XIXAX Film Forum

Film Discussion => The Vault => Topic started by: MacGuffin on September 26, 2006, 01:55:33 PM

Title: Antichrist
Post by: MacGuffin on September 26, 2006, 01:55:33 PM
Lars von Trier Takes on Horror Next
Source: Production Weekly

Director Lars von Trier has announced his next project, which is called Antichrist, reports Production Weekly. He is expected to shoot the horror film next summer.

The English language movie is set in nature and based on the theory that it was Satan, not God, who created the world.

Von Trier has directed such films as Dancer in the Dark, Dogville and Manderlay.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: MacGuffin on April 15, 2008, 06:46:09 PM
'Antichrist' to shoot in Germany
Von Trier secures regional funding for pic
Source: Variety
 
Lars von Trier will shoot “Antichrist” in Germany this summer after securing Teutonic coin, makring the first time the Danish director will have worked in the country.

“Antichrist” follows a couple who retreat to a cabin in the woods to recover from the death of their child. Script is by von Trier and Anders Thomas Jensen. Von Trier’s Zentropa Entertainments and Bettina Brokemper of Zentropa Intl. in Cologne are producing, along with France’s Liberator2/Slot Machine and Italy’s Lucky Red.

North Rhine-Westphalia’s regional subsidy org Filmstiftung NRW is backing the pic to the tune of e900,000 ($1.4 million).

MFA Plus Filmdistribution will release “Antichrist” in Germany; TrustNordisk is handling international sales.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: MacGuffin on August 13, 2008, 12:11:40 AM
Dafoe, Gainsbourg set for 'Antichrist'
Lars von Trier to direct psychological thriller
Source: Variety
 
Willem Dafoe will star with Charlotte Gainsbourg in "Antichrist," which will be directed by Lars von Trier.

Anders Thomas Jensen wrote the script with von Trier. In the psychological thriller that evolves into a horror film, Dafoe and Gainsbourg will play a couple who retreat to an isolated cabin in the woods following the death of their child.

Production begins this month in Germany.

Meta Louise Foldager is producing. The picture completed financing its $11 million budget last month.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Stefen on August 13, 2008, 10:11:09 PM
This sounds very interesting.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Gold Trumpet on August 13, 2008, 10:58:21 PM
Sounds like even Von Trier believes an auteur's gotta eat. Not a fan of his in the least but it's a little unnerving to see him attached to such a plot driven project. Yes, Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark had plots before their stories, but their synopses announced the films would be outside the norm. I see a classical horror thriller coming out here, but I hope I'm wrong. It's just I imagine he will try to one up Polanski with this story and considering I think Polanski is a legitimate master with horror, that will be hard to do.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Stefen on August 13, 2008, 11:03:59 PM
I don't know if it's really something he's making just to make some bread. Sounds like he was just looking for a change of pace. I'm sure it's not going to be something that's playing in multiplexes all across the country.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: pete on August 14, 2008, 01:56:36 AM
I dunno, he's not taking studio money or helming for another producer.  it seems like he's making it the same way as dogville and others - with his production company and a few smaller european sources.  as GT points out, he's done genre films before, and I don't notice anything suspect aside from the reported logline, which isn't even that ordinary.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Gold Trumpet on August 14, 2008, 02:12:04 AM
I dunno, he's not taking studio money or helming for another producer.  it seems like he's making it the same way as dogville and others - with his production company and a few smaller european sources.  as GT points out, he's done genre films before, and I don't notice anything suspect aside from the reported logline, which isn't even that ordinary.

I considered all of that, but the plot sounded so tired it reminded me of numerous other Hollywood films made in the last 10 years. Even the title Antichrist points out the predictable end the story will head toward. You could call Dancer in the Dark a genre fitting film, but its advertisement of grim death and musical elements promised a very different film. Even Breaking the Waves was advertised as a dogme-esque take on a love story and Dogville was a deconstructionist take on a mob story. Antichrist sounds like it will be pretty straight forward so it sounds distinctly unlike Von Trier, but it could easily be a daring venture. It's just when you go down this alley the best you can usually expect is a half hearted take on Polanski. Even if that subsequent film was good I'd be a little dissapointed.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: pete on August 14, 2008, 02:25:12 AM
but look at his last film, a comedy about people going crazy in an office environment.  while not being particularly funny, he still seems quite proud of what he's done with the idea.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Gamblour. on August 25, 2008, 11:21:43 AM
I will watch anything he directs. Glad you mentioned that movie, pete. Glad to see it's on dvd, too.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: tpfkabi on August 26, 2008, 08:03:48 AM
I will watch anything he directs. Glad you mentioned that movie, pete. Glad to see it's on dvd, too.

i didn't even know he made that film.
did it not do well - even critically?
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Gamblour. on August 26, 2008, 12:48:39 PM
I will watch anything he directs. Glad you mentioned that movie, pete. Glad to see it's on dvd, too.

i didn't even know he made that film.
did it not do well - even critically?

73 and 71 on Rottentomatoes and Metacritic respectively. I remember reading good reviews. It wasn't about black people wanting to enslave themselves, so it didn't ripple the pond much.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: MacGuffin on March 23, 2009, 03:16:51 PM
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.cinematical.com/media/2009/03/antichrist032309.jpg)

First Look: Von Trier’s “Antichrist”
Source: indiewire

Buzz about the Lars Von Trier’s latest, “Antichrist,” intensified today with the release of a still image from the new movie. The framegrab from the film, expected to debut this year at the Cannes Film Festival, captures a scene featuring film leads Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg.

Described by Cinematical as the story of “a couple who retreat to a cabin in the woods after losing a child, and run into some ‘terrifying occurrences’,” the apparent horror film stars Dafoe and Gainsbourg.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Stefen on March 23, 2009, 03:23:05 PM
 :yabbse-thumbup:
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: NEON MERCURY on March 23, 2009, 10:02:23 PM
 :yabbse-shocked:
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: SiliasRuby on March 23, 2009, 10:09:50 PM
Sweeeter Than Wine
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: modage on April 14, 2009, 09:34:09 AM
not a fan of Von Trier but this looks good...

trailer: http://vimeo.com/4062746
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Fernando on April 14, 2009, 10:03:35 AM
 :shock: &  :notworthy:

im speechless, how many great films are we going to get this year??? i already lost count...this is insane..:crazyeyes:
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Pozer on April 14, 2009, 11:19:23 AM
that looks amazing.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: SiliasRuby on April 14, 2009, 11:48:15 AM
 :yabbse-grin: :yabbse-grin: :yabbse-grin:
Very happy about this.

Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: tpfkabi on April 14, 2009, 11:55:06 AM
not a fan of Von Trier but this looks good...

trailer: http://vimeo.com/4062746

is it safe for work?

i saw that first screen capture and was not sure.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: squints on April 14, 2009, 03:34:56 PM
yeah its sfw.

what the fuck is going on in that trailer? that shit looks creepy but incredible. i can't wait.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: The Perineum Falcon on April 14, 2009, 03:46:43 PM
I just watched it twice in a row and I'm soooooo fucking giddy. :bravo:
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: brockly on April 16, 2009, 10:51:24 AM
i didn't know about this film until just now. 09=07=99.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: picolas on April 16, 2009, 09:25:32 PM
oh man. the original release date: september 11th.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: The Perineum Falcon on May 01, 2009, 10:28:16 AM
(New)International Trailer (http://www.fliqz.com/aspx/permalink.aspx?vid=c54396f419c24aa189a210c7a04d3cf7)
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: New Feeling on May 17, 2009, 08:59:45 PM
"Lars von Trier cuts a big fat art-film fart with "Antichrist." As if deliberately courting critical abuse, the Danish bad boy densely packs this theological-psychological horror opus with grotesque, self-consciously provocative images that might have impressed even Hieronymus Bosch, as the director pursues personal demons of sexual, religious and esoteric bodily harm, as well as feelings about women that must be a comfort to those closest to him. Traveling deep into NC-17 territory, this may prove a great date movie for pain-is-pleasure couples. Otherwise, most of the director's usual fans will find this outing risible, off-putting or both -- derisive hoots were much in evidence during and after the Cannes press screening -- while the artiness quotient is far too high for mainstream-gore groupies."

Variety's review: http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=festivals&jump=review&reviewid=VE1117940286&cs=1
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Stefen on May 17, 2009, 09:10:05 PM
haha, oh, no.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Pas on May 17, 2009, 10:52:39 PM
haha does this review mean anything ? It feels like it does but I'm not sure. This could be one of those some people find it total crap and others total genius. I believe this thread has legs
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: SiliasRuby on May 17, 2009, 11:01:33 PM
It means nothing. NOHING!
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: modage on May 18, 2009, 07:51:53 AM
i wonder if there is some significance to all the "fart" headlines?

