My take on Antichrist (for lack of a better title)
It's not like I invented electricity or discovered fire, and I am most likely stating the obvious here, but Americans do have a very serious (and quite alarming to be honest) problem with The S.E.X. (shhhhh). It seems. Just sayin'.
Am I right or am I right?
I AM right, RIGHT?
Right.
Sorry guys, Frenchie is lashing out on you again. But you had it comin'.
As some of you might already know, I loved LOVED Lars Von Trier's "Antichrist". Pure cinematographic genius. He got me at that first b&w sequence. Beautifully filmed and acted. For me, it was like Christmas in June.
I know exactly what is going through your mind: these French, all of 'em pervs. Care to guess what I am thinking right now? These Americans, all of'em prudes. Try and prove me wrong.
I will let this unsettling series of posters to promote the highly controverted movie "Antichrist", speak for itself.
Exhibits A-C = World Capital of Prudery
Exhibit D = France
Exhibit A
Huh?? Now you think you're in for an Animal-Planet-gone-horribly-bad documentary. Well played. It looks boring though. Snoozefest. I beg you, do NOT count me in.
Exhibit B
The famous we-can't-show-you-the-real-poster-so-here's-some-reviews poster. Lame. Thank GOD you didn't forget that red "18" (DANGER! BLOOD! DEATH! SEX!) warning. Bland.
"Strong real sex". Ah ah. Funny.
Exhibit C
This one's like, OK, this is Lars Von Trier, what did you expect?
Pure gibberish. You won't like! Unsettling. Puzzling. Don't go see it! Don't go! Horrifying. Disturbing. DON'T. GO. This poster is subliminally warning you that this is gonna be very, very weird for you moviegoer. The poster looks a little bit better than the previous two. We're getting there. Slowly.
Exhibit D
OK that's more like it. This is what you're in for, people.
At least this last one's eye-catching. And 100% French.
Why should we be ashamed of ourselves? Yes, we have actresses making faces of a very suspicious nature on our movie posters. This being said, Americans should be ashamed of themselves. Not us.
The falsely stuck-up and very much American attitude towards The S.E.X. in movies is quite laughable. And sad. Because THIS is what it's all about here. S.E.X. That's your problem. Not ours.
I'm even surprised no one even attempted to change the name of the film. I mean "ANTI" christ, anyone?? Oh cr*p. Problem #2: religion. Thank GOD no one mentioned the "R" word. Seriously though, where's Sarah Palin when we need her? And the Pope... what was HE doing?
Which brings me to the film itself...
I don't care about names. Even the biggest and most bankable star can end up in crappy feature films that flopped at the box office. It's been known to happen.
Besides, directors are human beings and as such they err (don't we all). Decision-making isn't always everyone's strong suit: believe it or not, even Hollywood's crème de la crème can make mistakes sometimes.
And although I do like a good story, it is rarely what makes me "tick" as a moviegoer. No offense to the writers out there.
Sorry to break it to you but acting, directing and script writing aren't everything, only pieces of the same puzzle.
The missing piece in my book? Cinematography.
I get off on exceptional visuals. Cinematography is my "thing". Whether it be on TV or in the movies, give me something beautiful to look at, and even if the rest doesn't measure up, cinematography will make everything at least a little bit better and I'll have the feeling of not having wasted my time (ah the frustration!). Cinematography can always save the day -and a film.
If it doesn't look too good, it can't be too good.
I want beautiful. I want visually-arresting and challenging.
Lucky me, I got all of that in Von Trier's latest film. A true gem of an exceptional and unseen-before beauty. Too bad a lot of people didn't (and refused to) see it that way. Maybe they closed their eyes when they shouldn't have. If you're one of those, let me ask you this: what the hell were you doing in a theater watching that film in the first place??
Cinematography is the one thing in "Antichrist" that should have taken the upper hand over everything else in reviews. Most of the times it didn't. Why? "Sex", "very graphic", "genital organs", "cutting", "insane", "Lars Von Trier".
The film is a piece of art. Beautiful. Original. Bold. Thought provoking. And like most pieces of art, misunderstood.
