ANTICHRIST Post Release

[Ratty]

Originally Posted by Justin Clark

Yeah, but anybody who's been on antidepressants will tell you cold turkey, especially while still in the middle of horrible shit, is not the way to go about it, and grieving over your dead son is hardly the time to confront your other emotional shit.

They have a conversation where she says this whole "help her face her fears" thing is the most attention he's paid to her in months. He loves her, because she's a crossword puzzle, something to work on.

Come to think of it, stop me if I'm wrong, he doesn't really have an out and out moment of grief of his own over his son, does he?

All we get is that one shot of Defoe sobbing as he follows the hearse right before she passes out. Later in the cabin when he looks at pics of Nick, his face barely flinches.

Amazing movie. No one is going to touch Gainesbourg for performance of the year. She was fucking fearless!

I love that there are about 80 different ways to interpret this film. My initial reaction is that it was a straight up possession movie with "She" being possessed by Nature and its inherent evil. In her eyes, the woods were "alive" with the ghosts of centuries of persecuted women. That shot of Defoe limping away from the cabin and the dissolve to all the beautiful white corpses kind of sold me on that premise, but I'm still not sure I'm correct. This movie both seems to condemn religious persecution of females and affirm it. Not to mention that von Trier seems to have a very dim view of psychotherapy.

On a lesser note, I must admit I got a kick out of that sudden cut to the deer right after She snipped her clit off. He seemed to be thinking, "Whoa! What the fuck is going on in that cabin?"

[Count Chocula]

The best I can say about this film is that it's easily Von Trier's most revealing thus far, though probably not in the way he intended. Unlike his previously transparent spitball-in-the-eye brand of audience provocation which took a distinctly aloof tone, ANTICHRIST is brimming with both the usual puerile shock tactics (the close-ups of Dafoe's giant dick were particularly amusing in this regard), as well as a telling defensiveness through which Von Trier filters his typical seething contempt for his audience and critics. Even if you're in on the joke, the film is only really interesting as an act of self-confession by Von Trier in that in confirms without a doubt what his previously films only hinted at; that he views women as the root of all evil. Intentionally or not, Von Trier reveals himself as a traditionalist cultural Conservative on the level of James Dobson through his meretricious post-modern recreation of the Christian creation myth: it's all re-contextualization, no commentary or subversion. The rest of the film is a by the numbers account of Von Trier's "art through antagonism" thesis with the usual antipathy for the audience and a dash of childishly inimical defensiveness thrown in. Way to take on your critics (justified) accusations of misogyny with a film that concludes with the insinuation that the only way for the female antagonist to make amends for her sins of womanhood is to castrate herself. Yawn.

I just wish someone would tell the career first year film school students who praise Von Trier's films that he's laughing AT them, not with them.

[mcnooj82]

The only thing I'd disagree with about Devin's review is about the subtlety of the warping of those images of the woods. Those stuck out to me immediately seeing it on a TV screen. Perhaps it works more subtly projected onto a nice silver screen. I wouldn't be surprised.

But that is a minor disagreement.

I don't know what to make of this film. Hahaha. But 2 things that struck me immediately while watching it:

I knew something wasn't right even when their son was alive and happy. Gainsborough looked miserable in that polaroid. Seriously, who would take such a picture of themselves?! So when the film goes back to the Obsexxion Sex Scene, I wasn't surprised that she saw her son fall out the window.

I found Dafoe's character to be maddeningly dense about his wife's needs. It's not subtle either. This was one of the few things in the film that was stated explicitly several times. I don't understand how anyone could see it otherwise.

One more thing... I had a good laugh when Dafoe looks up to the sky and sees the 'constellation chart of doom.' It fit the character so well when he said something along the lines of, "Heeey, those aren't real constellations!!!" Arrogant bastard! He tinks he brain so beeg!

[Ratty]

Fun fact from the end credits: Charlotte's body double (presumably penetration double) is named Mandy Starship.

I'm coming around even more to Devin's assertion that this is von Trier's The Shining. As that was missing was a reveal that She was in of those one 16th-century persecution pictures hung up in the study.