Antichrist = Fartbomb
Source: Hollywood Elsewhere

I ran right up to the Orange wifi cafe after escaping from Lars von Trier's Antichrist, which had begun at 7:30 pm in the Salle Debussy. I sat down and wrote for a solid hour, so charged by what I'd just seen and what had just happened -- easily one of the biggest debacles in Cannes Film Festival history and the complete meltdown of a major film artist in a way that invites comparison to the sinking of the Titanic -- that I didn't pay attention to the fact that my plug adapter wasn't giving power.

The computer went down and I lost everything. Seven or eight really good paragraphs.

It's now 10:42 pm and the Orange cafe is about to close. It's over and finished and I'm sick of this day. It's been one thing after another today (heat, sweat, lost power cord) and I know when I'm beaten and drained. I'll sit down and write more again tomorrow. But my God, what a screening! What a reaction! Critics howling, hooting, shrieking.

There's no way Antichrist isn't a major career embarassment for costars Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg, and a possible career stopper for Von Trier.

It's an out-and-out disaster -- one of the most absurdly on-the-nose, heavy-handed and unintentionally comedic calamities I've ever seen in my life. On top of which it's dedicated to the late Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky, whose rotted and decomposed body is now quite possibly clawing its way out of the grave to stalk the earth, find an axe and slay Von Trier in his bed.

Here's a portion of Von Trier's "director's confession" from the press book:

"Two years ago I suffered from depression. Everything, no matter what, seems unimportant, trivial. I couldn't work. Six months later, jsut as an exercise, I wrote a script. It was a kind of therapy, but also a search, a test to see if would ever make another film.

"The script was finished and filmed without much enthusiasm, made as it was using about half of my physical and intellectual capacity. Scenes were added for no reason. Images were composed free of logic or dramatic thinking. They often came from dreams I was having at the time, or dreams I'd had earlier in my life.

"In any case I offer no excuses for Antichrist. Other than my absolute belief in the film -- the most important film of my entire career!"

A man whom I've admired and respected for many years has lost his mind for the time being, or at last lost it while he was writing and shooting the film. I just can't fathom how the director of Breaking The Waves and Dancer in the Dark and Dogville could have made something so amateurishly awful. The decent and compassionate thing would be to forget Antichrist and to forgive Von Trier. To put it aside and move on on all fronts.

I know that if I had been in Dafoe or Gainsbourg's shoes I would have come to my senses and walked off the film. I would have said "go ahead, sue me -- I welcome a lawsuit!" and walked home proudly and at peace.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Stefen on May 18, 2009, 08:17:05 AM
haha, I want to see it even more now .
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: theyarelegion on May 18, 2009, 08:26:50 AM
"Why Did You Make This Film?"
source: Hollywood Elsewhere

Polite but mild applause greeted the Antichrist team -- director Lars Von Trier, stars Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg -- as they walked into the Salle de Presse at 12:35 pm, or about 75 minutes ago. But then someone yelled "boo!" Dafoe and Von Trier, as you can see, chuckled at this. And then once the photos had been taken and everyone was settled, Daly Mail columnist Baz Bamigboye asked the first question, which was fairly hostile.

video displaying above: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X0ZGRVQGkk

"Why did you make this movie?" he said, clearly outraged by the film. Von Trier, Dafoe and Gainsbourg all gave Bamnibgoye, who was standing on the right side of the room, quizzical "what's up with this guy?" looks. "I don't feel I have to explain myself," Von Trier said. "Yes, you do!," Bamigboye sternly replied. "Yes, you do. You've come here to Cannes, the festival; has chosen it, we've all seen it...and I think you have an obligation to explain why you made it." Von Trier again demurred, sidestepped, shook it off.

That was the only confrontational moment. All questions in all press conferences tend to be asked in an extra-polite, deferential, obliquely phrased vein, and this one was no exception. There was some humorous quips from Von Trier ("I am the world's best director"), some laughter from the crowd, and very little in the way of soul-baring. Dafoe said Von Trier was "a great director" and was quickly corrected by Von Trier saying "the greatest" (or words to that effect).

If you hadn't seen Antichrist you would have had the impression from the questions and answers that it was, all right, shocking or challenging and yes, clearly disliked in some quarters, but a film that could or should be regarded with perhaps a certain whimsy or even (with an accommodating pro-Lars attitude) a harmless cinematic diversion.


Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: cinemanarchist on May 18, 2009, 08:27:13 AM
Finally, some pretentiously emotional torture-porn! No really, I'm excited.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Pas on May 18, 2009, 09:07:24 AM
haha, I want to see it even more now .

yes this is getting me very excited for this film  :ponder:
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: modage on May 18, 2009, 09:36:23 AM
hilarious major spoils only read if you don't want to see this movie. (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2009/05/so_what_happens_to_willem_dafoes_genitals.html)
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Pas on May 18, 2009, 09:41:47 AM
hilarious major spoils only read if you don't want to see this movie. (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2009/05/so_what_happens_to_willem_dafoes_genitals.html)

yes this is getting me very excited for this film  :yabbse-huh:
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: cinemanarchist on May 18, 2009, 10:01:02 AM
Noe has his work cut out for him to top "fartbomb." You can do it Gasper!!
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: New Feeling on May 18, 2009, 10:15:26 AM
for some reason the Cannes website didn't put the press conference up.  Anyone know where I can watch it?
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: SiliasRuby on May 18, 2009, 11:55:50 AM
It'll become a B movie art film masterpiece and GT will somehow love it.....
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Pas on May 18, 2009, 01:56:29 PM
GT will somehow love it.....

hahahahh :bravo:
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: mogwai on May 18, 2009, 02:16:20 PM
GT will somehow love it.....

hahahahh :bravo:

and this dude wether he's alive or dead:
http://xixax.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1286
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Stefen on May 18, 2009, 03:34:16 PM
03 got the HIV and died.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Pedro on May 18, 2009, 04:58:24 PM
I feel that I might end up liking this.  Even if it's the worst thing I've ever seen, I hope it doesn't stop Von Trier from making more, though it seems that he's pretty ambivalent about the negative attention.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Gold Trumpet on May 18, 2009, 06:14:16 PM
and GT will somehow love it.....

You're just getting random now. I hate every film by Lars Von Trier I've ever seen and have him high on my list of crimial filmmakers.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Alexandro on May 19, 2009, 12:18:21 AM
and GT will somehow love it.....

You're just getting random now. I hate every film by Lars Von Trier I've ever seen and have him high on my list of crimial filmmakers.

so you will like it, right?  :yabbse-grin:

kidding aside. nothing makes me more excited for a film than reviews like these. the "not boring" comment is by far the most recomforting. Sounds like one big dense mind fuck. If Von Trier can piss off so many people he probably is on to something.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: theyarelegion on May 19, 2009, 06:40:55 AM
for some reason the Cannes website didn't put the press conference up.  Anyone know where I can watch it?

http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/mediaPlayer/9902.html
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: SiliasRuby on May 19, 2009, 11:56:25 AM
and GT will somehow love it.....

You're just getting random now.
You are right, I am.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: squints on May 19, 2009, 12:41:36 PM
hilarious major spoils only read if you don't want to see this movie. (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2009/05/so_what_happens_to_willem_dafoes_genitals.html)


this sounds fucking awesome. Like Troma-style awesome.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: MacGuffin on May 20, 2009, 12:32:16 PM
Lars von Trier's 'Antichrist' lands at IFC
Cannes title stars Willem Dafoe, Charlotte Gainsbourg
Source: Variety

CANNES -- IFC Films is getting into business with the Antichrist.

Just several hours after announcing it would be distributing Ken Loach's soccer-star comedy "Looking for Eric," the Rainbow Media company announced it had picked up Lars von Trier's "Antichrist," a controversial relationship-cum-torture-porn movie starring Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg.

"Since it premiered at Cannes on Monday, we haven't been able to stop talking or thinking about 'Antichrist,' " IFC Entertainment president Jonathan Sehring said.

The movie has indeed been one of the most talked-about of the festival, though not always in the best way. With a series of bracing scenes in which a grieving couple bloodily brutalizes each other at their country cabin, some felt von Trier had stepped over the line.

At a press conference earlier in the week, reporters asked Von Trier to explain his choices on artistic grounds, with von Trier coyly refusing to. The title had gone through a roller-coaster on the acquisitions side: Its stock climbed before the fest, sank when it drew a harsh media and critical reaction, and now apparently has climbed enough for IFC to take a flyer.

