you're right. I saw this film over a year ago and it still haunts me. Very good film for me but not for others. I respect it highly for so many reasons.
Automysogyny? She developed a self-loathing, but also this expanded to possibly include misandry as well. She tortured him, and herself. She really hated sexual pleasure (her and his) that caused her to not react immediately to her child falling. Although she did have a cruel sadistic streak in her regarding the child's shoes. It reminded me of the oreintal practice of hobbling.
Speaking of Possession, that movie is so vastly superior in my mind, it is actually haunting, pure chaos and insane that Antichrist despite all it's attempts at shocks wishes it could achieve.
Kermode often talks about Lars von Trier's films, particulary about how much he hates Breaking the Waves and The Idiots, But I've never heard him talk about Dancer In The Dark. Does anyone know whether he liked that film or not?
It's a solid enough review. I'm going to check it out. One thing though, Mark seems adamant that Von Trier is a trickster and his film is mysoginistic (spelling?) in this review, but when Dafoe shot him down about that in the last interview, Mark went quiet on it. No point arguing it now.
Well I've now seen the film and I can safely say that all the hype about it being utterly depraved, sick and disgusting is completely unfounded. Yes it has some uncomfortable scenes that are both irksome and wince inducing but no way should this film be censored or even considered to be banned as those so called controversial scenes are important and integral to the story and themes of the film.
Every time Kermode starts to get me back in side he does videos like this. He interviewed Dafoe and he shot down everything he’s said, and then to say that Dafoe knows less about the movie that he helped make is absurd. If this was a popcorn, bums-on-seats movie then I may agree, but with a movie like this it’s so wrong. Ironically, Kermode is as guilty of trying to deliberately provoke a reaction as Von Trier is, and to stick by your guns even when the people who made the movie have told you you’re wrong? Arrogance rather than opinion I think
@ׂ yeh i don't fully understand Kermodes points on Von Trier being misogynistic. its clear to me that antichrist is, in a sense, a misogynistic film, but the message of the movie is not misogynistic. It looks at misogyny then turns that into eventual misanthropy. But if anyone comes out of this movie thinking 'oh women are all witches and children of satan' then they're are not even close to the message of the movie. This is similar to Kermode on breaking the waves. that movie has a theme of misogyny, but in no way is the message misogynistic. the whole ending of breaking the waves where the main girl (sorry forgot the name) gets into heaven with the bells ringing isn't saying what she did was the right thing and should have happened, it's very clearly meant as a satirical joke. it wasn't a 'look at this girl doing all this and getting terrible stuff done to her, but don't worry this treatment was for the good', it was more like 'look at this naive girl getting all this terrible stuff done to her how awful, but at least she earned gods grace lol'. It was clearly ridiculing the events that took place, not glorifying them in any way.
I love Mark's reviews. He's the only critic I listen to. Also, I totally agree with the cinematography - it's just stunning. I know nothing about film making, I'm a nurse, but it really was breathtaking.
Breaking the Waves was filmed where I live. I actually loved it, but it is definitely masoginistic. It's beautiful though and the church's/grave yard portrayal is spot-on. There are places up here in the islands that women still aren't allowed to attend.
The fox saying "chaos reigns" is hilarious so I can't take this film too seriously Lars Von Trier, to me, is the king of taking one idea and running with it for the length of a movie. Sometimes it works, most times [for me] though, it isn't enough. I didn't like Antichrist that much, however Charlotte Gainsbourg and Willem DaFoe give really good performances..... :)
I haven't seen it in years but i remember a scene where he finds photos that indicate she has been putting the wrong shoes on her child to deform his feet, it freaked me out.
That was the hardest hitting moment for me too. My son was born with Bilateral Talipes and I had to shackle his feet into his corrective boots for years, sometimes against his will, so seeing the shoes put on to steadily deform was jolting.
I really want to see Antichrist but no cinemas in my area are showing it which is annoying. Gonna have to see if I can find it online anywhere or just wait several months for the DVD.
I just recently viewed this movie and I agree with this review. For me the Ah-ha moment was the Childs shoes. She even points it out that he really is inattentive about her and the Child.Just shocking is the fact that the Childs shoes were being put on incorrectly long enough to deform the Childs foot. How inattentive do you have to be to not notice something so obvious.