Misunderstood element #1: The gore / scary factor
We get our share of blood on a practically monthly basis thanks to the dozens of blood-thirsty horror flicks fanatics roaming the streets of Tinsel Town armed with nothing but a movie camera. What was different here? To be quite honest "Antichrist" ranks amongst the least bloody "horror" films ever to hit our movie theaters.
The Saw franchise is way more bloody and disturbing.
The Descent was 1000 times more scary.
Misunderstood element #2: The gut reaction factor
I heard some people got sick and threw up. I witnessed others leave the theater. Don't give me that. Why the hell do you go to the movies, then? To feel nothing? Is that what you're really looking for? Go back to your sandbox, play with your Barbies and Playdough. You're such a fake.
I go to movies to be moved, disgusted, scared out of my mind. Call me crazy, but I will NEVER EVER leave a movie theater because I feel sick or horrified. Au contraire my friends, if I do happen to feel that way, I call that a good sign. This being said, I'll gladly make an exception if the film is so exceptionally bad that neither acting, nor writing or photography can save it.
But last time I checked, "gory", "violent" and "graphic" were not synonyms for "bad" and "get up and leave the theater" in the Manual of the Moviegoer.
If you think you can't handle it, then don't go.
Misunderstood element #3: The sex factor
Yes, you could see his and hers. Anatomy 101. Big deal. That's like 15 seconds out of the 104 minutes of the film. Maybe it wasn't necessary, but that's part of Von Trier's "art". His vision. He put it there for a reason. He put it there regardless of people's anticipated (negative) reactions. And for this he deserves our deepest respect. At least this man's not a sellout. From the very first scene onward, you could tell "Antichrist" was going to be very graphic. Sexually explicit and visually arresting. Nothing you haven't seen before I assure you. Unless you've been living in a cave. Or on Mars.
Wake up. If there's ONE film you SHOULD absolutely see this year, it's "Antichrist".
Last but not least, let me thank that A-hole journalist whose aggressive behavior prevented Von Trier from explaining his vision at the film's press conference in Cannes last May. You are a disgrace to (y)our profession.
Yes, I am French. Yes, I am obsessed. Not with sex, dummy. With good cinema. Sue me.
Am I right or am I right?
I AM right, RIGHT?
Right.
Sorry guys, Frenchie is lashing out on you again. But you had it comin'.
As some of you might already know, I loved LOVED Lars Von Trier's "Antichrist". Pure cinematographic genius. He got me at that first b&w sequence. Beautifully filmed and acted. For me, it was like Christmas in June.
I know exactly what is going through your mind: these French, all of 'em pervs. Care to guess what I am thinking right now? These Americans, all of'em prudes. Try and prove me wrong.
I will let this unsettling series of posters to promote the highly controverted movie "Antichrist", speak for itself.
Exhibits A-C = World Capital of Prudery
Exhibit D = France
Exhibit A
Huh?? Now you think you're in for an Animal-Planet-gone-horribly-bad documentary. Well played. It looks boring though. Snoozefest. I beg you, do NOT count me in.
Exhibit B
The famous we-can't-show-you-the-real-poster-so-here's-some-reviews poster. Lame. Thank GOD you didn't forget that red "18" (DANGER! BLOOD! DEATH! SEX!) warning. Bland.
"Strong real sex". Ah ah. Funny.
Exhibit C
This one's like, OK, this is Lars Von Trier, what did you expect?
Pure gibberish. You won't like! Unsettling. Puzzling. Don't go see it! Don't go! Horrifying. Disturbing. DON'T. GO. This poster is subliminally warning you that this is gonna be very, very weird for you moviegoer. The poster looks a little bit better than the previous two. We're getting there. Slowly.
Exhibit D
OK that's more like it. This is what you're in for, people.
At least this last one's eye-catching. And 100% French.
Why should we be ashamed of ourselves? Yes, we have actresses making faces of a very suspicious nature on our movie posters. This being said, Americans should be ashamed of themselves. Not us.
The falsely stuck-up and very much American attitude towards The S.E.X. in movies is quite laughable. And sad. Because THIS is what it's all about here. S.E.X. That's your problem. Not ours.
