ANTICHRIST Post Release

[Parker]

Originally Posted by Andre Dellamorte

A lot of people love that movie, but it's a moment of ruination. It - literally - invalidates everything we've seen and the character has gone through, though I guess you could argue that it's job. Most of the people I had talked to on release didn't have a problem with it, so I was happy when I mentioned this to Beaks he had the exact same response.

I understand this criticism, but in a movie about faith I don't see the problem with the ending. I don't think it invalidates anything if you look at it from the point of view of the characters on the rig and their perception of it. I don't think you can look at the ending and say "this deffinetly means one thing" anymore than you can look at the ending of Antichrist and durive one finite reading from it. Von Trier loves messing with expectations, and Breaking the Waves is no different. I think the moment is brilliant, personally. Because you might want to read it one way (proof of god, proof of gods acceptance of Bess and her actions) but then that forces you to question whether or not that's real, whether or not makes sense, whether or not god exists and if he does why he's condoning this behavior to begin with. I think its important that the only people to hear it/experience it are the guys on the rig. It has more to do with them, less to do with God.

[Andre Dellamorte]

No, because of the point of view. You can't extrapolate we've entered the character's perspective at that moment, because we have never done it before. Again, I go to The Passion of Joan of Arc, if this is her faith and these are the lengths she is willing to go to prove it (and JoA was a most obvious influence) then the point would be God's existence is irrelevant. If we hear the bells it could be anything, but Von Trier is saying that God exists in that one shot.

I guess if you come at the movie from the perspective that God exists and everything she does is reasonable, then perhaps that's fair, but for much of the film the character's willing degradation of herself seems a bit out there. But then also, you already have her dying for her husband's sins, him coming back to life and walking, etc, and then you have the bells. Which are heard, and then you show them. That's not the tonality or the intelligence of the rest of the film. It's a rim shot. Which is why it makes me so upset. Von Trier is intentionally saying "fuck you." Which is fine, and also why I haven't bothered with many of his films until Anti-Christ.

[Ryan S~]

Originally Posted by Andre Dellamorte

I guess if you come at the movie from the perspective that God exists and everything she does is reasonable, then perhaps that's fair, but for much of the film the character's willing degradation of herself seems a bit out there. But then also, you already have her dying for her husband's sins, him coming back to life and walking, etc, and then you have the bells. Which are heard, and then you show them. That's not the tonality or the intelligence of the rest of the film. It's a rim shot. Which is why it makes me so upset. Von Trier is intentionally saying "fuck you." Which is fine, and also why I haven't bothered with many of his films until Anti-Christ.

I think that's exactly it. Up to this point it's been a pretty deadly serious movie but the ending hits like a punchline. It feels like Von Trier is laughing at the audience for buying in to the movie.

[Parker]

Originally Posted by Ryan S~

I think that's exactly it. Up to this point it's been a pretty deadly serious movie but the ending hits like a punchline. It feels like Von Trier is laughing at the audience for buying in to the movie.

See, I didn't see that at the end of the film at all. And I don't think that was Von Trier's intention.

From a Sight and Sound interview:

SB: 'Breaking the Waves' has a deeply religious background. Why did you want to give the film that?

LvT: Probably because I'm religious myself. I'm a Catholic, but I don't worship Catholicism for Catholicism's own sake. I have felt the need to experience a sense of belonging with a religious community, because my parents were convinced atheists. I flirted with religion quite a bit as a youngster. You perhaps search for a more extreme religion as a youngster. You either go to Tibet or seek out the most rigorous of all faiths. With total abstinence and such like. I think I have a more Dreyer-like view of the whole thing. Because Dreyer's religious view is in essence humanistic. He also accuses religion in all his films. Religion is accursed, but not God. It's like that as well in Breaking the Waves.

SB: You describe religion as a power-structure in the film. The mechanics and enigma of power are things that you have treated in several of your films.

LvT: My intention has not been to criticize a particular religious community, such as the one that exists in this Scottish environment. That doesn't interest me. That is far too simplistic. And it's nothing I want to concern myself with. To adopt a viewpoint that is easily accessible and universally applicable. That's like fishing in shallow water. In many ways I also have an understanding for - or rather, that people are engaged by spiritual questions and that they are so in an extreme manner. It is just that, if you want to create a melodrama, you have to furnish it with certain obstacles. And religion provided me with a suitable obstacle.

SB: Bess' conversation with God has a directness and intensity which gives the religious motif a human voice.

LvT: Bess is also an expression of the same religion. Religion is her foundation and she accepts its conditions completely. In the burial scene at the beginning, for instance, the priest condemns the deceased to eternal damnation in hell, something that Bess finds quite natural. She has no scruples with regard to that. It is we that have them. Bess is confronted with many different power-structures, including the power that the hospital and the doctors exercise. And she's forced to adopt a position with the purity of heart that she possesses.

