We LoveFilm discussion
Movie of the Month
>
June 2011 - Antichrist (2009)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Davina, The Modster
(new)
Jun 02, 2011 06:07AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
Mod
Is this on netflix? I've never heard of this one.
Mod
Mod
Anyway, we'll have the discussion this weekend, but somebody can still go ahead nominate July's MoM. Michelle, now that you're back, are you up for it?
By the way, Michelle, I hope you'll have a chance to see Antichrist and discuss it here with us. This is a very ... odd film and I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.
OMG!!!! I completely forgot about this. I'm watching it tomorrow night. I can't wait to start the discussion.Michelle, are you available to pick a movie for July???
So I finally watched this film. Can't wait to discuss it. Very weird! I'll leave it at that.
Mod
What do you think of the story surrounding the lost of the boy? In your opinion did it have any substantive merit?
Like our MoM before this, the film dealt the psychological & existential themes of death, grief and theraphy ... which of the two films handled this better? Why?
What do you think He's visions of the talking fox and other bizarre imagines represented, if anything?
What about She's bizarre sexual proclivities? Coping mechanism or stark raving madness?
The film has been described by many US critics as misogynistic. Do you agree?
What did you think of the acting? Any good?
If there was anything you could change about the film, what would that be?
What did you think of the resolution? What do you suppose the women walking toward He signify?
What did you like best about this film?
What did you like least about this film?
Overall, did you enjoy the film?
Mod
Here's my thoughts...What do you think of the story surrounding the lost of the boy? In your opinion did it have any substantive merit? Child cruelty. There was nothing to his story except to prove that the mom was a lunatic. If there was something...it went above my head which is what I think happened while watching this film.
Like our MoM before this, the film dealt the psychological & existential themes of death, grief and theraphy ... which of the two films handled this better? Why?
Of course I'm sticking with my pick. LOL. Seriously, I understood the portrayal of grief, death and even the brief therapy in Rabbit Hole. Sure, the characters didn't behave the way I wanted them to in that film, but I understood. In this film, the husband's "therapy" is too arrogant and God-like. I hated his therapeutic babble after a while. I didn't understand why he was trying to make sense to a lunatic. But oh well. I never truly saw the grief from the husband which I found interesting. It pissed me off because he was too busy being a therapist to show any human emotions. Even when he had to put the end to the weird events. Just weird.
What do you think He's visions of the talking fox and other bizarre imagines represented, if anything? I don't know what to think about that. I had to close my eyes for that. The dead little bird, the deer with the dead fetus (or whatever its called) hanging out and the talking fox. It freaked me out completely.
What about She's bizarre sexual proclivities? Coping mechanism or stark raving madness? Why are you calling them, She and He? Didn't they have names in this film? I can't remember! Ok...back to the question. "She's" behavior was disturbing to say the least. I thought she displayed some emotions in the beginning. But the sexual activities took away from that. I believe that the sexual behavior displayed was a way to demonstrate that "nature" was possessing her. And from what she believed, nature was satanic.
The film has been described by many US critics as misogynistic. Do you agree? No I wouldn't describe the film as misogynistic. I saw it as the director's view to point out the wrong-doing of Catholicism. Was it blatant that this was a anti-christian film? Not such much, but the suggestive undertones were there. I don't know if the director or writer is atheist but it appears to me that he is.
What did you think of the acting? Any good? I believe that Dafoe and the chick carried the film but they were like emotionless creatures. Not that I can blame them. In all honesty, their character calls for it. They were suppose to be like that...so I guess they executed that perfectly.
If there was anything you could change about the film, what would that be? I don't know. Maybe the ending. I didn't care if there was a resolution at this point. I was just glad it ended.
What did you think of the resolution? Was there really one? Parts of this film went way over my head.
What did you like best about this film? Not one thing...wait I'm lying...I thought about it for a minute. I liked the cinematography. I loved the close-ups and the sound of the acorns falling down. Overall, it was nicely composed. At least that was the most I got out of this film.