[joeypants]

Originally Posted by mcnooj82

The only thing I'd disagree with about Devin's review is about the subtlety of the warping of those images of the woods. Those stuck out to me immediately seeing it on a TV screen. Perhaps it works more subtly projected onto a nice silver screen. I wouldn't be surprised.

How'd you see it on a TV already? I thought they pushed the On Demand date back?

[Z.Vasquez]

For all of the talk the genital mutilation scenes are getting (understandably so), i gotta admit to being equally disturbed by the animal stuff. That introduction to the deer is so nauseating, as you slowly realize what that thing coming from its back is, and although I was aware that a fox says 'Chaos Reigns' I feel like I should have been warned that it's in the middle of EATING ITSELF!

I find it hard to understand how art made by a guy like von Trier, in which even serene nature is shown as disgustingly savage and misshaped, can be called out specifically as misogynist. I get why that's part of the discussion for this movie, as it's a theme within the movie itself, but to criticize the film, and filmmaker, when it's fundamentally misanthropic, as purely hating women seems way too dim a viewpoint to take.

Anyway, this film kind of felt like a summation of his previous work, with the tables being turned in that instead of Bjork or Nicole Kidman or Emily Watson being put through the ringer by brutal men, "She" has now taken control (via losing it). The whole thing could be taken as von Trier copping to the damage he's inflicted on his female characters throughout the years, with "She" operating as an agent of revenge against "He", who could be just as much a stand-in for von Trier (cynical, pretentious, cold). In the end, the multitudes of women (whom earlier he'd walked amongst the bodies of--another possible self-reflective statement from the filmmaker) moving in caravan past "He" show that he'll always be surrounded by the ghosts of those women, if not the women themselves. Anyway, this definitley seemed like a work in which the artist is full-on confronting his fictional crimes within his art.

Anyway, yeah, probably the best movie of the year.

[Ratty]

I would give good money to hear Bjork's thoughts on this film.

[Colin Farrell v.2.0]

I like these quotes from an LA Weekly interview with Charolotte Gainsbourg -

What do you make of the charges of misogyny?

That's not what I believe the film is about. Lars does portray his own fear of women and the sexuality of women. It's not at all a hatred against women - it's really quite the opposite. He's sincere in the way that he's talking about his own fears, his own questions, but he's not accusing women. Of course, "She" has some kind of an evil part to her, but for me it has a lot to do with the grieving and going into madness. And then the act of physically cutting herself was the extreme of madness and just trying, with her guilt, to . . . there's no way of coping with it, so how do you hurt yourself in the most horrific way?

It seems most of von Trier's animosity is directed at Willem Dafoe's psychotherapist character.

But Lars does have a real respect for psychotherapy - for his [psychotherapist] anyway. He was always saying "That's what my therapist said you should say." I needed to think that Willem's character was not the bad one, but I had to blame him. What did help me a great deal - and this is also another answer to people who say Lars has such a bad view of women- was that I did have the feeling I was portraying Lars. All the panic attacks - those were Lars', so it was easy to make the link. In his own fragility, Lars was the female character.

I'm just hoping people will see the film and love it as I love it - well, as I loved the experience, anyway.

[Sean Bateman]

So fucking good.

[joeypants]

So, managed to catch this On Demand. And uh, wow.

I've never seen a von Trier film before. Visually speaking this is a beautiful film. I was quite impressed with the visual style, especially that distortion technique/effect.

I'm obviously still processing the film and it's meanings, whatever those might be. You all weren't kidding about that third act. Jesus...

Such a great and effective "adult" horror film. And I don't mean being graphic. It rang a lot of the same bells for me that Lynch's "Mulholland Dr." did. It really made my skin crawl and had me very unsettled, but not in any of the obvious "horror movie" ways. It reached down into more of those fears/issues you have as an adult and just exploited the hell out of them.

I also have suffered from a pretty bad case of anxiety/panic attacks off and on over the past few years (since I hit 26). So needless to say, a great deal of the first half hit me hard. Seeing someone go through that is really unsettling/horrifying.

