It isn’t easy to shock the jaded audiences at the Cannes Film Festival, but Danish director Lars von Trier achieved that with his new movie "Antichrist." It wasn’t really the title. It wasn’t the weird scenes with a talking fox. It was the graphically portrayed sexual mutilation.
Let’s dispense with the plot. A couple is mourning the loss of a child. They go to an isolated cabin, the mother loses her mind and goes postal on her husband, and herself. Pressed by journalists about his film, von Trier claimed his movies choose him, not the other way around. "I never have a choice," he said. "It's the hand of God, I'm afraid." He added, "I am the best film director in the world."
Journalists don’t agree. "I thought I had my head down a lavatory, frankly," said Baz Bamigboye of London's Daily Mail, one writer who demanded that von Trier attempt to justify his sick movie. The Hollywood Reporter called it "torture porn."
Brian Johnson, a critic for the Canadian news magazine Macleans, gave his readers a bitter taste: "This is the first film in which I’ve seen an erect penis ejaculate blood after its owner is genitally assaulted while having sex. And that’s just the start. This is not your daddy’s chain-saw massacre movie. In this case, the weapon of choice is a carpentry hand-drill. That’s right, the old-fashioned kind that kind of works like a butter churn. In a moment of inspiration, [the wife] employs this device to bore a hole in her husband’s leg, then uses a wrench to bolt a grindstone to it. And while we’re racking up precedents, it’s probably safe to say that until now we’ve never seen a woman perform a clitorectomy on herself with a pair of scissors."
Says the "art" film director: "I work for myself and I do this little film that I am now kind of fond of. I haven't done it for you or an audience, so I don't think I owe anybody an explanation."
The audience be damned? That sounds a lot like a snooty European auteur. But it’s a sign of the times that he quickly found an American distributor for "Antichrist," IFC Films. It’s part of the Rainbow Media empire, which includes cable channels like AMC, IFC, We TV, and the Sundance Channel.
IFC chief Jonathan Sehring poured praise all over this nightmare: "It is a towering work of cinema by one its greatest directors. We are incredibly excited to bring this film to America and expect it to have a major impact on audiences not only in America but worldwide."
A major impact? No von Trier film has ever grossed more than $6 million in the United States.
Not all violent art films at Cannes receive the same enthusiastic embrace. The Los Angeles Times reports that Steve McEveety, one of the producers of "The Passion of the Christ," took a new film to France. "The Stoning of Soraya M." is adapted from the 1994 nonfiction book of the same name by a French-Iranian journalist, Freidoune Sahebjam. He traveled to a small Iranian village in the mid-1980s and found the story of an innocent woman stoned to death over concocted charges of infidelity. Soraya’s husband fell in love with another woman, accused his wife of adultery, and Soraya was left without support in the town. Her two eldest sons sat on the male tribunal that declared her guilty, and she was stoned by a mob that included her father.
But Times writer John Horn suggested this film could strike the same chords of controversy with Muslims that "The Passion" did with Jewish critics.
Horn relayed that director and co-writer Cyrus Nowrasteh spares little in depicting the execution, in which Soraya is buried to her chest with her arms bound, and pelted with heavy rocks from close range until she bleeds to death.
McEveety disagrees. "We had to keep toning it down so that people could bear it…It was far worse originally. But there were people who wanted us to tone it down even more than we did." Nevertheless, McEveety felt it was important to depict Soraya's killing graphically, so audiences would leave the theater outraged.
"Stoning" is clearly another violent, bloody, and disturbing film. But Hollywood doesn’t want this one. So just as Gibson distributed his own film, McEveety will go it alone with "The Stoning of Soraya M.," using the distribution company Roadside Attractions to book theaters, help market the film and collect theater receipts, but with his privately financed Mpower company footing the entire bill.
