy baroque horror film that got lucky with the critics? Or both?) and in many ways it is blackly comic exploitation of a subject, but all horror films are really exploitation films in that they pick up on a theme or a fear and expand on it, and like fantasy films blow it out of proportion so the audience has to confront it head on. I would disagree that such films that emphasise the experiential and the cathartic should be disdained for their lack of worth, they’re just aiming at doing different things, and even a relatively mainstream series like the Saw films can have interesting elements or ideas that can justify a viewing. Personally the thing I like the most about the first three films is watching Shawnee Smith develop a character from memorable cameo in the first film to almost dominating the show in the third. I think I said this in the other thread but I remembered her previously from her spunky heroine role in the remake of The Blob (one of the few remakes I would endorse, with a rather fun poke at religion at the end!) and it was extremely nice to see her get another memorable role, albeit completely different from that other film, and tackle it seemingly with such relish.

I do have a rather ambiguous relationship with the series however. I didn’t mind the first though the ‘tracking the serial killer’ influence from 90s thrillers is most felt in this one with the added element of the pair of people trapped in a dingy bathroom being the new twist on what was an extremely tired subgenre by that point – a lot of the Danny Glover ‘gun drawn and chasing the killer through corridors’ material could be lifted straight from Copycat, Kiss The Girls or Silence of the Lambs. I really didn’t like the ‘trapped in a trapped house’ idea of the second which felt rather derivative and over focused on its victim plot (in this series, as in the Friday the 13th films, the interactions between the victims is usually the least interesting element when set against the cop vs villain interactions, and as the Saw films specialise in creating unlikeable bickering victims (since they’ve usually done something terrible, either individually or as a group, that they have to be ‘punished’ for) in order to minimise the impact of the torture when it arrives, too much of their presence can reduce any sympathy to nothing!)

I’d hold up the third as my favourite, in which all the convolutions of the previous films quite neatly fit together. If the series had concluded with this one I'd have been quite satisfied! The fourth gets a bit too tied up in trying to tie together all the loose plot strands of the other three films through telling a parallel story. I did quite like the fifth too, as it’s the one where the increasingly baroque death traps fully reveal their debt to Poe, beginning with a gory fully played out version of The Pit and the Pendulum and ending with a shrinking room/buried alive twist. As the series has progressed it has constantly alternated between procedural plot sequences and grand guignol set pieces with a final twist to recontextualise all that went before, and on those terms, and as an academic exercise in wondering just how the filmmakers are going to work their way out of the corner they usually paint themselves into after each no holds barred finale, I quite enjoy all the films!

One of the reasons why I would feel uncomfortable with lumping all films featuring torture together is that I feel that is disregards the deeper intent behind the films. While many of these films featuring torture can be see as a response to the conflicting feelings it causes when it occurs in the real world and the feeling of governments and other organisations being complicit in carrying it out in ‘our name’ while we feel helpless in the face of impossible to prevent atrocities, at the same time we shouldn’t see something like Abu Ghraib as being the only motivation behind these films, more just an additional factor that contributed to a resurgence of interest in the subject and its moral implications. However it is more interesting to look at the way an initial inspiration is taken and used in very different ways. For example the Hostel and Saw films initially seem well matched companions, but Hostel really has more in common with the ‘foreign panic’ films – inspiring other torture fests such as Turistas and Live Feed but related just as much to Taken, Frantic, And Soon The Darkness or So Long At The Fair as naïve tourists get kidnapped and/or killed in a foreign country.

Saw, I think, is the melding of torture with the elimination reality/game show in which groups of often unlikeable over confident idiots with severe character flaws get forced to whittle their numbers down until a ‘winner’ is found while watched over by self appointed judges with even more severe character flaws. It even features a perceived prize of the contestant having been ‘enriched’ or having ‘learnt something’ by their experience – in other words a way for the torturer (and the audience) to feel the moral superiority of feeling that it is fine, even necessary, to have put these people through a gruelling task because they’ll grow through the experience, a horribly patronising attitude that perfectly describes any current show on television from Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? through The Apprentice to Masterchef or Pop Idol!

The way that the main villain of the Saw films eventually dies and drops out of the series altogether, only to keep up a constant voiceover through various cassettes that keep popping out of holes in the wall or bodily orifices with an almost supernatural foreknowledge of every convoluted plot twist only adds to that feeling of a critique of elimination television and the tricks it plays with its contestants. I also like the way that once the guiding force has departed it is left to others to carry on his work, with varying degrees of success or adherence to his principles, which strangely adds a certain religious element to the series (the way that various victims often end up in cruciform poses only seems to underline this blackly comic commentary).

So I feel the Saw films would actually be better linked to other works exploring the same territory, such as Dead Set, Series 7 or the rather more extreme and reprehensible, but under the radar and underground rather than mass marketed, Red Room films from Japan.