As I mentioned earlier, I've been house sitting for the 'rents the past few weeks, and that's where I watched it. The house is surrounded by a lot of woods and boy did I have a hard time going outside after this was over.

And that's saying something considering there's nothing too obviously terrifying in the film. But the unsettling stuff bubbling underneath is enough to creep me out for weeks, I imagine.

I was also amazed that I almost didn't notice that there's really only two cast members. That's tricky to not have something like that get boring and/or obvious. But Dafoe and Gainsbourg both did amazing jobs.

I'm fascinated by how well this thing works as a horror film, even though it never quite dives fully into that pool, so to speak. He flirts with somewhat conventional horror elements/scenes (the journal discovery, for example) yet still keeps things more in the realm of the Lynch-esque surreal where it's not overtly like a horror film. And yet for me, the result was still the same.

It's almost as if the more overt horror elements keyed some Pavlovian response in me to start getting scared, which then opened me up to absorb some of the more challenging and abstract material.

And as horrifying and extreme as the physical violence/mutilation was, it didn't have half the effect that the other more subtle elements did. The journal discovery and the overall sense of craziness surrounding Her was far more terrifying.

I think a lot of the connection I'm making with Lynch is that they both have a way of making the woods seem so subtly terrifying and unsettling without getting too overt. Those three animals are enough to just about send you over the edge.

The more I think about it, the more I really love this movie. And that's surprising considering the latter parts are nigh impossible to decipher or make any sort of tangible sense out of.

[joeypants]

Also...


I'm curious if anyone else had this same experience. I managed to stay spoiler free enough to not know that She ends up being the evil/crazy one. The fact that the film is titled "Antichrist," Dafoe's penchant for playing whackos/evil people, and even the fact that he played Jesus, had me bracing myself and almost expecting him to be the source of terror/evil in this film.

And I think a lot of that might be intentional with the way he seems to be taking an obviously wrong-headed direction in "healing" his wife. Up until shortly after they arrive at Eden, I was waiting on him to be revealed as the namesake or something.

It made it all the more effective when it all starts to unravel. I'm curious as to how much of that was intentional by von Trier. I know he's said "I started with the title." Surely he knew that was going to subtly (or not so subtly) lead audiences into thinking Dafoe was the "bad guy."

And it's also interesting because depending on who's perspective you're viewing the story from, he is in a way. She strikes out at him for what seems to be man's continued suppression/dominance over woman.

And obviously, the final images lean towards a female force coming to "dominate" the man. And I truly think it's up in the air whether that's Him getting his comeuppance, or Him being overwhelmed by a malevolent (and evil?) female force.

[Ryan S~]

Originally Posted by Count Chocula

The best I can say about this film is that it's easily Von Trier's most revealing thus far, though probably not in the way he intended. Unlike his previously transparent spitball-in-the-eye brand of audience provocation which took a distinctly aloof tone, ANTICHRIST is brimming with both the usual puerile shock tactics (the close-ups of Dafoe's giant dick were particularly amusing in this regard), as well as a telling defensiveness through which Von Trier filters his typical seething contempt for his audience and critics. Even if you're in on the joke, the film is only really interesting as an act of self-confession by Von Trier in that in confirms without a doubt what his previously films only hinted at; that he views women as the root of all evil. Intentionally or not, Von Trier reveals himself as a traditionalist cultural Conservative on the level of James Dobson through his meretricious post-modern recreation of the Christian creation myth: it's all re-contextualization, no commentary or subversion. The rest of the film is a by the numbers account of Von Trier's "art through antagonism" thesis with the usual antipathy for the audience and a dash of childishly inimical defensiveness thrown in. Way to take on your critics (justified) accusations of misogyny with a film that concludes with the insinuation that the only way for the female antagonist to make amends for her sins of womanhood is to castrate herself. Yawn.

I just wish someone would tell the career first year film school students who praise Von Trier's films that he's laughing AT them, not with them.

How delightfully wordy and contrarian! Now fuck off already, NoDiggity!

