Go Back   Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums > Movie Talk! > General Movie Talk
MOVIE FAN CENTRAL FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 10-16-2009, 01:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reigh Kaufman View Post
I thought, and still think, that it is a film about Christianity's persecution of women.

Gainsbourg, if you notice, cannot cross the bridge because there is water running beneath it - the mark of a witch, according to some - in order to enter Eden. Having been responsible for mankind being exiled from Eden, women are persecuted by men, leading to the witch-hunts popularised in the16th Cetury. These so-called witches were actually pagans, with a strong connection to nature and natural order. She is afraid of nature, perhaps because she realises that to resume her paganistic ways would result in her persecution. Once she accepts nature is not Satan's Church, she is seen happily dancing in the water, and at peace.

It is only when she is criticized for being happy in Eden, losing her grief, that she returns to her catastrophic state of mind and the return of the crippling anxiety that leads to her death.

I'll add more shortly. Back soon.
This is actually very closely in-line with what my thoughts were as I experienced the film this morning and I do find it interesting that I'm not the only one who had a similar interpretation.


Oh, and the whole controversy with this film doesn't make a lick of sense to me. It's nowhere near as graphic as I was lead to believe, but thankfully it didn't need to be.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10-20-2009, 05:03 AM
I'm surprised that none of you have question the reality of the events taking place in the prologue. Does anything look out of place. Later in the film, listen to the dialogue regarding Her knowledge of the son, and His knowledge of the son. The child died, yes, but not necessarily as its shown in the prologue. If its a distortion of reality, who's distorted perception are we looking at. That is a key scene. Watch it again.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BadCoverVersion View Post

Quote:
I’m not entirely sure what “The Three Beggars” are meant to represent
Its the name of a poem by William Butler Yeats.

Quote:
I think the talking fox is there as an indication that She is now truly in the grip of madness, “Chaos Reigns”
He sees a talking Fox. Is the dead Fox really reanimated and talking, or is it all in his head?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinigami View Post
The movie was definitely focused on the female. "She" was always the force and cause of the movie. "He" was just reactionary.
That's not true.

There's an important scene involving Her forcing the son to wear the shoes the wrong way. Who's imagintion are we looking at? how reliable is the information we're seeing?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-20-2009, 07:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by someguy View Post
If it's true that nature is Satan's church, then is it possible that she was possessed by nature?
That's what i thought...nature being the Antichrist.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 10-24-2009, 04:35 AM
I loved it! I also really enjoy most of the analysis I've read on this forum. I agree with most of it, but Von Triers always has an intricate way of posing questions.

This could be a possession, a battle of mankind v. nature, man v. woman, etc...

For instance, just Nic's autopsy showing his malformed feet bones. Was it the shoes on the wrong feet? We see this in photos on more than one occasion. Did She do this on purpose to stop his night walking? Maybe his growth process in general out of fear? Did it really effect his balance on the windowsill? It WAS snow covered, and he was, what, 16 months? If she knew he was walking at night like she said, did she want to hinder that? Did she want him dead? (Probably not on the last one...)

Also, wasn't there a little jealousy on our happy couple? I mean, He got over his grief, She could not. He turns into her personal therapist instead of her lover. Why? Is he not nearly as cured as he seems to be? Does he grieve the sex they had while the kid was falling?

Here's what really confuses me though: The wrench she hid under the cabin. She knew where it was, but when she went back to find it, she forgot. She even searched the toolbox for it, but couldn't remember where it really was. That might point to a possession or just the power of depression and grief itself. Yet, later, He breaks through the floor right over it to use for removing the millstone. Did I miss something there?

One thing I'll disagree with in this thread is the role of the fox. Clearly he's one of the three beggars, which one I'm not sure. Yet when he tells "He" in his dream that "Chaos reigns", I am sure he represents Nature, our third character. Not necessarily "She". Nature will do whatever it wants whenever it wants. It's how you react to what nature pulls off next is what you become, it appears. If nature followed order, what would we have? A network without weather reports.

I can't wait to see this again. I loved the distorted camera shots in the woods, also a hint to Nature being our third character ( I think ).

Best to all!
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 10-24-2009, 04:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hotbox View Post
That's what i thought...nature being the Antichrist.
That is a great interpretation too! After watching it, I almost thought the title was intentionally misleading to the point of possession by a spirit. Yet, being possessed by nature-- well, perhaps HUMAN nature and not woodland nature?

In a way, (perhaps I'm overthinking) I thought that Nature, the character, represented human desires and not how many acorns fall.