The film's marketplace potential remains to be seen. The sheer volume of press could provide a boost to attendance, though it's an open question whether that, along with the smallish cadre of die-hard von Trier fans, will be enough to make it a profitable theatrical and VOD release.

As it did with the Loach buy, IFC's pickup marks a collaboration with a familiar face -- the company previously released von Trier's "The Boss of It All" and "Manderlay."

The pair of six-figure deals bring IFC's festival take to three, after it previously scooped up Romanian omnibus pic "Tales From the Golden Age."

The other only pickups of the movies from the festival came on the fest's first day, when Sony Pictures Classics announced it had bought "Coco Chanel and Igor Stravinsky" and "The White Ribbon."

Two of the more high-profile acquisition targets, Terry Gilliam's "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" and Alejandro Amenabar's "Agora," remain in play.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Stefen on May 21, 2009, 12:10:00 AM
IFC is awesome.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: ©brad on May 21, 2009, 06:35:20 AM
for some reason the Cannes website didn't put the press conference up.  Anyone know where I can watch it?

http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/mediaPlayer/9902.html


Wow that press conference was amazing. I kind of love him even more now.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: MacGuffin on May 22, 2009, 12:13:40 AM
'Antichrist' is controversial, but therapeutic for director Lars von Trier
The Danish director's film, which features graphic scenes, spurs jeers and cheers.
By Dennis Lim; Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Cannes, France -- His hallucinatory horror film "Antichrist" elicited derisive giggles and howls from an irate media audience. Later, he was booed at his own news conference. But Lars von Trier is insisting, as he so often does, that he never intended to play the provocateur.

"If somebody asked me to make a provoking film, I wouldn't know how to do it," Von Trier said in an interview at the Hotel du Cap, a luxury resort up the coast from the bustle of the Croisette. "I didn't expect it but there's been a lot of hostility. It seems the film kind of gets to people somehow."

That would be an understatement. Sunday night's media screening of the Danish master prankster's "Antichrist" offered electrifying proof, as if more were needed, that he knows how to get a reaction. Laughter greeted the opening titles ("Lars von Trier Antichrist") as well as the punch line, a brazenly incongruous dedication to the late Russian auteur Andrei Tarkovsky.

A crescendoing shriek of psychosexual guilt and anxiety -- starring Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg as a bereft couple who retreat to a remote cabin in the woods -- the movie was met with guffaws and gasps, not least for a pair of instantly notorious scenes in which gruesome fates befall the characters' genitalia. As the credits rolled, jeers erupted along with applause.

Von Trier, 53, has been a Cannes fixture as long as he has been making movies. Except for 2006's "The Boss of It All," all of his features have premiered here, and he won the Palme d'Or in 2000 for "Dancer in the Dark." Two years ago, to mark its 60th anniversary, the festival invited more than 30 directors to make a short about the film-going experience. Von Trier's was set at the Cannes premiere of 2005's "Manderlay." A critic regales the man next to him, who happens to be Von Trier, with tedious banalities. When he finally asks his seatmate what he does for a living, the director responds, "I kill." He then produces a hammer and bludgeons the man to death.

Does that wry little skit sum up Von Trier's feelings about critics and Cannes? He laughed: "On some level," he said. "But the festival has been very, very kind to me." Accordingly he makes the effort to get here. Because of his well-documented fear of flying, he has never been to the United States, even though several of his films, including "Antichrist," are set there -- and travels to Cannes by camper van from Denmark. While here, he remains holed up at the du Cap, only venturing into the maw of the festival for his official screening and conference.

Von Trier is a canny ringmaster of the Cannes media circus, as he showed with his deft handling of the aggressive interrogation at Monday's news conference. A British journalist asked Von Trier to "justify" the movie, and the hostility only spurred him to greater heights of comic arrogance. "I'm the best filmmaker in the world," he said, almost with a shrug, as if puzzled that anyone could miss this self-evident fact.

But facing his inquisitors one on one, Von Trier seemed genuinely weary. Flush from being out in the sun for TV interviews, he asked to retreat into the shade of a cabana. He had in front of him a packet of tissues, a bottle of hand sanitizer and a half-consumed Coke, all of which he kept fidgeting with as he talked. "Maybe I'm getting too old for this," he said. "I feel kind of intimidated."

Von Trier can be opaque when discussing his films, but he is notably open on the subject of his mental health. He has talked openly about his neuroses and phobias, and has repeatedly said that "Antichrist" is his response to a debilitating depression that left him unable to work.

"It comes quite naturally to me, to tell people about my anxieties," he said. "I'm sure a lot of people are very tired of hearing about my mental condition. But being married has taught me that it's always easier to tell the truth, or anyway, lie as close to the truth as possible."

Besides, he sees these fits of (apparent) candor as a service to journalists. "As a victim of an interview," he added drolly, "you always try to make it a good one, so you have to say something."

The husband and wife in "Antichrist" represent personal fixations for Von Trier. The Gainsbourg character is an academic who has been doing research on systematic persecution of women and witch hunts; Von Trier draws accusations of misogyny almost every time he makes a film. Dafoe plays a therapist; Von Trier said he has been undergoing cognitive therapy. Guilty and grief-stricken over the death of her young son, the wife gets rid of her mood-stabilizing pills, and is compelled by her husband to face her morbid fear of nature; Going off medication and confronting dysfunctional thoughts are true to the method as Von Trier has experienced it.

The grisly conclusion of "Antichrist" suggests that this therapeutic approach leaves much to be desired. "I'm being a little sarcastic, but that's my way," Von Trier said. "I don't think cognitive therapy is a miracle cure, but it's what works right now."

The making of "Antichrist" has proved restorative, simply for having coaxed him back into a routine. But the process was different this time. The movie came to him "like a dream," he said. "I'm mathematical so it's really difficult not to arrange things." But with "Antichrist," "I was trying to leave behind logic as much as I can."

No one's idea of an easy sell (although the curiosity factor will be high), "Antichrist" has been acquired for the U.S. by IFC Films, which plans to release it uncut in theaters, and in an edited version, to be supervised by Von Trier, for television. "I can't say no to censorship," Von Trier said. "The only thing that is important to me is that somebody somewhere knows that there is an original."

One of the graphic scenes, he noted, is a cinephilic homage (warning: a spoiler follows). The Dafoe character, after a grievous injury to his nether regions, is brought to a bloody orgasm. "That's from 'Mean Streets,' " Von Trier said, referring to Martin Scorsese's 1973 film, and to a guilt-ridden dream that Harvey Keitel's character has about premature ejaculation. Von Trier said he ran into Scorsese earlier in the festival, and told him that "Antichrist" contained a tribute: "I think he was pleased."

But had Scorsese seen "Antichrist" yet?

"No," Von Trier said with a laugh. "But he might have now."
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: picolas on May 22, 2009, 05:58:06 PM
for some reason the Cannes website didn't put the press conference up.  Anyone know where I can watch it?

http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/mediaPlayer/9902.html


Wow that press conference was amazing. I kind of love him even more now.
i enjoyed it a lot too. it sounds like there are a couple of potentially big spoilers around the 23-minute mark (the globe and mail's question), though.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: diggler on May 22, 2009, 07:48:04 PM
yea, don't watch that whole press conference if you don't want to be spoiled about the movie's most infamous scenes.

just watch the first reporter's question, that's the best part. the rage!
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: 03 on May 24, 2009, 11:32:52 AM
i'm here.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: mogwai on May 24, 2009, 12:52:05 PM
i'm here.

y'all can blame me for that but i didn't contact him.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: 03 on May 24, 2009, 02:28:19 PM
jaja
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: rustinglass on May 24, 2009, 04:35:06 PM
feels like 2004
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Stefen on May 26, 2009, 09:45:06 AM
i'm here.

HE LIVES!
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Stefen on May 27, 2009, 09:29:29 AM
So this got an 'anti-award' at Cannes. Has that ever happened before?
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: pete on May 27, 2009, 11:36:40 AM
ah art cinema circus.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: MacGuffin on June 15, 2009, 10:49:01 AM
"Antichrist" will remain uncut in Britain

LONDON (Hollywood Reporter) - Sure it has sex, violence and female self-mutilation, but Danish bad-boy director Lars von Trier's "Antichrist" is OK with the British Board of Film Classification.

The censor has allowed British distributor Artificial Eye to release the movie uncut with an "18" certificate, which denies admission to those aged 17 and younger.

The company bought the U.K. rights during the Cannes Film Festival last month, when it generated controversy with a series of bracing scenes in which a grieving couple bloodily brutalizes each other at their country cabin. Charlotte Gainsbourg, who co-starred with Willem Dafoe, was named best actress at the festival.