You could call it A Tale of Two Violent Movies. Hollywood’s business decisions show where their religious and political sensibilities overrule their business sense – and any sense of right and wrong.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
So basically the guy makes
May 23, 2009 - 06:58 ET by BlazerSo basically the guy makes a faux snuff film and then tries to pass it off as high art. The point of most independent films is lowkeyness and sublety, not shock factor.
If he wants to crank out grindhouse porn he should really take a look at the internet. It's a dime a dozen and there's nothing original or tasteful about it.
Just another talentless boob wasting other peoples money. Maybe he should go to Washington.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Very disturbing.
May 23, 2009 - 07:01 ET by mostlymoderateVery disturbing. Really, I can't say much more than that.
Disturbing indeed
May 23, 2009 - 11:46 ET by Kat Outta the BagThere's a lot that can be said, but it would require an awful lot of bandwidth to say it. What deplorable, depraved filth...and I don't know what "god" this so-called director speaks of, but it's certainly not the One I believe in!
The real tragedy here is
May 23, 2009 - 07:15 ET by BlazerThe real tragedy here is he's dedicated this film to the late Russian
director Andrei Tarkovsky, who's quite possibly clawing his way out of
his grave right now to choke von Triers.
Tarkovsky was a brilliant director and visionary, anyone who has seen Solaris, (not the remake and disaster starring George Clooney) knows what I mean. The freedom he was able to express through his films during the Soviet era was remarkable and a testament to his talent.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
The Stoning of Soraya M.
May 23, 2009 - 07:26 ET by ThisnThatNot that I'd ever want to see it, but doesn't the NYT statement tell us something about this country's "culture elites....er,,, apologists"? "But Times writer John Horn suggested this film could strike chords of controversy with Muslims."
Yeah, we sure don't want to tell the truth about Muslims now, do we? That is such a perverted religion, practiced by true -to-the-bone primitive animals. But our so-called leaders and spokemen of this country (and I mean everybody, conservative and liberal alike) are so afraid to tell the tiniest truth about these people. Wait till this movie gets released -- the howls caused by The Passion of Christ will be like whispers in a strong breeze.
__________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
I started to read this
May 23, 2009 - 07:34 ET by motherbeltI started to read this column by Brent at townhall yesterday, and I couldn't get through the descriptions...so I didn't read it all here and I can't even imagine watching the movie...
"It is a towering work of cinema by one its greatest directors....?????
What the hell is wrong with these people????
I hope they had barf bags in all the seats, like on airplanes.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Let me ask this...
May 23, 2009 - 08:24 ET by AtillaKahunaSo, some sicko records filth.
Some miscreant film distributor buys rights to make it available.
If nobody goes to see it, is it still "film"? Personally, I would say it is self-indulgant vblogging writ large, not film, but that's just me.
What these self-absorbed adolescents do in their spare time worries me not at all, except that they believe that they are some sort of augury for what is current in society, and there are an awful lot of them, along with the MSM, to tell us that this pile of steaming dung is, in fact, "art".
"goes postal" and someone's
May 23, 2009 - 08:26 ET by notonmywatch"goes postal"
and someone's premise gets pushed for free..
What did someone say porn?
May 23, 2009 - 09:23 ET by shawn228ahhh crap......this movie blows, erect penis ejaculating blood my butt!!
He had my vote
I just knew when I saw this
May 23, 2009 - 09:39 ET by JasonCI just knew when I saw this headline that some petulant reference to how unfairly poor multi-millionaire Mel Gibson is always treated had to be on the way.
Lars von Trier is deluded if he thinks he's the best director in the world, but he's certainly up there. And you all are deluded if you think it matters one bit to him that his films tend not to succeed in America. Let's be blunt, most independent European films are made with at least the partial intention of offending what the auteur regards as puritanical, bourgeois American values. Please cease with the whole "if he wants to be a successful filmmaker, he should cater to what (American) filmgoers want!" He is a successful filmmaker. And a movie's profits are not indicative of its worth. If that were the case, we'd have to rank Paul Blart Mall Cop somewhere between The Godfather and Wizard of Oz.
