[Movie] Antichrist

[raydude]

Yeah, but that was an animated penis - probably a different matter for some reason. Pong, where are you from, btw?

Animated, shmanimated. The thing was large and no matter how much you (the general audience you) tried you played "where's waldo" wondering when the glowing blue penis would show up again.

[godhugh]

One thing they say is, in for instance the US, you cant show frontal nudity of a man with a limp penis?

Zach & Miri Make a Porno and Forgetting Sarah Marshall would beg to differ.

[Razgon]

again, I've no clue as to why they say this - its the US distributors who says this, not me.

perhaps it gets slammed with too high age rating and then its of no use to them?

[kratz]

The movies godhugh mentioned are rated R. So was Walk Hard (which had penis in the theaters). It's not a problematic rating at all.

[PR_GMR]

So, now some markets who are in general more squemish (according to distributors, not me) will get a censored version of the movie. Triers movie company (which he co-owns) has had a lot trouble with their usual distributors, some saying they cant use the movie for anything, others saying its a brilliant movie. One thing they say is, in for instance the US, you cant show frontal nudity of a man with a limp penis?

anyways - it will be interesting to see this movie, and if its worth all the hype its generated

F'ng bullshit. Give it to me uncensored or not at all. We can't deal with seeing a man's limp penis in the year 2010? Censorship is for man-toddlers.

Also, Roger Ebert has written a brilliant, erudite defense of 'Anti-Christ' and here's an excerpt of it:

A reader signing himself Scott D posted this comment after my first entry on the film: "If it is in fact the most despairing film you've ever seen, shouldn't it be considered a monumental achievement? Despair is such a significant aspect of the human condition (particularly in the modern western world) so how can this not be a staggeringly important film, given your statement?" There is truth to what Scott D says. In the first place, it's important to note that "Antichrist" is not a bad film. It is a powerfully-made film that contains material many audiences will find repulsive or unbearable. The performances by Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg are heroic and fearless. Von Trier's visual command is striking. The use of music is evocative; no score, but operatic and liturgical arias. And if you can think beyond what he shows to what he implies, its depth are frightening.

I cannot dismiss this film. It is a real film. It will remain in my mind. Von Trier has reached me and shaken me. It is up to me to decide what that means. I think the film has something to do with religious feeling. It is obvious to anyone who saw "Breaking the Waves" that von Trier's sense of spirituality is intense, and that he can envision the supernatural as literally present in the world. His reference is Catholicism. Raised by a communist mother and a socialist father in a restrictive environment, he was told as an adult that his father was not his natural parent, and renounced that man's Judaism to convert, at the age of 30, to the Catholic church. It was at about the same age that von Trier founded the Dogma movement, with its monkish asceticism.


If you have to ask what a film symbolizes, it doesn't. With this one, I didn't have to ask. It told me. I believe "Antichrist" may be an exercise in alternative theology: von Trier's version of those passages in Genesis where Man is cast from Eden and Satan assumes a role in the world.

If Von Trier has made one of the most difficult yet well-made and challenging films of the decade, I want to see it.

[CeeKay]

F'ng bullshit. Give it to me uncensored or not at all. We can't deal with seeing a man's limp penis in the year 2010?

considering it's not 2010 yet you never know what might change.  Terrorists might set off the Pussy Bomb and we won't be able to so much as look at ourselves naked 

[raydude]

F'ng bullshit. Give it to me uncensored or not at all. We can't deal with seeing a man's limp penis in the year 2010?

considering it's not 2010 yet you never know what might change.  Terrorists might set off the Pussy Bomb and we won't be able to so much as look at ourselves naked 

Awww Dammn it! I thought I was in the future!

[hepcat]

If I show up without pants to a showing, would the resulting audience disgust be an artistic endeavor?  I know it would be a HUGE endeavor, but artistic?

[CeeKay]

If I show up without pants to a showing, would the resulting audience disgust be an artistic endeavor?  I know it would be a HUGE endeavor, but artistic?

It'd be a HUGE endeavor on their part not to point and laugh 

[PR_GMR]

If I show up without pants to a showing, would the resulting audience disgust be an artistic endeavor?  I know it would be a HUGE endeavor, but artistic?

