542 Antichrist

[mfunk9786]

I couldn't help but think that the film would have had more of an emotional impact on me with two different leads. Gainsbourg and Dafoe are similar to me in that there's a hardness and a coldness in their faces, and in this film especially, we never get the impression that these are two people who relax, turn the lights on in their apartment, and watch an episode of 30 Rock. The story is constructed in a textbook fashion for two people who Von Trier has no intention of portraying as having a typical human capacity for warmth and, for lack of a better word, normalcy - and it makes the whole third act less shocking and affecting as it would have been had, say, Amy Adams and Joseph Gordon-Levitt been the leads, stretching themselves to the brink of sanity.

I liked the film, but it'll take me a while to figure out how much. I certainly have a lot of regrets about reading articles and summaries and reviews and spoilers beforehand. I had the paint by numbers in my head and Von Trier just slathered the appropriate colors onto it. It's one of those films that I wish I'd gone into never even having heard of.

[domino harvey]

The characters should be read, not empathized with. We don't grieve with Gainsbourg, we observe with the clinical detachment of Dafoe's character. The formal element of the performances makes the film's transformation from one of observation to immersion in the second half all the more unsettling.

[mfunk9786]

That detatchment prevented me from ever becoming immersed. It's a strange feeling to be observing the kind of insanity of the third act from a cold distance, but that's exactly what I was doing, thanks in large part to the first two acts' absolute refusal to let me in.

[aox]

I saw this and I am still deep in thought about it. I don't know if I can add much, but to tackle the misogyny, I am not sure that this film is misogynist. However, I am conflicted about that. If this film is indeed a Christian allegory, or at the very least, embedded with deep Christian symbolism, I can't see it as nothing less than misogynist since I feel the religion itself is completely misogynist at it deepest core. I will need to ponder this more.

Furthermore, the opening montage is one of the most beautiful sequences I have ever seen. Not that I have much desire to view this again anytime soon, but I would seriously buy this BD just to have a copy of the opening to view whenever I want.

Spoiler

On a joking note, I hated William Defoe's character and I probably would have bashed his dick in too.

[domino harvey]

One, you need to spoiler your last quip. Two, you are slipping into self-parody with your Blu-ray fetish

Spoiler

I do find the general misogyny arguments compelling, though I don't think the film is misogynistic as much as it's about misogyny. If anything, it's anti-intellectual, as it's Gainsbourg's thirst for knowledge that leads to her undoing. She researches historical crimes against women with such fervor that she begins to believe women (including naturally herself) deserve what's coming to them. Perhaps this is why her initial "evil" act, that of putting the shoes on the wrong feet, was so meager-- she really wasn't evil at the outset and it was only with the "knowledgeable" help of Dafoe that she could unlock what she thought to be her inner, inherent evilness. Yet I don't see her downslide as proof of the inherent evilness of women. Rather it all seems quite self-fulfilling: She wants to fit her preconceived perceptions, fights it, and then gives in (almost out of spite for her unfeeling husband) to disastrous results. When she awakens from the daze near the end and sees what she's done, she punishes herself in the worst way she thinks a woman can be punished.

[jesus the mexican boi]

I couldn't help but think that the film would have had more of an emotional impact on me with two different leads. Gainsbourg and Dafoe are similar to me in that there's a hardness and a coldness in their faces, and in this film especially, we never get the impression that these are two people who relax, turn the lights on in their apartment, and watch an episode of 30 Rock. The story is constructed in a textbook fashion for two people who Von Trier has no intention of portraying as having a typical human capacity for warmth and, for lack of a better word, normalcy - and it makes the whole third act less shocking and affecting as it would have been had, say, Amy Adams and Joseph Gordon-Levitt been the leads, stretching themselves to the brink of sanity.

This is the most affecting reaction to this film that I've read and, not having seen the film (yet), I can't help but think that Mike's suggested casting would have made a much more defiant, disturbing film.

[mfunk9786]

Side question that I'm reminded of thanks to that BD remark: is this a shoo-in to be a Criterion release or only some people's assumption?

Other side question: who has the more impressive specimen of a back, Dafoe or Gainsbourg?

[domino harvey]

I wish. I think Criterion said they weren't putting it out

EDIT: That was of course re: Charlotte Gainsbourg's back

[aox]

One, you need to spoiler your last quip. Two, you are slipping into self-parody with your Blu-ray fetish

1. done. 2. I don't plan on buying the DVD. What would you like me to call it? I thought spelling out "Blu Ray" was unnecessary, tedious, and dull. Furthermore, I thought people were over this topic. I put "BD" to skip this conversation.
You are calling attention to it; not me.

