Think harder then.

A kind word for Antichrist, the second best film I've seen for the year. It's one of those that I love not in spite of its faults, but almost because of them. I'm not entirely convinced that the entire film is meant to be treated seriously (I can imagine von Trier laughing at all the folks who over-analyze it) or if it exists solely as a provocation. Whatever the intention, I still love the film. I mean you have a for chrissakes.



Yup, the entire prologue (and epilogue) are shot in black and white and in slow-mo. It's a really pretty looking slow-mo too. Reminded me of those slow mo shots you get on Mythbusters.

Taken in allegorical context, the graphic content makes sense, except for maybe the insert shot.

Either way, I wouldn't agree with your case that a film that has maybe a couple minutes' worth (if that) of graphic content is made purely to shock.

This isn't Hostel for christs sake.

Roger Ebert's (another critic I admire) review for Antichrist is up:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091021/REVIEWS/910219990
No mention of the the "hard-core" aspect of the opening scene - "making passionate love" Ebert calls it, and that's it. It really is nothing to get excited about.

3.5 stars. The same rating I would have given it with my untrained eye. And Ebert is a lot older than James, so perhaps that's not the issue after all. It should be essentially a love it or hate it movie. James' ho-hum take it or leave it 2.5 stars makes no sense to me whatsoever. Like someone earlier said, 2.5 stars is really more insulting than 1 star.

I have browsed this site for a long time without registering or making a contribution... however, your post made me sign up to thank you.

So, thank you.




This answer was already given by a poster earlier, but to add citations so that any debate can be removed...

Via Wikipedia (insert Wiki being an unreliable source joke here):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardcore_pornography

Hardcore pornography is a form of pornography that features explicit sexual acts.

...this is made easier to differentiate between the two when you add in the softcore pornography definition, the second sentence being key:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softcore_pornography

Softcore pornography is a form of filmic or photographic pornography or erotica that is less sexually explicit than hardcore pornography... Softcore porn precludes explicit depictions of vaginal or anal penetration, cunnilingus, fellatio and ejaculation.

So, simply semantically, it is hardcore pornography... no matter what nation you're from or how much, or little, it offends you.

I'm still willing to argue that the way this 2 second shot was filmed is at best a marginal "explicit" depiction of penetration - a word clearly present in this Wikipedia definition. Strictly speaking you are right, but this is at the very fringe of what could be construed as "hard-core" and totally blows the scene out of all proportion. Antichrist is definitely not a porno, let alone a "hard-core" porno. Or does the inclusion of this 2 second shot somehow automatically render it as such?

I have never argued that the film is pornographic. I have simply stated that the movie contains a hard-core insert shot. That's a fact, and I don't put a value judgment on it. My complaint about the shot isn't that I have a problem with hard-core porn, but it's inclusion in the movie is jarring enough to pull, however briefly, the viewer out of the moment. It's a shot designed purely for its shock value and that makes you aware that you're watching a movie. You start to wonder whether those explicit genitals were those of the actors or whether they were body doubles or prosthetics. Take away the hard-core insert and the scene would work perfectly from beginning to end.

Some viewers will be offended by the pornographic content in and of itself, but I'm not among them.

(My guess about the scene is that it features body doubles. There are no faces in the scene so it's almost certainly not the actors, and it looks to real to be prosthetics. Besides, one suspects that von Trier, the primary author of Dogma theory, would want to keep things as "real" as possible. He has long condemned special effects.)

In a recent interview, von Trier has confirmed that he employed professional pornorgraphy actors as boudy doubles. He also stated that it was a shame that the audience could not appreciate how well-endowed Willem Dafoe was. Another amusing anecdote from the interview: von Trier said that during testing, the male porn actor was, ahem, handling his member for a very long time until von Trier noticed him quietly saying "and now? and now?". von Trier was not aware that the porn actor was used to the director telling him when to, well, finish a scene.

On another note: Why is everybody discussing this particular scene in a film which features close-ups of genital mutilation? Personally, I would have thought that the latter scenes would be far more controversial in nature.

Well one thing led to another, I'm American and that's what it all lead up to.

Because, although staged, the sex is real; the genital mutilation (as disturbing as the scenes may be) is not.

In what way does it make sense? Why does the viewer have to witness these scenes?

As far as the explicit sex scenes go...I don't know why people only mention the scenes with the "porn doubles" and not the scene with Charlotte Gainsbourg masturbating, vigorously, amongst some tree roots. Her performance is a fearless one and in an ideal world the Academy would recognise her.

how I see it dragonbeard:

Ok, that sheds a lot of light on the topic. But for those like me, who haven't seen these things in context, the impression is simply that they are there to seek attention.

