Still in shock after the screening of Antichrist, we offer you a link that might help with interpretation.
This is pretty much why I felt it was not a misogynist film and not the contrary either, that it had no more meaning than what you actually know intuitively. But, of course, the floor is open...
.jpg)
yeah yeah we need help :) I was just browsing through to find what others think and found this pithy and tongue in cheek review of the film. thought you guys might enjoy it.
ReplyDeleteP.S: I also tend to agree a lot with this author. This is from The Observer.
Taking Lars von Trier seriously has never been sensible – he's a prankster who will do anything to get a reaction. Certainly, there are moments in Antichrist (2009, Artificial Eye, 18) in which you can almost hear the unholy auteur cackling with delight behind the mask of soul-searching, depressive gloom under which he allegedly worked. But this lacerating traipse into the mythology of misogyny (which owes an unacknowledged tonal debt to Zulawski's one-time "video nasty" Possession) is his most exasperatingly exciting work to date – and if you go down to the woods today you're sure of a big surprise...
Charlotte Gainsbourg and Willem Dafoe take no prisoners as the bereaved couple who retreat to the hellish idyll of Eden, where the ghosts of "Gynocide" rise up to torment them. The Earth burns, chaos reigns and nature is revealed as "Satan's church", complete with talking foxes, screaming hysterics and – most infamously – scissor-wielding genital mutilation. It sounds silly – and sometimes it is silly – but it's also compelling thanks to the conviction of the performances, the ghastly beauty of the visuals and the playfully psychotic madness of the writing and direction. Imagine The Evil Dead meets What Have You Done to Solange? with added existential guilt. Happy new year!