Antichrist

[Rii]

So apparently Kick-Ass is 'morally reprehensible'. I don't know, nor care, but the controversy reminded me of another film I saw recently - some of you may have noticed - which I've heard described as such: Antichrist.

I think any film which is decried by some as misogynist and others as misandrist - although to be fair, the former label appears far more common than the latter - simply must have something going for it, and I'd be lying if I said I hadn't spent the next few days thinking about it. There are still some things I'm unclear about, though.

Much of the difficulty I've had in interpreting the film comes down to distinguishing between what elements of 'she', if any, are unique to her experience as a person vs. being 'of woman'. I think 'he' can be read straightforwardly as 'man', but 'she' is more complicated.

One scene in particular that I struggle with is the epilogue where the faceless ghosts of women emerge from the forest. I see them as either all the witches who - like she - were put to death, or more broadly as all the female victims of men. But what does their emergence signify? To him? That is, in part, how does he feel about his brutal murder of she?

The animals are also a mystery to me. The deer, the fox, and the crow. What's going on there?

I see the film as contrasting male rationality with female emotion and instinct, ultimately condemning the former for its hubris and callousness; in effect, for its lack of humanity. She was killed - the witches were killed - because they approached too close to the existential truth. Man desires order, structure, action and reaction. Everything - including her - is a process to be controlled, a puzzle to be solved. In Eden he discovered, as the local wildlife observed, that 'chaos reigns'. She made the same discovery and made it first, during the previous summer, but where he rejected it, she ran from it, fought with it, and ultimately accepted it, coming to see herself - and he - as instruments of a brutal nature, of pain and suffering, whose desire for sexual pleasure in the face of the process of pregnancy leading to death which follows represent an ultimate evil.

 

[Rii]

So either nobody has seen this film or my take on it is way the hell out there.

Hedging against the former possibility, here's Ebert's review and the trailer:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw03QayJ2fU[/yt]

It's a worthy film, but not easy viewing.

 

[The Fatman]

This one's been on my Netflix queue for some time... it just seems to keep getting pushed back by other things. I've wanted to see it for some time, the group at Aint It Cool News were all very high on this movie when it came out. Once I actually see the flick, I'll be sure to post my thoughts here.

 

[Shaytan]

It's a worthy film, but not easy viewing.

I clearly remember the polemics around this film during the Festival de Cannes (Charlotte Gainsbourg had an award) and at the moment it was released. Lars Von Trier's movies are always somewhat disturbing.

 

[Lookingglassman]

I want to see it, but I heard it had a pee pee crushing scene in it and dont know if my manhood can handle it.

 

[Gaith]

It's a worthy film, but not easy viewing.

What makes it worthy? I generally like to be educated or entertained by movies. I've read plenty of reviews and spoilers for this, and it frankly doesn't sound like it would do either.

I guess I could add that I like to be moved by movies/art, but the truth is that education and entertainment come first, and that if I don't feel likely to experience either of those sensations as well as being moved, I'll generally skip it and look for something that will. Perfect example: Revolutionary Road. Sounds unpleasant, harrowing, hardly at all entertaining. And while the period aspects may make it somewhat educational, it just doesn't pass muster.

In short, I know of no reason at all why I should see Antichrist.

 

[bryce]

"I see the film as contrasting male rationality with female emotion and instinct..."

Why do some feminists just repeat the old sexist stereotype that men are rational - and good at science - and women are irrational, overly-emotional fuzzy thinkers (who are bad engineers/scientists)...???

 

[Rii]

I want to see it, but I heard it had a pee pee crushing scene in it and dont know if my manhood can handle it.

It's pretty horrible. Anyone who can refrain from flinching at that scene or its female equivalent later in the film is made of stronger stuff than I. Or, more likely, drugged.

It's a worthy film, but not easy viewing.

What makes it worthy? I generally like to be educated or entertained by movies. I've read plenty of reviews and spoilers for this, and it frankly doesn't sound like it would do either.

Fair question. If you're unable to appreciate a film that couldn't be described as in any way entertaining, then I'd agree that it probably isn't for you.

As for what I got out of it, the film explored and interwove two subjects of considerable interest to me: nihilism, and the psychology of gender, and did so in a package that was more than cinematically proficient, with extraordinary performances by the actors, a strong script - the line in my sig is from the film - phenomenal cinematography and some interesting stylistic touches.

Just a note regarding the sexual brutality in the film, which many have referred to as 'torture porn'. I actually have a strong aversion to films such as the Saw series, that the scenes in Antichrist - as discomfiting as they were - didn't provoke at all the same reaction of disgust says ... something. It's not the same.

