Antichrist (2009)

[Noel198]

Originally Posted by jmb1381

No it doesn't have any

Thanks!

[Fred Bang]

Just watched this insane movie. I liked it but never want to see it again, especially that scene with the scissors. The most horrible thing I've ever seen since the Extinguished murder in "Irreversible".

[P@t_Mtl]

This was on TFO last night and decided to see what was the deal with the movie and placed it on DVR.

I had a feeling the movie was not really for me and well I was right. Frankly I found it disgusting more then anything else. It seem the director was looking more at ways to have the main actors naked more then anything else and find different ways to be disgusting. I really did not like it and well I don't see the point of making so much movies. Great for those that enjoy but I sure will not bother seeing it again. it's really a 0/5

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

This was on TFO last night and decided to see what was the deal with the movie and placed it on DVR.

I had a feeling the movie was not really for me and well I was right. Frankly I found it disgusting more then anything else. It seem the director was looking more at ways to have the main actors naked more then anything else and find different ways to be disgusting. I really did not like it and well I don't see the point of making so much movies. Great for those that enjoy but I sure will not bother seeing it again. it's really a 0/5

It's actually an exercise in misogyny, something the director continues on with Melancholia. Antichrist is a despicable display of filmmaking.

[octagon]

It was in some ways about misogyny but an exercise in misogyny? I didn't see that at all.

Nor did I necessarily think it was shocking simply for the sake of being shocking. It was pretty interesting at times.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by octagon

It was in some ways about misogyny but an exercise in misogyny? I didn't see that at all.

Nor did I necessarily think it was shocking simply for the sake of being shocking. It was pretty interesting at times.

[Show spoiler]
The entire movie is about a woman being a psychopath and being mentally weak. She killed her son due to hysteria, she tortured her husband, cut her genitals, etc. If that's not indicative of misogyny, I don't know what is. This movie became the catalyst in my suspicion of the director's blatant misogyny and the suspicion was solidified with Melancholia. Trier is a dangerous man.

[wicky_J]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

The entire movie is about a woman being a psychopath and being mentally weak.

[Show spoiler]She killed her son due to hysteria, she tortured her husband, cut her genitals, etc.

If that's not indicative of misogyny, I don't know what is. This movie became the catalyst in my suspicion of the director's blatant misogyny and the suspicion was solidified with Melancholia. Trier is a dangerous man.

Whoa man, care to place some spoiler alert tags for the folks that haven't seen this yet and want to ?

[octagon]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

The entire movie is about a woman being a psychopath and being mentally weak.

And? Are all weak and or psychopathic female characters an indictment of women?

Was Monster, for instance, a similar 'exercise in misogyny'?

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

She killed her son due to hysteria,...

Umm, no she didn't. Their son fell from an open window while they were having sex, didn't he?

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

...she tortured her husband, cut her genitals, etc. If that's not indicative of misogyny, I don't know what is.

And yet her character was not entirely unsympathetic. It was certainly unflattering but you never got the impression - or at least I didn't - that she was evil or that her problems stemmed from the fact that she was female. They certainly manifested in very gender-related ways but I never got the sense that women were somehow inherently or constitutionally more likely to be weak or whackjobs or that being a woman made her weak or a whackjob.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by octagon

And? Are all weak and or psychopathic female characters an indictment of women?

Was Monster, for instance, a similar 'exercise in misogyny'?
The title fo the film is "Antichrist."

[Show spoiler]Umm, no she didn't. Their son fell from an open window while they were having sex, didn't he?

And yet her character was not entirely unsympathetic. It was certainly unflattering but you never got the impression - or at least I didn't - that she was evil or that her problems stemmed from the fact that she was female. They certainly manifested in very gender-related ways but I never got the sense that women were somehow inherently or constitutionally more likely to be weak or whackjobs or that being a woman made her weak or a whackjob.

[Show spoiler]
She kept putting his shoes on the wrong feet, making it difficult for him to walk. She contributed to it.

The title of the film alone exemplifies the blatant misogyny and a director who should be blacklisted before he does further harm to women.

[blujazz]

[Show spoiler]"Antichrist" allows conjecture, notably one wether she killed her son or not. On that wonderfully shot opening scene, it's implied that she saw the kid fall off from the building, which in a way supports Dafoe's revelation that she's been putting on the kid's shoes the wrong way, affecting how the kid walks.

Torture in the film, I think, is subjective. Sure, she physically tortured Dafoe but throughout the film, she has been suffering from mental torture from her husband, notably in the garden of eden. A psychologist who's emotionally involved with his patient is never a good idea, because it disallows you to really see the case from a totally subjective point of view.

[octagon]

Before he does further harm to women???

I'm sure he's bored more than a few but other that that...

[mzupeman]

I really dont think he did as much harm to women as many people think.

