Lars Von Trier's Anti-Christ

He also told the media, “I am the best film director in the world, and all the others are overrated”, though he later downplayed it a little bit by saying that “all filmmakers think so about themselves but say it out, but I do”.

"I really loved The Five Obstructions"
otm. also

the more modest Von Trier films (which he mainly did till breaking the waves) are his best

This just looks so good.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/entertainments23/sets/72157617175236492/

beaucoup de female masturbation
beaucoup de female masturbation

Hard to take seriously any criticism titled "antichrist = fartbomb". Probably best to take some time to think about the movie before ranting. But I haven't seen it, so maybe it really is a fartbomb. Fartbomb.

xp to Zeno

You have to have heard that one in context though, it was right after a journalist asked him

"What is you justification for making this movie?"
"Do I need a justification?"
"YES!"
-crowd chuckles-
"Well, I, ..." (Von Trier was genuinly surprised by the aggressive tone of voice from the reporter. He ends up saying he doesn't think he needs to justify himself because he's a filmmaker, drops a silence, and to regain himself somewhat makes that joke)

It's really more of a joke if you actually hear it.

from Antichrist = Fartbomb

"that I didn't pay attention to the fact that my plug adapter wasn't giving power.

The computer went down and I lost everything. Seven or eight really
good paragraphs."

LOL

i don't think i have seen a LVT film i've liked. i thought the five obstructions was terrible too but i can't really remember it. i suppose dogville was the least bad.

also if von trier is so extremely depressed it may be worth him considering the fact that he's depressed because he's a complete and utter cunt.

Now now.

jed otm

that should cheer him up, good work guys

Considering how much misery he gleefully spreads, he probably deserves it!

That said I did enjoy the first Kingdom series (haven't watched the second yet) and the overlooked Boss of it All which was pretty amusing. I have a lot of respect for Dancer in the Dark but really have no desire to see any more of his traumatizing dramas.

sometimes i wonder why i like (sometimes love) von trier but tend to have big moral problems with haneke. they're on somewhat similar sadist/moralist kicks. i think part of it is von trier's gleefulness, he usually seems like he's really having a good time making you miserable (where haneke maybe won't let on what a good time he's having, which is what makes him seem disingenuous to me). but this one doesn't sound gleeful, boy howdy. i will definitely see it, even if somewhat against my better judgment.

(my fave LVT is dogville. other ones i like a lot: five obstructions, zentropa, the kingdom (1st season). breaking the waves is pretty good. i liked the music sequences in dancer in the dark, but the movie overall i thought was strained. the element of crime felt like a style exercise. still need to see the idiots and boss of it all.)

Haven't thought anything he was behind lacked in interest, at any rate.

he's really having a good time making you miserable (where haneke maybe won't let on what a good time he's having, which is what makes him seem disingenuous to me)

ding ding ding

Definitely go see Boss of it All, tipsy, it makes me wish deeply he would keep doing comedy (like the lighter stuff in this and The Kingdom) rather than this sadistic stuff he's made his life's mission.

dude EVERYTHING he does is comedy

Haneke is worse than disingenuous: he's a hypocrite who thinks that you are beneath contempt for loving the violence he (thinks he secretly) loves.

Also I would sit through "Faces of Death XIV" for some naked Charlotte Gainsbourg.

More or less a detailed analysis of this:
http://theplaylist.blogspot.com/2009/05/cannes-09-antichirst-review-take2-oh.html

Seems like a pretty logical tragedy scenario (something terrible happens while they're having sex) - unsolveable grief - repent (by making sure they won't enjoy sex ever again) kinda thing to me, to be honest. But filmed by LvT. And described by people who only focus on the shockingly gruesome details without which it maybe was way too shallow and hollywood for LvT?

dude EVERYTHING he does is comedy

from Dogville on, the kind that isn't funny

dude did you read the "director's confession"? that's funny shit!

i laughed lots at dogville. (never saw manderlay -- i suspected he'd done everything interesting he could with that format in the first one.)

s1ocki, i don't know what that is, I stick to his films (until I quit them)

it's a little statement he prepared for the film... it's something else.

dude is just a showman. i think he's great at it. why the eff not?

I think you are confusing SHOW with sewage

I'm starting to get the impression that he's not your favorite director.

morbs is just jealous that von trier brings fresh bile each time

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00659/news-graphics-2008-_659250a.jpg

CHAOS REIGNS

http://www.myspaceantics.com/images/funny/snow-diving-fox.jpg

When your legs are black and blue
It's time to take a break
When your legs are black and blue
It's time to take a holiday

Hahahah Haitch

Press conference http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/mediaPlayer/9902.html

Very first question (after a couple of minutes) is the "Can you justify..." "I don't think I have to..." "YES YOU DO" from the Daily Mail dude

and the press kit http://www.festival-cannes.com/assets/Image/Direct/029841.PDF

haha dafoe's reaction

Newsnight review was quite funny on this -- basically a shouting match.

The Tarkovsky dedication sounds hilarious to me.

this looks like Repulsion.

apparently everything has been banned for this. The poster on the underground, fbk has banned the trailer, the flyers are banned. supposedly even mems of the public have ripped display stands in the cinema. which is prob good for the film and environment.

i doubt ill be watching it though.

ugh the sun

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1200742/CHRISTOPHER-HART-What-DOES-film-banned-days.html

i know its the mail but i think this guy is right to ask. what DOES a film have to do to get banned these days? i mean, wtf. vaginas getting sliced, penises getting hammered, what would a director need to do to get his film banned in 2009? do the bbfc guys not want to be seen as stuffy or do they just think in light of what else is out there these days, not even *this* would be that shocking? theyre prob right tbh, there prob isnt much that would be that shocking anymore, but i kinda think there should be a line drawn somewhere, otherwise its all just accepted.

fuck off

why not accept everything ffs

jim you can fuck right off and slice your penis.

otherwise its all just accepted

this bothers you? WE WON

vaginas getting sliced, penises getting hammered, what would a director need to do to get his film banned in 2009?

linda williams in the guardian last week btw (excuse dowdy academic prose, she's often better:)

"Last week, the Brazilian film Embodiment Of Evil opened in the UK, including scenes of somebody eating their own buttocks and a rat running up another character's vagina. To my knowledge, no one has condemned this as the most obscene film ever made (in contrast with the Sun's outrage over Antichrist). With films like that as a backdrop, I don't find Antichrist's intellectualised antics too worrying. If only tabloids campaigned against real clitorectomies, done on real baby girls, rather than fabricated ones done in fiction movies."

now if only they'd got her to write a whole article rather than one of those some people agree and some don't features

what i want to know is why no one's yet noticed it's basically a remake of DON'T LOOK NOW

"this bothers you? WE WON"

well its more fun if a film gets banned than if it gets released, outrage or not.

I showed the first seven minutes in my film class. A couple of open-mouthed responses. I'd forgotten about the close-up of Willem Dafoe (or his body double's)'s meat.