"Fetish"? How reductionist...and unnecessarily dismissive. Did you call DVDs "VHS" in 1999? Your raising an issue with this is boring, old man.

I would love Criterion to get their hands on this. I didn't care, but now that I have seen the film, I think it would be a welcome addition to their line.

[John Cope]

I saw this and I am still deep in thought about it. I don't know if I can add much, but to tackle the misogyny, I am not sure that this film is misogynist. However, I am conflicted about that. If this film is indeed a Christian allegory, or at the very least, embedded with deep Christian symbolism, I can't see it as nothing less than misogynist since I feel the religion itself is completely misogynist at it deepest core.

I'd love to know why you feel this way. For my own part, it's difficult, to say the least, to even bother acknowledging that assertion as I see it as so beside the point and related almost entirely to certain late twentieth century socio-political hangups.

I'm equally disinclined to speak much about the film as regardless of whether it was "embedded with deep Christian symbolism" that fact has no bearing on whether it has any meaningful relation to that symbolism or understanding of it. There is little here to suggest that it does. Antichrist is alternately boring and risible not because it is so daring and provocative but because von Trier seems to think that it is; that he has some real, profound insight to share. If this was actually a jape as some contend it would be far more tolerable; as it stands, it exists primarily as an invitation for ruminations inspired by unjustifiably self-satisfied and tiresomely obvious observations. His success in that gambit is perhaps von Trier's real joke whether intended or not.

Per Domino's instruction, I would never want to be seen as being unduly dismissive but I have seen it and I have considered it and I made an effort to engage with it. Can I dismiss it now? Aesthetically it really is first rate but, of course, aesthetics can be deceptive and only go so far.

There are much richer treatments of the central subjects. Phillip Noyce's Dead Calm (aside from the godawful studio imposed ending) is infinitely more serious and incisive in its handling of the after effects of a similar trauma (albeit only superficially similar); it is, in fact, structured as a hard won fight to reassert some manner of control where control is not seen as facile or futile but rather as psychically necessary and yet always so very tenuous. The sentiment of the reunion episode at the end is not denied or cynically downplayed, as is the nihilist sentiment of Antichrist, but celebrated as a justified response. And John Duigan's adaptation of Wide Sargasso Sea deals profoundly with the effects of a man representing civilized rationalism attempting to adapt, or force an adaptation, with a woman much more closely aligned with natural rhythms and essential forces (part of the success and profundity of this one has to do with the fact that "nature" is not demonized as chaos but rather understood as something which prompts that response in some). That both these films are confident enough in their insights to find it unnecessary to aggressively assert or insist upon art house authenticity is part of what endears them to me.

[royalton]

I'm with mfunk and Jesus. Casting a pair of twee indie darlings like that would've really jolted. As it is, I found it stunning to look at but it left me cold and a bit bored. But I can't get it out of my head, regardless - I'll watch it again this week. Maybe the whole thing's growing on me.

[knives]

Much ado has been made about nothing I think. Thank you I'll be here all week.
I'm with Zedz on feelings about this film and I can't add anything to that post. 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. Out of the three beggars though the bird was definitely the silliest moment. The big scene in question did work though, even if the action had minor special effects failure.

[domino harvey]

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?

[knives]

I wasn't intending to be bragging. I was admitting to my own Barmy moment in good humour. I was also, obviously failing, pointing out what I appreciated from the film, and that the one woman didn't really understand that appreciation. Rereading what I originally posted it seems I left the degree with which I laughed too opened. Outside of that one line I'd say my laughter was more the quietly uncomfortable sort, especially at the end. Had everyone else been laughing though, I'd have probably turned into that guy.

[mfunk9786]

Whoa domino, you broke his brain.

[mfunk9786]

aox just came.

[Adam]

I've come to think that the last third of the film is supposed to be happening inside Defoe's character's mind, and thus is intended to represent the fears and misogyny of a typical man, and how a woman might trap/neuter him.

Spoiler

This starts when they are having sex by the tree, with the push in to the back of his head, and the pull back out to the fantasy with many limbs surrounding them.