[Show spoiler]At the core lf the film, what this is really about is the dismantling of a woman at a psychological level, by a husband that treats her like shit. He completely distances himself from her at the time of her life that she needs him most, so he can be her cold and distanced psychologist. With her frail state of mind, what does he do after torturing her emotionally? Oh, just tosses her in the remote location shes most afraid of, thats all! Her sexual issues stem from the fact that she lost her son while she was having sex... sex was something she obviously greatly enjoyed, and she links it now to her sons death. So she uses sex to try and make herself feel better, but it just tends to drive her further into madness because of the negative association that now corresponds with it.

There is certainly issues of misogyny though, and Von Trier definitely put that stuff in the film just to mess with our minds. I am quite certain he likes to piss off the people that already label him as a woman hater, which is why the clues sprinkled throughout that indicate she was probably evil before

[Show spoiler]her sons death

have been scattered about, but are left as unexplained.

Really, in my opinion, he was really just as evil as she was, if not moreso. Some might like to overlook this because he does what he does in the guise of 'helping' her but, really, he was mostly responsible for driving her to the depths of madness she went to.


Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

[alexroubaix]

Haven't watched it in a while, but while on the surface it looks sexist and repulsive, it really is much more of an examination of misogyny itself. Von Trier seems to be presenting that because of the historical oppression of the female, an emotionally fragile woman could gravitate towards a perceived 'place' rather than rise above it, which is pretty interesting (it also could apply to both genders or any stereotype).

On top of this provocative idea, I found the film to be bizarrely funny and macabre in a pretty exciting way. It took me a few views to truly get into it, but I like it more and more with each watching (It's miles above Melancholia).

[mzupeman]

I loved this film upon my initial viewing because of how much there was to 'decode', so much to think about. But after seeing it, what, a year ago or so, the more I think about it, the more I think that Von Trier isn't the amazing director that everyone makes him out to be. He likes using 'tricks' but he's not exactly 'tricky', if that makes any sense, and I really am losing some respect for him because I don't like it when people do such blatantly obvious things in an attempt to piss people off. He puts a lot more thought into his work than, say, the likes of The Human Centipede for sure, but he loves the shock factor just as much as that director does. He just goes about it a different way.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

But after seeing it, what, a year ago or so, the more I think about it, the more I think that Von Trier isn't the amazing director that everyone makes him out to be.

I agree. I considered him a hack after I watched Melancholia, one of the most "empty but people will say there's more to it" films I've ever seen. It offers no meaningful commentary on depression, the characters are one note, they are stupid, and it plods along like a snail trying to get away from salt. Its only strength lies in its visuals.

[Impossible]

I LOVED Antichrist, but thought Melancholia was a total waste of time.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

I agree. I considered him a hack after I watched Melancholia, one of the most "empty but people will say there's more to it" films I've ever seen. It offers no meaningful commentary on depression, the characters are one note, they are stupid, and it plods along like a snail trying to get away from salt. Its only strength lies in its visuals.

As beautiful as his imagery is, I think he has a tendency to use that imagery in an attempt to give us visual metaphors for the things that are happening in any of his given stories... yet none of it is as mysterious as he probably believes it is.

[Show spoiler]The acorns falling in Antichrist for example... it was supposed to be a symbolic reminder as to the death of their child. For her, it was just another catalyst to her descent into madnes. For him, it was an angry, forceful clue from nature that perhaps this woman wasn't as innocent in the child's death as they had thought.

Was it symbolic? Sure, but symbolism usually works best when it's not so blatantly obvious, and his symbolism is typically just that. So, this leads me to believe more often than not, that the stuff that's left as questionable isn't because it's above anyone's head... it's just that Von Trier failed to make some kind of 'connect' with the imagery at all.

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

As beautiful as his imagery is, I think he has a tendency to use that imagery in an attempt to give us visual metaphors for the things that are happening in any of his given stories... yet none of it is as mysterious as he probably believes it is.

[Show spoiler]The acorns falling in Antichrist for example... it was supposed to be a symbolic reminder as to the death of their child. For her, it was just another catalyst to her descent into madnes. For him, it was an angry, forceful clue from nature that perhaps this woman wasn't as innocent in the child's death as they had thought.

Was it symbolic? Sure, but symbolism usually works best when it's not so blatantly obvious, and his symbolism is typically just that. So, this leads me to believe more often than not, that the stuff that's left as questionable isn't because it's above anyone's head... it's just that Von Trier failed to make some kind of 'connect' with the imagery at all.

I don't think she was descending into anything. Wasnt the whole point of the film that she had planned it all from the start?

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by AreaUnderTheCurve

I agree. I considered him a hack after I watched Melancholia, one of the most "empty but people will say there's more to it" films I've ever seen.

that's the exact way I feel about Malicks work

[Riff Magnum]

I knew it was just a matter of time.