I guess I could add that I like to be moved by movies/art, but the truth is that education and entertainment come first, and that if I don't feel likely to experience either of those sensations as well as being moved, I'll generally skip it and look for something that will.

I'm not sure I've ever been educated by a fictional film in any significant way. I've had my interest piqued and gone on to educate myself on a topic, but that's different. Instead of 'educated', I'd go with 'enlightened', in that in provoking thoughts of a certain character, some films - and other forms of art, obviously - can provide a previously unconsidered lens through which to view the world or certain subsets thereof.

Why do some feminists just repeat the old sexist stereotype that men are rational - and good at science - and women are irrational, overly-emotional fuzzy thinkers (who are bad engineers/scientists)...???

As a stereotype which is in no danger of dying out, it serves as a useful framework, and indeed most stereotypes are based in reality. Jews in most western societies are disproportionately wealthy, for instance. The problem occurs when stereotypes are used to evaluate individuals, who can of course vary wildly from the statistical mean; and further when they contribute to the development of social structures which serve to constrain those individuals. The promulgation of prejudice and hatred towards members of a particular group is, of course, the most harmful extension of the very valuable human ability that is pattern recognition.

There's a great deal of research indicating real differences in the ways that men and women think and interact. Men tend to engage more readily in abstract thought, women tend to be more empathic, and so on. The difficulty, of course, is in distinguishing between those things which are biologically bound vs. those which are culturally bound, a difficulty which is compounded by the fact that culture is itself shaped by biology. The near-universalism of patriarchy in human societies worldwide is not a coincidence.

Our sentience allows us, in many respects, to transcend our biology on both a personal and social level, to develop societies based on what we as rational beings deem ought to be rather than merely what is, but it doesn't mean that we're unaffected by our biology. The notion that those factors resulting in the gross anatomical differences between males and females (and everything in between) are limited entirely to those differences, and that our brains are on some entirely different plane of existence is not science or reason, but faith of a religious character.

Certainly there are some feminists whose views could be characterised as such, and more who react instinctively against the idea that men and women differ in any non-anatomical fashion, viewing such as a prelude to '... and this is why women should be confined to the kitchen'; but to suggest that acknowledging such differences is in any way incompatible with feminism, with a commitment to equality between the sexes, is both absurd and, frankly, personally offensive. Not that I take your comments as such.

 

[Deckerd]

It's not called 'the entertainment industry' for nothing. I embrace Hollywood and all its shallow venality. A pox on your misery-steeped 'worthy' arthouse mumbo jumbo.

 

[DevilEyes]

"I see the film as contrasting male rationality with female emotion and instinct..."

Why do some feminists just repeat the old sexist stereotype that men are rational - and good at science - and women are irrational, overly-emotional fuzzy thinkers (who are bad engineers/scientists)...???

I was just going to say that gender stereotypes such as these always make me roll my eyes and facepalm.

But I suppose there are all sorts of feminists.

Why do some feminists just repeat the old sexist stereotype that men are rational - and good at science - and women are irrational, overly-emotional fuzzy thinkers (who are bad engineers/scientists)...???

There's a great deal of research indicating real differences in the ways that men and women think and interact. Men tend to engage more readily in abstract thought, women tend to be more empathic, and so on. The difficulty, of course, is in distinguishing between those things which are biologically bound vs. those which are culturally bound, a difficulty which is compounded by the fact that culture is itself shaped by biology. The near-universalism of patriarchy in human societies worldwide is not a coincidence.

Maybe, but I don't think that "less abstract thinking" equals "irrational thinking". (Maybe quite the opposite, if you use the word 'rational' in its everyday meaning of common sense.)

And while abstract thinking might be an advantage in, say, algebra, I don't see it as an advantage in social sciences, for instance.

I went to the Faculty of Philology, and an overwhelming majority of students were female (something like 10:1). Don't tell me that linguistics is not a science.

It's not called 'the entertainment industry' for nothing. I embrace Hollywood and all its shallow venality. A pox on your misery-steeped 'worthy' arthouse mumbo jumbo.

I despise shallow venality of Hollywood with its movies that look like their scripts that are so full of cliches that they almost don't have to bother playing screenwriters, the scripts could be produced by a software. I also hate some of the art-house, festival filmmakers who seem to confuse worthiness and art with pretentiousness and boredom. Fortunately, there are many good films, which don't fall into either category.

 

[Rii]

Yeah, like those who've seen the film, and those who haven't.

I'm done with this bullshit.