[Jake]

Motherfucker. It IS NoDiggity, isn't it.

[Count Chocula]

No idea who that is but those are my genuine honest thoughts and I'd be happy to debate any of them with you if you promise to stop being such self-aggrandizing dipshits

[Dalyn]

Anyone who throws "Yawn" at the end of their discussion of a movie comes across as a pretentious, aloof, first year film student. I would have been happy discussing the movie with you. I don't take it personal when someone doesn't share the same opinion of a movie as I do. Hell, I didn't make it. But one of my biggest peeves is when someone throws the word "Yawn" out. Can you imagine having a discussion with someone face to face, then at the end of whatever point they try to make they fold their arms, lean back, roll their eyes, and yawn? You would want to punch the person straight in the mouth. With one word you have proven to be someone I wouldn't want to have a discussion with about anything.

Back on topic. Is there anywhere else to watch this VOD? I saw on the IFC website that you can watch it on IFC On Demand through Time Warner, but I have DirecTV. I was hoping they would have it up on the XBox Live marketplace, like when House of the Devil went VOD, but I had a feeling they would wuss out on having it available. Though it may be more of a rights issue than a wuss out issue. Bottom line, is there any other way I am missing? Not getting it here at the Alamo for another 20 days or so.

[joeypants]

If I were you, I'd wait the 20 days to see it on a big screen. I saw it on a nice tv and all, but still, it's visually gorgeous enough to warrant waiting.

[Dalyn]

Already saw it on the big screen, and plan on it again. I just wanted to watch it today.

[Tylenol Jones]

First response to the movie.. lolwut?

Hour later.. can't wait to see it again.. with my eyes closed for a part or two.

[Andre Dellamorte]

I'm not ready to talk about the film yet, but I have two notes: 1) I would probably feel much, much different about this film if I didn't not care for Lars Von Trier to start with. 2) The film it reminded me of in some ways was TRANSFORMERS 2, in that it's all technique, but much more contained. This is a real movie, it's an undeniable piece of work that should be dissected and talked about, but I feel sort of like Mike D'Angelo in that I appreciate the effort, and love what it does to people, but it's no AUDITION.

[Mr Vengeance]

[QUOTE=Andre Dellamorte;2738953]I'm not ready to talk about the film yet, but I have two notes: 1) I would probably feel much, much different about this film if I didn't not care for Lars Von Trier to start with. QUOTE]

Uh...what?

[joeypants]

I think he's preparing to state why he doesn't like it.

[Nabster]

So any theories as to what the weird looking individuals walking towards Defoe at the end signify? And why was it called Anti-Christ?

[joeypants]

Originally Posted by Nabster

So any theories as to what the weird looking individuals walking towards Defoe at the end signify? And why was it called Anti-Christ?

As luck would have it, some have actually begun to broach this earlier in this very thread.

[Andre Dellamorte]

Breaking the Waves turned me off Von Trier, and I haven't been able to go back, especially after hearing Dancer in the Dark was more of the same.

BREAKING THE WAVES SPOILERS:

At the end of the film God manifests himself on screen. This is a betrayal of God and the storyteller, which then reveals the artifice of the on-screen narrative. The filmmaker has either given up stopped trusting the narrative, or he's intentionally pointing out the artifice. Either way, after the grueling emotional journey that film puts you on, that final shot ruins the film for me.

END SPOILERS FOR A VERY OLD MOVIE

To me, it boils down to Carl Theodor Dreyer being a better filmmaker. The Passion of Joan of Arc does everything I suspect BTW wants to do, or is meant to exist in sympthony with it. Von Trier is a great visualist, but I can't stand his films. It's not that I don't get it, it's that I don't feel like he's getting at any profound human truth in execution, because I know that it's going to take a long time to get there. I haven't seen DOGVILLE, which it sounds like I should seeing as how Mike D'Angelo's group named it the film of the decade, but it struck me as more of the same. Overarching point, interesting execution, but ultimately something of a thesis movie.

