542 Antichrist

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
foofighters7
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:27 pm
Location: Local

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#326 Post by foofighters7 » Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:05 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:Even if a film lacks what one perceives as intellectual substance, does that warrant an evaluation of the film that amounts to "It was so bad it's not even worth discussing - it was just made to provoke the viewer"? No movie deserves that kind of vague dismissal without some examples to back it up.
Clearly, you haven't seen 'The Pest'.

AfterTheRain
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:42 pm

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#327 Post by AfterTheRain » Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:43 pm

foofighters7 wrote:
mfunk9786 wrote:Even if a film lacks what one perceives as intellectual substance, does that warrant an evaluation of the film that amounts to "It was so bad it's not even worth discussing - it was just made to provoke the viewer"? No movie deserves that kind of vague dismissal without some examples to back it up.
Clearly, you haven't seen 'The Pest'.
Or Bless the Child. That movie was (dare I say it?) GOD-AWFUL!

User avatar
Murdoch
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:59 pm
Location: Upstate NY

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#328 Post by Murdoch » Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:02 pm

Yeah, but nothing beats [insert hated movie here]

User avatar
MyNameCriterionForum
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:27 am

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#329 Post by MyNameCriterionForum » Tue Apr 13, 2010 12:12 am

The only films I take seriously have genital mutilation

User avatar
HistoryProf
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:48 am
Location: KCK

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#330 Post by HistoryProf » Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:57 am

I'm kind of bummed nobody took domino up on his ICP challenge.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#331 Post by domino harvey » Tue Apr 13, 2010 7:22 am

Guess no one else is down with the clown

User avatar
MyNameCriterionForum
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:27 am

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#332 Post by MyNameCriterionForum » Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:17 am

domino harvey wrote:Guess no one else is down with the clown
I'd attempt a joke here about a certain unreleased Jerry Lewis film, but I've been frowned upon for that already more than once.

Nothing
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:04 am

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#333 Post by Nothing » Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:24 am

zedz wrote:His complaint, and that of many others, is that the film lacks intellectual content worth engaging
Which would be fine, if this claim weren't such absolute bullshit - if Antichrist wasn't, in fact, bursting with ideas (to demand that these ideas be 'coherent' is also a nonsense, for a film whose underlying treaty is that 'chaos reigns'). One can only conclude that HistoryProf and zedz simply find the intellectual content of the film so repugnant, such a challenge to their own viewpoints, that they wish to dismiss it out of hand.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#334 Post by knives » Sat Apr 17, 2010 12:38 pm

Couldn't I throw that back at you and say that you are ultimately repulsed at yourself that you could enjoy something that is ultimately intellectually empty and are scrambling to find something to explain your entertainment? Is it possible that LVT just took the most controversial subjects he could find and make simple provocation out of it? Maybe there is some genuine intellectual intent behind it all, but it is so covered up by LVT's need for attention and fears of being seen as 'uncool' that even though he has a fear of being misunderstood to the point of overexplaining things his immaturity is what is at the forefront rather than any sort of statement he may have?

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#335 Post by domino harvey » Sat Apr 17, 2010 12:56 pm

Short-cut to participating in the Antichrist Thread "Debate":
You're stupid for liking the film / You're stupid for disliking the film (Circle one)

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#336 Post by Mr Sausage » Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:22 pm

A quick tip for engaging in arguments: avoid claiming to know the needs and fears of people you do not know personally. It's not a falsifiable position, so it's not admissable.

User avatar
HistoryProf
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:48 am
Location: KCK

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#337 Post by HistoryProf » Sat Apr 17, 2010 3:19 pm

Nothing wrote:
zedz wrote:His complaint, and that of many others, is that the film lacks intellectual content worth engaging
Which would be fine, if this claim weren't such absolute bullshit - if Antichrist wasn't, in fact, bursting with ideas (to demand that these ideas be 'coherent' is also a nonsense, for a film whose underlying treaty is that 'chaos reigns'). One can only conclude that HistoryProf and zedz simply find the intellectual content of the film so repugnant, such a challenge to their own viewpoints, that they wish to dismiss it out of hand.
yeah....uhm....no. not really even close. and Knives already explained why this is so incredibly disingenuous so there's really no need to perpetuate the you're wrong/no you're wrong debate.

I'm glad you found the movie so stimulating and full of ideas. Why can't you accept that others might not have? do you NEED to be "right"? do you NEED this movie to be some profound statement on the nature of man?

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Do we really need a Rudeness 101 here?

