||04-05-2011 06:41 PM
Originally Posted by keldons
I'm not arguing for Noe as a philosopher (his films are shallow in this regard) but anyone with any sort of technical appreciation of cinema can see how big of an achievement Enter the Void is. Not to mention: when was the last time you've seen a modern film this ballsy and completely audacious? Whether or not you like it is irrelevant, this is a film people will remember way longer than Fish Tank, a middle of the road coming of age story (that brought nothing interesting to the table), and Antichrist, Von Trier's worst film. Also funny that we are talking about shock value in Enter the Void.....since when was sex and drug use more exploitative than testicle smashing and clit-cutting? Antichrist is not exactly any more philosophically insightful than anything Noe's done.
I appreciate the technical aspect of Enter the Void, but that's where its positives end for me. There are a lot of modern films that are "ballsy" and "audacious" that bring far more to the table. Of course it's irrelevant whether I like it or not, in regards to its potential lasting value; that wasn't the basis of my argument at all.
How do you know this is a film people will remember longer than Fish Tank? That's right, you don't. And what people? The general population? It could certainly be argued that Fish Tank would be more memorable because it was more focused and had quality acting, two things that Void almost indisuputably lacked. It depends on who you ask. On the other hand, some people may prefer a blatant attempt at being shocking and an emphasis on the visual, over story-telling and themes.
I appreciate your argument, but it's pretty weak when it comes to Antichrist (which is a film I rarely defend). You're comparing the drug and sex use in Void to the mutilation in Antichrist? The two aren't remotely comparable, in addition to me never saying one was more shocking than the other. In Void, the drug and sex use isn't what's shocking--we've seen that before. It's the unnecessary and laughable sex scene (you know which one) among other scenes that was so completely unnecessary and a blatant attempt to be shocking, without any real point. Antichrist's mutilation scenes, while shocking, had a very real, distinct, thematic point to them. In fact, one could argue that those scenes were the epitome of what the film was about thematically. Remind me, did Void have themes? At all? Imo, no it did not. It was nothing but a self-indulgent, laughable attempt by a director to be shocking, knowing he has little ability to create any semblance of a meaningful or purposeful film.