I like much of ANTICHRIST, and it's a singular effort and visually (when not reminding of perfume commercials) one of the best shot and framed films of the year. I don't know if it adds up. And I don't trust the filmmaker, partly because I'm aware of his reputation. It's a startling, powerful work, for sure. I like what D'Angelo says here: http://www.avclub.com/articles/canne...ay-five,28137/

It might also be different if the big scene wasn't spoiled, so you know where it's going. But again, you can go with it - as Devin does - with Chaos reigning, and there's something to that, but Lars Von Trier is a smart dude. That's again where Von Trier gets in the way. I don't want to psychoanalyze him, I want to look at the text.

[Nabster]

Originally Posted by joeypants

As luck would have it, some have actually begun to broach this earlier in this very thread.

Where have 'some' explained the title Antichirst?

[Andre Dellamorte]

I we don't take it as the literal antichrist, if we take it as anti christ then the title makes sense in terms of the paganism and feminity.

The Film Comment article reminds me of how perfect the launcry works as a metaphor for orgasming. Again, there's a lot of great here.

[Arjen Rudd]

Rather than delve into the deeper shit in Antichrist, I'll recall the sheer Evil Dead-ness of it all. Cabin in the woods, possessed girlfriend, evil book, fucked up deer, weird unexplained mythology, mutilations, everything. The ending is even a big fat "Now what?!" And yeah, lots like the Shining too, which is my favorite Horror and favorite Kubrick. And goddamn if it doesn't get better every second I'm away from it.

[Iron Maiden]

The critics are completely split on this film, which is nothing new for Von Trier. That 48% positive rate at RT is disheartening, though.

I liked it quite a bit. I'm not a von Trier expert (I've seen Dancer in the Dark too, but that's it), so I'm not sure I can really review this film the way I'd want to. Devin is totally right on the Evil Dead comparisons; the second the cabin showed up, ED was the first thing to come to mind. The technical aspects of the film are wonderful and what has stuck with me the most. There are lots of images that I keep running through my head. DITD didn't have such striking imagery (although, there was a purpose for that).

I really hope to see again. It's not my favorite horror film of the decade, but it's close. The film is such a mindfuck, and I just know that I had to miss something. Can't wait for another viewing.

[mike_tyson]

I didn't read every single post in this thread... but am I the only one who didn't think it was a cinematic masterpiece?

- boring, "intellectual," "art"... as expected from von trier
- "chaos reignssssssssssss" LOLOLOL
- he, she, eden... deep
- digital. the whole thing looked like a stainless steel refrigerator.
- scary? really? when?

[Parker]

Originally Posted by mike_tyson

I didn't read every single post in this thread... but am I the only one who didn't think it was a cinematic masterpiece?

- boring, "intellectual," "art"... as expected from von trier
- "chaos reignssssssssssss" LOLOLOL
- he, she, eden... deep
- digital. the whole thing looked like a stainless steel refrigerator.
- scary? really? when?

- Well, if you had read all the posts in this thread, you'd see that you're assumption that everybody is hailing it as a masterpiece is incorrect.

- "A bulleted list of incompetent complaints punctuated by stupid Internet bullshit." LOLOL

- I shouldn't have to point this out to you, but calling the characters he, she and the setting Eden is the very opposite of deep and this is, of course, intentional. Its everything else that you're avoiding thinking about that's deep, including (I suspect) a lack of awareness concerning the directors filmography.

- You can call the movie many things, but its not boring. Come to the thread when you're ready to talk about it like an adult and think about what you saw. And it looks gorgeous, so I don't know what you're talking about there either.

I saw it last night and I'm still thinking about it. I don't agree with Andre about Breaking the Waves, but I kinda agree with him about this. More later.

ETA: OK, I couldn't wait. I think that to a degree, the movies success depends on what we know about Von Trier the man and film maker. It feels like the film is some kind of a critical response. Andre pointed out that he doesn't want to psycho-analyze him, and I get that (especially coming from someone who isn't a fan). I had the same reaction, but I love most of his movies. Even his failures I find fascinating.