What did you like least about this film? The sexual scenes. The self-mutilation was horrifying to watch. I cover my eyes a lot in this film. I don't particularly care to see dead animals so I close my eyes for those scenes and the fox. I'm too jumpy for that.
Overall, did you enjoy the film? No, not at all. I was disturbed by the graphic nature. Not my cuppa!
Ok and once again...I always ask our discussion leaders this question.Why did you pick this film?
Davina wrote: "I saw this film a while ago and didn't have time to rewatch it so while I try to recall my reaction to the film please feel free to go ahead and post your answers, Samantha. I'm quite looking forwa..."Davina, I freaked out while watching this. It started so well with the filming. In the beginning the cinematography was so beautiful. The shots were brilliant. So I had high hopes from this. It was just fucking weird. LOL. No other way to phrase it. I probably would have got more out of it, if I wasn't a punk and kept closing my eyes at certain scenes (dead animals).
Mod
Aright off to compose my answers...
Another thing that I found interesting was that the sexual scenes were never pleasurable. There was nothing erotic about them. They were brutal, painful, or demonstrated a need to dominate one another. She's belief about nature was shown in many scenes. For example, when they arrive to the cabin, She takes off running b/c she can't stand the grass. She is scared to be out there which is quite confusing until she explains her feelings about nature.
Mod
To me this was a horrific (alluding to the horror genre), nihilistic exploration of existential themes having to do with lost, grief and recovery. When I critique the film from that perspective I think this was a highly substantive piece of original cinematic film making esp. when compared to other slasher films in the genre. Put aside all the film lover's BS on the other hand, and look at it merely from a lay perspective then this film suffers from a heavy-handed oversimplification of complex themes in a way that comes across as a contrived, pompous effort to stand out (like when someone tries to seek attention for themself while another person has the floor). It's just tacky.
I can understand why you feel some things flew over your head because in truth there wasn't much substance surrounding the basic foundation of the film (which was these people's grief over losing their child). von Trier created a spine and subsequently layered it with pseudo-intellectual crap. In this context I think the film is more a reflection of a crazed man (von Trier), than any intelligent commentary on the human condition.
Like our MoM before this, the film dealt the psychological & existential themes of death, grief and theraphy ... which of the two films handled this better? Why?
I know I asked the question, but I'm having difficulty formulating an answer. I think Antichrist tried to explore grief through a variety of themes which I liked. I liked the unconventional approach of having the characters cope with feelings of guilt and grief through sexual exploration -- though von Trier's execution of such was problematic due to lack of structure and a clear vision of what he wants to relate to the audience. Rabbit Hole was good, but like I said in that discussion the film brought nothing new to whole theme of dealing with lost and grief. It's same story I've seen hundreds of times with nothing fresh or original brought to the table. In that sense, I thought Rabbit Hole was weaker, but found its strength in the fact that the director seemed to know what he wanted to tell the audience. I personally believe von Trier is mental (he always has been and is getting worse) and that comes across in a lot of his recent films. His plots are often meandering and senseless. He tries to break the standard rule of storytelling (beginning, middle and end), but his attempt is sometimes a dismal failure. I can't wait to see his latest film Melancholia.
What do you think He's visions of the talking fox and other bizarre imagines represented, if anything?
I think these were cinematic gimmicks created solely for shock value and the courtship of controversy. I don't think it represented much in the context of the events taking place in the film. I think this is a manifestation of von Trier's madness. Like you observed, I agree Defoe's character came across as being in doctor mode throughout the film, and why the devil he'd be seeing talking foxes and deers giving birth to human fetuses did not make much sense unless he was channeling his wife's psychosis in some way (and as far as I can remember we were given no evidence of such). Or he was as mad as a hatter himself.
What about She's bizarre sexual proclivities? Coping mechanism or stark raving madness?