Someone said that independent films are supposed to be low-key or something, and I haven't a clue where this particular pigeonhole is coming from. Indie films are not "supposed" to be anything. Have you seen any of the more notorious indie Euro films in the last 10 years? I Stand Alone, Irreversible, Funny Games, Cache, or L'Enfant, for instance? These films expose the inherent chessiness of the cartoon violence in Hollywood action flicks, and the size of their budgets in no way dictates what they should depict or in what tone. There were also people at Cannes who walked out of these films when they premiered, but these is nonetheless a critical faction which considers them masterful. A few people being ostentatiously disgusted doesn't prove much of anything.
Finally, Bozell has zeroed in on the most graphically repugnant scenes in order to condemn an entire film - not to mention infer hypocrisy about The Stoning of Soraya M, which sounds like a good film as well - but considering his well-known tastes, I am 100% certain he has not seen it. And if you don't want to see it, fine. However, common sense and fairness would suggest that you then do not purport to have a valid critical opinion of the film.
Tell ya what
May 23, 2009 - 09:58 ET by RowaneI'll tell ya what, there Sparky, YOU go and see garbage like this, I'll stick to more sane fare.
So in a nutshell, Jason
May 23, 2009 - 09:58 ET by BlazerSo in a nutshell, Jason is a big fan of von Trier and genital mutilation.
Shock there.
I have no problem with a film such as this being distributed as long as it's given it's proper X-rating and placed in the back of the store in a seperate room with the rest of the porn.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Not only that, but he, like
May 23, 2009 - 12:22 ET by ThisnThatNot only that, but he, like all "liberal elite wannabes" elevates the "sophisticated European/Dysfunctional American" argument, as though the U.S. is such a backwards country we can't see the true value films of this filth bring to society. If only America were more like JasonC and his European heros -- then we'd all be able to get along with each other much better, you know.
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
Such curiously out-of-synch
May 24, 2009 - 12:13 ET by JasonCSuch curiously out-of-synch responses to my post. My point is that while Hollywood generally depicts violence as either highly-aestheticized (i.e. Saw or Hostel, which films are the vanguard of the so-called torture porn genre and the former of which is quite good but has been tainted by its ridiculous sequels) or sanitized and consequence-free (i.e. nonsensical action films like Charlie's Angels or anything Van Damme or Segal ever did), a certain faction of European directors (Gaspar Noe, von Trier, Michel Haneke) have, by their own account and as many critics will argue, made violence in their work as a direct commentary on those two styles. That is, violence is immediate, brutal, and emphatically non-entertaining. Think about it: Should cinematic violence, ethically-speaking, be something palatable and even entertaining or sickening?
As Rob Gonsalves writes in his review of Funny Games:
"Haneke obviously intends the film as a scolding statement on screen
violence; that's only the surface. Haneke uses cinema to deny the
primitive urges of cinema. Early on, Paul coerces Anna to
disrobe, and though we don't want to see her nudity in this context, we
are nonetheless primed to see it, because most exploitation films would
use the sequence as an excuse for some T&A. But the camera never
moves below Anna's shoulders. It stays on her face, and, here and
elsewhere, Susanne Lothar communicates volumes of rage and shame
wordlessly. Haneke is tweaking those who would've wanted to see Anna's
breasts regardless of the context. He goes on to tweak any of us who want anything from this movie other than what he wants to give us."
Now I certainly enjoy the occasional Hollywood action flicka s much as anyone. As I mentioned, the original Saw is genius and Terminator 2 is one of my all-time favorites. But I also appreciate the Euro-response to it. As for my explicit U.S.-contra-Europe comment, I was ventriloquizing these directors, not trying to personally call all U.S. filmgoers "bourgeois".
