2009-09-23 16:12:55
来自: Richard Mutt
(MacGuffin)
Antichrist / 反基督者的评论
Okay. I saw Antichrist last night and have taken time to reflect and think about it. The best post on this thread so far is Asnklv’s “all in all, you get what you want from this work.”
Heres MY take on Antichrist (I’m breaking it up into multiple parts to make it easier for everyone):
Overview:
Antichrist is done almost perfectly. It remains ambiguous enough that those of us looking for a deeper message, meaning or symbolism can find it in many diffrent places. It’s scary, disturbing, shocking, disgusting, etc. but its also artistic. The rampant symbolism in Antichrist is so obvious that it blows my mind when people refer to it as “torture porn” or “filthy trash.” The movie is about two people. It gives insight into their supposed “nature” and shows us in great detail what grief, pain and despair can do to them. How far can human beings be pushed by these three feelings? What would it take to make YOU finally break down or crack? Antichrist is, at its core, a portrait of tortured souls. If what happens to them is natural or just plain insanity is up to you.
Artistic Merit:
Lars uses a lot of techniques we are familiar with in Antichrist. Its very personal and a lot of it is shot with an imperfect hand which makes us feel like we are there. However, there are portions of the movie that step outside of this “documentary” style and presents us with striking (no pun intended) images rarely seen in his work. The editing is kind of unsettling and the overall atmosphere that he created for Antichrist is scary in and of itself. I think he knew exactly what he was doing and I give him a lot of credit for making bold decisions in terms of what he shows and how he shows it.
Deeper Meanings:
There is no “right answer” to Antichrist. Anyone could form any number of theories about the film.
Does it symbolize men’s fear for women’s sexuality? Or the fear of sexuality throughout history? Does it show us that humans are indeed evil by nautre? Or perhaps its trying to show us that human beings are dependant on nature to surrvive?
The following are a few of my own ideas (keep in mind that i’ve only seen it once and these are JUST opinions)
The movie is split up into 6 sections; The Prolouge, Greif, Pain, Despair, The Three Beggars and The Epilouge.
SPOILERS!!!!*
Each of the three animals He encounters are symbolic of the chapter its in. The deer is Greif, the fox is Pain, and the crow is Despair. The fact that all three of the animals come together in “The Three Beggars” supports my theory.
The deer represents grief because its in the middle of a still birth. Its still attached to it’s dead child; constantly reminded and unnable to seperate itself from the death of its baby. She feels the same way in this chapter.
The fox represents pain because its auto-canabalistic. Its hurting itself badly. She is allowing herself to be hurt continuously by what happend. The fox says “chaos regeins” to him. What could be more chaotic than putting yourself through extra pain? In this chapter both He and She are dealing with such a great amount of pain even though they arent directly at fault for what happened.
The crow represents despair because it too has lost a child and has no real purpose or reason anymore. It gives away his position and dies alone. By the time we have reached this point She is already in such great despair, pain, and greif that she projects all of her fears of nature and isolation onto HE.
In the scene where He tries to help her with the rock game, we see a baby crow being eaten by aunts, then an eagle flies in and takes it up to safety, where it then devours it for itself. He is doing the same thing to her. He tries to help but only makes things worse. Instead of facing the fact that nature is nothing to fear, she views his human nature as the most terrifing thing of all.
Her son goes off by himself while she is working on her thesis so she puts his shoes on the wrong feet to keep him from going too far. She feels evil for what she did to her son. She feels evil for letting something as trivial as the pleasure of sex keep her from saving him. She reads books about how evil men are for burning innocent women and comes to the conclusion that we are all evil by nature and need “the three beggars” to function.
By the end of the film she has acted on her deleriously evil (yet in her mind natural) impulses. She loses faith in her marraige and in herself. *BIG SPOILER* After he kills her he burns her on top of a giant pyre. He burns her like the witch that he percived her to be.
Other moments of intrest would be when he has her imagine that she is becoming one with nature- fusing herself to what she fears most.