In the beginning I do believe it was some sort of therapeutic mechanism for her. The graphic opening scene was telling, if a bit gratuitous. Nevertheless, I thought it was significant in the sense that she was so caught up in the act, in her focus to reach climax that she was rendered temporarily incapable of registering that the child was in danger of falling off the window ledge. Later, after his death, I think she may have wanted to reach that same pinnacle where she is able to block her negative emotions (her pain) and focus only on the sexual responses of her body. I think this was particularly evident when she asked Defoe to hit her while he fucked the daylights out of her. But it didn't work ... she couldn't escape into the throes of passion, she kept seeing the child edging toward the ledge and herself, too selfish in her desire to reach orgasm, let him fall rather than deny herself sexual gratification. Guilt, self-recriminations struck. When the rough sex did not take her away to that safe, pleasurable place she is plunged into madness and she resorts to using the self mulitation of herself and Defoe to try and cure herself. It's like a junkie evolving from drug to drug. You start with weed, go to coke, then to meth, then to heroine ... you get my drift.
The film has been described by many US critics as misogynistic. Do you agree?
It's interesting the media's knee jerk attempt to victimize women in every possible context which may arise. Having spent some time in Scandinavia I think the subtext of this film is a direct rebellion against the prevalent Scandinavian assumption that ALL men are inherently oppressive abusers of women. It is a very real and potent aspect of their cultural psyche.
Yes, I suppose there are some subtext that could be deemed misogynistic, but I also think that it can also be construed as quite misandric as well. The Catholic angle that you introduce did not occur to me, but I see some merit in what you say since many Scandinavians (as opposed to, and often as a direct criticism of, American fundamental christianism) pride themselves as rabid atheist -- far too evolved to succumb to any sort of organised religion.
What did you think of the acting? Any good?
Defoe is not usually a leading man. It was interesting to see him take on this role. I think he did a fairly good job. I didn't immediately see where what you described as his lack of "human emotion" was problematic because he was focused on providing treatment, not being there for her in a husbandly manner. And even so when she was at her worse I did see where he switched to being her husband rather than her doctor. Charlotte Gainsburg won the best actress gong at Cannes that year. I thought she did ok, but I'm not sure it was an award worthy performance.
If there was anything you could change about the film, what would that be?
It's interesting that you liked the acorns falling down. There's a scene when they're falling through the window while Defoe's character is sleeping and I didn't like seeing it at all. I don't like seeing things in abundance especially when they're dark of colour. It creeps me out. I would've cut that scene. lol
What did you think of the resolution? What do you suppose the women walking toward He signify?
Well, I think he felt like he had to kill her. Clearly she had not responded to treatment and she was a danger to him and herself. Whether I agreed with it or not, I suppose that made sense. I can not explain why all the blurry faced women were storming toward him. I think it may be associated to what I mentioned earlier about gender dynamics in that region. He is the representation of the oppressive male (and the male dominated church which caused the genocide of the women) and the women are there to seek retribution?
What did you like best about this film?
I agree with you about the cinematography. In terms of cinematic value the film was a grotesque masterpiece.
What did you like least about this film?
All the psycho babble -- not from the characters. But from von Trier. The overly graphic and explicit scenes of sex and sexual torture seemed to have been added only for shock value. And this is because von Trier is an attention whore who is too socially awkward to make the news with subjects of merit so he says and does stupid things to stay relevant.
Overall, did you enjoy the film?
Yes, I actually did in spite of its many faults. It was one of the first films in a long time that my husband and I saw and we had a looooong discussion about it afterwards. I love intelligent films that doesn't patronise you with all the answers, but gives you enough information to form your own theories and conclusions. In many ways Antichrist worked for me, but von Trier gets in the way of his own genius due combination of an inflated ego and manic depressive tendencies.
Mod
Mainly for the fact that its so rich in subtext. There's much room for discussion. I also like foreign films, sometimes more so than American films which I often find repetitive, unoriginal and boring.
