| Author | Message | ||
     John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 62.31.153.8 |
Right! I’ve been away from this board for far too long so I thought I’d make a comeback with a literal cinematic bang (ooer missus) by offering my comments on Lars von Triers hardly-very-much-at-all-hardcore-penetration featuring latest movie ‘Antichrist’. The Guardian interview with LvT that I was given with my cinema ticket this afternoon called this film ‘disturbingly bonkers’, which of course made me all the more keen to see it. When the movie had finished, on the way out, a board had been erected where audience members were encouraged to put what they thought of the movie on Post-It notes. ‘Ridiculous’, ‘Boring’, and ‘Three seconds of porn, three seconds of mutilation, one hour forty two minutes of tedium’ tended to be the order of the day. And I must confess to having to side with my Bristol moviegoing companions. In fact Antichrist reminded me of the kind of art-house movies I used to catch on TV when I was young – the ones where nothing happened for seemingly hours before something unexpectedly graphic popped up by which time I was too anaesthetised by the excruciating tedium of what had gone before to be in the slightest bit bothered. I am also beginning to wonder if I might be unshockable. Antichrist opens with a scene of lovemaking (including a single and as far as I could tell totally unnecessary penetration shot) intercut with the couple’s young son falling out of a window. It’s beautifully filmed and is in stark lyrical contrast to the rest of the picture. Consequently I wasn’t anywhere near as shocked by the little boy hitting a snow-covered pavement and sending up a flurry of white flakes as I would have been by his head smashing open on bone-dry concrete bleached white to make the blood show up better. I was actually deliberating this as the movie played but then perhaps I have no soul after all. It’s when the husband and wife toddle off to the woods that the film grinds painfully to a halt, and not even talking self-mutilating animals can save the day. Sadly it’s painfully obvious that the leads are doomed from the moment we meet them, and no amount of clitoris snipping, bone drilling, testicle crushing or masturbating to the point of haemospermia (look it up or alternatively wait for an impromptu JLP bar lecture at FantasyCon) crammed into the last 20 minutes can do anything to change that. This movie has been compared to the works of David Lynch but whereas Lynch is a master of the school of creating surrealistic unease I get the feeling Lars von Trier is still sitting at the back of the class giggling through sticky fingers at the mention of genitalia. This is my first LvT movie but despite what I’ve said above it won’t be my last. If only some of his sense of humour could actually make it to the screen (Paul Bettany’s story of how LvT embarrassed him in front of Nicole Kidman with vast amounts of pornography is priceless, and another one for the FCon bar of you haven’t heard it) I think it would improve his work immensely, and maybe it does in other pictures. And very finally, what did I put on my post-it note? Something only the most obsessive of horror fans might appreciate: “A lot like Norman J Warren’s Prey but without the lesbians and cannibalistic alien invasion” I wonder if they’ll let me back in The Watershed Arts Centre. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
Briefly - it's late for me, since I'll be back at my desk by six or so - I found it powerful and disturbing, and surprisingly generic. I actually thought when we got to the weight on Dafoe's leg, Von Trier's bizarre humour had put in an appearance. It's very evident in The Kingdom, so he doesn't lack it. | ||
| Niki Flynn (Niki) Username: Niki Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.32.69.29 |
Well, going by the texts I've been getting today about this film I can see I'm going to have to judge it on my own. "Powerful and disturbing" carries a lot of weight with me, but so does the way in which the child's death might have been done "better" (for lack of a better word). "More generically horror than expected" also intrigues me mightily, as I always thought von Trier had an excellent grasp of psychological horror - especially in the "meta" realm. (I'm thinking of Björk's on-set breakdown and refusal to speak to him for weeks - if that's anything to go on. I always thought he was the kind of director I'd have LOVED to work with.) I didn't realise this was your FIRST LvT, Lord P! I thought you'd at least seen Dancer in the Dark. Golly gee. Well, at least I know we agree on Brüno!  | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 62.31.153.8 |