It reminds me of Marnie to a certain extent. Show it to non-Hitchcock fans and they're usually not impressed, but anyone who knows more about him as a man and as an artist finds it fascinating.

Does that mean enjoyment of this film depends on your appreciation of his other work? You could think it works completely but then still not appreciate it because at the end of the day its commenting on things you ultimately find empty or don't enjoy. I'm not sure that's the case, here. I think people can enjoy it purely on a visceral level. In some cases it might work better that way.

[Arjen Rudd]

Jeez, Parker, why so angry? This movie has a close up of rusty scissors cutting off a clit, it isn't going to be for everyone.

Also, knowing von Trier is in no way a prerequisite for this. I've seen exactly one of his past works (Dancer in the Dark, which I hated) and I thought this was a tremendous movie. If I had more than passing familiarity with the Five Obstructions or his other work, perhaps I would have been forced to approach this as an exploration of his own psyche, but I don't. The central storyline is pretty gripping on its own merits, and you're right, it ain't boring. But reflection keeps giving me a fountain of thoughts, images, and ideas. The female = nature = inherent evil stuff is so thoughtful and interesting, and something I've never seen anyone address before, and in such a direct and original way.

It's honestly a film with merits so present and interesting that I pretty much have to throw my hands up and admit defeat. I can expound on why Inglourious Basterds works so well on every level, but for this one I'm just going to have to let the people with degrees in Film History lead the way. I do think I'd have a better shot at it if I could watch it a second time, but I don't think I can handle the shit that happens to Willem Dafoe again. Great film though.

ETA: Oh, and Parker, oddly enough, thinking the movie works completely but not appreciating what it was doing is exactly my response to Wild Things, whereas this one was pretty much riveting. What the fuck is wrong with me?

[Parker]

Not so much angry as annoyed by Tyson's continued willingness to be proud of how stupid he is, that's all. He's like a Tea-Bagger with a misspelled protest sign.

I agree that the film works no matter what. In fact, I think its possible that the less you know about Von Trier and his work the more you'll enjoy it. I got distracted by thinking about how it fit in with his other films and how it was a response to critics of himself personally and his work. But I do think that shit is in there and I think we're supposed to be

Its really strange...it seems like an honest film on one level but it also feels like a complete subterfuge. Its almost like by exploiting his own demons, Von Trier exercises them to a certain extent. Another movie it reminds me of is Polanski's The Tenant, which was equally polarizing (and I think still is). Except I don't think I liked this as much as I like that movie. I don't know yet.

[joeypants]

For what it's worth combined with my opinion... this was the first von Trier film I've seen.


ETA: Yeah, apparently said that already. I know I can say that having not seen one of his films obviously allowed me to take it as it was, so to speak. I wasn't questioning his psyche or any statements he may or may not be making with regard to his career/reputation.

[mike_tyson]

Sorry Parker, but really.. I CAN call it boring. It's an opinion and I can say that I was completely bored with it. Most people say "oh well regardless of how you feel about it, you must say that it's something you'll think about and that'll stay with you!" Again, I disagree. Okay, there's a bloody handjob and a cut clitoris that I'll always remember, but by and large, the entire movie was forgettable for me.

If you honestly sat there and saw that fucking fox say "chaossss reignssssss" in the most super-serious and grave tone and didn't even break a smile at the utter stupidity of it all, then I'm glad we disagree. Because look, I have no problem with "arty" movies, but there's a fine line between "arty" and utter bullshit. For me, this movie lives in the bullshit.

Go tell someone else that their opinion is wrong. I'm not even going to read your retort.

[Dan Benenson]

The fox obviously isn't meant to be taken seriously. Even Von Trier himself has laughed about it in interviews and alluded to it being a tongue in cheek moment

[Z.Vasquez]

Originally Posted by mike_tyson

Sorry Parker, but really.. I CAN call it boring. \

Go tell someone else that their opinion is wrong. I'm not even going to read your retort.

Regardless of your opinion of it being boring, you are objectively wrong about the way it looked. Just dead, stupidly wrong.

