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.
Dennis Locantore
Studio pic
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
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!
Sunday, January 23, 2011
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.
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.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
antichrist misunderstood
The most misundertood and trashed movie of recent years is Lars Von Trier's ANTICHRIST. The symbolism in the movie is fraught with the icons of old horror movies, and is actually quite easily picked up on. The film is by turns boring, frustrating, extremely well acted, directed and photographed, tricked up yet, suprisingly low-key for most of its' length. I can't wait until Tim Lucas of Video Watchdog gets to review this one, because his is the ONLY voice I'd be interested to hear on this film.
I only found out about this film through my bands' sound man. He caught some of it with his date for the night (God! Whatta movie to pick for a date flick!). I can't imagine what SHE must have thought but the facts are such about this movie that after he told me about some of the images in it as extreme and as pornographic as some of it is, the memories of many other horror films and psychological thrillers will rush back to you while watching it, if you dare.
Personally, I have been interested in seeing some of Von Triers' work anyway. Let me say up front that I don't think that this would be the place for MOST viewers to start. Even having never seen anything else from him I can safely say that. However, if you are fans of either Wilem DaFoe or Miss Gainsbourg (and they are REALLY the only two people in the cast for our purposes) that would be a qualifier. The performances are just outstanding.
Most of the stuff I've glanced at on line reviewing this film has been very negative, even if they appreciate the performances or the artistry with which this film is put together. The CLOSEST film I can think of in mood to this really Zulawski's POSSESSION. It's not a film (as this also is) you'd want to view more than once. But it is a film which deserves to be seen and even within the confines of genre, specific mood, performances, direction and photography should be seen by everyone that is into cult films, sci-fi/horror/psychological thrillers or even just character studies. The metaphysical/religious angle is also paramount and serial killer films which have now become a by rote genre all their own are also part of the influences but not the content of the film. At least not to me. The misogynistic angle that some reviewers have commented on is present in it but is not what I got out of the whole film. To me the blame centers squarely on BOTH characters and their subsequent behavior is dominated by their guilt and fears towards each other regarding their sons' death and their complicity in it. TOGETHER. After all they are having a session of hot sex while he gets out of bed and is killed in an accident. Just how much of an accident it is we are left to guess. Because the question becomes: are these two parents ultimately responsible for IGNORING their child while they are having sex. Are they so much a slave to their carnality even THOUGH they're in married and in love (or is it?) with each other that they are blithely getting their rocks off while their son is creeping out of bed to have the accident that causes his death.
I may be crazy too, but I get a severe sense of MUTUAL guilt and fear about both the husband and wife in this film over that incident. While the husband is a psychoanalist is trying to help his wife through guilt over blaming herself for her son's death, the husband is busy trying to help her even AS HE ADMITS that HE TOO is responsible for it. There is NO way watching DaFoe's performance with his lizard-like face and extremely wide mouth and skin that looks snake-like in many close-ups that not only his stated complicity in but his ACTUAL guilt over his sons' death can be ignored even by someone as DETACHED as his wife says he is in one dialogue exchange.
I am very interested in hearing more on a blog about this film from any and all. I KNOW that Tim Lucas will be reviewing it because it's just the kind of movie he should be reviewing. Challenging, thought-provoking and very apt to be either derided or ignored as trash by most people. If he can dedicate a book to Jesus Franco's garbage (he would take me sorely to task for that and so be it) then I know he is just who should review it.
I only found out about this film through my bands' sound man. He caught some of it with his date for the night (God! Whatta movie to pick for a date flick!). I can't imagine what SHE must have thought but the facts are such about this movie that after he told me about some of the images in it as extreme and as pornographic as some of it is, the memories of many other horror films and psychological thrillers will rush back to you while watching it, if you dare.
Personally, I have been interested in seeing some of Von Triers' work anyway. Let me say up front that I don't think that this would be the place for MOST viewers to start. Even having never seen anything else from him I can safely say that. However, if you are fans of either Wilem DaFoe or Miss Gainsbourg (and they are REALLY the only two people in the cast for our purposes) that would be a qualifier. The performances are just outstanding.
Most of the stuff I've glanced at on line reviewing this film has been very negative, even if they appreciate the performances or the artistry with which this film is put together. The CLOSEST film I can think of in mood to this really Zulawski's POSSESSION. It's not a film (as this also is) you'd want to view more than once. But it is a film which deserves to be seen and even within the confines of genre, specific mood, performances, direction and photography should be seen by everyone that is into cult films, sci-fi/horror/psychological thrillers or even just character studies. The metaphysical/religious angle is also paramount and serial killer films which have now become a by rote genre all their own are also part of the influences but not the content of the film. At least not to me. The misogynistic angle that some reviewers have commented on is present in it but is not what I got out of the whole film. To me the blame centers squarely on BOTH characters and their subsequent behavior is dominated by their guilt and fears towards each other regarding their sons' death and their complicity in it. TOGETHER. After all they are having a session of hot sex while he gets out of bed and is killed in an accident. Just how much of an accident it is we are left to guess. Because the question becomes: are these two parents ultimately responsible for IGNORING their child while they are having sex. Are they so much a slave to their carnality even THOUGH they're in married and in love (or is it?) with each other that they are blithely getting their rocks off while their son is creeping out of bed to have the accident that causes his death.
I may be crazy too, but I get a severe sense of MUTUAL guilt and fear about both the husband and wife in this film over that incident. While the husband is a psychoanalist is trying to help his wife through guilt over blaming herself for her son's death, the husband is busy trying to help her even AS HE ADMITS that HE TOO is responsible for it. There is NO way watching DaFoe's performance with his lizard-like face and extremely wide mouth and skin that looks snake-like in many close-ups that not only his stated complicity in but his ACTUAL guilt over his sons' death can be ignored even by someone as DETACHED as his wife says he is in one dialogue exchange.
I am very interested in hearing more on a blog about this film from any and all. I KNOW that Tim Lucas will be reviewing it because it's just the kind of movie he should be reviewing. Challenging, thought-provoking and very apt to be either derided or ignored as trash by most people. If he can dedicate a book to Jesus Franco's garbage (he would take me sorely to task for that and so be it) then I know he is just who should review it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)