So, I saw the film two nights ago at the Embarcadero with three friends of mine. One of them knew of the explicit nature of the movie, one of them simply watched the trailer and was expecting something of a horror film, and the other decided to join us based on the title alone. Doth it come a surprise that during during at Denny's, I asked the two less informed, "Do you guys know what you're walking into?" We then finished dinner and walked into a nearby Container Store, forgetting about the nature of the movie until the movie started an hour and change later.

Though I have to admit: it was pretty funny when my friend dropped his box of Lemon Heads and spilled them all over the theater floor. Thankfully (thankfully?) it wasn't during a genital mutilation scene. The look on his face was something like: I know I'm a ree-ree, stop looking at my shame.

Needless to say, some interesting conversation arose during the post-screening existence. The one who knew nothing going in was fairly pissed off by Gainsbourg's character, to which I was like, "Von Trier got you to react, even negatively. He did his job." The one who saw the trailer was gripped by what he saw, ultimately (and of course facetiously) concluding that Antichrist was the feel good movie of the year. The other friend (who's female I might add) was reminded of the upsides of having a clitoris. She liked the film more than the other two, but it took her an hour to say so, revealed as I drove her home.

And what about me?

Let's talk about the prologue. This features probably the most beautiful slow-motion I've ever seen in a film, bar none, set to the only song on the soundtrack. The hardcore insert is little more than a distraction, and I'm sure Von Trier's intention in including it was to make the scene more passionate. It almost feels as normal as any of the other shots, but the keyword is "almost". If there were more shots like this, I probably could have jived with it, but ultimately, I didn't think that shot worked. It's a shame, because every other shot did. If there is a success to it, it's that it sufficiently warns the audience that it's not going to get any better than this. You've been warned.

Chapter one was an interesting set-up to the horror that was to come. I was occasionally bored by what it offered, but for the most part I was into it. Gainsbourg's display of grief thus far was realistic.

Then chapter two starts, which ends with a talking fox. Okay, the Von Trier universe is expanding and the real universe is collapsing. That's okay, though; we were warned. This chapter is fairly successful, though said talking fox made a lot of people in my theater laugh. Not me, but I see that it could have been executed differently.

Then holy bejesus chapter three.

And if you thought chapter three was fun, wait until you get a load of chapter four.

The epilogue was something of a confusion for me, but at this point, who didn't see such an ending coming? Of course, the movie wasn't predictable, but you knew the ending was going to be on an ethereal level of allegory.

The feel good movie of the year? Absolutely. The most well shot film of the year? Hands down. Disturbing? Check. Pretentious? Check. Typical Von Trier filmmaking? Check. Did I like it?

Yes.

"She" is afraid of "He" leaving her, that's why she went with the millstone.



I'm not sure I entirely understood the epilogue either. There are a few theories around, but one of the more interesting opinions I've heard suggests the epilogue is proof that the movie isn't misogynistic.

Does hard-core have to be differentiated from tasteful? Did James even say that or try to? All he said was that no matter how short the shot was, it was hard-core, which it was. Why are you arguing over such an insignificant detail where you are wrong simply because you seem to have a porn addiction?

Somebody hasn't been paying attention...at all. He conceded the shot was hardcore but the way it was talked about he was expecting something akin to a porno. Now I shouldn't be having to explain it since it's all right HERE!

To the first point: that's assuming the movie follows realistic characters, which it doesn't.

To the second point: the movie isn't misogynistic. Willem Dafoe's character might be misogynistic (maybe), but I always saw Gainsbourg's character as either possessed by a demon or a complete psycho bitch. If the roles were reversed, would ANYONE complain about how the movie treated men? Come on.

First: that poster is my new wallpaper.

Second: I have the sneaking sensation that ed_metal_head is referring to my arguments on Antichrist. He can verify this and, if he so chooses, post the entirety of my e-mail (minus, of course, the obligatory references to my deep-seeded need to dress my daughter up as a leprechaun and call her my "Little Irish Mistake"). Or maybe I'll post it. Someone is going to post it.

For the record, Antichrist was a thought-provoking philosophy that looked and sounded like a movie but, man alive, wasn't exactly a movie. I've long since forgiven Lars Von Trier's trespasses into the pretentious and thought, this time out, he made a significant film that constantly dared the audience into tagging along further into his profound emotional problems. I saw it twice (its available On Demand) and eventually settled onto something regarding the epilogue. More on that (maybe) eventually.

Lars Trier was interviewed by the Onion AV Club and intimated the film may have been a failure. I don't know what he was going for if he thinks he failed but, if he was being prickish (as is his wont), I'd say he made an effective statement on the failure human beings bring to the table when they listen to one another without hearing a single word. The violence was necessary; its tough to get audiences to pay attention and if it takes being beaten over the skull once in a while, so be it.