How explicit should this film have gotten?

One of the things which most puzzles me is how contemporary filmmakers feel always think they have to push the envelope...Whether this is from lack of subtlety, their own reflections of the audience as jaded filmgoers themselves, personal taste or lack thereof is something that always fascinates me. Some geniune nut cases like Cathraine Brelliat just are provacateurs...Some like the ubiquitous and prolific (USED to have talent but buried it) Jesus Franco were always dirty old men even when they were young! There is something more to be said for even the Japanese who although their films have incredible amounts of sex and violence, still would leave something to the imagination.

Witness a scene in the 50's film noir shadow classic THE BIG COMBO...Richard Conte is behind Jean Wallace. Both are fully clothed. He is seen murmuring as he proceeds to kiss her from behind and obviously continues to kiss her while proceeding downward from behind her! ANALINGUS is being implied certainly (the fact that the characters' name is MR. BROWN! also adds to this connotation. Yet what is shown is "harmless" and todays' moviegoers would want to see more. I don't think that Lars Von Trier has any idea about being subtle because he hasn't the talent to think that way. I also don't think that this movie could have been made without some form of explicitness. BUT that said do we need to see blatant female masturbation on the screen (outside of porn, can think of scenes in other films that showed the same thing without being so explicit). Some things ARE beyond the realm of acting...and are not so much meant to be censored as meant to be treated with some form of discretion and a talented filmmaker can circumvent anything. If in the staid 40's Preston Sturges could come out with a film as subversive as THE MIRACLE OF MORGAN'S CREEK as a COMEDY (and one of the most hilarious of them to boot) with the content of pre-marital sex, a main character with the name COCKENLOCKER, implied gang-banging, and other stuff like this without showing anything...then something is wrong with filmakers like Von Trier who is all SURFACE talent.   

antichrist the movie: antichrist misunderstood

antichrist the movie: antichrist misunderstood

The cinematography in Antichrist.

The film despite the ugliness of the subject matter and content is extremely well photographed and even beautiful...Am hard pressed to think of another film like this. It's such a curiosity that it kind of defies description. I remember when I was watching that it was as if I as seeing some kind of A CASE STUDY from a psychological basis that somehow got captured onto a very well planned and executed piece of cinema...It is possible to be engrossed the the technique and depressed by the content of the images. It's an cinematic anomaly for people who are strong enough to stay with it...Even in the end one may hate the film...Really would like to hear from others who have confronted this very cinematic but painful assault on their senses!  

RESPONSE TO JEFF G.

Not even sure if I like this film....I can't certainly recommend it to everyone and hesitate to do that. It is a very challenging film, it is extremely well made, violent, sexy (At least it has sexual content) and as I've said well acted...Reminded me in tone very much of Zulawski's film POSSESSION. It is extremely upsetting on a primal psychological level and there aren't many films that get under one's skin like this one does...I am not even saying this is in a POSITIVE way. There have been films in the past whose very content and manner are just so off-putting to most of the general moviegoing or watching public and that NEVER get to the point where this one does! Can think of many of these....John Byrum's INSERTS w/ Richard Dreifuss, Jessica Harper (of SUSPIRIA), Veronica Cartwright and Bob Hoskins, William Lustig's MANIAC w/ Joe Spinell, Ruggero Deodato's  CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, Cathraine Brelliat's ANATOMY OF HELL, Gaspar Noe's IRREVERSABLE just to name a few of these gut and psyche challenges. Even Abel Ferrara's  BAD LIEUTENANT would seem to fall in this company. How many of these are worthwhile ventures or worthy of being seen (if one CAN stand them) again and again is up to the individual. I remember when you gave me your copy of Yukio Noda's extremely violent ZERO WOMAN and gave me a disclaimer that it was more than you could stand!

   To a certain extent all cinema is a CONFRONTATION and some films are more confrontational than others. We who love the horror film genre are USED to CONFRONTATIONAL CINEMA. That fear element is a confrontation of that fear. THAT some of us who love movies want that confrontation, well THIS film definitely DOES THAT IN SPADES! So let that be a warning to all those who can accurately gauge what they can stand to see, feel and experience on screen....The one area where I can honestly say I can see no reason for ANYONE to see the film is it's ENTERTAINMENT value! It isn't that kind of movie.