 

[DevilEyes]

Yeah, like those who've seen the film, and those who haven't.

I'm done with this bullshit.

What does that refer to? To my statement that there are all sorts of feminists? In that case, what the fuck do you mean by that? You're saying that there are no ideological differences among feminists?

And what the hell does the general issue of gender stereotypes have to do with having or not having seen the film? You're the one who brought up the issue in the first place. Or is that the "bullshit" you're done with?

 

[bryce]

Rii...no, I get your point...there are distinct biological differences in the brains of males and females...I just, like you, hate it when they are used to stereotype every member of one sex or the other.

And I have always felt that *some* feminists are propagating the very same stereotypes about women that sexist males do, but just putting a positive spin on it.

Ever seen the thought-provoking film "Mindwalk"...yeah, I cringe in the dungeon scene when the female scientist basically equates all reductionist science with "the rape of the natural world"...yes, reductionist science is male, and males are all about rape, so...I get just as offended my that as a feminist would by someone saying that females are naturally bad leaders and soldiers and fighter pilots and scientist/engineers, because it's not true...

But yeah, as a male with two daughters, a mother, an ex-wife and a sort-of step-daughter...I do see differences between the way they view and respond to things compared to how my son does, or my ex's 4 year-old son does (who is more still acting on basic instinct than perceived roles of how boys and girls "should" be - though, that is changing fast...very fast...)

But then as well, even with verifiable bran differences we are now discovering that the dividing line between male and female is...blurry...a lot more people than we think are inter-sexual, to differing degrees...and then there is hormone exposure in the womb, and exposure to environmental pollutants that may "feminize" males...or vise versa...

And combine that all with cultural influences, and it's hard to say *exactly* what is strictly "male'" and what is strictly "female" about us humans...

Anyway, you are right though...I haven't seen the film, and can't comment on it specifically...I was just responding to your comments, and probably I miss-understood them...

I will check out the movie when I get a chance...(but I may skip the penis-crushing scene...)

 

[DevilEyes]

Rii...no, I get your point...there are distinct biological differences in the brains of males and females...I just, like you, hate it when they are used to stereotype every member of one sex or the other.

Agree about that, but as for those distinct biological differences, how do they justify equaling "male" with "rational" and "female" with "emotional"? That just doesn't make sense. Abstract thinking is not synonymous with rationality, and is not superior in any way to concrete thinking. And it would be completely wrong to assume that a person's ability/tendency for abstract thinking means that they are less governed by emotions in their actions.

And while males may exhibit more tendency towards abstract thinking, they are certainly not less emotional in their behavior.

 

[Rii]

And what the hell does the general issue of gender stereotypes have to do with having or not having seen the film? You're the one who brought up the issue in the first place. Or is that the "bullshit" you're done with?

There are two speaking characters in the film, named only in the credits as 'He' and 'She'. She is in the midst of a existential crisis which He is entirely unable to grasp. A crisis triggered as She was writing her thesis, 'Gynocide'.

She: I've been afraid up here before.
He: Yes, that seems likely.
She: I just didn't know it was fear. I became afraid ... and I stopped writing.
He: What was different the last time?
She: I heard a sound.

[....]

He: You didn't hear Nick screaming.
She: Apparently not.
He: And because you experienced something you couldn't explain rationally, you placed Eden very high on the pyramid chart. Eden was the catalyst that triggered your fear. You jumped to conclusions. In time the emotion will vent with the place. When you feel threatened it's natural to react. If the danger were real, the fear would save your life, because your adrenaline would be used for fight or flight. But what you're experiencing is panic, nothing more.

[She lunges at him]

She: You shouldn't have come here.

In other words: this is not a fucking Rorschach test, it is in the film. And I resent the implication that merely by identifying the puppets that Von Trier is playing with in Antichrist that I embrace those notions, particularly when those implications are coming from people who haven't even seen the fucking film to appropriately contextualise my comments.

And maybe that's my fault, and I'm simply a poor communicator. So be it. But it's clear now that nobody else is coming along to share their thoughts on the film, and I'll be damned if I waste any more time justifying my thoughts on it to people who haven't seen it. So yeah, I'm done with this bullshit.

 

[Gaith]

myself[/I] on a topic, but that's different. Instead of 'educated', I'd go with 'enlightened', in that in provoking thoughts of a certain character, some films - and other forms of art, obviously - can provide a previously unconsidered lens through which to view the world or certain subsets thereof.

