Antichrist
Antichrist
Ohjaus:
Lars von TrierKäsikirjoitus:
Lars von TrierKuvaus:
Anthony Dod MantleSävellys:
Kristian Eidnes AndersenSuoratoistopalvelut (2)
Juonikuvaukset(1)
Charlotte Gainsbourg ja Willem Dafoe ovat pääosissa elokuvassa Antichrist. He esittävät surevaa pariskuntaa, jotka vetäytyvät metsämökilleen toivoen että paluu Eedeniin voisi korjata heidän särkyneet sydämensä ja säröilevän avioliittonsa. Luonto vie asiat kuitenkin omaan suuntaansa ja tilanne huononee entisestään. (Nordisk Film Fin.)
Arvostelut (9)
Antichrist is a difficult film, but it is also interesting, bold, provocative and incredibly visually compelling. However, connecting to it emotionally is more of an art than the film itself. Instead of the never-ending analyzing of the female protagonist’s mind, it would have been better to focus solely on the relationship of the couple in the given stage of their lives or take a look into their respective pasts. That is, if the film was made for some kind of audience.
()
After all the controversy around Antichrist, the film itself is quite surprising, or rather, its contents are. In terms of filmmaking, I’m truly fascinated, I’ve watched the prologue five times already and I don’t think I will see anything better this year, but the contents of the film bothered me a little. I didn’t like the transition to the last act, some scenes are too gratuitous and there were moments that I thought could have gone deeper. Basically, the effect wasn’t as intense as I wanted or expected. Even ordinary exploitation horror can sometimes make me feel worse psychically.
()
From the moment of the log in the balls, it’s a self-serving extreme, but until then a brilliant acting psycho. Unforgettable, but never again.
()
This film is about as much of a horror as Bergman's Hour of the Wolf. The stunning metaphor of the decay of man and woman uses satanic properties only to underline the traditional concept of evil, the source of which Lars von Trier provocatively places in the soul of woman. In a time of correctness, his almost inquisitorial rhetoric is a revelation from hell, but it is supported by an absolutely perfect film form. After dry theatrical productions, we have the Trier-aesthete once again, which indulges in the raw images of "Paradise", in the raw studies of perfectly authentic actors. I don't know what made Trier confuse a selfless woman for a satanic woman, but I clearly rank the resulting film as one of the most captivating intimate dramas. To be offended means not to understand. Antichrist is not shallow - the audience that laughs at him and condemns him is shallow.
()
Polemics about the controversy of Antichrist passed me by at the time, but the first information about the film reassured me that it goes beyond what interests me, so I decided to avoid it. However, a few days ago I received a DVD of the film as a gift, and as they say, you don't look a gift horse in the mouth. I don't have a problem with Lars von Trier, just like the majority of creators, but at the same time, I have no problem mercilessly sending my favorite director or actor to fiery hell if their film doesn't resonate with me. I became fond of Trier when I watched his cult series, The Kingdom, and I highly appreciated the content of his "theatrical" films. But some time ago, I couldn't help but notice that the fundamental characteristic of Trier's work is the manipulation of the viewer and facts, which he adjusts according to his artistic visions. Furthermore, the problem with him is that since the time he drunkenly devised Dogme 95, he has become a fashionable director in the true sense of the word, satisfying the intellectual snobs' ideas of true art in film and becoming a pampered celebrity of the festival audience. Unfortunately, this has become an integral part of his personality and his filmography. He caters to his snobs with plenty of things, from supposedly encrypted messages through provocative and genre films promising titles to the necessary reference to Tarkovsky in the end credits. The trouble is that there is an absolute antithesis in the ideological foundations between his film Antichrist and Tarkovsky's work, not to mention that Tarkovsky could afford to ignore the viewers because a film industry did not exist in the Soviet Union, and the decisive factor for filming and permission to distribute the film were not the reactions of the audience or the intentions of the producers, but the approval process, where it was necessary to overcome several officials at the relevant ministry. Tarkovsky could therefore subjugate everything to his artistic expression and his artistic ideals. Lars creates his films under real capitalism and calculates both with the controversial content of his films and with the scandals that his outspoken mouth and behavior regularly provoke. He knows very well that one or two failures are enough to tarnish his star status. Antichrist should not be a highly reviewed film on FilmBooster with over five thousand ratings simply because it is not a film that corresponds to the mass taste of film viewers in any way. It is a film that caters to the festival and club audience, so we see a lot of three or four-star reviews and comments like "I didn't know what to make of it, but it's a wonderful piece of work..." rather speak of user conformity than the real qualities of Antichrist. The genre identification with horror is confusing; it is more of a surrealist dramatic-mysterious game on the subject of the decay of a partnership. Unfortunately, it is pretentious, tiresome, and unbridled. Of course, Trier hasn't forgotten his filmmaking skills, and one can revel in the camera or other elements of film language, but they should also form a cohesive film. Antichrist is simply an unengaging film that wants to provoke with its controversial content and violent or pornographic scenes. Typically, I would give such films at least one star for craftsmanship, but in this case, I am happy to make an exception, which can be seen as a counterweight to the many uncritical users. I was startled once and disgusted three times, but the majority of my feelings fell into the category of disinterest, and this film is simply one of those that amuse me with the comments of many fans and how many meanings one can find when you are looking for them. I did not find in this film much of a story, good dialogue, interesting characters, and catharsis because the final third of the film is utterly unnecessary. Yet the prologue seemed so interesting... Overall impression: 5%.