I found it powerful and disturbing To be honest I don't find it in the slightest bit difficult to understand how it could be viewed that way, but I didn't find myself disturbed at all, which is partly why I mentioned that perhaps I'm starting to become unshockable. I do agree the bit with the weight veered into almost ludicrous horror territory, and reconsidering it in that light I suppose it could be seen as a visual pun on 'The Old Ball & Chain' (do they even have that expression in Denmark?) | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.225.43 |
Alas... I'm hoping to be shocked and disturbed by this... it's so hard to be, anymore.... Of recent viewings, SALO shocked and disturbed me. FUNNY GAMES (the original) shocked and disturbed me, but I almost don't count that: it's too easy - it's like my joke explanation over at the @Craig thread. I can think of shocking and disturbing moments, or scenes, in a great many films - but I'm trying to think of shocking and disturbing films, as a totality; as a single shocking, disturbing unit. They're few and far between. Borderline, maybe HIGH TENSION. Also CURE. I dunno. Hey, I got an idea - someone should actually make one! | ||
| Karim Ghahwagi (Karim) Username: Karim Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 80.163.6.13 |
The hairs rose on my neck in the scene where Defoe is in the cave with the black bird...That sold it for me...One of the most powerful horror pictures I have seen this decade... | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.187.139 |
I've heard so many mixed things about Antichrist. I loved The Kingdom, and am about to watch the whole series again. I can't recall the last time I was really shocked by a film, to be honest. Unless you count the Hitcher remake, which was shocking, in a way (sorry, Craig!). | ||
| Karim Ghahwagi (Karim) Username: Karim Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 80.163.6.13 |
But I love the JLP review of course. | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 62.31.153.8 |
But I love the JLP review of course. That my dear Karim has earned the kind of deep satisfied JLP chuckle that only a very privileged few have heard in person  | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
...and even fewer have lived to tell... | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 62.31.153.8 |
And THAT has earned a well-deserved uproarious laugh that Brian Blessed would be jealous of! | ||
| Karim Ghahwagi (Karim) Username: Karim Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 80.163.6.13 |
Swallows nervously. My partner watched it two days ago with her friend- they hated it, and took it apart, over a couple of cups of coffee, very chatty, and then they came home and told me why. Gulp again. Yes the black humour in the piece I though makes it even more harrowing- As mentioned above, Defoe's leg, the shoes in the photographs (which doubles as a very disturbing moment as well) and the now infamous speaking fox. Because of its rather generic structure, I am also sure that Von Trier might find his largest audience with this one. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
Beware that evil monochrome! http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/nwb.htm#Antichrists_Beyer_and_Widdecombe_5618 This reminds me of nothing so much as Roszak's Flicker. | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 62.31.153.8 |
The piece below it about lunchtime Channel 4 nudity is hilarious. Especially this bit: It's a pity Channel 4 cannot revive its Watercolour Challenge show. | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.177.118.49 |
Do those complainers all live in Ambridge? What planet are they on? | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.207.78 |
Ah, nostalgia. It feels like the old "red triangle" days of Channel 4. Watercolour Challenge once featured gratuitous scenes of Jeffrey Archer. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.207.78 |
1890s TRAIN PULLING INTO A STATION 1900s ELECTROCUTING AN ELEPHANT 1910s THE BIRTH OF A NATION 1920s NANOOK OF THE NORTH 1930s FREAKS 1940s CITIZEN KANE 1950s THE WILD ONE 1960s PEEPING TOM 1970s THE EXORCIST 1980s THE EVIL DEAD 1990s CRASH 2000s ANTICHRIST 2010s ? | ||
| Jonathan (Jonathan) Username: Jonathan Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.143.178.131 |
Haven't seen this yet so can't comment but what is it with this director putting brief scenes of sexual penetration in his movies? Why? You can portray a couple having sex without seeing 'it' going in, surely? | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.255.67 |
You can portray a couple having sex without seeing 'it' going in, surely? You'll never go far in the San Fernando Valley with that sort of thinking.... | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