And my final point, as always, is that it is outrageous to offer commentary on film one hasn't seen. How ironic that Bozell is so pleased to describe the film as "torture porn" based on a quote from a Hollywood publication and to relish that Hollywood likely wouldn't embrace it, when he so frequently expresses his disgust with Hollywood itself. I guess ragging on European auteurs trumps ragging on "Hollyweird", as the ever-so-clever portmanteau calls it.
There's violence -- and
May 24, 2009 - 19:59 ET by ThisnThatThere's violence -- and then there's brutality. I abhor brutatily, or violence for violence's sake. I don't even pretend to know where the dividing line should be for acceptable "violence" in an action film; but I know it when I see it. And I certainly dislike film directors or actors getting praise for their violent films, be they American or European.
___________________________________
Liberals constantly demand that we accept a glaring falsehood as truth; Obama's elimination of the word "terror" will make terrorist acts less terrifying
Hollyweird give itself a
May 23, 2009 - 10:01 ET by jdhawkHollyweird give itself a (another) clitorectomy - or more excrement from the people that think they are world's moral compass . . .
I don't get the whole
May 23, 2009 - 10:21 ET by balboaI don't get the whole torture genre of movies. I'll never watch one.
But for some reason, they make money, which is why a distributor would take a chance on Antichrist.
A movie like "The Stoning..." is a much tougher sell to distributors, which is why it will end up in the "artier" theaters.
The Stoning is a much
May 23, 2009 - 12:26 ET by ThisnThatThe Stoning is a much tougher sell because it depicts the truth about an evil and violent religion. And since we have to be PC about Islam (i.e., ignore the fact that it, and it's practioners, promotes violence and mysogynist behavior), we can't distribute it.
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
I disagree. Commercially it
May 23, 2009 - 12:35 ET by balboaI disagree. Commercially it isn't nearly as viable.
And here's Frank Rich, NYT,
May 23, 2009 - 13:47 ET by ThisnThatAnd here's Frank Rich, NYT, August 2003 regarding Passion of the Christ: "Indeed, it's hard to imagine the movie being anything other than a flop in America, given that it has no major Hollywood stars and that its dialogue is in Aramaic and Latin." In other words, not commercially viable.
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
Exactly. Very rarely does a
May 23, 2009 - 21:14 ET by balboaExactly. Very rarely does a subtitled or dubbed movie have success in America.
Hollywood not only PC on Islam - it is terrorized
May 24, 2009 - 05:41 ET by Parker1227To put it bluntly: Terror works.
We all know of high profile people who have criticized Islam in their art, and have been threatened, have had to go into hiding, or have been murdered, or had their associates murdered.
The irony is that much of the leftist entertainment industry appears to have Stockholm Syndrome on this subject (OK - double irony considering what has been going on in Stockholm). They are both too terrified to use their formidable propaganda tools to take on the menace of the modern age, and make excuses and denials for "the religion of peace" hoping that the nightmare will just go away.
Like a 12-year-old whistling past a grave yard.
"Nothing there, nothing there... run for it!"
Terror works. And these guys have at least 100 million potential recruits. And everyone knows it. Its the biggest mafia in the history of the world.
We really NEED the power of Hollywood to take on these monsters (to make the Jihadist recruiters look like the selfish monsters they are).
The "don't make them mad" approach, while having some merit, ignores the fact that the Jihadist movement appears to keep expanding no matter what we do.
When an enemy insists on a fight, you either fight or die. This is where Hollywood's PC blindness comes into play. Many on the left believe the "war IS the problem" lie.
IF only everyone refused to fight... IF only the moon were made of cheese.
IF is not a strategy, nor a policy, nor a philosophy. It is a dream. And the wrong kind of dreaming can get you dead fast.
Actually, it has been
May 24, 2009 - 14:33 ET by JasonCActually, it has been done. In 2008 alone, Hollywood produced Body of Lies and Traitor, both exposes of Islamic terrorism, both highly critical of said terrorism and its methods, both making use of American protagonists.