#338 Post by domino harvey » Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:12 pm

Saying that a film has no ideas rather than saying it has ideas you fail to engage with again is a slam on the fans of the film as much as the film itself, and it's as unnecessary as slamming those who disliked the film for not "getting" it without extrapolating on what there is to get. It's one thing to make strong, reasoned arguments for or against a film, but when you suggest that those who do not share your opinion are worth less intellectually and/or are merely bamboozled one way or the other, as though they were sheeple unaware of the necessary insight you possess, that is just awful behavior. Open criticism of any film is open, welcome, encouraged here. But this argument has devolved into criticizing posters based on their tastes, not based on the quality of their arguments-- I know we're all snobs here, but Christ, can we not eat our own on the safe haven of the board?

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#339 Post by knives » Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:34 pm

I would just like to point out that I believe the movie has ideas but LVT just doesn't mold it into something worthwhile. His personality overpowers whatever it is he is trying to say. Another, less theme minded, criticism I do have is that the writing is severely off. Some of the dialouge, particularly from She, undermines the movie at every opportunity. The biggest, and funniest, instance I can remember is when He is hiding and She is shouting things like, "You son of a bitch." That is a large part of what I mean by immature in my earlier post. The film would have worked better, at least for me, had these gratuities been removed. This may have to do with the film being in English, but I doubt it.
That said, Historyprof, your unwillingness to elaborate on your opinions while simultaneously ignoring why the people praising are praising the film is just a bad as Nothing's similar behavior from the otherside. Try to engage with your opposition here, and in The Box thread, and the board as a whole will be more cohesive.

AfterTheRain
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:42 pm

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#340 Post by AfterTheRain » Sat Apr 17, 2010 7:33 pm

domino harvey wrote:Short-cut to participating in the Antichrist Thread "Debate":
You're stupid for liking the film / You're stupid for disliking the film (Circle one)
Can it be both? (Hypothetically speaking)

User avatar
HistoryProf
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:48 am
Location: KCK

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#341 Post by HistoryProf » Sun Apr 18, 2010 2:56 am

knives wrote:I would just like to point out that I believe the movie has ideas but LVT just doesn't mold it into something worthwhile. His personality overpowers whatever it is he is trying to say. Another, less theme minded, criticism I do have is that the writing is severely off. Some of the dialouge, particularly from She, undermines the movie at every opportunity. The biggest, and funniest, instance I can remember is when He is hiding and She is shouting things like, "You son of a bitch." That is a large part of what I mean by immature in my earlier post. The film would have worked better, at least for me, had these gratuities been removed. This may have to do with the film being in English, but I doubt it.
That said, Historyprof, your unwillingness to elaborate on your opinions while simultaneously ignoring why the people praising are praising the film is just a bad as Nothing's similar behavior from the otherside. Try to engage with your opposition here, and in The Box thread, and the board as a whole will be more cohesive.
well, for one, I haven't really read much here that does engage or encourage discussion...suggestions of symbolism and reinforcing the incongruous threads from prologue to epilogue by arguing it is a purposeful fulfillment of a talking fox proclaiming "Chaos Reigns" doesn't really work for me (never mind still born does hanging out of bambi and other assorted animal kingdom atrocities) I'm not sure why the onus is on me to elaborate on an opinion that I most certainly was not alone in expressing - and I did explain why I felt the way I did, however briefly.

But if you want a longer explanation of what I've already echoed from other comments in this very thread: I thought the film was at once tedious and tendentious. I think he's taking a piss with this one, and put just enough weirdness in the first 3/4 that we are awaiting some great reveal in the last act, only to see him instead resort to hypersexualized violence directed at the genitals of both main characters. He gets away with it because it IS beautifully shot. Visually there are some stunning images. but that's all they are...pretty pictures. When we get to actual content, I don't know what he's saying in those acts, and frankly, I don't care - but I bet he laughed at points while doing it, knowing that it would cause a shitstorm of criticism. And that is precisely why I can't take it seriously...it's all too contrived to provoke anger and despair - not from ideas, but debasement.

I get the sense that the film - as he admitted emanated from an exercise in coping with extreme depression - is a mishmash of hazy ideas on the nature of despair and an attempt to reveal what lies at the heart of his own depressive tendencies - which he then tried to disguise by tacking on some veneer of "women are the root of all evil" as a chauvinistic affront to distract from the utter selfishness lying at its heart. Or maybe he really doesn't like women. I don't know. What I do know, however, is that this film did not ask me anything profound. It instead asked me to indulge an egomaniac as he tried to assault the viewer with incoherent pretension followed by the nastiest climax in film history.