"The film does not contain material which breaches the law or poses a significant harm risk to adults," BBFC director David Cooke said. "The sexual imagery, while strong, is relatively brief, and the board has since 1990 passed a number of works containing such images."

Cooke said the BBFC's decision "reflects the principle -- strongly endorsed in a number of public consultations -- that adults should be free to decide for themselves what to watch or what not to watch, provided it is neither illegal nor harmful."

Although the film includes a scene of genital mutilation, the BBFC Board "knows of no research evidence which suggests that the viewing of this scene would raise a significant risk of harm to adult viewers or to society or which would otherwise justify intervention."

Said Curzon Artificial Eye CEO Philip Knatchbull: "There is no doubt that 'Antichrist' is a controversial film, but it's our duty as a distributor to present the works of talented directors such as Lars von Trier in their original form exactly as the director intended. We fully support the BBFC's decision to allow people to make up their own minds about this film."

IFC has rights for the U.S. where the film does not yet have a classification.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: matt35mm on June 15, 2009, 01:06:08 PM
Sweet.

I'm really nervous to see this though.  Genital mutilation makes me sad.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: MacGuffin on June 25, 2009, 12:16:33 AM
'Antichrist' gets pre-Halloween date
IFC to release pic on Oct. 23 in L.A. and N.Y.
Source: Variety

IFC is giving Lars von Trier's "Antichrist" a pre-Halloween release in Los Angeles and New York, with the film to go out Oct. 23.

IFC, the biggest buyer at this year's Cannes Film Festival, snapped up the psychological erotic-horror title during the fest. Pic, which has sexually explicit content, stars Charlotte Gainsbourg and Willem Dafoe. Meta Louise Foldager produced and Peter Aalbaek Jensen and Peter Garde exec produced.

The Cannes jury presented Gainsbourg with its actress award.

IFC will widen the theatrical release after the platform launch. The company, which usually releases theatrical titles simultaneously on video-on-demand, has set a VOD date of Oct. 21 for "Antichrist."
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: SiliasRuby on June 25, 2009, 02:58:23 AM
Matt, where will you be in the US on this release date?
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: MacGuffin on June 25, 2009, 07:22:40 AM
‘Antichrist’ Game Director: ‘Absolutely Not Available In Wal-Mart!’
Source: MTV

Yesterday, news was floating around the web about a possible game based on “Antichrist,” a new movie from Lars Von Trier which has received a boatload of controversy. The film, which revolves around a couple staying in a cabin in the woods, is filled with extremely sexual and violent imagery, ranging from the graphic death of a child to close-ups of vaginal insertion and genital mutilation. It’s not, shall we say, for the kids.

Today I had a chance to speak with Morten Iversen, the Game Director behind “Eden,” the title based on “Antichrist.” Iverson is not new to the video game world. He worked at Io Interactive as the writer of the “Hitman” series for six years before forming his own company. When that company went under he joined up with Zentropa, Von Trier’s production company.

“Von Trier has been extremely fond of video games for ages, and has been an avid player of ‘Alone in the Dark,’” explained Iverson. “He’s been circulating the idea internally…that making games would be a good idea.”

But is “Antichrist” really the one to start with? Iverson admits that it’s a challenge.

“[The movie] goes against all the conventions of how you make games and what you can do in games. Dead kids, nudity, graphic violence. It will be a very controversial game, and it’ll be a game that doesn’t really compare with anything else.”

Clearly there are going to be issues with such themes with certain retailers, but Iverson takes those in stride. “We don’t expect Wal-Mart to roll in crates of this and put it on their shelves. Absolutely not available at Wal-Mart!”

“Eden” is actually planned as a download-only game, which Iverson hopes to get on services like Xbox Live and Steam. In style, he describes it as a “nightmarish version of Myst.”

There are some very unique gameplay concepts at work, though. When you queue up the game, players will have to upload a profile, describing what their biggest phobias are. For example, are you afraid of spiders, loud noises or the dark? Based on that profile, certain themes will be loaded into the game to challenge you on those phobias.

But what about interational ratings boards? Recent releases of “Fallout 3″ and “Grand Theft Auto 4″ have had to be edited in order to see shelves in certain territories. Is Zentropa willing to make changes to the project?

“Yes, of course. Just like the movie, they made two versions so they can get released in countries like Italy and the US, [countries] that view things differently than we do in Denmark.” The game’s release will be edited, as well, depending on the region.

Despite all the controversy (to which Iverson replies with a warrior-like battle cry: “”Bring it on! Controversy!”), the game’s release is still a ways off, planned for sometime next year. Currently the team at Zentropa is just four people and the game has just finished the design phase. Next it’s a matter of staffing up and getting the title playable. Iverson seems pumped at the prospect.

“I admire Lars von Trier’s work immensely, and look forward to developing this game based on his work and hopefully with his creative input. He’s an extremely creative, condescending, misogynist genius with a shipload of phobias rattling him every day, so we’re like kindred spirits.”
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: matt35mm on June 26, 2009, 08:07:30 AM
Matt, where will you be in the US on this release date?

Probably somewhere around Georgia.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: The Perineum Falcon on June 26, 2009, 03:27:46 PM
Matt, where will you be in the US on this release date?

Probably somewhere around Georgia.
sounds like you won't be watching it. just like me...... :yabbse-undecided:
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: MacGuffin on July 20, 2009, 10:57:04 AM
"Antichrist" director says outrage "suits me fine"

LONDON (Reuters) - For Danish film director Lars von Trier, the outrage that greeted "Antichrist" at the Cannes festival in May was music to his ears.

Starring Charlotte Gainsbourg and Willem Dafoe as a couple who struggle to cope with the loss of their young son, the psychological horror story drew gasps, groans, jeers and just a few cheers when it was screened at the annual cinema showcase.

Explicit scenes of love-making, graphic violence and sexual self-mutilation, not to mention a talking fox, made Antichrist one of the most talked-about films at the festival for years.

Von Trier was angrily asked to justify his film at a press conference and early reviews generally agreed that the film was misogynistic, deliberately provocative and turgid.

But typically for a director who has polarized opinion throughout his career, not everyone hated it. The Telegraph gave the dark story of death and self-loathing a top rating.

"I feel very good about it," von Trier told Reuters, when asked about the negative reaction to his film.

"If you'd asked me before how should a film reception be, it should be something like that," he said in a telephone interview ahead of the film's theatrical release in Britain on July 24. It has been given an 18 rating and will be shown in its entirety.

"It suits me fine that people get out of the cinema with some kind of an emotion. That's very good."

Von Trier, often referred to as the "enfant terrible" of contemporary cinema, has avoided reading reviews, although he suggested he was not impervious to what people said.

"I don't think I've read one review," he said. "I think the film is like a kid, you know, it has to live its own life. Of course, I would like a phone call now and then."

HITS AND MISSES

Whether the controversy surrounding Antichrist will boost its box office prospects remains to be seen.

"I am really an idiot when it comes to what helps a film commercially," said von Trier. "Every time I'm sure I made a hit then I made a complete disaster."

The director is probably best known for "Breaking the Waves" and Cannes winner "Dancer in the Dark," while "Dogville" and "Manderlay," filmed on a bare sound stages, also created a stir.

But von Trier called Antichrist the most important movie of his career, possibly because it was his way of coping with a lengthy bout of depression.

"It was mostly the practical thing -- if you do a film then you are really involved in it and it's difficult to be depressed at the same time."

The director repeated his statement in Cannes that he did not have an audience in mind when he made films.

"I work for myself as an audience, and if I like it then I hope that some other people will be able to use it somehow," said von Trier, who has also called himself "the best film director in the world."

He said he did not know what movie he would make next, adding: "I'm waiting to hear from God, really."

Despite converting to Catholicism in the 1990s, reportedly after his mother told him on her deathbed that the person he thought was his father was not, he said he had no faith.

"I would say that I am a poor Christian, I'm not a believer. It was this idea very early in my life that life on earth, nature or man could not be a creation of a merciful God."
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: matt35mm on July 21, 2009, 09:47:46 AM
Matt, where will you be in the US on this release date?

Probably somewhere around Georgia.
sounds like you won't be watching it. just like me...... :yabbse-undecided:

This'll be coming out this Friday in the UK so I'll brave the experience and report back.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Stefen on July 21, 2009, 01:23:13 PM
GOOD LUCK! You're going to need it.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: matt35mm on July 21, 2009, 06:31:44 PM
Thanks, dude.  I'm fucking terrified.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Jesus on July 22, 2009, 04:36:09 PM
Thanks, dude.  I'm fucking terrified.