I keep on doing 180 degree turns on my opinion of Von Trier. Right now I think he is a genius, if a little misguided, but so are a lot of directors I appreciate. Long may Von Trier continue to make films I say.
There were a lot of interesting things going on in the film. A lot of the scenamatography was really well done. But before seeing this film I had never felt literally physically ill (like my head was spinning and if I didn`t stop, close my eyes, and lay down I would have thrown up) until I saw this film. That was only at the end though and I pleasantly watched everything leading up till then. But yeah it was an experience, all beit a less than comfortable one.
@petertyson2 It's extremely graphic though, I found it disturbing, but then you're right that what you see works with the themes of the film. Certain parts were shocking, but that's the point. It's a film I don't think I'll ever forget.
I like it bc it's so weird and I can't figure it out. I haven't seen a single review that I felt really got to the heart of the movie. I need an explanation for why she was abusing her child with those shoes, and why she didn't act when she saw him ready to jump out the window. It seems largely tied up with sex , rather she's really terrified of being alone, that's why she didn't interrupt sex with her husband to save the child, why she doesn't leave her husband when she knows he's not really interested in her (until she became his patient) and he's super arrogant, why she puts so much emphasis on pleasing him with sex all the time. Yep, that explains everything but abusing her son.
@frodonet Depends on what you mean by disturbing. If you're put off watching the film because you've been told that it's a gross out gorefest horror film then you've been misled. It's more psychological in it's interrpretation of horrofic themes, there is very little in the way of gore or bloodshed apart from one or two scenes which in themselves are not particularly gory but do make the viewer wince.On the whole it's a film about female psychosexuality....if that helps, lol.
It's completely true what Kermode says about the hysteria and fuss that the film has kicked up, critics and journos saying that it's disgusting and depraved without actually seeing it makes them all part of what the director is trying to create in the first place. How can anyone have anykind of judgement on something that they have yet to witness?...It's ridiculous.
It's a challenging film and gruelling to watch, if you don't know it is why are you watching it. And he has a point about shocking films, it's not simply an "easy and pretentious way to dismiss criticism." Shocking films are going to disgust and shock, as they are intended, and therefore garner negative reactions, it does not affect whether or not it is a good film.
kermod is the smartest critic . most crittics miss the point of films . or win a film is artsy they say its great or by an artsy filaker they say yeag to everthing mark is smart in that respect
If there's a message in the movie I didnt get it. It felt as though there would be one, which in return made me feel dissapointed that I propably missed something important in the film and left me confused. I was waiting for the point in the movie where it started to make sense to me. I guess this is just not my type of movie.
The misogyny is commented on but it's not the subject of the movie at all it's just an outlet and railroad for his commentary on grief. They're both going through grief. To attempt to say you know more than the person who played the character on screen because "You've seen it" is ludicrous. I hate how pretentious this review is.
Antichrist is what Don’t Look Now would have been if LVT had the rights. Fantastic cinematography and visual metaphors. But dull as dishwater for the most part. Take away the tokenistic ‘shock’ images and what is left?
I think that Antichrist is not a horror film but a psychological thriller! I looked at a few reviews of this movie and I think you all have missed what Trier actually wants to say with this film!
He says man and woman because the characters in the film are nameless, simply they are referred to as He and She a slight nod to the biblical Adam and Eve story.
i didn't get misogyny, how can it be about misogyny when the main male character is so supportive and caring about his wife (until the end where he has no choice ). i think it's more about grief and the darkside in general. mark kermode takes himself waaaay too seriously.
Maybe you missed the part where the woman condemns all women and says they're evil, citing witchcraft as a source. The line, "Women don't have control over their bodies, nature does" after the movie logically concluded that nature is evil should make it clear that misogyny is at play. Oh, hot tip: men aren't the only creatures capable of misogyny.
@Sammy R. He also thought he knew better than medical professionals and decided to take charge of his wife's recovery himself, so it feels like his arrogance is also on trial throughout the film.
