So, I saw The House That Jack Built a couple of weeks ago as my official introduction to Lars Von Trier. I wouldn't say I necessarily enjoyed watching that movie, however I did find it to be very artistically compelling, extremely disturbing (to this day the most disturbing film I've ever seen, yes, more than Antichrist) and just caused me to feel a lot of things while I was watching it and I was actually thoroughly entertained throughout it, although, like i said, I didn't particularly enjoy it.
As far as Antichrist goes, I have mixed feelings about it, which is somewhat similar to the thoughts I have on The House That Jack Built. There's no denying that this is a very disturbing movie, definitely not for everyone, but I just didn't connect with it that much. It's a lot more abstract than The House That Jack Built, I thought that was a more straightforward movie in every way possible. But there's this thing about Lars von Trier, where he rides the line between artistic and pretentious and (at least for my taste) The House That Jack Built masterfully rides that line and even though he veers sometimes a little more into the pretentious side, I actually do think it is some sort of weird macabre masterpiece. I can't say the same for Antichrist.
There's the opening scene, which I think is beautiful, but ruined by the shot of Willem Dafoe's penis. And there's just a lot of excess in the movie, that i just think is uncalled for. I have to say I was bored throughout most of it. The dialogue seems forced, the editing is choppy. And there's just a lot of it that seems excessive and just like von Trier smelling his own farts kind of thing.
There are some scenes that I thought were great, like the "Chaos reigns" part was pretty chilling, to be honest. But the truth is I was just bored throughout most of it and wanted it to end.
But, it did made me think a lot about the meaning behind the movie. Like i said, it's not as straightforward as The House that Jack Built and it does require a little bit more of an analysis to kind of understand the meaning behind it. But from what I've heard not even von Trier fully understands what he was trying to say with this movie. I've seen some interpretations online about this movie being some kind of either commentary on religion or the misogyny of religion or something. Besides the clear plot of it being, overcoming grief, for me it was more of an exploration of guilt and that the Wife was exploring these themes about all the women that have been killed by like the Inquisition and throughout history serves not as the main point of the movie (it's only explored later on), but as a way to explore the feelings of grief and guilt that she has.
So here's what I mean: It's revealed near the shocking end of the film that she was aware that her son was about to fall off the window, but she did nothing because she was having sex, but I think it's a little more than that. I think here's what happens, because she was studying all of these women that were killed, she kind of blamed men for it, just straight up, it's men's fault. Not necessarily religion or ideology, it's just men killed women and that's the way she saw it. Now, having established for herself that her main enemies were men, even though she loved her son, as a mother, right, he was also a boy, who would eventually become a man and become her enemy, as she saw it. So, even though she loved him, she also hated him and tortured him for it, in subtle ways, like putting his shoes the other way around and neglected taking care of him.
And i guess another thing she takes away from her studies is that women got killed either because they were women or because there was something wrong about their sexuality, something evil about it. And so, when her son dies, she lets him die, because he's a man (or a boy) and she does so while exploring her sexual desires, thus (in her mind) releasing herself from the chains of history.
But what she doesn't know is that she basically just unleashed hell upon herself. And so her guilt is all tied up with her sexuality and she blames the husband too, right, which is why she puts the grindstone on his leg.
But then I guess von Trier wants to convey this deep message that history repeats itself or something because the man ends up killing her, but he also kills her after she brutally attacks him and tries to kill him. And when he burns her I guess it's some kind of visual re-enactment of the women who were burned at the stake. When all the women appear it's like they were all released or something, that part I didn't care much for.
But yeah, overall I guess I enjoyed more thinking about the movie, than watching it. There's a lot more to dig through, the whole thing about the forest called Eden and how Nature is the Devil's sanctuary or whatever. All of that kind of just fell flat to me, to be honest.
So overall, I'd say I wouldn't recommend it necessarily but it's an interesting movie to talk about.
As far as Antichrist goes, I have mixed feelings about it, which is somewhat similar to the thoughts I have on The House That Jack Built. There's no denying that this is a very disturbing movie, definitely not for everyone, but I just didn't connect with it that much. It's a lot more abstract than The House That Jack Built, I thought that was a more straightforward movie in every way possible. But there's this thing about Lars von Trier, where he rides the line between artistic and pretentious and (at least for my taste) The House That Jack Built masterfully rides that line and even though he veers sometimes a little more into the pretentious side, I actually do think it is some sort of weird macabre masterpiece. I can't say the same for Antichrist.
There's the opening scene, which I think is beautiful, but ruined by the shot of Willem Dafoe's penis. And there's just a lot of excess in the movie, that i just think is uncalled for. I have to say I was bored throughout most of it. The dialogue seems forced, the editing is choppy. And there's just a lot of it that seems excessive and just like von Trier smelling his own farts kind of thing.
There are some scenes that I thought were great, like the "Chaos reigns" part was pretty chilling, to be honest. But the truth is I was just bored throughout most of it and wanted it to end.
But, it did made me think a lot about the meaning behind the movie. Like i said, it's not as straightforward as The House that Jack Built and it does require a little bit more of an analysis to kind of understand the meaning behind it. But from what I've heard not even von Trier fully understands what he was trying to say with this movie. I've seen some interpretations online about this movie being some kind of either commentary on religion or the misogyny of religion or something. Besides the clear plot of it being, overcoming grief, for me it was more of an exploration of guilt and that the Wife was exploring these themes about all the women that have been killed by like the Inquisition and throughout history serves not as the main point of the movie (it's only explored later on), but as a way to explore the feelings of grief and guilt that she has.
So here's what I mean: It's revealed near the shocking end of the film that she was aware that her son was about to fall off the window, but she did nothing because she was having sex, but I think it's a little more than that. I think here's what happens, because she was studying all of these women that were killed, she kind of blamed men for it, just straight up, it's men's fault. Not necessarily religion or ideology, it's just men killed women and that's the way she saw it. Now, having established for herself that her main enemies were men, even though she loved her son, as a mother, right, he was also a boy, who would eventually become a man and become her enemy, as she saw it. So, even though she loved him, she also hated him and tortured him for it, in subtle ways, like putting his shoes the other way around and neglected taking care of him.
And i guess another thing she takes away from her studies is that women got killed either because they were women or because there was something wrong about their sexuality, something evil about it. And so, when her son dies, she lets him die, because he's a man (or a boy) and she does so while exploring her sexual desires, thus (in her mind) releasing herself from the chains of history.
But what she doesn't know is that she basically just unleashed hell upon herself. And so her guilt is all tied up with her sexuality and she blames the husband too, right, which is why she puts the grindstone on his leg.
But then I guess von Trier wants to convey this deep message that history repeats itself or something because the man ends up killing her, but he also kills her after she brutally attacks him and tries to kill him. And when he burns her I guess it's some kind of visual re-enactment of the women who were burned at the stake. When all the women appear it's like they were all released or something, that part I didn't care much for.
But yeah, overall I guess I enjoyed more thinking about the movie, than watching it. There's a lot more to dig through, the whole thing about the forest called Eden and how Nature is the Devil's sanctuary or whatever. All of that kind of just fell flat to me, to be honest.
So overall, I'd say I wouldn't recommend it necessarily but it's an interesting movie to talk about.