I think the ending does make a decision for you, an intentional decision, to show god has accepted Bess into heaven. I think of it as a similar decision used by Scorsese in The Last Temptation of Christ. We don't "know" that Christ is god anymore than we know that there is a god in Breaking the Waves. We have to take the films word at the end that his marriage to Mary isn't a dying induced fantasy and is, instead, temptation from the devil. The movie pretty much makes up its mind in favor for divinity. What's the problem with Von Trier doing the same? You could look at that final shot not only as evidence of God, but the point of view of Von Trier himself, as the creator (god) of this film. "Here is what I believe, as a religious person. This woman did the right thing, despite the fact that her intentions might have been morally ambiguous to us and devilish in the eyes of organized religion."

I don't know. I guess I can see why you would have a problem with it. But I don't see how you could think it's a joke. I just don't read it that way at all.

[Phil]

I haven't seen Breaking the Waves yet, but would be interested in reading more thoughts about Antichrist. No snark, someone holler when we're back on topic. Danke.

[Andre Dellamorte]

Her husband is able to walk again and is restored. Bells can be heard . Then, to top it all off, we see the bells in heaven. The very narratvie of the film suggests the filmmaker believes that what Bess has done is right, because there is causation and effect. But to prolong and explain the bell moment is to rob it of its meaning and simplicity, because the film already made up its mind. I don't think what Scorsese was doing compares in any way, unless Scorsese came out and said (in person) "And that's how Jesus Died for our sins"

[joeypants]

Originally Posted by Phil

I haven't seen Breaking the Waves yet, but would be interested in reading more thoughts about Antichrist. No snark, someone holler when we're back on topic. Danke.

Hear, hear. No offense to everyone else, but it's hard because this is the only Von Trier film I've seen (something I'm going to remedy soon).

However, I understand the sidetracking because from everything I read, Von Trier puts a lot of himself into all his films, and they all seem relevant to dissecting/understanding Antichrist.

[Parker]

Originally Posted by Phil

I haven't seen Breaking the Waves yet, but would be interested in reading more thoughts about Antichrist. No snark, someone holler when we're back on topic. Danke.

I was just about to apologize for hijacking the discussion. I do think that with a film maker like this, discussion of his filmography is just a natural extension of any conversation concerning new major work, especially when said film can be read as a response to Von Trier's critics.

But you're right, the thoughts on Breaking the Waves are getting extensive at this point, so I'll bring it back to the film at hand.

What to make of the lack of religion in Antichrist? As discussed, Von Trier is a religious man but the Anti Christ in question has more to do with nature than God. Her torturing Him at the end can be seen as a counterpoint to the type of religious (and sexist) persecution woman had endured in the past. Is this a simple matter of turning the gender tables (note how She makes Him menstruate at this point). What exactly are her intentions at the end? I thinks its too easy to say "she goes crazy." To me, it makes more sense that (as He hopes) confronting her fears driver her deeper into a primitive state. Human nature takes over and leaves reason behind.

By the end, with the shots of him living off the land (sorta) are we now to assume that he's adapted a similar stance? And what to make of that final shot? Its stunning and haunting but I'll be damned if I can get any kind of analysis out of it.

[joeypants]

Originally Posted by Parker

By the end, with the shots of him living off the land (sorta) are we now to assume that he's adapted a similar stance? And what to make of that final shot? Its stunning and haunting but I'll be damned if I can get any kind of analysis out of it.

The easy interpretation is that the female force is coming to overwhelm/destroy/make him atone.

But that's a flawed and overly-simplistic view, I think. And I get a strong sense there's a lot more to it than that. Or at the least, we're meant to think about it beyond that.

[Parker]

They seem kinda indifferent to him. By the end of the shot, it seems like they're walking past him and not even paying him any mind.

[Ryan S~]

Originally Posted by joeypants

The easy interpretation is that the female force is coming to overwhelm/destroy/make him atone.

But that's a flawed and overly-simplistic view, I think. And I get a strong sense there's a lot more to it than that. Or at the least, we're meant to think about it beyond that.

Yeah. Say what you want about von Trier but his movies are never about the simplistic interpretation.

My thing is that I didn't neccesarily see the ending as meaning He was about to suffer. Maybe an acceptance of the female?

[Andre Dellamorte]

In our way we were discussing Anti Christ. Glad this film is having the penetration to get people who've never seen a Von Trier film to see one. He is inarguably one of the most important directors working today.

[Martin Blank]

Like a lot of von Trier's films, it's essentially theater, I think. I mean, it doesn't seem as if we're meant to take a lot of the third-act stuff literally (this seems obvious, but a lot of critics responded as if all the atrocities were "real" in the context of the narrative). The characters appear to be acting out ancient rituals of resentment. There's a lot of symbology rattling around and not all of it is consistent with this or that interpretation. A lot of it probably has to do with von Trier's reported state of mind at the time, i.e. depressed as fuck. On some level the film is just therapy for him. So he didn't care to make a neat allegory in which this means this and that means that and it's all very tidy and readable. As the fox now-famously says, "Chaos reigns."

[joeypants]

Originally Posted by Parker

They seem kinda indifferent to him. By the end of the shot, it seems like they're walking past him and not even paying him any mind.

Definitely. That bit starts off feeling sinister, but as it continues, I definitely got the feeling that they were more or less indifferent. Then the geography of the wide shot seems to indicate that they are indeed going past him.

