Saturday, January 2, 2010

Antichrist (2009)

Hmmm. What was worse? The shock or the boredom. Maybe this is a film I'll keep thinking about (I just finished watching it) but for right now, from where I'm sitting, this was just a bunch of pretentious drivel.
Posted by at
Labels:

3 comments:

  1. KevinJanuary 2, 2010 at 7:52 PM

    Interesting. Boring would never be a word I would use in conjunction with this movie. It might be ridiculous, insane, and/or pretentious-but never boring. And in parts, actually quite beautiful.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Peter SwansonJanuary 3, 2010 at 8:01 AM

    Beautiful, yes. And boring, at least to me (boring is like humor, isn't it? It's hard to argue that something isn't boring to someone who's bored.)

    This is why I felt the film was boring, because for the most part, the man and woman (I'm sure you noticed they were not given names ... deep), are just symbols. He's rationality and she's the destructive force of nature. As soon as you get that, it stops being interesting to me. The reason films like Rosemary's Baby, or Repulsion, or even The Shining, are interesting is because the destructive/self destructive characters are real people, and not just ideas of people.

    ReplyDelete
  3. KevinJanuary 3, 2010 at 9:44 AM

    Oh, I'm not arguing that those two people were not characters or even real people, I think that is completely true. You hit the nail on the head: boring is subjective. I found it insane enough to keep me interested. Did I think in the end there was some deeper meaning besides trying to be batshit? Nope not really. It stuck with me, but probably not for the reasons that Von Trier would have wanted. It was just his own personal therapy put on screen-I guess I found it interesting for what was going on behind the camera as well as in front of it.

    I'm getting you a "Chaos Reigns" shirt for your birthday this year.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)