You and me both, partner.  :shock:
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: SiliasRuby on July 22, 2009, 09:44:00 PM
I'm glad Jesus is coming at all the right times these days. If only on movie forums....
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: matt35mm on July 24, 2009, 01:21:54 PM
Brothers and sisters, I have walked through the fire; I have seen the darkness and the light, dancing on the screen as one.

I liked it!  Well, I liked most of it.  I have no idea what I think of the last 45 or so minutes, which are admittedly firmly rooted in WTF territory, but I've seen stranger things.

The movie is very precise and beautiful.  The camerawork and editing is stunning, not just for its technical bravura, but also for how effectively disorienting it manages to be without resorting to just fucking with you.  It actually manages to feel simultaneously claustrophobic and too spacious, wild and incredibly controlled.  The sound design also has a lot to do with achieving this.  The effect is unnerving.  Von Trier and crew are at the top of their game as far as masterful artistic and technical execution goes.

The performances are great!  As the movie only has 2 characters and requires such emotional rawness and physical nakedness, I've got nothing but bravos for Dafoe and Gainsbourg for delving fully into it and giving so much.

As I look back on those first really bad reviews, I don't understand what these critics are talking about.  Yeah, the film will be divisive, but its clearly going to have its fair share of big fans and the notion that this could be a "career-stopper" for Von Trier is ridiculous.


MILD SPOILERS

As of now I don't have that much to say about the last 45 minutes, except that it will have inevitable comparisons to The Fantastic Mr. Fox.  I simply do not understand the last minute of the film, and so I'll wait to see what others have to say about it.  The horrifying things that I was nervous about seeing are not so bad that you should avoid the film; I think people can handle it.  I don't know what to make of the explicit misogyny in the film.  I can't tell if Von Trier knows what he thinks of women, but it doesn't seem to really matter.  Audiences can either see misogyny or commentary on misogyny with equal validity, as the movie seems to simultaneously validate and ridicule the misogynistic theories that are explicitly brought up.  But I think at the end of the day, can only be taken as a story about these two specific characters, and while they make generalizations, their specific actions are not meant to be an illustration of the general, if that makes any sense.


So those are the first thoughts.  Looking forward to seeing what everyone else thinks of it.  I think that it's definitely a film worth seeing and thinking about on multiple levels, so in this way I'd call the film a success.  Go see it.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: SiliasRuby on July 24, 2009, 02:00:43 PM
This Gives Me Hope.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: matt35mm on July 25, 2009, 10:52:38 AM
Hope strong, my brother.  There's plenty of goodness in the film, and it sits well with me the day after.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: God on August 12, 2009, 04:09:53 AM
the fact that this film has been made pleases me.

my children may now carry on.




Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: hedwig on August 12, 2009, 03:06:37 PM
HAIL SATAN

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a175/Leven321/satan-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Ordet on August 27, 2009, 10:20:44 PM
The Word.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Pozer on September 11, 2009, 05:55:35 PM
new trailer..

http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/antichrist/ (http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/antichrist/)
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Pas on September 11, 2009, 05:57:16 PM
I have a DVDrip if anyone's interested...

haven't watched it yet
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: brockly on September 14, 2009, 11:56:00 PM
im still coming to terms with this, but i think i love it.

spoils!
plot-wise, there's no new territory being tread here for Von Trier. the first fifteen minutes are banal. but then the horror elements come into play and they are welcome with open arms. the movie is about a woman trying to conquer overwhelming grief, though it doesn't have anything to say about grief. it simply uses human condition as a plot device for horror cliches, even employing an investigative twist to establish an object of fear for the final act. i don't know what to make of the last minute of the film, but i think it's a haunting tranquillity.

it's really astonishing filmmaking. i won't go into how technically brilliant it is because matt already has. it will be easy for critics to write it off as shallow, especially when compared to the America trilogy. but like Dancer in the Dark it's more an exercise in genre, in true Von Trier fashion, than an approach at substance. and i think it might be a brilliant one at that.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: squints on September 18, 2009, 03:02:45 AM
i have to say those aren't really spoils but your comments made me want to see the movie even more.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: picolas on September 18, 2009, 02:22:28 PM
i agree with a lot of what brockly says. the first hour or so is incredible, first fifteen included. how could you describe the opening as banal??? it loses its way in the last third. or at least it seems to upon first view. i know i'll be back because the filmmaking is so awe-inspiring.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: brockly on September 20, 2009, 02:44:03 AM
i agree with a lot of what brockly says. the first hour or so is incredible, first fifteen included. how could you describe the opening as banal???

i didn't care much for the prologue. i thought it was nonsensically flamboyant (dare i say pretentious?) and went for too long. it was nice to look at, but i wasn't feeling it. the fade-out on the washing machine was beautiful though. the following 10 minutes were too familiar territory for Von Trier. i didn't want to go there, which is why i was pleased with the shift.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: picolas on September 20, 2009, 02:33:44 PM
*spoils*
i still don't understand how you could describe the prologue as banal. the slo-mo and visual perfection is there for a reason. it's a traumatic event, burned into her memory for the rest of the film. the moment she has to relive forever.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: brockly on September 20, 2009, 07:36:50 PM
i didn't see it like that, but that's a good point.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Stefen on September 21, 2009, 02:28:39 AM
So this movie scared the shit out of me.

Girls are fucking crazy, man.
 
Visually gorgeous. Narrative wise, well that's going to be something that is up to much subjective debate once more of you get a chance to see it. I predict this thread reaches 40 pages.

I don't know where I stand. It's the type of movie that you have to let sink in, maybe see again (and again) before you really make up your mind so I have to let it sit for a while. I enjoyed it. Loved it even, but I have to nail down the reasons.

Enough can't be said about how beautiful it is. The cinematography and camera work is top knotch. One of the prettiest movies I've seen in a LONG time.

Also, it's scary. Very scary.

I really enjoyed the acting, as well. Charlotte Gainsbourg carries the film and puts in some amazing work. Dafoe is great but he usually is. Nothing new there.

It made me cringe a few times and that's one of the main things I'm grasping with right now. I haven't made up my mind if some of the sexual violence was necessary to add to the film or a gimmick that took away from it.

I really can't wait to watch it again.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: picolas on September 22, 2009, 02:45:20 PM
XIXAX EXCLUSIVE! DELETED SCENE IN GIF FORM

(http://5.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_koh9sl01oL1qze5g2o1_400.gif)
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Stefen on September 22, 2009, 02:59:33 PM
lol.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: 03 on September 24, 2009, 10:38:35 AM
yes, i loved it.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: MacGuffin on September 28, 2009, 11:31:35 PM
(http://shocktillyoudrop.com/nextraimages/antichristff.jpg)
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: RegularKarate on September 29, 2009, 01:57:25 PM
Pissed I had to miss that one.  Pissed I'm having to miss a lot of the fantastic fest stuff this year.  Why did I even get a badge?

stupid work and other life-related responsibilities.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Pubrick on September 30, 2009, 07:07:28 AM
piss i had to miss that one and a million other things. pissed i'm having to wait half a year or more for the most anticipated movies of the year to come down here. why did i even come to this otherwise-perfect country?

stupid australia and its random dust storms.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: RegularKarate on October 01, 2009, 11:18:13 AM
piss i had to miss that one and a million other things. pissed i'm having to wait half a year or more for the most anticipated movies of the year to come down here. why did i even come to this otherwise-perfect country?

stupid australia and its random dust storms.

I did see Van Diemen's Land at Fantastic Fest.  The actors said it opened over there in your neck of the world at the same time.  Have you seen it?

oh, sorry, this is the Antichrist thread.  Um... Willem Dafoe is a shithead
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: modage on October 01, 2009, 11:27:53 AM
I Love Movies!
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: MacGuffin on October 11, 2009, 11:27:46 PM
'Antichrist' catchphrase catches on with fans
Pic's aphorism is the new 'I drink your milkshake!'
Source: Variety


*READ AT OWN RISK*


Coming to a T-shirt near you: "Chaos reigns!"

The unlikely catchphrase hails from Lars von Trier’s arthouse horror movie "Antichrist" and is fast on its way to becoming this year’s "I drink your milkshake!"

The graphic tale of a couple coming to terms with their grief divided critics in Cannes but is starting to find a following, thanks to some shrewd maneuvering by domestic distrib IFC Films, which recognized that younger auds and genre fans seemed attracted by the very elements that repelled other viewers.