Perhaps they're off to go retrieve/"absorb" their fallen comrade?

[Ryan S~]

Originally Posted by joeypants

Definitely. That bit starts off feeling sinister, but as it continues, I definitely got the feeling that they were more or less indifferent. Then the geography of the wide shot seems to indicate that they are indeed going past him.

Perhaps they're off to go retrieve/"absorb" their fallen comrade?

That's better than my interpretation but still seems too simple. Could it be something as basic as mourning? Maybe birth/death/rebirth? As She dies, He becomes more feminine (physically as well as spiritually). They mourn the loss of She but are there for He as well?

[Mr Vengeance]

Originally Posted by Ryan S~

As She dies, He becomes more feminine (physically as well as spiritually).

Would you explain this? Like lithe do you mean? Even so... he seemed the same to me.

Originally Posted by Martin Blank

Like a lot of von Trier's films, it's essentially theater, I think. I mean, it doesn't seem as if we're meant to take a lot of the third-act stuff literally (this seems obvious, but a lot of critics responded as if all the atrocities were "real" in the context of the narrative). The characters appear to be acting out ancient rituals of resentment. There's a lot of symbology rattling around and not all of it is consistent with this or that interpretation. A lot of it probably has to do with von Trier's reported state of mind at the time, i.e. depressed as fuck. On some level the film is just therapy for him. So he didn't care to make a neat allegory in which this means this and that means that and it's all very tidy and readable. As the fox now-famously says, "Chaos reigns."

That's intersting about not taking the 3rd act literally. I realized there were some things not to be taken seriously (the multiple women), but yeah what you said makes sense. I thought it pretty odd that He was totally stoic about his essentially destroyed cock.

[Phil]

A friend who saw this referred to the blurred women at the end as "the ghosts of Salem witches"...maybe?

[joeypants]

My girlfriend felt like She sort of "sacrificed" herself in a loosely Jesus-esque way, freeing all those faceless women (all women?) at the end from their inherent evil.

[Alan "Nordling" Cerny]

Looks like ANTICHRIST opens wide (or wider, anyway) this weekend. After all this discussion I feel like this is a movie I need to see in the theater.

[joeypants]

Originally Posted by Alan "Nordling" Cerny

Looks like ANTICHRIST opens wide (or wider, anyway) this weekend. After all this discussion I feel like this is a movie I need to see in the theater.

I'd love to see it with a larger audience, for obvious reasons.

Given how un-arty my area is, I'd love to see how many walk outs it would get. Especially because with a title like that, it would lure in plenty of dipshit Saw fans and the like.

[Alan "Nordling" Cerny]

It's playing at the arthouse theater, so I don't expect any walkouts. Most people there are savvy about what they're seeing.

It's my first Von Trier, too, so take it easy on me. I almost watched DANCER IN THE DARK once. I just really don't like Dogme style filmmaking.

[Parker]

Originally Posted by Mr Vengeance

Would you explain this? Like lithe do you mean? Even so... he seemed the same to me.

She makes him menstruate and penetrates him violently; using methods that were featured in the books she was studying that included horrible atrocities committed against women over centuries. I'm not entirely sure about why she binds that wheel to him, but I think in it way it binds him to the earth (nature). And it forces him to hide from her in the fox hole. It kinda makes sense, no?

Originally Posted by joeypants

My girlfriend felt like She sort of "sacrificed" herself in a loosely Jesus-esque way, freeing all those faceless women (all women?) at the end from their inherent evil.

Your girlfriend thinks all women are inherently evil? That's somewhat...problematic.

[joeypants]

Originally Posted by Parker

Your girlfriend thinks all women are inherently evil? That's somewhat...problematic.

No, of course not. That was a theme/idea tossed around by the characters, no?

[Parker]

Originally Posted by joeypants

No, of course not. That was a theme/idea tossed around by the characters, no?

Was it?

By the way, this reminds me of my favorite moment in the movie. Just when "He" thinks he's figured it out and realizes that "Her" biggest fear is "herself" she rushes in and clobbers him in the head. Reason fails him once again when her human nature bares its ugly teeth.

[joeypants]

I don't remember the exact quotes, but he talks to her about it after he finds her journal/thesis.

Something about the evil inflicted on the women in those photos being seen by her as evidence of women being evil? Someone help me, as more specific details are escaping me. That's right at the point in the film where everything starts to escalate at a more rapid pace, and it's a lot to take in.

I had some very interesting thoughts/observations after my second viewing that of course, managed to escape me a few hours afterwards. Should've had a notepad handy.

[BrundleFlyboy]

Originally Posted by joeypants

No, of course not. That was a theme/idea tossed around by the characters, no?

Yep, it was her that had come to the conclusion that women were inherently evil after all her research and readings. I hadn't thought about the idea of the ghost women being freed by her death being a kind of sacrifice though... I cannot wait to see it again when it hits dvd here in Blighty in January.

Nice subtle artwork they're going with over here for the DVD... looks like a fucking Saw sequel! http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?im...a%3DN%26um%3D1