I'm even surprised no one even attempted to change the name of the film. I mean "ANTI" christ, anyone?? Oh cr*p. Problem #2: religion. Thank GOD no one mentioned the "R" word. Seriously though, where's Sarah Palin when we need her? And the Pope... what was HE doing?
Which brings me to the film itself...
I don't care about names. Even the biggest and most bankable star can end up in crappy feature films that flopped at the box office. It's been known to happen.
Besides, directors are human beings and as such they err (don't we all). Decision-making isn't always everyone's strong suit: believe it or not, even Hollywood's crème de la crème can make mistakes sometimes.
And although I do like a good story, it is rarely what makes me "tick" as a moviegoer. No offense to the writers out there.
Sorry to break it to you but acting, directing and script writing aren't everything, only pieces of the same puzzle.
The missing piece in my book? Cinematography.
I get off on exceptional visuals. Cinematography is my "thing". Whether it be on TV or in the movies, give me something beautiful to look at, and even if the rest doesn't measure up, cinematography will make everything at least a little bit better and I'll have the feeling of not having wasted my time (ah the frustration!). Cinematography can always save the day -and a film.
If it doesn't look too good, it can't be too good.
I want beautiful. I want visually-arresting and challenging.
Lucky me, I got all of that in Von Trier's latest film. A true gem of an exceptional and unseen-before beauty. Too bad a lot of people didn't (and refused to) see it that way. Maybe they closed their eyes when they shouldn't have. If you're one of those, let me ask you this: what the hell were you doing in a theater watching that film in the first place??
Cinematography is the one thing in "Antichrist" that should have taken the upper hand over everything else in reviews. Most of the times it didn't. Why? "Sex", "very graphic", "genital organs", "cutting", "insane", "Lars Von Trier".
The film is a piece of art. Beautiful. Original. Bold. Thought provoking. And like most pieces of art, misunderstood.
Misunderstood element #1: The gore / scary factor
We get our share of blood on a practically monthly basis thanks to the dozens of blood-thirsty horror flicks fanatics roaming the streets of Tinsel Town armed with nothing but a movie camera. What was different here? To be quite honest "Antichrist" ranks amongst the least bloody "horror" films ever to hit our movie theaters.
The Saw franchise is way more bloody and disturbing.
The Descent was 1000 times more scary.
Misunderstood element #2: The gut reaction factor
I heard some people got sick and threw up. I witnessed others leave the theater. Don't give me that. Why the hell do you go to the movies, then? To feel nothing? Is that what you're really looking for? Go back to your sandbox, play with your Barbies and Playdough. You're such a fake.
I go to movies to be moved, disgusted, scared out of my mind. Call me crazy, but I will NEVER EVER leave a movie theater because I feel sick or horrified. Au contraire my friends, if I do happen to feel that way, I call that a good sign. This being said, I'll gladly make an exception if the film is so exceptionally bad that neither acting, nor writing or photography can save it.
But last time I checked, "gory", "violent" and "graphic" were not synonyms for "bad" and "get up and leave the theater" in the Manual of the Moviegoer.
If you think you can't handle it, then don't go.
Misunderstood element #3: The sex factor
Yes, you could see his and hers. Anatomy 101. Big deal. That's like 15 seconds out of the 104 minutes of the film. Maybe it wasn't necessary, but that's part of Von Trier's "art". His vision. He put it there for a reason. He put it there regardless of people's anticipated (negative) reactions. And for this he deserves our deepest respect. At least this man's not a sellout. From the very first scene onward, you could tell "Antichrist" was going to be very graphic. Sexually explicit and visually arresting. Nothing you haven't seen before I assure you. Unless you've been living in a cave. Or on Mars.
Wake up. If there's ONE film you SHOULD absolutely see this year, it's "Antichrist".
Last but not least, let me thank that A-hole journalist whose aggressive behavior prevented Von Trier from explaining his vision at the film's press conference in Cannes last May. You are a disgrace to (y)our profession.
Yes, I am French. Yes, I am obsessed. Not with sex, dummy. With good cinema. Sue me.