After a brief time in Eden she realizes that the “outdoors nature” is not the nature she should be scared of. Its her husbands and her own HUMAN nature. Without letting the three beggars (greif, pain, and despair) into herself she could not have handled her sons death. There is a price that has to be paid for being human. We have naturalistic tendencies to feel these emotions after a loss. The three beggars finally came together once she had nothing left. She had lost her son, her marraige, her sex- all the things that kept her going, and then she was surrouned by grief, pain, and despair.
Final Thought:
The movie was acted superbly. The sound design was very effective and the visuals where quite entrancing. If Lars had the intention to make me think, to make me expireince something new, and to inspire me by showing me a side of people rarely displayed on film, than he succeded admirably. If you hate it, thats fine. At least it gave you strong feelings. If you love it, even better. Be thankful that we still have filimmakers willing to push limits and try risky things. A film like this one makes me excited to see where film can take me in the future.
PLEASE ASK ME QUESTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Antichrist is something to behold- and its all in the eye of the beholder.
the quote from: http://www.theauteur
Antichrist / 反基督者的评论
Okay. I saw Antichrist last night and have taken time to reflect and think about it. The best post on this thread so far is Asnklv’s “all in all, you get what you want from this work.”
Heres MY take on Antichrist (I’m breaking it up into multiple parts to make it easier for everyone):
Overview:
Antichrist is done almost perfectly. It remains ambiguous enough that those of us looking for a deeper message, meaning or symbolism can find it in many diffrent places. It’s scary, disturbing, shocking, disgusting, etc. but its also artistic. The rampant symbolism in Antichrist is so obvious that it blows my mind when people refer to it as “torture porn” or “filthy trash.” The movie is about two people. It gives insight into their supposed “nature” and shows us in great detail what grief, pain and despair can do to them. How far can human beings be pushed by these three feelings? What would it take to make YOU finally break down or crack? Antichrist is, at its core, a portrait of tortured souls. If what happens to them is natural or just plain insanity is up to you.
Artistic Merit:
Lars uses a lot of techniques we are familiar with in Antichrist. Its very personal and a lot of it is shot with an imperfect hand which makes us feel like we are there. However, there are portions of the movie that step outside of this “documentary” style and presents us with striking (no pun intended) images rarely seen in his work. The editing is kind of unsettling and the overall atmosphere that he created for Antichrist is scary in and of itself. I think he knew exactly what he was doing and I give him a lot of credit for making bold decisions in terms of what he shows and how he shows it.
Deeper Meanings:
There is no “right answer” to Antichrist. Anyone could form any number of theories about the film.
Does it symbolize men’s fear for women’s sexuality? Or the fear of sexuality throughout history? Does it show us that humans are indeed evil by nautre? Or perhaps its trying to show us that human beings are dependant on nature to surrvive?
The following are a few of my own ideas (keep in mind that i’ve only seen it once and these are JUST opinions)
The movie is split up into 6 sections; The Prolouge, Greif, Pain, Despair, The Three Beggars and The Epilouge.
SPOILERS!!!!*
Each of the three animals He encounters are symbolic of the chapter its in. The deer is Greif, the fox is Pain, and the crow is Despair. The fact that all three of the animals come together in “The Three Beggars” supports my theory.
The deer represents grief because its in the middle of a still birth. Its still attached to it’s dead child; constantly reminded and unnable to seperate itself from the death of its baby. She feels the same way in this chapter.
The fox represents pain because its auto-canabalistic. Its hurting itself badly. She is allowing herself to be hurt continuously by what happend. The fox says “chaos regeins” to him. What could be more chaotic than putting yourself through extra pain? In this chapter both He and She are dealing with such a great amount of pain even though they arent directly at fault for what happened.
The crow represents despair because it too has lost a child and has no real purpose or reason anymore. It gives away his position and dies alone. By the time we have reached this point She is already in such great despair, pain, and greif that she projects all of her fears of nature and isolation onto HE.
In the scene where He tries to help her with the rock game, we see a baby crow being eaten by aunts, then an eagle flies in and takes it up to safety, where it then devours it for itself. He is doing the same thing to her. He tries to help but only makes things worse. Instead of facing the fact that nature is nothing to fear, she views his human nature as the most terrifing thing of all.