So...your point is moot and incorrect.
A dream!
May 24, 2009 - 10:49 ET by BuzzyI have a dream in which after seeing von Trier's film the liberals sharpen their sissors and drill bits, then go home and try out what they saw. I then go out into a world free of such sick, twisted and perverted aholes.
Curious Buzzy
May 24, 2009 - 11:10 ET by shawn228Do you mean use the sissors and drill bits on themselves or there familys to kill off any remaining liberal demon spawn?
He had my vote
FYI, "Anti-christ" got a
May 24, 2009 - 19:00 ET by balboaFYI, "Anti-christ" got a special "anti-prize" from those Godless heathens at Cannes.
And thats one helluva
May 24, 2009 - 19:17 ET by BlazerAnd thats one helluva honor, coming from the borgeois limousine detritus of the film world, ain't it bal ?
Anti-Christ get's kudos and reverance while Passion Of The Christ got nothing but condemnation and detracion.
Well, I'll give you a prize too bal,..... just give me a little while to produce it, I just ate.
You deserve it.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Wow...
May 24, 2009 - 19:23 ET by balboaWow...
Don't feign shockness on
May 24, 2009 - 19:36 ET by BlazerDon't feign outrage or try and manufacture shock on me bal, after you just legitimized a psuedo snuff film.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
I did no such thing, ya
May 24, 2009 - 19:44 ET by balboaI did no such thing, ya goof. I told you about The Anti-christ getting a special anti-award for grossing and freaking everyone out.
Anti-Christ get's kudos and
May 24, 2009 - 19:38 ET by JasonCAnti-Christ get's kudos and reverance while Passion Of The Christ got nothing but condemnation and detracion.
This is a mystification that conservatives have been propagating for years in order to make film critics - and Hollywood itself - look hypocritical. It is also disingenuous and demonstrably false. Passion received widespread praise, even from Roger Ebert who, ever since his essay on Palin in fall 08, has been derided as hard-left by the hard-right.
Take a look at its rankings on the film review database MRQE. Just a quick glance will show you that it got many rave reviews. As for those who did not like it or who were on the fence about it - well, it's a film, and people are allowed to critique it, or to point out what they perceive as its flaws, without automatically being branded anti-Catholic.
Oops, forgot the link for
May 24, 2009 - 19:54 ET by JasonCOops, forgot the link for that site:
http://www.mrqe.com/...
Oh really ? Show me the
May 24, 2009 - 19:58 ET by BlazerOh really ? Show me the rave reviews it got from the godless immoral class at Cannes. At any rate conservatives turned this independant film into the most succesful independant film in history, although it was in Aramaic subtitles.
Much to the borgeois limousine liberal class' chagrin.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
At any rate conservatives
May 24, 2009 - 20:07 ET by JasonCAt any rate conservatives turned this independant film into the most
succesful independant film in history, although it was in Aramaic
subtitles.
Yep. Which is great. And I thought it was a great film, though I've never felt compelled to watch it a second time. I'm by no means trying to put it down, just to point out that the oft-repeated claim that critics were intolerant of it is untrue.
As I said, Roger Ebert gave Passion 4/4, and he is the most well-known critic at Cannes (or anywhere else). I'm unable to find which critics specifically reviewed it there - I don't even know for sure it played there, frankly - but the link I provided demonstrates that it was not universally looked down upon in film critic. Not by a longshot.
And by the way, Anti-Christ was by no means universally lauded either. Even Bozell's column points this out. I haven't seen it, and therefore can't comment on it, so please don't accuse me of trying to make excuses for it.
As I wrote at the top, it
May 24, 2009 - 20:12 ET by balboaAs I wrote at the top, it got an "anti-prize" for being disgusting, something that's never happened. The head of Cannes didn't think that was appropriate, however, and said giving the anti-prize was akin to censorship.
The director is obviously an egomaniac who thinks he's being cutting-edge (sorry for the pun).