"Haven't seen this yet so can't comment but what is it with this director putting brief scenes of sexual penetration in his movies? Why?" Why not? I'm not clear on what you mean about Von Trier, Jonathan - only Antichrist and The Idiots contain penetration shots, I think. Both films are much less explicit in these terms than any number of films rated 18 in Britain since the early nineties. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Actually it bothers me as well, has done since Michael Winterbottom ruined 9 SONGS by getting his actors to have sex on camera. When we see a character getting stabbed in a film, we don't expect the actor to suffer an injury so the scene is 'real'. Why has it suddenly become the norm for sex scenes in non-pornographic films to include real penetration? The more this becomes an expectation imposed on actresses, the more the distinction between an actress and a porn model is broken down. Can we expect 'real sex' remakes of DON'T LOOK NOW and THE ACCUSED and LAST EXIT TO BROOKLYN? Expecting an actress to receive penetration on screen is like expecting her, or an actor, to to receive real violence. And our ability to appreciate acting, to appreciate creative artifice, suffers another massive setback. | ||
| Jonathan (Jonathan) Username: Jonathan Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.143.178.131 |
Oh I'm not against it a such Ramsey, I just don't think it's necessary. If they want to put it in, so to speak, fine with me, it just feels a little contrived. Surely the performance of the actors can put across everything that needs to be said in a sex scene? It is after all, fiction. In a way I'm with Joel on this. Sorry, you're quite right Ramsey I shouldn't just have singled Von Trier out. There was also Winterbottom and the people who made Base Moi. I think putting these scenes in also makes it more likely that you'll get some people going to see the film for the wrong reasons. Expecting prurience where there is none. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Des, this may be a case of viewer projections having more conviction than intentional phalluses. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
"I think putting these scenes in also makes it more likely that you'll get some people going to see the film for the wrong reasons." Jon, they'll just edit them on a computer and burn ten-minute 'porn' versions to distribute on the net. Leaving out all the tedious non-hardcore footage. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
Well, undoubtedly people read the first British paperback of Lady Chatterley's Lover for the wrong (in the author's terms) reasons, but I don't think that's an objection to the book, as just one example. Or, similarly, to Von Trier's footage (which in Antichrist I found lyrical). By far the most explicit narrative film to gain an 18 here, by the way, is the hardcore Caligula. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 160.6.1.47 |
I don't think that there's any image we shouldn't be able to show in art. It's all about context, isn't it? Tone, intent, meaning. Of course, one important rule is that the further beyond the pale the image or subject matter, the greater the art must be in order to justify it. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Ramsey, in terms of artistic effect I agree. But in terms of what actors experience, and what it means for them as people, I think there is reason to be worried. It doesn't matter that much whether people find the film arousing (they might do so in any case without those aspects). What matters, I think, is that actors of both sexes may feel coerced into having sex on camera to fulfil the expectations of a director – and I just don't think that's legitimately part of what being an actor means. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Perhaps oddly given the above, I'm all in favour of sexual explicitness in cinema where it's a relevant and meaningful element of the film. I suppose what it comes down to is that I really wouldn't want actors to suffer bruises, wounds or broken bones in order to create an effective scene of violence. I'm speaking as a trade unionist more than as a viewer. | ||
| Jonathan (Jonathan) Username: Jonathan Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.143.178.131 |
It's not me objecting to the film, more me wondering why it's necessary. If it works that's fine, it's just that all the times I've seen scenes of penetration in non pornographic films it's jarred somewhat. | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.72.14.113 |
It seems to me directors like Lars von Trier and Michael Haneke all too often fall prey to the "easy shock" mentality of film-making. This serves a double purpose they are intelligent enough to be very well aware of: they can pass their movies off as the absolute cutting edge, pushing the boundaries of cinema, questioning the audience BUT also at the same time they are guaranteed bums on seats because of the hype and word-of-mouth publicity this will generate. Only time can be the judge of just how important as directors they are in the grand scheme of things... | ||
| Karim Ghahwagi (Karim) Username: Karim Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 80.163.6.13 |