Particularly iconic was a surreal scene in which Willem Dafoe’s character stumbles through the primeval brush, where he encounters a fox devouring its own flesh. In what may or may not be a hallucination, the animal tosses its head and snarls the words "Chaos reigns."

"We’ve been saying it in the office since we bought the movie, so it’s funny that it took off in Fantastic Fest," says IFC marketing head Ryan Werner, who sent the clip to a number of blogs. IFC also screened the film at the Austin, Texas-based horror and genre fest, where fanboys latched on to the pic’s aphorism, starting a #chaosreigns Twitter stream and demanding shirts from the fest’s on-site T-shirt purveyor, Mondo Tees.

"We knew things would happen, just because I’ve worked on other controversial movies before like ‘The Brown Bunny,’ and they kind of take a life of their own once you start throwing stuff out there," says Werner.

Though IFC doesn’t hold merchandising rights on the film, Werner says the distrib is investigating possible tie-ins.

Adding to "Antichrist’s" notoriety is an incident at the pic’s New York Film Festival screening: The film had to be stopped after a man passed out during one of its more intense scenes.

Ambulances were called and the man had to be carried out before the screening resumed for the stunned audience.

Bloggers in attendance quickly spread the word, raising the film’s profile even further.

Chaos reigns. And buzz abounds.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Stefen on October 11, 2009, 11:32:20 PM
haha, fuck, yeah. That's like one of the best parts. Supposedly Von Trier is the voice of the Fox. Who knows with that dude.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: MacGuffin on October 22, 2009, 01:42:01 AM
Willem Dafoe On Getting Nude In 'Antichrist,' Working With Director Lars Von Trier
Source: MTV

This week, (limited) audiences will finally get to see what all the fuss was at this year's Cannes over director Lars Von Trier's art-horror flick, "Antichrist." The unconventional tale of a husband and wife who try to cope with the tragic loss of their son by hiding out in the woods takes a dark turn as the unnamed man's (Willem Dafoe) attempts to psychoanalyze his unnamed wife (Charlotte Gainsbourg) elicit a violent response. I don't want to spoil anything, but it is worth noting that the term "genital mutilation" has been thrown around to describe just a few of the horrors you'll witness as the story reaches its endgame.

MTV's Josh Horowitz had the opportunity recently to speak with Dafoe, who was more than happy to discuss the experience of working with Von Trier. As one of the founders of the Dogme 95 movement -- a style of filmmaking defined by a lengthy manifesto -- Von Trier is a unique soul among his fellow artists. He called himself "the world's greatest director" at Cannes this year, railing against those critics who panned "Antichrist."

Dafoe was quick in trying to clear things up about a man who he's clearly had positive experiences with. "There’s a lot of bad information about him. He’s eccentric and has a caustic wit and he can be very ironic and sometimes its lost on people," he said. "Sometimes it's lost on people."

"I think he’s a very strong personality and there’s a degree of submission to his view," Dafoe continued. "But that’s the key to freedom. Its through him you find your power and expression and your creativity. When you work with someone with a specific vision you can lose yourself and it gives you a clearer run at inhabiting something."

Dafoe was also quick to dismiss claims that Von Trier is cruel to his actors simply for the sake of it, the joy of it. "His kind of manipulation isn’t a corrupt one. He’s working towards something. We reward crafting a message more than we do evoking the mysterious, things that inspire. I think this movie has a power where it’s a breathing thing."

I have to say, Dafoe makes a good point here about rewarding the message more than the experience. "Antichrist" is very much a non-standard film by Hollywood standards. It lies far outside the realm of Dogme 95, but it definitely forges its own path through the narrative, one that some viewers may have trouble following. It's hard to say that there's a clear resolution to walk away with, but there's plenty of thought-provoking material.

Josh also asked Dafoe about the nudity in "Antichrist," which is held apart -- deliberately, it seems -- from the performers. Many of the most explicit shots are presented in close-up, so there's no way to really tell if you're seeing the actor or a stand-in. As Dafoe pointed out, there was a reason for that.

"If that [nudity] was seen to be me it would only be about that," he explained. "It would be 'that movie where they have real sex.' So for the genital shots it’s a double. That way it’s not about a stunt. It’s a better idea. [Von Trier] actually cut a lot of nudity out. He’s a good filmmaker."
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: squints on October 22, 2009, 03:46:49 PM
Ebert's review of this is really great. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091021/REVIEWS/910219990 (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091021/REVIEWS/910219990)
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Reinhold on October 24, 2009, 10:01:03 PM
i saw this film and left the theater feeling like i was just getting out of the woods from a bad trip. more thoughts later.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: SiliasRuby on October 24, 2009, 10:04:57 PM
Seeing this tonight at the 9:55 screening then 'rocky horror' right after...
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: picolas on October 24, 2009, 11:27:30 PM
sitting in chair at work. reading post.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: SiliasRuby on October 25, 2009, 02:42:04 PM
This film is burned into my brain and I wish it wasn't. It puts shame to those who think they can watch any horror film and not be disgusted or sickened by it. It challenges you in the worst way. I passed out during 10 seconds of the film and came to at the most debilitating scene. I almost threw up at one moment and felt emotionally sick afterwards. Glad I went right into the line for 'rocky horror' right after and that gave me enough time to digest it fully before 'rocky horror' tried its damnedest to wash those heart quenching sequences out of my brain, but alas it didn't work. The talking fox was the highlight for me. In short, this scared the living shit out of me and I will have nightmares for the first time since I watched 'Eraserhead' for the first time. Man, its so uncomfortably wrong in every wonderful way.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: modage on October 25, 2009, 08:09:36 PM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/horror09.png)

(http://cdn-9.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70117549.jpg)

Antichrist (2009)

I'll say that this film is not my cup of tea, but also ask what the hell it was actually about?  The film is beautifully shot, the actors are commited, there are a few scenes of atmospheric creepiness and brutal violence but mostly a lot of "What the hell is going on here?"  Neither of the 2 characters does anything that even reminds me of how real people would behave so it's hard to engage in the film as anything other than an exercise.  And anyone who thinks the violence here is any less gratuitous than Saw or Hostel is kidding themselves.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: SiliasRuby on October 25, 2009, 08:32:22 PM
I don't think it is really a horror film. Well, not in the true sense of the word its not. Concerning the 'what the hell is going on' question I think the film could be looked at as a exercise in 'how horrible can we go with this?' As far as the performances go they might be over the top and unrealistic but the intensity of the two actors and the quality of both of them makes it worth while. And in that vein, its a lot like 'The Shining'.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Reinhold on October 28, 2009, 12:04:04 AM
This film is burned into my brain and I wish it wasn't. It puts shame to those who think they can watch any horror film and not be disgusted or sickened by it. It challenges you in the worst way. I passed out during 10 seconds of the film and came to at the most debilitating scene. I almost threw up at one moment and felt emotionally sick afterwards. Glad I went right into the line for 'rocky horror' right after and that gave me enough time to digest it fully before 'rocky horror' tried its damnedest to wash those heart quenching sequences out of my brain, but alas it didn't work. The talking fox was the highlight for me. In short, this scared the living shit out of me and I will have nightmares for the first time since I watched 'Eraserhead' for the first time. Man, its so uncomfortably wrong in every wonderful way.

largely agreed.

Spoilers are likely ahead

i'm having a very hard time articulating my thoughts about the film. i think it's primarily about the schizophrenic experience of being the nameless-woman-on-screen. she's subjected to some of the most sexist rhetoric cinema can muster for most of the film, both in dialogue and from the opening frames. even when da foe's character takes the critical view, it's instructive and more of the same. the film cuts her image up so much with framing and montage, and repeatedly dictates and re-dictates ways to interpret her physical behavior-- however much he's engaging with male narration here i think that the genital mutilation was kind of inevitable because the whole thing is about her fracturing/fractured self identity. in short, von trier wants to bind disgust to the spectator's sexualizing impulses both during and after the film-- if there's anything about the viewing experience that has stuck with me the most, it's how much "women" make me think of that woman, make me recall viewing this fractured, gorgeous, naked, crazy woman as an image-- how easily female characters are associated with women in real life. the idea isn't necessarily that women are innately evil-- the idea is that society has made women the image of evil and that that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

also, i don't think the layout of the apartment would have made it possible for her to see the kid falling as was suggested in her flashback later in the film. was that her blaming herself or just a thoughtless cut? additionally, what was with the women at the end of the film? where they exiting the woods, roaming the woods, descending upon him?
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: SiliasRuby on October 28, 2009, 12:12:37 AM
Reinhold, you hit the nail on the head. Also, that was her blaming herself. It had nothing to do with a cut. I really don't think Lars did anything thoughtless when it comes to this film.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on November 01, 2009, 09:03:13 PM
Spoilers are likely ahead
additionally, what was with the women at the end of the film? where they exiting the woods, roaming the woods, descending upon him?