Well you definitely pick films that are not original :)
Mod
Plus, if you think this was bad wait til you see this other film I have in mind. Grotesque. But it wasn't gratuitous like Antichrist. The events made sense to the story the director is trying to share with you. But don't worry I'll let you recover from this one before I subject you to more trauma! LOL
And know that you're not alone in wincing when that crazy ass woman was shearing off her and Defoe's private parts. Ouch. I could barely look at that scene.
Interestingly I think the reason why she did it was because she blamed them both for the death of their son. She saw the boy on the window ledge, could have saved him, but she didn't want to sacrifice her orgasm. She had to cut off her clit because technically it had killed her son and she had to cut off his cock because it was the source of evil (mind-blowing sexual pleasure that's potent enough to make her neglect her son). Add that to the fact that she was clearly nuts from before and the boy didn't stand a chance of been saved.
Did you get any of that from your own observations or am I just as nuts as her? lol
Did you delete your comment just now b/c when I went to respond, it disappeared and I was going to answer your questions but I don't know all of what you wrote. I do remember you asked was my previous comment an insult. No, I wouldn't insult you and then smile. It was a compliment and agreeing that you don't pick movies that are cookie cutter.
Davina wrote: "LOL, is that a compliment or a thinly veiled insult?Plus, if you think this was bad wait til you see this other film I have in mind. Grotesque. But it wasn't gratuitous like Antichrist. The event..."
Which version of Grotesque?
Davina, watching this first thing in the morning was not a good move. I was still in my pajamas when she was whacking at his penis. Then she had the nerve to perform a hand job on it. I was sick!!!You bring up interesting points about the woman. I don't know if I got anything about grief with her self-mutilation. I kept thinking "evil" and she was trying to cure herself of that. When she was out in the woods against that tree masturbating, I saw that "nature" was taking over her. She was the antichrist. LOL.
I'm ready for the next movie. You have a sick sense of film. Bring it!
Mod
Mod
Trust me, the first time I saw this I didn't know what to expect. I knew von Trier being von Trier it'd probably be something wacko, but this was above and beyond anything I could have imagined at the time. With the graphic opening scene my husband and I were like WTF??? Did we walk into the wrong room or something? Soon we found out, nope. We were right where we needed to be.
Funnily enough, this is not the worse I've seen ...
Hmmmm. I didn't think the women were coming after him. I don't know what they were doing. The look like they were moving past him which led me to believe she was the antichrist. It's funny how we both took different takes from the ending.
Mod
I can't remember all the details since I watched back in 09. I remember him standing in the field and looking at them coming toward him.
What you say makes sense though. She could be the antichrist. Although at the end of the day I think the film has very little to do with actual religion.
I can't shake the feeling that she's a sexually depraved nutter. I think the film's core theme is mental illness (manic depression -- as von Trier himself has), exacerbated by the untimely death of the boy. All that business about nature being satanic, driving her to nymphomaniac tendencies, is all in her head. That's what her husband, the psychiatrist, was trying to help her realize, but she was too far gone to regain any form of rationality.
No, the film wasn't about religion but I think he tried to sneak some of his views in there for sure. I agree with you. She was a lunatic who was horny. The husband was wasting his time with her but his arrogance led to him getting hurt by her.
Michael wrote: "Davina wrote: "LOL, is that a compliment or a thinly veiled insult?Plus, if you think this was bad wait til you see this other film I have in mind. Grotesque. But it wasn't gratuitous like Antich..."
I thought I saw a post where you mentioned something about the next film being called Grotesque now I can't find it.
Michael, maybe you read it wrong but I don't remember her writing about a film Grotesque.
Mod
Lemme try and explain again:
I was saying to Samantha that if she thought the events that took place in this film were disturbing wait til she sees this other movie I have in mind for an upcoming MoM pick. This film is even more graphic than Antichrist and some of the scenes are quite grotesque.
I wasn't referring to a film called Grotesque. I was saying the events of this movie I plan to pick were grotesque. Hope it makes sense for you now ... :)