And Dre...you must watch Dogville. You'll probably have the same problems you had with BTW for almost all of it, but the last ten minutes are amongst the most apocalyptic, shattering moments I've ever seen put to film. It may not redeem the whole film for you, but I can't imagine it wouldn't have a powerful, powerful effect on you nonetheless.

[Ratty]

Originally Posted by Z.Vasquez

And Dre...you must watch Dogville. You'll probably have the same problems you had with BTW for almost all of it, but the last ten minutes are amongst the most apocalyptic, shattering moments I've ever seen put to film. It may not redeem the whole film for you, but I can't imagine it wouldn't have a powerful, powerful effect on you nonetheless.

Word. It's a long way to get there, but it's worth it. Definitely one of Kidman's best performances.

[Andre Dellamorte]

I'm sure I'll get around to it, though I heard Manderlay is not worth it. The Five Obstructions excites me, though.

[Parker]

If you end up liking Dogville (and I get the feeling you won't) you should watch Manderlay. Kidman's is the better central performance by far, but Manderlay is a worthy successor in almost every other way. It's a strong work and I wish Von Trier would finish his America trilogy because I'm really curious about how Washington would end up.

And The Five Obstructions is one of the best films on film making I've ever seen. Wonderful work that also manages to slightly humanize Von Trier (although he still comes across like a cantankerous asshole).

[Ratty]

As a Bryce Dallas Howard fan, I was quite pleased with certain aspects of Manderlay, but it's not in the same league as Dogville.

Haven't seen Five Obs yet. Need to get on that.

[Z.Vasquez]

I'll echo what everyone else is saying about Manderlay. I like it, but its certainly not as strong. It feels like it's trying to say something really important about American race relations, and it has no idea what that is. Still fascinating, but not in Dogvilles league.

The way I like to describe Dogville to people who are at least a bit familiar with Von Trier (not really applicable in your specific case Dre) is this: if by the end of Dancer in The Dark (the film of his I find that most people know--due to the Bjork factor) you felt like someone had just kicked you in the stomach a bunch of times, Dogville feels like that also, except instead of receiving the kicks, this time you're on the unleashing end. Personally, I find it a cathartic experience, but then, I'm a sick bastard.

[Alan "Nordling" Cerny]

[Ratty]

God bless you, Nord.

[Xion]

Ahahaha.

[Phil]

Originally Posted by Justin Clark

Coping by having her flush her medication, prescribing a Dr. Phil therapy session where she confronts her greatest fears in the middle of a possessed forest, none of which getting to the heart of her emotional or sexual guilt. All out of his belief that he would be a better therapist than anyone else.

That's either arrogance, or Scientology.

I read it as arrogance (thinking he could heal her and distance himself properly) at first, but then cruelty. I'm soft on when it turned, but it might have been the moment when she begins to blame him for not mourning enough (I think she called him "indifferent"). In that scene Dafoe's face says it all- he knows he invited this, he shouldn't be surprised, but is unable to be immune from the hurt her words cause. From there it felt like he used the psychological tools at his disposal to take her (mentally) to a place where she would most intensely feel her pain and her guilt. He seemed to be rubbing her face in her grief. Eventually, she reciprocated the pain he administered using the tools at her disposal.

I was alone among my friends in thinking the first 30 minutes were the most compelling of the film. It's such a fantastic premise that just fills you with dread.

Some of the beautiful/horrible animal imagery was a little on the nose (dead foal hanging out of the doe's hindquarters, etc.), and talking fox and Ghost Jedi Animal Council lost me a bit.

[joeypants]

Originally Posted by Phil

I was alone among my friends in thinking the first 30 minutes were the most compelling of the film. It's such a fantastic premise that just fills you with dread.

I don't know that I'd say "most compelling," but it was great and anything but boring (as some have painted it).

I can certainly see how it would bore some, but I found it very compelling.

[Ben Thomas]

I've let this film sit with me for some while before coming in here to discuss it, though I've been keeping up with what you guys have been saying... And I'm still not sure what I can add.