To me, it played out like the ending of Girlfriend Experience.  (This may also contain spoilers in regards to that if you haven't seen it)

When Chelsea dumps her boyfriend to pursue some guy, he decides to go on the trip to Vegas with his guy friends.  Throughout the whole movie, the boyfriend is doing everything he can to be supportive of Chelsea, a girl wrapped up in the sex business, and it backfires on him.  In the end, he's newly single and immediately as they land in Las Vegas, they're surrounded by a flock of women in a similar field.  We don't see him do it since it's the end, but it gives the impression of a cycle.

What I love about Antichrist is the whole "Eden" as the perfect location for therapy, in a mental way but also as a physical manifestation.  The husband can't be both a therapist and a husband, and by becoming a therapist (which he thinks is the best thing for his wife) he denies her being her husband, which is what she feels she needs.  This conflict of interest severely strains the relationship, but not in a way that either person is necessarily at fault for.  They're both doing exactly what they feel is the best solution. 
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Stefen on November 01, 2009, 10:04:05 PM
I thought it was very interesting how He couldn't decide between being a husband, a therapist, or a grieving father. All three came out at certain points during the film. The only question I have is, when he was the husband and gave in to lust, was that because man is a piece of shit?
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on November 02, 2009, 01:23:43 AM
In that case, it's a matter of yes and no.  He had a responsibility to be her objective therapist, which he tried to honor, but to see your own wife writhing in agony because you won't fuck her has got to provoke some sort of sexual action.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on November 17, 2009, 07:24:52 PM
Major Spoilers!

Love this movie! First of all, it was a joy to see LVT borrowing so heavily from Lynch. All I needed was a fast dolly-in with some whip-pans, and I would have had my three favorite filmmakers all in one movie. The shaky/blurry shots with bizarre sound design were straight out of Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire. The prologue (stunning, BTW) reminded me of The Man Who Wasn't There, to throw in a little Coen Bros. I should also point out that this can only be described as a horror film if Inland Empire is also described as a horror film.

I got addicted to the tension. Not necessarily the narrative tension, but the tension of film's arc. In other words, I knew LVT, and I knew he was up to something, but I didn't know what it was until the last scene. Speaking of which...

I thought it was obvious, but seriously, their forest hideaway is called "Eden," and the characters are credited as "He" and "She." Remember the piles of bodies that appeared in the tree roots scene, and later on the path in the epilogue? I first thought they were dead bodies, i.e. representations of gynocide, but I convinced myself otherwise. There's no blood, wounds, scarring, or anything that would suggest violence. I haven't cracked open a bible yet, but I'm pretty sure God is said to have given life to flesh, or some such thing. These could be women who have not yet been given life. When "He" eats the forbidden fruit at the very end, the women come to life, and converge toward him peacefully, as if he's the creator. This is some kind of reinterpretation of Genesis, or a new creation myth altogether.

Also recall that the Dafoe character is nailed through the leg and forced to drag a weight around. He even goes into a tomb of sorts and "rises" through the ground. Christ, anyone? (Dafoe has played the character before, after all.) We know LVT is not averse to crucifixion analogies (Dancer in the Dark).

the idea isn't necessarily that women are innately evil-- the idea is that society has made women the image of evil and that that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Right... I think this is key. And the film is clearly feminist. Think about LVT's previous work. He's dealt with feminist issues in most of his films. He hits upon all the major feminist points in this one, even including female genital mutilation.

But you're right, I think it's mostly about how female self-hate develops. Remember that the husband eventually concluded that her greatest fear was herself (after he crossed out nature and satan). The wife's reading of the gynocide texts probably planted some seeds. The misogynist ideas she immersed herself in may have been so powerful, so loaded with the force of history, that even with her critical/academic background, she found herself unable to fight them off entirely, and obviously, she began to agree with them and become them. When her husband realizes this early on and tells her those ideas are crazy, she says, "I know, I just forget sometimes." Also important is the line she says later on as she's fully in evil woman mode: "The crying woman is a scheming woman!" Truly one of the most revealing lines of the film, as it shows how deeply she's sunk into self-hating insanity--so much, in fact, that the things she does can classify the film as "horror."

Also, let's remember that the event that brought her writing to an end was hearing the crying child, which she thought was her son. Very strange scene, almost unexplainable, but we all know it's there for a reason. I think that, under the influence of the texts, she was developing a deep suspicion of her own gender, and herself, and her own trustworthiness as a mother. This manifested first with that crying hallucination. She then started fulfilling her own "bad mother" prophecies, which I assume is why she put her son's shoes on backwards. She may be unjustly blaming herself for her son's death, but considering her self-fulling prophecy angle, we shouldn't rule out that it actually was her fault. After all, so fulfilling are her self-fulfilling prophecies that she eventually gives her husband a reason to commit gynocide himself. With the self-mutilation (among other things), she is a willing participant in her own destruction, because she eventually believes her gender should be destroyed.

As for the meaning of LVT's creation myth, I just saw the movie last night, so I don't have a totally clear conclusion. One idea, though. It could be a Noah's ark type of thing. Look at it this way: The history of misogynism, and indeed even gynocide, had obliterated the female gender to the point of existential crisis--total destruction from within and without. So deep, in fact, were the wounds that they could cause the kind of horror we see in this film, which in this worldview I assume is representative of the whole. Everything is so out of balance that a new beginning is required, so the female gender is recreated.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Gamblour. on November 19, 2009, 09:00:47 PM
First of all, bravo everyone for some great discussion on this film. I have to say that not a lot crossed my mind while I was watching it, I viewed it less academically and more like a take on the horror genre, like modage. But obviously, there's more to it, as everyone has pointed out. In a way, this film seems similar to Manderlay, in the parallel between the slave enslaving him/herself and a woman fulfilling misogyny. He constructs these films like an anti-abortion commercial that's actually pro-abortion, backwards yet forwards. Ironic, I guess.

I thought the film was pretty well shot, one of the first films on video that eventually looked video that didn't bother me. Willem Dafoe, however, really sucked. I thought he was pretty awful in this role, just way too phony. Charlotte Gainsborough deserves every award on the planet, if only because I've seen more of her body than my own.

The music and chalk slates were fucking great. Loved the Three Beggars a lot. Not my favorite von Trier.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on November 19, 2009, 10:34:48 PM
In a way, this film seems similar to Manderlay, in the parallel between the slave enslaving him/herself and a woman fulfilling misogyny.

Thanks for pointing that out... I think that has been nagging at me, and I was halfway to realizing it.

Willem Dafoe, however, really sucked. I thought he was pretty awful in this role, just way too phony.

I think his character has a distant/disconnected/patronizing quality, and I think it works for the movie. I suppose the character is phony in his role as a husband, because he's not really a husband anymore, but I don't think Dafoe failed at acting the role. Not a masterful performance or anything, but I think whatever is on the screen is probably exactly what LVT wanted from him. But yeah, Gainsborough was something else.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Stefen on November 19, 2009, 11:49:31 PM
good review, man. yeah, Gainsbourg was really great, but I didn't find Willem phony, but I can see how others would.                                                                                         when I watch it again, i'm going to try and view it as a genre specific horror film. maybe then i'll not hate the over the top violent parts as much. I viewed it as an art film when i initially viewed it, and that may be why I found the over the top parts pretentious and unecessary.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on November 19, 2009, 11:58:19 PM
I don't know... I'm not convinced the violence is there for horror genre effect. If we believe that those events are in any way meaningful, isn't the graphicness just an expression of that meaning? For example, if Dafoe's character really is a christ figure, his suffering is definitely meaningful. His wife's self-mutilation is also meaningful.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Stefen on November 20, 2009, 01:33:36 AM
My beef isn't with the symbolism. That's all great, and as a whole, the film is in my top 5 of the year, but my beef is the way it's all presented. There really isn't any need for some of the shots. A penis ejaculating blood is a bit unnecessary. You can allude to everything it showed without actually showing it.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: picolas on November 20, 2009, 01:58:45 AM
nothing is really "necessary" though. it's an expression of some guy's vision. that's what film is. and how are you going to allude to blood ejaculation without showing it? and why wouldn't you just show it?
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Gold Trumpet on November 20, 2009, 02:13:32 AM
nothing is really "necessary" though. it's an expression of some guy's vision. that's what film is. and how are you going to allude to blood ejaculation without showing it? and why wouldn't you just show it?