()
(vähemmän)
(lisää)
Lars’ Antichrist isn’t the type of movie that you can choose to like or not like. The themes of loss and obsession are nothing too unusual, but the approach is. It releases everything evil, low and mistaken and serves as a mirror for people, mirroring the last remaining love and goodness inside them. The effort to shock is spoiled a little by the elegant psychological game that the only two actors play - Willem Defoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg - while it is not there without reason and is meant to stir the viewers from their lethargy. And quite successfully, judging by their reactions. So, no, I wouldn’t say that I liked it, but I can strongly recommend it to all those who love human-interest stories, because this drama is certainly worth seeing.
()
A little psychological film about the breakdown of a marriage. There isn’t any more to it than that. In fact, the only really great thing about the whole project is the aria from Georg Friedrich Handel's "Rinaldo," Lascia ch'io pianga. I fell in love with that one when Farinelli performed it.
()
Thought-provoking, cinematically daring, and very depressing, but at its core it’s as cold as a penguin’s butt and its highly irritating execution is not easy to digest. Lars von Tier goes really far, so far that he often breaks reasonable boundaries and his creative excesses are bound to divide the audience into two groups. I tried to come to terms with his style, but despite some truly impressive scenes and an uncomfortable atmosphere, I couldn't overcome the detachment and long-windedness of his narration and I couldn’t even partially enjoy the film. Definitely a disappointment that even the otherwise excellent Willem Dafoe could not reverse. 50%
()
By using elements of symbolism, romanticism, realism, and above all naturalism, Lars von Trier has achieved an almost magical atmosphere, which together with the acting of the two protagonists, gave me a truly extraordinary, breathtaking and often pulse-quickening experience, the likes of which I have never seen in a cinema before. During the climactic scenes, when my companions and the other occupants of the cozy cinema room averted their eyes or whispered various words quietly to each other, I was "only" aware of my accelerated pulse and drops of sweat on my forehead, but I watched every second very closely, because I was completely captivated by von Trier's crazy openness... The prologue, with its beautiful musical accompaniment, is interspersed with a character study that explores the psyche of the Woman in considerable detail and chronicles the Man's efforts to identify the demons that torment the Woman's soul and prevent her from moving past that fateful event for both of them. At the moment when the demons and evil in the form of the raging nature completely engulf the Woman, she becomes a deranged and cold-blooded sadist, driven only by her own suffering and the terrible pain inside her heart. Antichrist cannot be described as a shocking and controversial film, for it is an utterly unique lyrical-epic work of art, a ballad with elements of romance, an atypical poem revealing the darkest and most terrifying aspects of human nature, or a desperately accurate and relentless account of the consequences of a human tragedy, in this case the loss of a child. While von Trier's latest effort will have a hard time finding a wider fan base (as all of his films probably do), it will remain a gem for me for a long time, and one that I will treasure immensely even many years later. And as to whether it's self-indulgent, perverse, immoral, or revolting? From an austere and uncomprehending point of view, yes. The likes of Emil Zola or Karel Josef Šlejhar would be delighted. --- NATURE IS SATAN'S CHURCH ---
()