Her son goes off by himself while she is working on her thesis so she puts his shoes on the wrong feet to keep him from going too far. She feels evil for what she did to her son. She feels evil for letting something as trivial as the pleasure of sex keep her from saving him. She reads books about how evil men are for burning innocent women and comes to the conclusion that we are all evil by nature and need “the three beggars” to function.
By the end of the film she has acted on her deleriously evil (yet in her mind natural) impulses. She loses faith in her marraige and in herself. *BIG SPOILER* After he kills her he burns her on top of a giant pyre. He burns her like the witch that he percived her to be.
Other moments of intrest would be when he has her imagine that she is becoming one with nature- fusing herself to what she fears most.
After a brief time in Eden she realizes that the “outdoors nature” is not the nature she should be scared of. Its her husbands and her own HUMAN nature. Without letting the three beggars (greif, pain, and despair) into herself she could not have handled her sons death. There is a price that has to be paid for being human. We have naturalistic tendencies to feel these emotions after a loss. The three beggars finally came together once she had nothing left. She had lost her son, her marraige, her sex- all the things that kept her going, and then she was surrouned by grief, pain, and despair.
Final Thought:
The movie was acted superbly. The sound design was very effective and the visuals where quite entrancing. If Lars had the intention to make me think, to make me expireince something new, and to inspire me by showing me a side of people rarely displayed on film, than he succeded admirably. If you hate it, thats fine. At least it gave you strong feelings. If you love it, even better. Be thankful that we still have filimmakers willing to push limits and try risky things. A film like this one makes me excited to see where film can take me in the future.
PLEASE ASK ME QUESTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Antichrist is something to behold- and its all in the eye of the beholder.
the quote from: http://www.theauteur
本评论版权属于作者Richard Mutt，并受法律保护。除非评论正文中另有声明，没有作者本人的书面许可任何人不得转载或使用整体或任何部分的内容。
导演: Lars von Trier
影名: Antichrist
编剧: Lars von Trier
制片国家/地区: 丹麦, 德国, 法国, 瑞典, 意大利, 波兰
上映日期: 2009-05-20
简体中文名: 反基督者
imdb编号: tt0870984
语言: 英语
主演: Willem Dafoe, Charlotte Gainsbourg
又名: 撒旦的情与欲, 敌基督, 反基督者
2009-10-13 06:09:55 Nastasya
we dont have any stupid question.2009-10-13 08:17:04 Richard Mutt
just a quote, don't be serious2009-10-26 16:16:42 Vic
I should say that, it is the most serious comment about movies I have ever seen: rational, persuasive, without lack of artistic sense. The writter kept his eyes on the details a lot and dig them deep enough (although only had seen once), but I would like to remind the topic a little. Antichrist, the name of the movie and the 'Lascia ch'io pianga' in the pro- and epilogue seemed to imply some symbol of reason or something strongly related to the 'nature', then the feeling such as grief, pain, and despair. And how did Lars come up with it? The answer may be referred to the very special mental condition he was in during that time. Also, that is my OWN interpretation, just to show it for discussing.From this comment I found the writter was on the same way of watching movies with me, which I believe is the right way.
Anyway I still have a question, no matter if it is you who wrote this comment, at least you may acknowlege it, dont you? Then why did you only rate it three stars? Just curious, because I have almost the same thinking with the comment writter and I rated it five stars...
2009-10-26 17:11:05 Richard Mutt
I wached this movie before the chinese subtitle came out, there was some misunderstandings durring my wathching. So I looked for some comments on it.At that time there was just few comments about Antichrist, it was just on in several cinemas. This one is the best comment I've read, I want more people to understand the movie, then quote it.
I like lars von trier, but I don't really like his style in this film. These symbols are so religious, hard to understand, and the performs make me a little uncomfortable.
When man discuss some serious topics, some unusual ways can be used. I agree with that. In this movie it seems to be not bad, could be proper.
But after all I gave 7.0 to Antichrist, because I didn't really enjoy it.
2009-10-27 06:25:13 Vic
Sometimes I don't agree with your reason of rating some work.Acctually there are so many movie directors in this world, then so many "styles" too. It is never the "style" to make a movie good or bad. Moreover, a "style" also cannot be judged as "bad" or "proper". What we audience only can say is whether this "style" is suitable for this topic or not, in our own opinions.