I haven't seen Anti-Christ, but Ingmar Bergman (in Cries and Whispers) alluded to a woman masturbating with a shard of glass and still made it pretty horrific. I don't think the scenario in Anti-Christ is much worse, but I also think Anti-Christ has different objectives. Still, shocking nature of this kind has been presented to Stefen's wishes before.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Stefen on November 20, 2009, 02:32:58 AM
Do you plan on seeing it, GT? I know you're not a LVT fan, but I'm curious to see what you think of it. Or at least certain parts.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Gold Trumpet on November 20, 2009, 04:48:13 AM
Do you plan on seeing it, GT? I know you're not a LVT fan, but I'm curious to see what you think of it. Or at least certain parts.

Definitely am going to see it. I have numerous problems with LVT but the good thing about Anti-Christ is that a lot of earlier problems will most likely not be repeated here. He could begin his difficulties anew with me or make a good film, but I'm excited for a fresh start either way.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Gamblour. on November 20, 2009, 07:18:30 AM
Stefen, to me, it's not the violence so much that makes it a horror film, but really the fact that I was pretty frightened at certain points, and they're in the woods in a cabin. It just takes on the facade of a horror film, while not necessarily playing into it.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Reinhold on November 20, 2009, 07:41:43 AM
i posted a reply a week ago and it's not here. damn it. no time to try to say this eloquently before work, but i think the film, again, is about male authorship of the female identity-- something that just can not work well. i can flesh that out later, but the thing is that in a way that justifies all of the violence you see in this film-- it's violence that's already been done. the chaos that reigns is the insanity of doing so much damage to our society and being too self-important, distracted by personal interest, or have even coming to enjoy the symptoms because we (men, but not exclusively) tend to have a "heyyy... it's not THAT bad" attitude" in spite of castration anxiety and ridiculous (and obviously damaging) sexualization of woman pervading practically every cultural text.

My beef isn't with the symbolism. That's all great, and as a whole, the film is in my top 5 of the year, but my beef is the way it's all presented. There really isn't any need for some of the shots. A penis ejaculating blood is a bit unnecessary. You can allude to everything it showed without actually showing it.

i don't want to insult you but i think you're completely wrong. involuntary muscle spasms normally associated with ecstasy at a moment of complete terror, forcing a sexual context onto a horrific set of actions, her getting nailed with the blood shot and wearing it on her clothes... i dunno man. it seemed like he got plenty of mileage out of that unnecessary shot. when your point is something along the lines of JESUS CHRIST WHAT'S IT GONNA TAKE FOR YOU TO SEE THAT WE'VE FUCKED EVERYTHING UP... maybe a blood cum shot is justifiable.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: picolas on November 20, 2009, 07:22:01 PM
nothing is really "necessary" though. it's an expression of some guy's vision. that's what film is. and how are you going to allude to blood ejaculation without showing it? and why wouldn't you just show it?

I haven't seen Anti-Christ, but Ingmar Bergman (in Cries and Whispers) alluded to a woman masturbating with a shard of glass and still made it pretty horrific. I don't think the scenario in Anti-Christ is much worse, but I also think Anti-Christ has different objectives. Still, shocking nature of this kind has been presented to Stefen's wishes before.
i'm gonna say ejaculating blood is a whole different visual ballpark from cutting oneself. and yes antichrist probably has different objectives, many of them being visual.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on November 24, 2009, 12:11:47 PM
Antichrist's imagery didn't seem incredibly shocking to me.  It seemed fairly reminiscent of In The Realm of the Senses.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: RegularKarate on February 25, 2010, 10:32:33 AM
This is streaming on Netflix instant right now... even though it's not out on DVD yet.

Space Luck!
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Alexandro on November 20, 2010, 12:41:13 AM
Most reviews I've read for this film have made me mad one way or another. Films like this can't help but show how amazingly lazy film critics can be for the simple task of thinking for themselves. It's like listening to sheep balling endlessly with no meaning behind the sounds.

SPOILERS I GUESS

Is this film ABOUT the physical act of sexual mutilation? Some of these reviews make it sound as if you will see nothing but dicks and clits being destroyed on camera for 2 hours. I mean really, what a way to blown something out of proportion. "Illogical"? "Unreal"? Are these critics serious?

It IS a horror film. This is in fact what horror films should be. Horror as in an emotion, a state of being. Von Trier and team are in such top form. I can't believe some critics called this amateurish, that's insane, this is such a perfectly, expertly, carefully staged and edited thing. Beyond any criticism you may have, the craft in this is like, I don't know, like fucking NASA or something. It's a beautiful film to look at and to listen to. Disturbing of course, pretty intense, scary, offensive in parts. But worth every minute.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: Just Withnail on November 20, 2010, 12:09:50 PM
"The craft is like fucking NASA." Marquee?
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: KJ on June 03, 2013, 06:37:23 PM
I see a classical horror thriller coming out here

I love this quote.
Title: Re: Antichrist
Post by: wilder on February 04, 2016, 06:05:12 PM
wtf is happening

Lars Von Trier’s ‘Antichrist’ Latest Film Banned By French Court Amid Ratings Furor
via Deadline

French conservative values group Promouvoir has won another victory in its crusade against sex and violence on French screens. Lars von Trier’s 2009 drama, Antichrist, which scooped the best actress prize for Charlotte Gainsbourg in Cannes, has seen its operating visa revoked by the Administrative Court of Paris. The court cited “scenes of great violence” and “non-simulated sex” in its Wednesday decision, per multiple reports. The move comes at a time when the industry is seeking reform of the ratings system to keep it out of court and weaken Promouvoir which has spearheaded — and won — campaigns against several major titles in recent months, mostly over sexual content. It’s also particularly disconcerting in a country that so highly values its freedom of expression, and which saw it so devastatingly attacked in 2015.

French film body ARP today came out swinging in response, saying that it was “once again stunned” that judges have challenged a decision made by the culture minister and the Classification Commission, and that a “repressive and extremist association” such as Promouvoir, “should decide what we can and cannot see in France.”

This is the third time that Antichrist — which did its fair share to scandalize the Croisette when it originally debuted — has seen its rating challenged. It was previously banned by the State Council in 2009 and 2012 before being reinstated by the culture ministry with a -16 certificate. Yesterday, judges yanked its certificate again. An appeal is possible, I’m told.

Promouvoir has previously gone after the ratings classifications of Gaspar Noé’s Love, Virginie Despentes’ Baise-Moi, Universal’s Fifty Shades Of Grey and von Trier’s own Nymphomaniac films. In December, it succeeded in stripping 2013 Palme d’Or winner Blue Is The Warmest Color of its visa. That decision was also subject to appeal by the culture minister.

ARP, together with the Directors’ Guild (SRF) today said, “It is astounding that so many films, which have been widely acclaimed in major festivals, and offended the sensibilities of no one — except for the promoters of a new obscurantism — can be barred from the public.”

The groups again implored Culture Minister Fleur Pellerin to take urgent measures to modernize the system and give “meaning and weight” back to the Classification Commission.

I recently asked Noé whether he expected reforms would come, especially after his experience with Love. In August, the film was bumped up from -16 to -18 (NC-17) in what was believed to be the first time such a change occurred mid-run, and again at the behest of Promouvoir. He laughed and said, “On the internet, there is no ratings system so it’s awkward that people still believe there is a sense to put a rating on a film.” He added, “I wish people were shocked each time they see a gun in a movie. I don’t know why a penis is more shocking than a gun.”

Love was released unrated in the U.S. by Alchemy in December. Noé’s other films like Irreversible and Seul Contre Tous were similarly unrated Stateside which he said didn’t bother him at all. He noted that in Denmark, Love had the maximum rating of -15. “But (cinemas) say if you’re with your parents you can get in if you’re 11. So Denmark is the most open-minded of them all.” Von Trier of course is a Danish filmmaker.

In theory, the economic impact to Antichrist is minimal. If the rating changes, then it would have to change on all forms under which the film is exploited. It’s been out of theaters for seven years, so that would mean DVD, VOD, etc. It would also mean that it can’t be shown on television at certain hours.

It is, however, part of this larger issue surrounding the French ratings system which has typically been more lenient when it comes to sex than violence compared to other markets.
The Classification Commission is made up of industry professionals, experts in human sciences and government and youth representatives. Together they make a recommendation to the culture minister who then has the final word.

In its statement today, ARP said the commission “already exercises its vital role in guaranteeing the protection of moviegoers. It is no longer tolerable that [Promouvoir’s attorney] be allowed to make use of defects in our texts in disregard of the legitimacy of this commission.”