Partially disagree. Most
May 24, 2009 - 20:15 ET by JasonCPartially disagree. Most European directors are indeed egomaniacs. But von Trier can back it up and has done some seriously innovative stuff. Ever see Dogville? Difficult to sit through but very interesting.
Robert Altman did some
May 24, 2009 - 20:50 ET by balboaRobert Altman did some great, great movies, and then he made "Dr. T and the Women."
I'm not sure how that's
May 24, 2009 - 22:57 ET by JasonCI'm not sure how that's relevant, but I maintain that if you haven't seen Anti-Christ, you're in no position to critique it or prop it up as evidence of von Trier's decline, even if Brent Bozell, in his infinite film-theory wisdom, deems it unworthy.. You'll notice that while I offer a defense of the indie-European style of representational violence in general, I do not attempt to validate or eviscerate the film in question, having not (yet) seen it.
Jason, I'm commenting on the
May 25, 2009 - 15:55 ET by balboaJason, I'm commenting on the movie based on the disgusting descriptions of some scenes, not as evidence of some decline, but more as a "What is he thinking?". I don't plan on seeing this movie because it just ain't my kind of thang.
Yea, well, I thoroughly
May 24, 2009 - 20:20 ET by BlazerYea, well, I thoroughly enjoyed POTC, but I've never watched it a second time either. However I've watched Apocolypto quite a few times and consider it a true work of art.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
I haven't seen Apocalypto,
May 24, 2009 - 22:58 ET by JasonCI haven't seen Apocalypto, but would like to.
Blaze...Apocalpyto...
May 24, 2009 - 23:19 ET by BlondeAgreed, one of the best movies produced in the last ten years.
I've seen it many times...it's on my "list"...like The Godfather, and several others which I will always make time to watch.
(P.S. I'm in Costa Rica....we went to the pre-Columbian gold exhibit at the museum in San Jose....awesome stuff, and I think Gibson got the culture in Apocalypto exactly right....am looking forward to the next time I see it).
I hope he fails, too.
Heard About This.
May 25, 2009 - 11:36 ET by someloudthunderI want to see both. "Anti-Christ" for William Defoe. I heard the writing however really sucked so that's kind of meh. As for the "Stoning..." that looks very good and it possibly has real great writing.
Hollywood probably picked "Anti-Christ" because it will cause a rile amongst people. Much like it did here and at the Cannes - and that will interest people into going.
Sociopathy Can Be An Effective Artistic Trait...
May 26, 2009 - 22:39 ET by The7SticksFrom the sound of it, this Lars von Trier fella is a sociopath. I heard about the films he's made: Dogville, Manderlay (I was mainly interested in that title because Bryce-Dallas Howard did a full-frontal nude scene for that movie. She looked okay, but nothing to cry about.) I remember distinctly the review by Ebert and Roeper that they hated it. Of course, they also gave a bad review to "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" on the same show (even though I loved it.) so I thought it was just a bad week for reviewing films from Ebert and Roeper. Then a year later I notice the title Manderlay in the review section of Entertainment Weekly, and it was an "F". They rarely give "F"s to any film unless it's so unbearably horrible, like "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" movie, but there it was.
I have a feeling this von Triers fella enjoys making movies in order to piss people off. It's a trait of sociopaths, which sometimes tends to be a mark of true genius. Think about it. Mel Gibson managed to piss a lot of people off with "The Passion of the Christ" (including me, but I do admire his fighting spirit to be a sociopath. That takes guts) and he made 370 million dollars domestically. Michael Bay pisses people off by making big explosion movies like "Armageddon" and "Transformers" (Not me though, I'm a Transformers fan.) and they can't help but gape at him reeling in the big bucks.
So in conclusion, sociopaths can effectively reel in big money if done correctly. Von Triers seems to have failed miserably at it, so maybe he should learn a thing or two from Mel Gibson or Michael Bay.