Have you no shame? You're using a thread discussing the artistic validity of a film to brag about your penis? So now not only do you have great hair but you can club seals dead with you cock? 

[hepcat]

Swerving away from the topic of my genitals, I was briefly a theater minor in college.  One of the acting teachers used to regale us with stories about some theater troupe he'd worked with years ago that went around hitting folks with a pillow.  They labeled it "art" because they were supposedly trying to get a reaction out of their audience.  I always thought that was rather stupid.  Getting a reaction with a physical act is easy, getting one without such a base visceral component, to me, is art. 

[CeeKay]

If I show up without pants to a showing, would the resulting audience disgust be an artistic endeavor?  I know it would be a HUGE endeavor, but artistic?

Have you no shame? You're using a thread discussing the artistic validity of a film to brag about your penis? So now not only do you have great hair but you can club seals dead with you cock? 

oh sure, I take the time to deflate the situation but you have to go and pump it back up.

[PR_GMR]

If I show up without pants to a showing, would the resulting audience disgust be an artistic endeavor?  I know it would be a HUGE endeavor, but artistic?

Have you no shame? You're using a thread discussing the artistic validity of a film to brag about your penis? So now not only do you have great hair but you can club seals dead with you cock? 

oh sure, I take the time to deflate the situation but you have to go and pump it back up.

Don't talk about penis pumps around hepcat! What have you done!

[hepcat]

I'm uncomfortable with the direction of this conversation and I've been asked by a counselor here to show him on the doll where you two touched me....

[CeeKay]

I'm uncomfortable with the direction of this conversation and I've been asked by a counselor here to show him on the doll where you two touched me....

It'd be fitting if he uses a Ken Doll 

[hepcat]

hey, i resemble that remark...

[Chaz]

PSA - This just became available on Netflix instant watch.  I'm looking around to find out if it's the international cut or been edited down somehow, but there it is.

[Chaz]

Just finished it.  I can't imagine that the version on Netflix has been cut in any way.  If it has been cut, holy shit.

As promised, it was incredibly gripping, incredibly bleak, and incredibly graphic, but graphic in an organic way that makes stuff like Hostel and even Inside look like a comic book.

It's definitely a challenging flick.  I'll need to watch it again to really get a handle on what it's going at.  Certainly gender roles, faith, guilt, and fear all pile in there, but it's difficult to grasp everything it's talking about on the first viewing because the events keep slamming you like a wall.

If you like psychological explorations, can stomach some of the most graphic and intense violence I've seen possibly since Salo (PETA did not approve of this film), then it's very much worth a watch.  But don't say I didn't warn you.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

I can't believe that you are actually planning on watching it again. 

I just saw it tonight. It was.... interesting. There were some scenes which I definitely didn't need to see. And I agree with the reviews that called it misogynistic; it's pretty obvious the director (who also wrote the script) has some serious issues with women.

[deadzone]

I "instant watched it" with the help of my lROKU box.  Damn.  That was really hard to get through.  It is a challenging movie and I don't think I am up to the challenge to be honest because that would mean I would have to watch it again.  No thank you.  

Oddly, before this fiilm, I had myself pegged as a bit of a de-sensitized movie watcher since most movies typically fail to register much of an emotional reaction from me.  This movie kind of changed that for me as I pretty much felt emotionally spent after watching it.  It certainly will stay with you for a while.  

[Razgon]

I can't believe that you are actually planning on watching it again. 

I just saw it tonight. It was.... interesting. There were some scenes which I definitely didn't need to see. And I agree with the reviews that called it misogynistic; it's pretty obvious the director (who also wrote the script) has some serious issues with women.

Lars von Trier(Director) is decidedly insane...I've met him once, and he struck me a mental case, in the clinical sense of the word...While some of his stuff has been pretty good, he's clearly not far from the edge of sanity.

[Huw the Poo]

I've been in two minds about this film.  Like many people, I discovered von Trier thanks to the demented wonder that is Kingdom and have enjoyed his work ever since.  But almost everything I hear about Antichrist makes it sound like an unbelievably unpleasant film.  However...

If Von Trier has made one of the most difficult yet well-made and challenging films of the decade, I want to see it.

Agreed.  I'm in.