The big issue that I have with the Saw films though is the perverse safeness of it all. For a film about pain and suffering, the films become strangely jittery about showing too much gore and the full effects of such violence, and this is usually down to the hyper-editing full of flash frames. Maybe this is just a way of trying to keep the rating to an R but that sanitisation often makes the films more callous in their depiction of the violence.

Plus I would also argue that there have been some big opportunities for truly transgressive imagery missed over the course of the series. Again I’m likely expecting too much from a relatively mainstream franchise, but if you have a shrinking room crushing somebody to death and don’t follow that through (including maybe the baptism of blood that the character in the glass coffin underneath then receives as an artistic flourish), then what was the point of doing the scene in the first place? Only the brain surgery scene from Part III and the lingering autopsy beginning Part IV really felt as if it was mining some newly horrifying territory.


Onto Antichrist! I’m afraid I don’t really see the point of comparing the film with Saw. Lars von Trier’s films are often worlds unto themselves and often internally driven projects, so I’d find it difficult to believe that he was particularly influenced by other horror films to make his own. I do believe that Nekromantik has a bloody ejaculation scene as its climax, if you’ll pardon the pun, but I’ve no idea if film was an influence or not, or if it was more likely just a coincidence of imagery. If possible I’d like to make a connection to The Fountain, which features another woman using a research project to reveal to her partner some of her hopes and fears about their relationship through heightened imagery – I don’t know how much this potential connection will be borne out until I finally get to see the von Trier film however!

From what I’ve read about the film, it seems far more interesting to move past considering the use of graphic imagery and maybe look at Antichrist from the perspective of von Trier’s other films, which all seem to focus on the clash between nature and culture, with civilisation seen as a kind of hypocritical pretence which most of the main characters in his films set about destroying, either consciously or unconsciously – and then civilisation/culture fights back to restore the status quo, usually through a sacrificial death or two.

[Tommaso]

Colin, a truly elaborate 'defence' of "Saw" (if it was intended as such), and you almost made me reconsider my refusal to watch it. Almost.

If possible I’d like to make a connection to The Fountain, which features another woman using a research project to reveal to her partner some of her hopes and fears about their relationship through heightened imagery – I don’t know how much this potential connection will be borne out until I finally get to see the von Trier film however!

Well, you can't be blamed because you haven't seen "Antichrist" yet; but apart from that plot moment you mention I cannot see any similarity between "The Fountain" and von Trier's film at all. The personal constellation between husband and wife in both films is much different, and while both films try to say something very general about the 'make' of the world and the life we live, I'm afraid that in my opinion von Trier succeeds much better by being relentless and uncompromising, whereas Aronofsky's film falls into some 'new age'-traps of the worst kind. Even the visuals of "The Fountain" at their best look like outtakes from some lesser known Peter Gabriel-video (and I don't want to say ANYTHING against PG-videos or the man himself), whereas von Trier really avoids that pseudo-spiritual attitude, but manages to go very, very deep. You have guessed already that I'm not particularly fond of "The Fountain", but even if I liked it better, the whole outlook of both films couldn't be more different, I'd say. If I remember "The Fountain" correctly, in the end it takes a more or less positive attitude to life and redemption, whereas "Antichrist" seems to deny both. I'm not saying that von Trier's film is more 'correct', only that it is far more provocative and thus makes me think about its ideas more. I've actually forgotten most of "The Fountain" already, but I can't imagine the same will be the case with regard to "Antichrist" in two years time.

But I would subscribe to everything that you write in your last paragraph. It's indeed about the nature/culture-problem and the thin mask that culture provides to cover some more basic realities that we don't want to look at. Ahm..simply go ahead and watch it. Whatever you will actually think about it, I can't imagine you wouldn't at least think it was a worthwhile experience.

[Cronenfly]

I elect Colin to direct (or at least consult on) the next Saw installment... [-o<

[colinr0380]

Saw VII: This Time Even The Metaphors Are Tortured (for their own good, of course!)

[Ted Todorov]

You effectively said "No I didn't see Saw because I'm a discerning cineaste and obviously anyone who HAS seen it wasted their time."

I said it as response to the snarky Gothamist article, but in case someone indeed took my statement as implying those words, let me be clear -- more power to anyone who enjoyed Saw -- I watch (and enjoy) plenty of absolute time wasting junk in other genres. I'm certainly not "discerning" if it means avoiding the bad stuff -- only in terms of appreciating the good stuff...

Look, I agree with everyone who says that one shouldn't rag on unseen films -- that wasn't what my intention and after that I was defending the indefensible. I've done more than my share of arguing on the other side -- say with people slagging Kusturica's Underground without having seen it.