Oi! Didn't it annoy anyone how many effing acorns were hitting the roof? I have experience with Oak trees and acorns and there ain't THAT many that fall, and they don't exactly travel far in a monsoon, so as the tensions grow between He and She, the more presence Nature makes.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-20-2010, 01:17 AM
mythos based on socialism/psyicoligy

ok.so. iv tried to come up with a good explanation on the events. and everything that happend in this movie. there is enough symbolism and psycoligy and something no one has said yet, socioligy. yes socialigy becouse it was sigmond freud who descuses the thiery of ones id. and this movie drives from that standpoint. simply the fact in even as he said with his psicological explenation of nothing can make u go against your nature. he unknowingly unleashed the her true nature that she had been fighting, and i do bealive is what she was altamitly afraid off(he writes me, meaning she afraid of herself). becouse she droped subtle hints of what she trully was inside in saying a crying woman is a scheaming woman. neer the end. meaning that what a woman may show and may feal is not what there id is telling them unconsiusly. and by him doin his lil excersises with her. it unleased her id. and she even went to the extent that she almost seemd bipoler. this could very easily be what her true afliction is. and her alternate persinalty took to the theasus and that was why she couldnt finish it.. becouse her alternate took over at some point during that time. and her memory of hearing the crying didnt come back to her until he did one of his excersises with her. i also bealive that her alternate is the one what would come out for the sex craves. becouse she would have one of her anxiety attacks right before going into the sex zone. it was her fighting it off. sorry for my gross misspellings and that is was soo long. lett me know how far off base u think i am
ps. that only touches on one small aspect of the film. the movei combines allot of ellaments that have already been discused and touch base on religion and history.

Last edited by viper52; 01-20-2010 at 01:29 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-21-2010, 05:48 PM
Although i've always considered Van Trier to be a prankster and haven't taken all of his work as seriously as many do, i find Antichrist to be one of Triers finest and one of the years best. It's a horror film that all Catholics should love, it's imagery is all biblical, it's philosophy is rooted in original sin and it's antagonist is psychiatric medicine instead of religious atonement for one's guilt. There is a lot more going on in this picture than a prankster behind the lens of sensational beautiful imagery.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 02-22-2010, 02:30 PM
Sadly, I watched the film just recently, but I kept looking wheter anyone saw what I saw in it. All that symbolism - yeah, great, and I agree, mostly. But in that scene when after she mutuleted his leg, he draggs in the woods to hide and she discovers he's gone, she runs searching for him, calling 'Where are you?Don't you dare to leave me!' ...I saw myself. Isn't it what all von Trier's movies are about? To show us us at our ugliest? when you think of it as a generalisation, an abstract He an She story and project all physical injuries on the mental, you get the picture of contemprorary couple, their relationship in development.
I think the final scene, the Epilogue that puzzles so many people, prooves my theory of generalisation. Those women are all the other women man meets after this relationship is over. And he looks forward whith hope and curiosity. Men never learn, do they?
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 02-23-2010, 01:53 PM
I really like Badcoverversion's interpretations. I agree with most of them, but still need to watch the movie a 2nd time to get all my thoughts together.

On another note...thinking about this movie is making me increasingly in Lars von Trier. I have only seen Dogville and Antichrist by him. I thought Dogville was a little too long but LOVED the ending. Anyways, I'm wondering if someone can suggest which one of his films I should watch next.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 02-23-2010, 09:12 PM
I find it interesting that no one seems to be aware that the film is about a woman with Munchausen syndrome.

I think a lot of the people who love this film read into it from arcane theoretical angles quite unnecessarily, though. Von Trier himself wasn’t approaching it so logically as all that. I prefer to see it for exactly what it appears to be on the surface: a worthy addition to the horror genre. And through that lens, it’s good enough. I felt that the general idea of the movie, along with the "twist" and the gory stuff, was all done pretty well. That said, I felt it dragged in places, seened somewhat disjointed, and all that stuff with her secret thesis studies seemed kind of implausible, but then again, Von Trier wasn’t exactly working hard to make sense in this movie.

All-in-all, it’s a fairly decent horror film that happens to be beautifully shot. I’m not sad that I watched it, but I wasn’t blown away, either. I do find all of the deep analysis the film’s fans engage in kind of hilarious, though.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 02-23-2010, 09:27 PM
Quote:
I do find all of the deep analysis the film’s fans engage in kind of hilarious, though.

For me, the movie's less worthy of discussion than it is just enjoyable to discuss. At times this thread is probably less about the movie than the people who watched it, unless I'm not giving the director enough credit. I think a lot of people take the movie as something of a blank slate through which to share philosophy or ideology. The imagery is so moving... Or at least was particularly moving for me... That I think about it and share about it in the same way I might a particularly beautiful landscape or experience. A picture is worth a thousand words. Cue this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 02-23-2010, 11:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinigami View Post
For me, the movie's less worthy of discussion than it is just enjoyable to discuss. At times this thread is probably less about the movie than the people who watched it, unless I'm not giving the director enough credit. I think a lot of people take the movie as something of a blank slate through which to share philosophy or ideology. The imagery is so moving... Or at least was particularly moving for me... That I think about it and share about it in the same way I might a particularly beautiful landscape or experience. A picture is worth a thousand words. Cue this thread.
well said
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02-26-2010, 06:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinigami View Post
For me, the movie's less worthy of discussion than it is just enjoyable to discuss. At times this thread is probably less about the movie than the people who watched it, unless I'm not giving the director enough credit. I think a lot of people take the movie as something of a blank slate through which to share philosophy or ideology. The imagery is so moving... Or at least was particularly moving for me... That I think about it and share about it in the same way I might a particularly beautiful landscape or experience. A picture is worth a thousand words. Cue this thread.
Oh, and a gorgeous looking film it is.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-26-2010, 04:56 PM
Charlotte Gains burgh’s character abandons her thesis on Gynocide because she begins to believe that the evil and violence against women over the centuries is justified. It is justified because if human nature is evil, then women are intrinsically evil. I believe this shift is due to the projection of her own self hatred onto all women.