Only Defoe's character sees the three beggars, and all three are "fantastic." (There is an issue here, problem with a rigorous interpretation along these lines, as I think some of the "fantastic" visions of the beggars happen before the sex-by-the-tree, but I think overall this interpretation holds.)
It goes on to make literal the most conventional fears that men have of women - he's literally held down by that wheel through his leg; she'll ruin him sexually and literally break his manhood; she'll ruin herself for you and then hold you to blame, trying to trap you with guilt. Burying alive...
In the end, he sees the only way out as to kill her. Real event?
And then, even if you kill one, then when leaving, there are hundreds more women to do the same to you.
Etc etc

[aox]

aox just came.

should we take this as confirmation that Criterion isn't touching this?

[mfunk9786]

Not necessarily. That's only the UK release, I believe.

[Brian C]

Adam, that interpretation is fairly persuasive to me. It also fits as a manifestation of his repressed grief.

Actually, this interpretation has painted the picture in a new and more productive light for me. The overly cartoonish violence, which I had trouble with (not in a squeamish sense), makes a lot more sense if you see it as a manifestation of his fears instead of something more tangible.

[Tommaso]

It's certainly a possible interpretation, but as I tend to see film (and art in general) as an ideal medium to express fears, desires etc. that are not in the strict sense of the word 'real', it makes little difference to me. It only shifts the focus from the director to the character, leaving the theoretic possibility for von Trier to say: "Look, it's all only a dream or a fantasy happening to Dafoe's character". I'm pretty sure von Trier would never say anything like that, but it would take a lot away from the disturbing quality of the film and the implications it has in its expression of a particular world-view. The film worked so perfectly for me because it made me think of that world-view, and if it was only something imagined inside the film itself, it would interest me far less than if it was a 'statement' by the author von Trier.

[HarryLong]

Slightly OT, but I just checked amazon & of the four listings they show for ANTICHRIST, two are flagged "discontinued by the manufacturer."

[Adam]

It's certainly a possible interpretation, but as I tend to see film (and art in general) as an ideal medium to express fears, desires etc. that are not in the strict sense of the word 'real', it makes little difference to me. It only shifts the focus from the director to the character, leaving the theoretic possibility for von Trier to say: "Look, it's all only a dream or a fantasy happening to Dafoe's character". I'm pretty sure von Trier would never say anything like that, but it would take a lot away from the disturbing quality of the film and the implications it has in its expression of a particular world-view. The film worked so perfectly for me because it made me think of that world-view, and if it was only something imagined inside the film itself, it would interest me far less than if it was a 'statement' by the author von Trier.

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. However, I tend to think it fits in a larger pattern of his films anyway, and the rotten treatment women get. Rather than see him as misogynistic himself, these films can instead be seen (and more legitimately, in my view) as an ongoing exploration of misogyny in general, and the deeply problematic views & fears that men have of women, made manifest through the medium of film (which I agree is "ideal medium to express fears, desires etc. that are not in the strict sense of the word 'real'.")

As we know, nothing in fictional films is "real," but what does that really matter, when the most effective fictional films make it all "real" - in terms of bringing out the otherwise hidden (and not so hidden) fears, desires, passions, and other emotional states roiling around in our minds.

i think one potential limitation of my interpretation is that it makes the events less "mysterious," and thus perhaps less powerful. But conversely, I think many people who find the film disgusting, repulsive, etc are using that rejection to distance themselves from the film, and thus not have to think about it, and thus not have to confront the issue(s) being explored. [Which for me at this time is about gender relations and male anxieties. Your interpretative terrain may differ ] I think this particular concrete interpretation of the source of the events being represented in the last third may in this case allow more interpretations of the film.

Add:
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. One additional layer.

Spoiler

I also found the test he gives her when he wants her to respond rationally (like "I would" meaning "like a Man would" is both very amusing and very telling.

Remember that von Trier was originally criticized for being "too cold" in his films (I think it's a silly criticism, not that he is cold, but that there is anything necessarily wrong with being cold, or more exactly in being very rational in the construction of a film. I think he started setting himself limitations for each film after that. Five Obstructions is explicitly about this. But Dogme was as well. People always too it too seriously, as a statement of how all movies should be, or something like that (I suppose tied to the issuing of the "manifesto") but it always seemed clearly to me to be a self-imposed limitation created by von Trier for himself for a film or two, to make him wrestle with certain issues. Then he continued with such self-imposed limitations for each film. Dancer in the Dark - a musical Dogville - it had to be shot on one stage. I think one aspect of von Trier's whole oeuvre can be seen as a struggle with rationality and self-imposed limitations.
But I haven't heard of any self-imposed limitations for Antichrist.

[Finch]

Artificial Eye's contribution to the Worst DVD covers thread:

[Adam]

Oh my