Joel I think we should take this case by case. All those explicit shots in both von Trier films atleast, I can imagine were performed by doubles- now this of course still doesn't lessen the impact psychologically on the viewer or the actor in question. One of the actresses in 'The Idiots' I believe, already had a background in the Adult industry. And I agree there is no need for actors to be pressured into anything so explicit- and I don't think you'd get that many actors who would agree to participate anyways. To be a bit harsh here, I think it is hypocritical of Hollywood for instance, to have this double standard when it comes to the explicitness of sex vs. violence in their films and how it is represented. We have extreme violence, but then this suggestive often sexual tension or innuendo. What I mean is that they are dealt with very differently in Hollywood, very damagingly so. I thought it was refreshing, necessary even, to have the impact of those shots in the latest von trier film- To have the sex and violence both be aggravating, and just as explicit. The most recent 'Last House on the Left' remake-is one example I want to make: We have long scenes of explicit physical violence, but a suggestive rape scene- Why?(its a tough scene, but still much milder in comparison to the very graphic violence.) I'm not saying that we need to see both- or either, but in a way this imbalance again is very representative of the crooked, skewed representation of sex and violence in Hollywood. Von Trier on one level, is probably addressing this- In fact the whole sexualisation of violence is also attacked. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.5.5.165 |
It's not me objecting to the film, more me wondering why it's necessary. CALIGULA case in point - much of the most explicit sex scenes there were added later, to "porno-ize" it - and if you remember some of those scenes, they were totally tangential. ... so doesn't that now speak against much of CALIGULA, knowing it was added for prurient interests?... or are we back to author-intent/artistic-result arguments now?... | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Karim, if doubles are used, what dignity does the double have? I worry about the contractual and union status of a penis or vagina double in a mainstream film. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Actually, Karim, regarding LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, I don't think a 'real sex' version of a violent rape scene would be acceptable at all. Not because of what the character goes through or what you see on the screen. Rather, because of the film-making process, which involves real people. I wouldn't watch that on any terms. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Could CGI be a valid element in these situations? I ask in all seriousness. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
Caligula - yes, the hardcore footage was added by the producer Bob Guccione. The director's preferred cut does without it with no sense of loss, I'd say. On the other hand, in the eighties I saw the version of Ai No Corrida passed by the Greater London Council. In the nineties the uncut version was passed by the BBFC. I'd say that one, which is far more hardcore, is artistically preferable - more honest. | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.177.118.49 |
I seem to recall AI NO CORRIDA was 'tweaked' in a minor way - in the scene where the woman pulls the young lads penis and makes him cry, I'm reasonably sure the film is sort of zoomed in on an area of the screen so this isn't shown, although the scene isn't actually cut. Or maybe I dreamt that. | ||
| Karim Ghahwagi (Karim) Username: Karim Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 80.163.6.13 |
Joel, the company that made the rubber vagina for antichrist is twenty minutes away from my house. I should ask them about doing more cgi instead of puppets and people.In all seriousness Joel, I'm speaking of the representational fictitious elements in 'Last House'- not that any actors should be in harms away at all- never, and certainly not for a film. There are lots of examples of CGI sex scenes- remember fight club? That roto cam CGI scene between Tyler Durden and whats-her-name? Marla. And yes the penis and the vagina probably have contractual rights, similar to models who specialize in hands , feet, eyes, colgate smiles. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
Mick, that's indeed true of the British video releases. The original uncut British theatrical release wasn't zoomed. | ||
| Karim Ghahwagi (Karim) Username: Karim Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 80.163.6.13 |
Some of them have 20,000 dollar insurance policies on their body parts for this reason- if my wrist breaks I can no longer do that Casio or Rolex commercial. How will I pay my rent? | ||
| Karim Ghahwagi (Karim) Username: Karim Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 80.163.6.13 |
