Curiouser and curiouser. Roger Ebert is clearly still processing Lars Von Trier’s latest crowd-terroriser, but there appears to be respect in his initial assessment:
Whether this is a bad, good or great film is entirely beside the point. It is an audacious spit in the eye of society. It says we harbor an undreamed-of capacity for evil. It transforms a psychological treatment into torture undreamed of in the dungeons of history. Torturers might have been capable of such actions, but they would have lacked the imagination. Von Trier is not so much making a film about violence as making a film to inflict violence upon us, perhaps as a salutary experience. It’s been reported that he suffered from depression during and after the film. You can tell. This is the most despairing film I’ve ever have seen.
What can be said is that von Trier, after what many found the agonizing boredom of his previous Cannes films “Dogville” and “Manderlay,” has made a film that is not boring. Unendurable, perhaps, but not boring. For relief I am looking forward to the overnight reviews of those who think they can explain exactly what it means. In this case, perhaps, a film should not mean, but be.
There is no film on the planet that I want to see more, right now, than “Antichrist.”
Comments
19 responses to “Ebert on ‘Antichrist’”
As much as I love Von Trier, I don’t think I can see this. There are some images I just don’t need in my brain. Call it “Salo Syndrome”.
“There is no film on the planet that want to see more, right now, than “Antichrist.””
Same here… Can’t freaking wait.
There’s probably over 100 films I would like to see more. This sounds deplorable.
It’s immensely entertaining to read all these reviews that are coming out for “Antichrist”. Variety has the funniest one so far, clearly they didn’t like it.
Now I’m a bit apprehensive about the film, I knew it would push people’s buttons but I didn’t think it would go this far!
I’m not sure I could stomach something Ebert refers to as “the most despairing film i’ve ever seen”
Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark were major emotional ringers, but this sounds purely vile. I will wait out till there are more reviews before if I decided to see it or not.
ugh… so this is going to be a funny games kinda film?
Daniel, that’s the same exact vibe I got.
I KNOW!! I’m dying of anticipppppation.
Sort of praise.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1898196_1898204,00.html?iid=tsmodule
Corliss really likes the first half though thinks the 2nd half goes too far.
More praise
http://www.indiewire.com/article/off_the_edge_the_primal_power_of_von_triers_antichrist/
It’s gonna win. Mark my words. And it will be his biggest commercial success.
Was not able to get in but word of mouth is spilt down the extreme middle from the people i have spoken to who have seen it. Some thought that it was disgusting and inhumane others thought that it was genius. It got people’s attention aright and that could work in its favor.
The talking animals is enough for me to want to see this movie.
All this talk – bad or good makes me want to see this film.
chuck
Odd how many people (probably not all, but majority male? just an educated guess) use phrases like “can’t wait!,’ “awesome!” and “must see!” when the main point of early reviews is the disgust in seeing women’s genitals cut off.The pervasive, underlying emotion in these comments is a sexually tense kind of excitement. Have we, as a species, really come to this?
That’s a pathetic shot.
Controversy generates excitement. It doesn’t take a psychology degree to figure that out.
Vladdy, if you think the main point of early reviews is the genitals scene, then it’s you who is missing the point.
Just because the majority of American critics find Dogville “boring” doesnt’ mean it is, Mr Ebert.
Thank God for the Europeans !
A culture gasps its last breaths. Death to the West. We own your future.