Misogyny, just like other personality disorders, as a general rule is just not seen, recognized or admitted by those that suffer from it. Even though they are the ones to get most offended, mad or roll their eyes even at the mention of the word. It is very rare that they full on admit it, but when they do, flimsy justification, even some form of spiteful "sincerity " for why they are the way they are ensues.
It's not a great film. Von Trier has borrowed so widely from various horror genres that it just appears as an amusing caricature. The boy's fall from the window is done in an oddly gentle fashion - removing the emotional impact from this event. Cinematography is stunning, but the main body of the movie seems oddly bereft of the usual musical cues, leaving it very difficult to empathise with the characters. Over all, quite pretty in parts but with silly violence, very flawed.
No, it's entirely because of what I mentioned, which is well known to anyone who is familiar to Kermode, and indeed is a negative point to even his most rabid devotees. Face it, Kermode is held up as the eptiome of 'telling it like it is' by his fanbase, but he is just as biased, prejudiced and a sell-out as any other reviewer - and in this case, it's not even really his own opinions!!
I think he is right actually. But I think lars Von trier and Defoe have internalised their misogyny so in line with their truth, that to them it’s not misogyny - it’s nature. Misogyny is not an adequate word for the level of hopelessness and disgust they have for the female as an archetype. This is a tragic thing to grapple with, but the movie is a complete tragedy
I can't believe this is on sky tv uncut, and now I have seen it I can say that antichrist is rubbish, boring with unnecessary graphic scenes(which i'm nomally for). its cinematography is really nice, but the porno bits and the womans over the top mental breakdown ruined the film, maybe this film could be good with a bit of editing
Actually I've noticed that. While I certainly enjoy Dr Kermode, he does come across as a typical Guardian reading, middle class man with a rather lofty opinion of idea's which have no connection to the real world, apart from the Uni canvass or the BBC canteen. Even more ironic, for a man that talks a lot about 'class politics', many of his targets (Danny Dyer springs to mind) are often mocked because they are populist and 'working class'
I'd love it if they showed one of the nastier clips in the film... it's an important film, but it's got some of the most extreme and shocking images I've ever seen. See it, but be sure to be in a stable fram of mind when you do.
Kermode is very likable but I disagree with nearly everything he says about films. The man thinks The Exorcist is the greatest film ever made, for christsake. And The Idiots is Von Trier's best film! I do agree that Antichrist and Posession are very similar though. Good point, Mr Kermode.
You say Antichrist has similarities to Possession 1981. Well if any of you people hesitate which one too choose the answer is given. Possession 1981 because that is a true masterpiece compared to this mediocre von Trier film. Or choose Haneke's La Pianiste which is also miles better than Antichrist.
Funny how we're never explained what makes this film so **UTTERLY, ABSOLUTELY, COMPLETELY, EXTREMELY** "misogynistic" despite the reviewer hysterically yelling and screaming over a dozen times that it is without a doubt...
Can anyone give examples of how misogyny runs thru this film as a theme? I'll start: The husband is conceited and controlling enough of his wife to believe that he can cure her when it's against his professional code to work with someone that close to him. He uses it as an opportunity to lord it over her how emotionally mature he is compared to her. It's patronising. What else?
Virtually everything stated in this review is factually inaccurate. Embarrassing lack of understanding and research. It's one thing to have ignorant opinions as an audience members, it's an entirely another to pass one's self off as a professional.
If you don't know what Antichrist is about or whether it is any good, this review does nothing to help you. Here's a review: it's really boring, mostly nothing happens and when it does it happens for no reason except one character is insane and also their environment is totally surreal.
I love Possession and when I saw it I thought "I'd love to see more movies like this". But I can't stomach Lars Von Trier's endless pretentious ramblings and god awful movies
I totally disagree. This film is the emperor's new clothes. Quite simply it's the worst film I've ever seen. It's so full of itself and it's made quite obviously by a pretentious idiot. I've wasted two hours of my life on it and that's all I'll waste. Mark Kermode is full of it.
Right, I'm tired of the debate, folks. I'll sort this out right now for you all. "AntiChrist" review: Nothing happens... Nothing happens... Nothing happens.... Talking fox... Nothing happens... Nothing happens... 20 or so minutes of violence bolted on... End credits. Boring, pretentious load of tripe.