And finally, though the adult industry is always plagued with much sadness, and nasty things I can imagine, the so called 'official' Scandinavian Adult industry is in a somewhat different shape than that of the US or elsewhere - Much more officially regulated etc.(and I don't know if that is scarier- but if it protects some people, fine) Denmark was also the first country to legalize adult entertainment in 68 I believe, and has a long history of legislation on the matter. So the rights of the doubles in the von trier case, are upheld, and probably basking it out in Spain now, after much Cannes success. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
If special effects or CGI can be used then I have no objection to the scene at all. Where 'real sex' with actors is concerned we do, as you say, need to consider each individual case – not just artistically but in terms of professional relationships, rights and boundaries. Where an erotic film has been made with prior commitment to including 'hardcore' material, the circumstances may be quite different from a director's decision to add a 'penetration shot' as an isolated set-piece. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
All this just reminded me of something I read about Soderbergh's newest film -- The Girlfriend Experience. For the casting of the film, Soderbergh took the approach (in part at least) made famous by Robert Bresson: He hired everyday people to star in his film -- regular Joes chosen because they happened to have the same profession (or very nearly so) as the character they were to portray. Because the film was to center on the subject of a high-priced call girl, he hired a porn star for the starring role. He did this, he said, because a lot of improvising was sure to happen during the shooting (the film had a very loose outline for a screenplay), and he wanted his actress to be open to the possibility of real sex onscreen. However, despite all that, no real sex happened. And, oddly enough, many reviewers are praising the unusual starlet's acting abilities. Perhaps the distinctions between "real" actors and porn stars are smaller than one might think. | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 62.31.153.8 |
I must confess I was quite surprised to find myself pontificating at length (sorry Joel) whether or not the inclusion of the penetration footage in Antichrist was necessary or not. Eventually I came to the conclusion that it wasn't, and that probably the only time one could really justify showing an actual penetration shot would be, to quote the great David Cronenberg, if you needed to 'show the unshowable'. Ie if the actual physical act of the penetration had a bearing on the narrative - the penis suddenly mutated or the female anatomy was not what one was expecting. So, in keeping with a fine old British tradition, I would say leave out the straight sex, but showing mutated / mutating or surgically altered genitalia would be fine  | ||
| Niki Flynn (Niki) Username: Niki Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.32.69.29 |
Perhaps the distinctions between "real" actors and porn stars are smaller than one might think. Hear, hear! | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.110.254.139 |
I think the only important distinction is in terms of what directors can tell them to do. Plus, of course, the fact that no serious actor could get away with the combination of moustache and pony-tail. | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 62.31.153.8 |
no serious actor could get away with the combination of moustache and pony-tail. Can anyone? | ||
| Niki Flynn (Niki) Username: Niki Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.146.60.150 |
Right! Just seen it and LOVED it. I, too, am fairly unshockable and I can't say I was *shocked* by any of it. But I did find the film extremely unsettling - particularly the mutilated animals. I was worried that after all the Basil Brush jokes that the fox scene wouldn't work, but it was very creepy indeed! (The lady behind me shrieked when the fox appeared onscreen, and then twice more later on. I don't imagine she sees many horror movies). Not sure how I feel about the penetration shot. I'm inclined to agree with JLP's paraphrased Cronenberg philosophy, but I'm also opposed to the concept that sex is somehow "shocking" in itself. Why is movie violence so much more acceptable than sex? I certainly had no problem with the shot; I just don't know that it added anything to the scene. I'm interested to see how it will be viewed (the movie as a whole, for that matter) in 10-20 years. I also thought Charlotte Gainsbourg did a hell of a job. What a gruelling role! Dafoe was good too, of course, but I suspect the millstone would have hurt a lot more than he portrayed! So he loses a few points for that one. | ||
| Niki Flynn (Niki) Username: Niki Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.146.60.150 |