Well, maybe "enlightening" is a better word for what I'm getting at. I Netflixed HBO's Citizen X a while ago, for instance, a dramatization of the real-life (rather hapless) hunt for a serial killer in Soviet Russia. While it wasn't a very entertaining watch, I did feel educated/enlightened about Soviet Bureaucracy and life in the 80s.

So long as there's art like that out there, I doubt I'll have patience for such filmic theraphy as this one.

 

[DevilEyes]

And I resent the implication that merely by identifying the puppets that Von Trier is playing with in Antichrist that I embrace those notions, particularly when those implications are coming from people who haven't even seen the fucking film to appropriately contextualise my comments.

And maybe that's my fault, and I'm simply a poor communicator. So be it. But it's clear now that nobody else is coming along to share their thoughts on the film, and I'll be damned if I waste any more time justifying my thoughts on it to people who haven't seen it. So yeah, I'm done with this bullshit.

Um, I haven't said anything about you or what notions you embrace. So maybe you shouldn't be putting words in my mouth and complaining that I'm putting words in yours. (This has gotten quite confusing, LOL)

 

[bryce]

Rii...no, I get your point...there are distinct biological differences in the brains of males and females...I just, like you, hate it when they are used to stereotype every member of one sex or the other.

Agree about that, but as for those distinct biological differences, how do they justify equaling "male" with "rational" and "female" with "emotional"? That just doesn't make sense. Abstract thinking is not synonymous with rationality, and is not superior in any way to concrete thinking. And it would be completely wrong to assume that a person's ability/tendency for abstract thinking means that they are less governed by emotions in their actions.

And while males may exhibit more tendency towards abstract thinking, they are certainly not less emotional in their behavior.

Well, both my ex-wife and my oldest daughter flat out tell me that during their periods, they get "totally hormonal" and "emotional"...so there is that.

And I think...maybe...the differences in brain structure between males and females is in the parts of the brain that control emotion and rationality...and intuition.

But it may be possible that by "intuitive"...women's brains, on average, my be more suited for making the intuitive leaps that scientific thinking sometimes requires... subconsciously making connections that the conscious brain doesn't see.

I dunno...

But I do believe that there *is* reason to believe that Einstein's first wife contributed a lot more to helping Einstein formulate Relativity than she is given credit for...and it's generally acknowledged Watson & Crick took a hunk of the credit that Rosalind Franklin deserved for working out the structure of DNA...(not saying that they stole from her, just that her role was equally as important as hers was...and that was never acknowledged...)

 

[DevilEyes]

Rii...no, I get your point...there are distinct biological differences in the brains of males and females...I just, like you, hate it when they are used to stereotype every member of one sex or the other.

Agree about that, but as for those distinct biological differences, how do they justify equaling "male" with "rational" and "female" with "emotional"? That just doesn't make sense. Abstract thinking is not synonymous with rationality, and is not superior in any way to concrete thinking. And it would be completely wrong to assume that a person's ability/tendency for abstract thinking means that they are less governed by emotions in their actions.

And while males may exhibit more tendency towards abstract thinking, they are certainly not less emotional in their behavior.

Well, both my ex-wife and my oldest daughter flat out tell me that during their periods, they get "totally hormonal" and "emotional"...so there is that.

Well... I don't. Get particularly emotional during the period, that is. Of course I have hormonal reactions, physical that is, and an increased sex drive during PMS and early days of the period, but emotionally, I have never noticed any differences.

And doesn't the testosterone level in males vary during the day?

And I think...maybe...the differences in brain structure between males and females is in the parts of the brain that control emotion and rationality...and intuition.

AFAIK, the differences in the brain structure means that women in general could transfer data between the right and the left hemisphere than males do. The way I understand it, that might mean that women on average would be more likely to be in touch with their emotions and intuition and to use them in the thought process, while males on average would have more of a disconnect between their rational and the emotional or intuitive side, which would give them an advantage in abstract thinking (e.g. in mathematics). Which does somewhat justify the "women = emotional" notion in the sense that men would, in general, be more likely to separate emotions from their thought processes, but certainly doesn't mean at all that they would be less likely to act on their emotions.

Anyone who argues that men are more rational than women should just pay a visit to a football match and see the hooligans or look at the statistics - or just the news stories - about so-called "crimes of passion", and see that the overwhelming majority of people who murder out of jealousy and similar motives are male. Hardly seems like rational behavior.

 

[Deckerd]

And maybe that's my fault, and I'm simply a poor communicator. So be it. But it's clear now that nobody else is coming along to share their thoughts on the film, and I'll be damned if I waste any more time justifying my thoughts on it to people who haven't seen it. So yeah, I'm done with this bullshit.

I think maybe you're on the wrong board.