As an entry in von Trier's body of work, it feels like the culmination of everything he's been doing, the logical next step forward, yet also his most conflicted film. And that is its great strength. Like a Lynch film, it does't dare present answers but challenges you to question what has been presented, to feel something, to empathise or castigate.

The look of the film, well, its easily von Trier's best looking film yet and one of the most impressive looking films of the year for me. Its also extremely disarming to see someone who has previously worked in such stripped down visuals - the Dogme approach of The Idiots and Dancer in the Dark, the stage-like sets of Dogville and Manderlay - paint such beautiful sequences as the prologue, but also to use extremely realistic, graphic practical effects work. Knowledge of the author's work makes the film even harder to sit through.

And not least of all because this film is about the author in some way. I'm not going to pretend to know von Trier the man, but He and She seem to be the sides of him at war with each other during the most difficult period of his life.

Its a film that sticks with me, weeks after seeing it. Images, ideas, lines of dialogue, I'm still grappling with them. And while I'm a big fan of many of his previous works, I can't quite bring myself to say I like the film. The intellectual and the artistic don't quite seem to merge succesfully for me and yet I still can't quite unravel it. I think what he has acheived with this film is magnificent and I'd easily put it up with the best of the year. I just don't know how I feel about it yet.

And that's a rare, great thing: a film that seriously challenges you, brings something new to the table and continues to do so for a long time after seeing it. I doubt I'll watch it again in a hurry, but I hope I'll be back in this thread in the future to discuss it some more.

[joeypants]

Originally Posted by Ben Thomas

I think what he has acheived with this film is magnificent and I'd easily put it up with the best of the year. I just don't know how I feel about it yet.

That's what I love most about this film. There's something almost intangible about it that creates that feeling. That's a very rare thing.

I'm trying to get my friend to possibly watch it tonight. I'm wanting to see it again after processing it for a few weeks.

[Ryan S~]

Originally Posted by Andre Dellamorte

Breaking the Waves turned me off Von Trier, and I haven't been able to go back, especially after hearing Dancer in the Dark was more of the same.

BREAKING THE WAVES SPOILERS:

At the end of the film God manifests himself on screen. This is a betrayal of God and the storyteller, which then reveals the artifice of the on-screen narrative. The filmmaker has either given up stopped trusting the narrative, or he's intentionally pointing out the artifice. Either way, after the grueling emotional journey that film puts you on, that final shot ruins the film for me.

END SPOILERS FOR A VERY OLD MOVIE

To me, it boils down to Carl Theodor Dreyer being a better filmmaker. The Passion of Joan of Arc does everything I suspect BTW wants to do, or is meant to exist in sympthony with it. Von Trier is a great visualist, but I can't stand his films. It's not that I don't get it, it's that I don't feel like he's getting at any profound human truth in execution, because I know that it's going to take a long time to get there. I haven't seen DOGVILLE, which it sounds like I should seeing as how Mike D'Angelo's group named it the film of the decade, but it struck me as more of the same. Overarching point, interesting execution, but ultimately something of a thesis movie.

I like much of ANTICHRIST, and it's a singular effort and visually (when not reminding of perfume commercials) one of the best shot and framed films of the year. I don't know if it adds up. And I don't trust the filmmaker, partly because I'm aware of his reputation. It's a startling, powerful work, for sure. I like what D'Angelo says here: http://www.avclub.com/articles/canne...ay-five,28137/

It might also be different if the big scene wasn't spoiled, so you know where it's going. But again, you can go with it - as Devin does - with Chaos reigning, and there's something to that, but Lars Von Trier is a smart dude. That's again where Von Trier gets in the way. I don't want to psychoanalyze him, I want to look at the text.

Great post.

I always hated the ending of Breaking the Waves because it was a Brechtian deus ex machina which in a movie that has, up until that point, been about intense realism. It always felt like a big fuck you to the audience.

[Andre Dellamorte]

A lot of people love that movie, but it's a moment of ruination. It - literally - invalidates everything we've seen and the character has gone through, though I guess you could argue that it's job. Most of the people I had talked to on release didn't have a problem with it, so I was happy when I mentioned this to Beaks he had the exact same response.