I can understand most people only want to find useless sensory and perceptual feelings such as exciting, romantic, etc., in a word, "comfortable" feelings. I don't want to put any skceptics on that, but I believe when it comes to "Art", this is obviously not enough. The value of Art is more rational and serious. After we find out the core things inside a very sophisticated, beautiful appearance of matephor, the superficial skins have already be forgotten for a long time. Then what you can have is a peaceful, enriched feeling, just on the contrary of the former one.
So I always think that the value of the "core things", mostly from the directors or writters' ideas and conclusions to the world, and the suitableness of a certain style, can be the evidence of judging it. Therefore, topic, the things they want to show, is always the most important. Different topic and mood should be revealed by different styles. If you look at my movie list, you will find there are almost all kinds of styles in it. That's because I know the style is not firstly important, and I won't let the irrational thinking drive my ratings. I think that is a little irresponsible, as I cannot say it to others just because I didn't enjoy it.
In the comment you qoute is a very good example of watching movie. Everyone can see the explicit and disturbing appearance. I will not say it is pleasant either. But the comment writter also said "it is done perfectly". I will say that too, because the topic and core things are about the "darkness". Instead of a more tempered, compromised way, this exposed and uncovered way seemed much better. That is more like a rational agreement.
2009-10-31 21:39:02 Richard Mutt
You wrote a long paragraph to talk about the view of my unenjoyment. In some way I can't totally agree with your point.You talked a lot about the styles of the movies, you think when people want to express the "core things", need to find some different and suitable styles fit it. That's true. But it's the works of the Creator, not us.
As you said, the film works are based on "the directors or writers’' ideas and conclusions to the world", but the watching of the artworks should be different from the process of creation. Roland Barthes declared "the death of the author", after the finishing of the work, the work will no longer just belong to the creator. As the audience, we have different culture backgrounds and different ways of thinking, by the watching we have our own understandings of the work, it also can be called a re-creation.
So I would say the rating of a film is a very personal thing. For instance, I like the Bergman's films. He and Fellini, Tarkovsky are called the Holy Trinity in the film kingdom. But for the movies of Fellini, even they are got over 8.0 points rate on IMDB, I still can't love them. I don't like the way he tell the story and the acts in his movie. I look down on him also for his egoism.
I've watched 4 movies of Lars von Trier, the movies he made in 90's most followed Dogma 95. At that time it was a revolution in filmland. From “the Dancer in the dark”, he began to change his style, and then he got the prize of Cannes. Antichrist could be another break in his career. Maybe getting old made man more thoughtful, Antichrist relate many elements to the Darkness deep inside Human.
By the way, you know the family name of Lars is Trier, Antichrist make me think of the word "Tier", it means "beast" in German.
I just want to tell you watching movie and rating movie are very personal things. The Arguments on this topic looks like not a reasonable behavior.
Anyway agree to disagree.
2009-11-05 09:24:12 Vic
Such a pity...we have nothing to discuss from now.If you only want to say movie or every artwork is "personal", it seems like no need to ask Fellini, Bergman, or Tarkovsky for help. Because I and a lot of people do not think they are "personal" at all...
Actually, Cannes seemed never accept any "personal" artwork. I believe that is why Wong Kar Wai's pictures were and will never get a Golden Palm. Artists would acknowledge personal behavior by awarding him a Best Director, but will only judge a film "good" or "bad" by the theme and the way it being expressed. Valuable theme and suitable method are the only things the Cannes judges are looking for to determine a movie. So we can find extremely wide range of styles from the Golden Palm Movies every year, but only almost "one" style from Oscar, as the so called Academy is just a slave of majority, and so is IMDb.
Everytime when I see something abnormal in a movie, my first reaction is to think "why", instead of psychological repelling. After a good answer being found, I can feel the pleasure given by the movie. In another word, I expect to be "teached" by artworks, not just sensually pleased or fulfilled. That is also the biggest difference between art and entertainment.
Anyway glad to talk to you and thank you for sharing the comment. Maybe we will meet at somewhere else in here. See you.
> 我来回应