…that, if it’s domestically released this year, Lars Von Trier’s “Antichrist” will pop up somewhere in my top 10?
Tag: Lars Von Trier
-
Back in the spotlight
UPDATE: Sorry, my fascination is unending. The Guardian’s Xan Brooks comes out in full support of the film:
I stumble out in a daze, momentarily unsure whether I loved it or loathed it. Abruptly I realise that I love it. Von Trier has slapped Cannes with an astonishing, extraordinary picture – shocking and comical; a funhouse of terrors (of primal nature, of female sexuality) that rattles the bones and fizzes the blood before bowing out with a presumptuous dedication to Andrei Tarkovsky that had sections of the crowd hooting in fury … Pound for pound, (“A Prophet”) is surely the strongest film of the competition so far. Why, then, is it “Antichrist” that keeps me awake last night, whirling like a dervish in the darkness of the room?
EARLIER: Somehow I get the feeling that Lars Von Trier went to bed last night a very satisfied man. After the deafening indifference that greeted “The Boss Of It All” and “Manderlay,” he arrived at Cannes with one objective more crucial than any other: to prove that his work could still inspire feeling and discussion. Point proven.
Whether or not “Antichrist” is as awful as some people seem to think — and indeed, not everyone does think so — is beside the point. For all his genius (and I do think he is one of the most extraordinary filmmakers of his time), Von Trier shamelessly thrives on attention; when his work is ignored, as has been the case these past six years, his own creative mojo appears to flag. Much has been said about how “Antichrist” is the product of a recent bout of severe depression; perhaps his rediscovered capacity for provocation signals a renewed willingness to engage, and a more fruitful creative period to come.
-
Ebert on ‘Antichrist’
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.”
-
‘Antichrist’ causes outrage on the Croisette
Oh dear — this is turning out to be a pretty rough weekend at Cannes. We’re still awaiting the first official reviews of Lars Von Trier’s “Antichrist,” which just screened this evening, but it seems to have attracted the full ire of the notoriously excitable Cannes crowd. Boos, gasps and laughter reportedly greeted the screening on the gory, sexually explicit film, which apparently throws everything from talking animals to genital mutilation into the pot.
Jeff Wells pulls no punches in his assassination of the film:
Easily one of the biggest debacles in Cannes Film Festival history and the complete meltdown of a major film artist in a way that invites comparison to the sinking of the Titanic … It’s an out-and-out disaster — one of the most absurdly on-the-nose, heavy-handed and unintentionally comedic calamities I’ve ever seen in my life. On top of which it’s dedicated to the late Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky, whose rotted and decomposed body is now quite possibly clawing its way out of the grave to stalk the earth, find an axe and slay Von Trier in his bed.
-
Cannes: sizing up the Competition, part two
Continuing yesterday’s survey of the runners and riders in the race for the Palme d’Or…“ANTICHRIST” (Lars Von Trier)
The pitch: You’ve seen the trailer. Charlotte Gainsbourg and Willem Dafoe star as bereaved parents who retreat to a remote woodland cottage to nurse their grief, only to be terrorised by unnamed forces of evil. (English dialogue)
The history: Over his seven previous Competition appearances, Von Trier has enjoyed a gradual ascent from the Technical Grand Prize for 1984’s “Element of Crime,” to the Jury Prize for 1991’s “Europa,” to the Grand Prix for 1996’s “Breaking the Waves” (1996) to, at last, the Palme d’Or for 2000’s “Dancer in the Dark.” Nothing since then, however, with his masterful “Dogville” coming up surprisingly (and undeservingly) empty-handed.
The outlook: The film may appear to be familiar (albeit bloody terrifying) horror fare in the trailer, but we should know by now never to presume what a maverick like Von Trier has up his sleeve. Cannes is usually averse to the genre, so whether the film made the lineup because it’s something more subversive, or simply because it’s directed by one of their favourite sons, remains to be seen. Either way, the film will need to be something special to get Von Trier back in the winner’s circle – after all, “Dancer in the Dark” proved so polarising, juries have been unwilling to take a chance on him since. He tends to put his actresses through the wringer, so perhaps there’s a chance for Charlotte Gainsbourg here – but who knows?
“SPRING FEVER” (Lou Ye)
The pitch: Erotic drama follows a young man hired to survey a married man’s homosexual affair; tangled relationships ensue as the spy and his girlfriend become sexually drawn to the adulterous couple. (Mandarin dialogue)
The history: Not counting an unfortunate 2006 withdrawal after his “Summer Palace” fell foul of Chinese censors, this is Lou’s second Competition appearance.
The outlook: There is a great deal of goodwill in the world-cinema fraternity for Lou, who has fought a continuous battle with the Chinese censorship board. His last film, the politically charged “Summer Palace,” resulted in the director receiving a five-year ban from filmmaking – a ruling Lou is flagrantly flouting by screening his new film (which was shot in secret on handheld cameras) at this year’s festival. It’s a courageous move, and I think there’s a strong chance the jury might like to demonstrate their support for the embattled auteur with a prize of some variety.