I had no emotional reaction to it. It felt, as I said, vacuous and contrived. That's about the best I can do. And for the record, the Box - an even more incoherent mess of a film - is similar in many respects, though at least in that one I think there are actually ideas behind it, however desultory and unformed. I don't see why responding to a post and agreeing with it by noting my own dissatisfaction inspires such vitriol. I've never yet begrudged anyone's freedom to love whatever they want....why can't that same courtesy be extended to those who dislike something? is there an exclusive club or post point to which snarky one liners are reserved? It seems quite a few people specialize in such posting, but simply agreeing with them is cause for attack? And Knives' insulting insinuation is a particularly imperious example of such caustic combativeness. I don't get it. I've never once spoke to anyone here in such a manner, and never will. To each their own seems a foreign concept here.

Nothing
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:04 am

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#342 Post by Nothing » Sun Apr 18, 2010 3:45 am

domino harvey wrote:Short-cut to participating in the Antichrist Thread "Debate":
You're stupid for disliking the film
Not stupid, just a little dishonest (perhaps even to themselves). In fact, if they had said they disliked or disagreed with or were uninterested in the ideas/substance of the film, I would not be drawing this conclusion. However, to say the film "has no substance" is simply the best way of not having to engage with that substance, not having to engage with Trier's (troubling and politically incorrect) world view. That the claim is almost always accompanied by a personal attack on Trier himself, the suggestion that he is insincere, incompetent, simply provoking his audience for the sake of it (ie. justification and excuses as to why one shouldn't even try to engage with the substance of the film), should make the tenuousness of the response all the more obvious to a non-biased observer.

As for knives' retort, this simply doesn't work - the numerous hefty posts on this thread discussing the themes and implication of the film go far beyond 'scrabbling'. Ultimately, you cannot deny that the film provoked a lot more thoughts and feelings in people than, say, Transformers 2.
HistoryProf wrote:a chauvinistic affront... maybe he really doesn't like women.
Surprise! So, in fact, the philosophy of the film offended you - exactly as I said.

User avatar
HistoryProf
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:48 am
Location: KCK

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#343 Post by HistoryProf » Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:29 pm

Nothing wrote:
HistoryProf wrote:a chauvinistic affront... maybe he really doesn't like women.
Surprise! So, in fact, the philosophy of the film offended you - exactly as I said.
good lord....NO. way to take a snippet out of context. As I said, by the end of it, I didn't really CARE what the point was, it was all so obviously a self flagellating exercise in misanthropy that I just didn't care ('He' is repugnant in his own right). I was not remotely "offended" by anything in it.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#344 Post by swo17 » Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:02 pm

HistoryProf wrote:it was all so obviously a self flagellating exercise in misanthropy
Again, this is obviously not obvious to many people who liked the film. You're insinuating that anyone who disagrees with you is too thick to realize they're not supposed to care. Not to mention, your insistence on repeating your opinion over and over here hardly comes across as the action of someone who saw a film and didn't care about it.

User avatar
HistoryProf
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:48 am
Location: KCK

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#345 Post by HistoryProf » Sun Apr 18, 2010 10:35 pm

swo17 wrote:
HistoryProf wrote:it was all so obviously a self flagellating exercise in misanthropy
Again, this is obviously not obvious to many people who liked the film. You're insinuating that anyone who disagrees with you is too thick to realize they're not supposed to care. Not to mention, your insistence on repeating your opinion over and over here hardly comes across as the action of someone who saw a film and didn't care about it.
i'm officially under the influence of crazy pills. because there's no way you just criticized me for explaining myself after being badgered into doing so because earlier posts were apparently insufficient for some as evidence that I give a rats ass about the film at this point. To be honest, I never want to hear about this movie ever again, let alone think about it, see it, or own it. The thin skinned bickering over a few people criticizing it is beyond ridiculous - particularly given that no one has yet explained what exactly is so great about it. So it is incredibly deep and meaningful full of ideas and questions. awesome. I don't agree. so fucking what. love it to your hearts content...revel in its genius and ponder it's philosophical implications on the very nature of man.

I'm going to go watch Always Sunny in Philadelphia - because I feel like i'm caught in an episode of it.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Forthcoming: Antichrist

#346 Post by Mr Sausage » Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:28 pm

Guys, knock it off already.

We all get it. Fine. Now let's talk about the movie itself and not bicker any more about the way other members may or may not be talking about it. Any other posts in this vein will be deleted.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: 542 Antichrist

#348 Post by cdnchris » Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:07 am

To be released by Criterion in November. Information added to first post.

Zombie-Luv
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: 542 Antichrist

#349 Post by Zombie-Luv » Tue Aug 17, 2010 6:58 am

One word: FINALLY.

User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

Re: 542 Antichrist

#350 Post by Tommaso » Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:42 am

Extras seem not to exceed the UK/French/German edition except for the booklet, but finally the film is released with a cover design that does justice to it, so I'm glad I waited.

Post Reply