Oh, and let me add that the photography was absolutely exquisite. There were some extremely arresting (and very effective) images that are still with me 2 hours later. (My favourite is the one that ends chapter 3. Chilling.) I also loved the sparse and eerie music. Just a gorgeously made film on all fronts. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.229.57 |
Niki's approbation of this film bodes well, since our tastes in film have more-or-less been fairly consistent.... Good news for me. I've obviously seen not the film, and know naught about it. However, granting this knowing nothing, let me venture to guess why the "penetration shot" might be deemed screen-worthy and necessary: Because everyone's talking about the film containing genital mutilation - it's sort of known now, that someone's male member gets lopped off. Well, in film, you want to fully maximize all exploitative (term not used as a derogatory here) sequences at both ends of the spectrum. So, if a loved-one dies in a tragedy, you want to earlier show scenes of extreme romance and happiness, to maximize the tragic aspect later. It's more definitional even: always show the gun before it's shot - see it, even once, even if you don't need to. Show the sexual organs in their maximum capacity and functionality - their loss is therefore perceived to be more graphic and tragic. ... Is there a scene of Dafoe pissing in the film too? I'd guess yes.... | ||
| Niki Flynn (Niki) Username: Niki Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.146.60.150 |
Ooohh, very interesting argument, Craig. Definitely food for thought. But alas, there's no pissing scene. Sorry. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
"...it's sort of known now, that someone's male member gets lopped off..." No, it doesn't. | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.4.20.22 |
Better stop reading this thread before I know everything about the movie. It opens over here next week and I will be going to see what all the fuss is about. Not a huge fan of von Trier but have appreciated a couple of his movies; 'Breaking The Waves', 'Dancer In The Dark' (but then I love Björk) and he is always worth a look. Comments to follow... | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.16.87.226 |
Ooooops. I can't seem to read a single thing about this movie anywhere without having inferred this... or maybe it's just my ignorance... apologies for - er - either case. Apparently there's a pissing sequence before the film ever starts, over here in the States. It's the scene were I piss on myself.  | ||
| Niki Flynn (Niki) Username: Niki Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.146.60.150 |
Perhaps it's just your worst fears taking over, Craig. Better be careful: terrible things can happen when you confront your inner demons.  | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
Finally caught up with ANTICHRIST on DVD...blimey, what a crazy film. Beautifully shot, with some really striking images, and nicely enigmatic. Dark humour bubbles beneath the surface, the mood is unique, and it's one of the few films I've seen that manages to make animals really scary (and weird). Loved the bit with the fox, and a couple of the later scenes made me wince. Like JLP, I thought the penetration shot was totally gratuitous - put in there to get folk talking about it. All in all, an unsettling film that, despite having a clear and understandble theme, holds an enigma at its heart. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
Tell you what, this made a bizarre double bill with SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE (which I loved, btw). | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.179.38.83 |
I cracked up at your Facebook status, Gary:- "Gary McMahon just watched "Antichrist". Blimey, that was a bit rude." | ||
| Ian Alexander Martin (Iam) Username: Iam Registered: 10-2009 Posted From: 64.180.64.74 |
How odd to have a thread resurrected after being 'under' for so long. I'd not even really paid attention to the film when it came out, nor even now. I'd forgotten how fun it is to read Baron von Probertstein's film reviews! I'm happy to report that I'm not un-shockable, however: I was gob-stoppered when Spock Prime appeared 1/2-way through Star Trek last night! …sorry? "Been out for over a year", you say? Well, we saw it on DVD, you see, so… Sorry? 'That's been out for nearly a year'? I never said my views were timely… | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
In Antichrist, is the penetration shot even real? The fellatio shot in In the Cut isn't, after all. | ||
| Nathaniel Tapley (Natt) Username: Natt Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 78.147.148.35 |
I believe the penetration shot (although I have not seen it) is real, but it is performed by two porn actors hired specifically for that shot. Which leaves me wondering, although I haven't seen it in some time, if von Trier used the same technique in Idioterne. That sequence seemed more protracted than one shot, but I should have to go back and check - repeatedly, and at length - to be sure... |