-
Troublemakers united
Yours truly began a two-part Cannes preview this morning, but there is plenty more such coverage around if you’re beginning to get festival fever. I particularly liked Jonathan Romney’s rundown in the Independent, in which the critic points out an interesting trend in this year’s lineup: namely the convergence of several renowned enfants terribles in one year.There’s almost always one title in contention whose extremities — whether of sex, violence or other — set tongues wagging along the Croisette, but this year looks to be particularly hard on the faint-hearted. Quentin Tarantino’s bound-to-be-grisly “Inglourious Basterds” looks positively milquetoast compared some of the other fare on offer, including “Oldboy” director Park Chan-Wook’s decidedly adult vampire tale “Thirst” and Lars Von Trier’s seemingly unnerving foray into horror territory, “Antichrist.”
Michael Haneke’s new effort doesn’t look like a box of kittens either, but as Romney writes, none of these filmmakers instil quite as much fear in mild-mannered filmgoers as Frenchman Gaspar Noé:
These days, the shocks come a little stiffer. A hardened colleague of mine walked out of Gaspar Noé’s Irréversible (2002) after the opening salvo of 13 blows to the head with a fire extinguisher – thereby missing considerably worse to follow … With Enter the Void, it’s more than likely that he’ll attempt to up the ante on Irréversible. Touted as “a hallucinatory maelstrom”, it involves a stripper’s brother who reviews the violent circumstances of his death, from the afterlife. Laden with special effects and screeching neon colours, Noé has promised it will be more psychedelic than violent – but at two-and-a-half hours, it certainly won’t be an easy ride.
I’m interested to see whether Noé can build more critical cache this year beyond the controversy that greeted his previous work — for all its look-at-me theatrics, “Irréversible” is a much better film than it’s usually given credit for. With several other title jostling for the attention of the more excitable media outlets this year, perhaps there’s more of a chance people will find the film beneath the fuss.
And as Romney points out, if anyone can handle it, it’s a jury that includes such notably fearless figures as Isabelle Huppert and Asia Argento. Bring it on.
-
New stills and trailer for ‘Antichrist’
Chances are it won’t net him the same level of mainstream kudos as “Slumdog Millionaire,” but a series of newly released stills for Lars von Trier’s “Antichrist” confirms that we can expect some pretty special work from Academy Award winner Anthony Dod Mantle. (How great does it feel to read those last six words, by the way?)
You can view more stills here, but it’s the milky lighting and Brothers Grimm-style atmospherics of the following shot that really got my attention. Whether the film is straight-up, balls-out horror fare or not (and given Von Trier’s ever-defiant track record, I can’t help wondering if we’re being wrong-footed by the marketing here), it’s clearly going to be a thing of considerable beauty. Cannes can’t come soon enough.
A second gorgeous still after the cut, plus a new (presumably European) trailer: the latter isn’t significantly different from the first, but it quickens my heart nonetheless.
-
Startling ‘Antichrist’ trailer
Put Lars von Trier and Charlotte Gainsbourg together, and you have me at hello, so I don’t need to be sold — but damn it if this fragmentary-nightmare trailer doesn’t sell me on the film anyway.
I wasn’t quite expecting a full-throttle dive into horror from von Trier, but that’s certainly the vibe given off here. Intriguing. I assume this will crop up at Cannes?
[Source: First Showing]
-
New WTF still from Von Trier’s ‘Antichrist’
I go back and forth with Lars Von Trier. Lots of respect for “Breaking the Waves,” hated “Dancer in the Dark,” “Dogville” topped my list in 2004 (though shamefully I’ve yet to see “Manderlay”), etc., etc. But I can’t wait to see “Antichrist.” This new still from the film totally freaks me out but I can’t look away. What’s most striking, however, is how classy the composition is. I thought about linking rather than posting, since “NSFW” is arguable, but I figured screw it (no pun intended):
(Courtesy: filmz.dk)
-
Anthony Dod Mantle — it is time
I don’t generally throw myself full force behind a contender with the kind of FYC spirit I’m about to project. We all have our favorites and we all hope this person or that will finally get the recognition deserved, but it’s a different thing to full on advocate. But today, I just can’t help myself.Watching “Slumdog Millionaire” a second time Friday night as part of the AFI Danny Boyle tribute, I was taken once again by the urgent nature of the film’s visual style. It’s a direct reflection of Boyle’s energetic attitude toward life and the cinema, of course. But it’s also the result of wonderful creativity from cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle.
Boyle says he first took notice of Mantle’s work on the Dogme classic “Festen.” The two first collaborated on television’s “Strumpet” before moving into daring digital territory with the modern zombie classic “28 Days Later,” and then Mantle moved back to his Dogme roots, taking on projects for Thomas Vinterberg and Lars von Trier with a little Boyle thrown in between (2004’s “Millions”).
I never much responded to the supposed revelation that was Dogme, so Mantle first caught my eye with “28 Days Later” and especially with Kevin Macdonald’s “The Last King of Scotland,” where I suddenly felt the earth move under the weight of a new talent’s insistence on a refreshingly vigorous intimacy with his photography.
Much like Harris Savides, Cesar Charlone or Rodrigo Prieto, Mantle is finding himself moving in and out of the independent market with eye-popping work that can go unnoticed in the wake of the postcard photography that tends to be singled out during the awards season. But his work is alive, crackling with immediacy and actively creative in the service of story, never more so than in “Slumdog Millionaire,” Boyle’s latest vibrant contribution to the silver screen.
The time has come for Mantle to be recognized for the innovation he lends not only this film, but the trade itself. I fully expect “Slumdog” to find a home in numerous categories, but if I could insist consideration of just one aspect of its elaborate below-the-line construction, it would be for Mantle’s contribution. What fierce life he has captured here.