The William Dafoe character is not processing the death of his child. Instead he is sinking all of energy into the rehabilitation of his wife’s psyche. Usually the female character in a Lars Von Trier film is the self less Christ character who in spite of their goodness is punished by the chaos of nature. This time William Dafoe’s misguided selflessness is punished. His wife has returned to her natural state and violence, menace and evil after visiting the garden.

I love how both main actors are beautiful and ugly at the same time- allowing themselves to be filmed in unflattering light. I love how the sex acts are intimate and erotic and then moments later ugly and vile. The forest of Eden does not follow the rules of nature. Acorns seem to suspend in mid air. I could go on and on--This is a great film
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 03-08-2010, 02:54 PM
I'm bumping this because Antichrist just became available on netflix's instant watch feature. Often times movies of this sort don't stay there forever, so here is my big flashing sign for anybody interested in checking it out. As long as you have netflix.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 03-08-2010, 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinigami View Post
I'm bumping this because Antichrist just became available on netflix's instant watch feature. Often times movies of this sort don't stay there forever, so here is my big flashing sign for anybody interested in checking it out. As long as you have netflix.
Already watched it 6 times on there. Great movie. =) This should have been up for best picture rather than District 9 or Precious or Blind Side.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 03-08-2010, 03:00 PM
This film did not that stand up as well the second time I saw it. I felt indifferent through a lot of the film. I still can't help but laugh at how absurd it gets by the point Charlotte completely loses it. And it's not the actors' faults but the action they're given just becomes funny. The breaking point for me is when Dafoe is crawling away to hide and Charlotte looks for him. That's where the film loses me completely and it feels like a borderline parody. I enjoyed it the first time, but the second time lessened in quality.

The best part of the film is when they are going to the cabin. I love how Trier makes the forest seem likes it's a living, breathing monster, but the rest of the film never lives up to the creepy ambiguity he sets up.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 03-08-2010, 04:06 PM
I think the main thing that is so great about the movie is that it really does fuck with you and make you think after its done about the whole point, and the evil of the woman, and just everything in general.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 03-23-2010, 01:18 AM
Female Castration fun for the whole family!

I just wanted to say I finally got to see this tonight on Netflix and your forum here really helped me to interpret it. I was truly mesmerized by it and I consider the greatest thing a film can do for me to be making me try to search out the meaning because it wasn't obvious or apparent to me the first time. It really made me think and Von Trier is always good for that. And I did think it was filmed beautifully.

Anyway thanks for making this thread last year and you guys had some very thoughtful theories.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 03-23-2010, 01:54 AM
glad you liked it too lenono, i projected it twice in theaters, will definately enjoy a home viewing experience in the near future.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 02-25-2013, 12:31 AM
What Makes Any Hotels in London cheap?

A cheap hotel in London is not just cheap because of the price they charge per room. Hotels can become cheaper to guests staying buy being closer to tourist attractions. This will end up being more time and cost effective to guests as journeys to and from attractions and restaurants are greatly reduced.
Hotels that offer a complimentary breakfast may also work out more economical to guests who would otherwise need to add this to the final cost of their holiday.

Hotels Near Tate Modern Offer Guests More Of What They Want

Cheap hotels in London can sometimes offer better service than some of the five-star luxury hotels. These cheap accommodations in London can offer free wi-fi service. Guests may perhaps choose cheap hotels near Tate Modern as they offer some services free that some five-star hotels charged guests for.
For people away on business it is especially important to be connected and this may ultimately be the deciding factor on where a guest decides to stay. When staying away from home, these days, most people still want to be able to keep in touch with family and friends and the best way to do this is via email or skype etc. What a wonderful time in technology we are in when we are able to go sightseeing in London during the day and go back to the hotel before dinner and send the pictures directly to a loved one or put up a post on facebook telling everyone what your day has been like!

Make the most of the sights near your hotel
Hotels may be able to help you in deciding which sights around London are the best to visit during your time in London. Take time to relax and do not pack too much into a single day.
If this means taking in a London musical or some fine dining, take time to enjoy. Rushing will stop you from enjoying the limited time you have. Simply decide what few things you want to do each day you are visiting this fine city, stay in any cheap hotel for example near Tate Modern. Staying in a cheap hotels London will just add to the wonderful experience of visiting London.
For book your accommodations or for more information, visit at http://www.belgravehotel.net/
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump