Antichrist (2009)

The first time I watched it, I thought it was pretentious as hell, gave it a 3/10. The second and third time I watched it, I appreciated it a lot more and my rating bumped up to a strong 6/10, the more I think about it the more I think it deserves a 7/10. The only thing that really annoys me is the retarded editing and some other elements. The overall atmosphere is conveyed so well, the trippy imagery (like the forest moving around) is captivating as hell.

Thoughts?

(Also, I thought the controversial stuff was just a tad tryhard, what was the symbolism exactly in her jerking Dafoe off while unconscious and her cutting off her clit?)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=GKNdCBwRSGE
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Most retarded movie I have ever seen.

>LOLSHOKINGGRATUITOUSIMAGES

the dick cumming blood scene will be forever etched in my mind

its one of the best movies ever made iirc

I want to reign chaos on Charlotte's hairy pussy and feet

Laars Von Trier gets a lot of attention. He deserves a lot more.

His ability to craft films that appear simple and gratuitous on the surface but offer immense rewards upon further examination, is stupefying.

AntiChrist is one of his finest efforts. Watch it again and you'll see that the editing works just as well as everything else.

>image.png

Thought it was really good, but the would have been better without the "gore" or if those scenes were implied. The gore looked so badly done it ruined an otherwise 8/10 (for me).

Best movie ever. The fourth and fifth time I watched it I gave it a 8 and 9. The sixth time a straight A. Now I'm on my 22nd time and now I rank it better than life

quite unreasonable, that's not all the film offers.

the clit cutting scene was even worse imo - not sure why since I'm a guy.

kek

I agree, Breaking The Waves and Dancer In The Dark are my favourites from him (and definitely in my top 10 all-time favourite films). Can you explain why and how the editing "works" so well though?

I didn't think it was badly done, could you elaborate?

Damn, high praise.

I refuse to watch it because I heard there's a crazy scene where the one dude ejaculates blood or some crazy shit

yea. she grabs a piece of wood and hits him as hard as possible in his dick. he passes out then she fucks him and jerks him off until he cums blood

I was hoping the conversation wouldn't focus on the "wow so shocking" factor, but whatever lol, I'd prefer if you all would try and discuss why the controversial imagery was necessary and argue against it being "tryhard" as I mentioned in my initial post.

It's one of the few legitimately 1/10 films in existence

Eh, it's a bit too much on misogynistic side for me.

The penis cumming blood looked really fake, same for the cliterectomy and "hobbling".

They also clashed too much tonally with the rest of the movie, which is pretty much 10/10 aesthetically, you could pretty much take any shot from the movie and it's like a high-art painting. If the gore elements looked more real it would've been better, but especially the "I cum blood" moment just looked like a cheap dildo + ketchup - so I think it would have worked better to show a real cock and to have cut away than to show a fake looking cock.

This is the problem with Von Trier though, he nearly made a masterpiece and fucked it by trying to be too shocking :/

I laughed, I cried, I fapped, I became enlightened, over all it was a 2/10.

"1/10" suggests that the film has no redeeming qualities whatsoever - which is bullshit, Dafoe's performance alone makes the film worth watching.

Care to elaborate? I don't think the symbolism applies to EVERY woman... Von Trier is usually in favour of women in his films so that would be quite a weird route to take in my opinion.

I guess I need to re-watch it again (seen it 3 times already) but I never thought anything looked fake, I guess you're just really specific about special effects? If that's the only problem you have with the film though then that's not too bad, could still be seen as a "masterpiece" in your eyes. I think it's a solid 6 or 7 out of 10, probably a 7, I just need to re-watch it a few more times.

I have to say, I appreciate that you actually watched a movie you initially hated a second, and even third, time. I've always loved it, and it might stil be my favourite movie of Trier's that I've seen, but his movies do always feels pretentious and preachy.

>what was the symbolism exactly in her jerking Dafoe off while unconscious and her cutting off her clit?)
Cutting of her clit is a symbolism for how she deals with her feminine nature and the fact that she can't cope with it and all the stuff about being a mother anymore, she sees her sexual pleasure and appetite as the source of all bad things that happened in the movie, including the death of her baby.
It's her way of grieving, she can't get rid of the pain and neither can she get her son back. She doesn't only fail as a mother but she also fails as a representative of the female gender.
Antichrist is freudian at it's best even though it states that "Freud is dead" because Lars is a meme and can't into irony properly.

Thank you for saying that, it actually feels like we're developing a genuine discussion on this thread (which rarely ever happens when I try to start a thread like this - it just ends in talking about some foot fetish or whatever - which is funny at first but not so much when the whole thread revolves around it).

My favourite from Trier is 'Breaking The Waves' - honestly one of the most powerful films I've ever seen, and so clever in its structure, 'Dancer In The Dark' comes at a close second. I don't know about "preachy", but I can definitely see why some people would think his films are a tad "pretentious" - 'Melancholia' definitely evoked that vibe for me.

I did the same thing for Nymphomaniac (! & II) by the way, since I didn't like those two that much the first time around - I made a little video about it if you're interested in hearing my mumbled thoughts: youtube.com/watch?v=GKNdCBwRSGE
(please don't think I'm shilling or whatever - I never post my content on this board).

Kinda surprised that such obvious symbolism flew over my head, feeling kinda dumb now, thank you for explaining though - I guess I was just distracted by the "shock value" of the scene to really dig into its meaning.

Saw it in the cinema when it came out, was thoroughly engrossed, although I did think the fox scene, specifically the part with the dialogue looked puppet-y (and damn it when I get a dog I'm gonna spend all my spare time teaching it to say "chaos reigns")...

yeah, anyway, I actually lol'd in the cinema during the cock/blood scene due to how fake it looked.

Not quite a masterpiece.

>I don't know about "preachy", but I can definitely see why some people would think his films are a tad "pretentious"
What I mean is that there's a lot of stuff where even the characters in the movie will explain 'humans are like this' and whatnot, where the movie will pretty much outright state criticisms of human nature, rather than having it be a theme you need to read into.
I actually found Nymphomaniac to be even more like that, to the point where it kind of annoyed me, even as I guess a 'fan' of Trier. I might give it another watch some, though, and maybe I'll appreciate it more. I'll check out this video of yours and get back to you if I feel like I have anything worth adding.

>and damn it when I get a dog I'm gonna spend all my spare time teaching it to say "chaos reigns"
genuinely kek'd

Damn, I wish I had the chance to see it at the cinema, and yeah I don't think it's a masterpiece either (obviously, only 10/10 films imo I can consider masterpieces) but I thought someone else might think that, and I'd respect that.

>Damn, I wish I had the chance to see it at the cinema
It played at one film festival I know of in my country(and in a bigger city than mine), then I saw it 6+ months after pirating it on the shelves at my local rental store. I've barely seen it anywhere since, except occasionally for $10 among a swarm of other Blu-Rays.

Alright, thanks man. Yeah I definitely agree about the "preachy" aspect being a major flaw in the Nymphomaniac films, even though I kinda enjoyed it... (guilty pleasure?) and thought it sparked some genuinely interesting conversations, but yeah, I can't deny that it felt unnatural most of the time. However, I never really found this aspect to be as distracting or blatant in his other films.

The only time I really went out of my way to see a film at the cinema was when I went to see 'The Neon Demon' - drove like 3 hours with my friend to another city just to catch the last screening at midnight.

I'm tempted to get Antichrist on Blu-Ray but the UK release looks ugly and the writing is inverted (and the design differs from all my other Artificial Eye Blu-Rays) so it triggers my OCD. I'm fine with my DVD of it for now, the quality doesn't seem to be bad.

Von Trier is a proponent of Brecht. It's supposed to be artificial or stagey, because it's more about the message he's trying to say.

Dogville is great, definitely made me think a little about drama/theatre studies and its influence (I hated those classes, though, fuck college).

I'll be back in like 30 minutes everyone, so apologies for the lack of replies for that time - I need to get some breakfast (I didn't expect people to engage as much in this thread though, so that's a pleasant surprise).

Are there more movies like this that have an eerie and frightening atmosphere? I don't remember much of the movie but i remember that feeling and it's rare to see it done well

So... is this film against or in favor of misogyny?
I've watched it two times but I still can't figure out what it's trying to say

Yeah, while it constantly bugs me that characters are always explaining human nature, or even outright explaining what the other character they're speaking to is doing, it's still somewhat true about people in general. So many characters in his films have moments where they act like psychiatrists, saying "you only say that because you want X" or whatever, but I expect that from his films and it doesn't pull me out of the film too much.

I just finished watching your video and, despite the production qualities obviously being indicative of early work, it was fairly well presented. I'll check out some more of your videos at some point too, if I manage to get around to it.
I'd recommend recording closer to a reasonably decent microphone(maybe even what you used for that video would work) to cut down on reverb. It sounds like the whole video was recorded with you in front of the camera, and a few feet away from the mic', so recording closer up at a lower volume would mean it's more of your voice and less echo off the walls.

you're a fucking idiot if you think a pro misogynist movie would get distribution.

this isn't adult swim.

Dude you seem really excited. But nobody cares.

And you don't have to tag yourself as the OP.

I care. I don't see enough discussion about Trier without the thread being full of people who outright hate him. It's cool to see a thread without people discussing flaws and qualities at the same time.

>without people discussing flaws and qualities at the same time.
Fuck, I mean with, not without. I reworked my sentence and didn't proof read, my bad.

Holy shit. Kill yourself.

>explain
>explain
>explain
>kek
>replying to literally every reply

>replying to literally every reply
He made the thread and every single one of those posts he replied to were responding to his OP. Of course he replied to them.

>explain
>explain
>explain
>explain
Yes, such worthwhile discussion.

Yeah, god forbid he ask someone to tell him more about their opinion. What he really should've done is call them a faggot and tell them to fuck off for not thinking the same things he does.

>expecting people on Sup Forums to actually explain their opinion.
xD

>ACTUALLY asking for an explanation of an opinion based on a movie which you should be able to see yourself.

Gee, it's like you want to not be a pleb or something.