Antichrist (2009)

>>79271818
women are the devil

>>79271818
I thought it was almost comically misogynistic in that it seemed to say women are evil witches who kill their children. I'm not sure how anybody could criticize Dafoe's character.

I should say I haven't seen it in forever though so perhaps I misinterpret.

its misogynistic, its redpilled, its anti sjw, its all those words you people like so much and none of those you don't. it's ok to tell other people you enjoy this movie over the internet. congrats, faggot.

>>79271818
I really like this film, but I think the themes regarding femininity are pretty half-baked

The far more interesting and well developed theme of Antichrist is that nature is violent fucking chaos. Dafoe takes his wife out in the middle of nowhere thinking the same thing that most people do: nature is so quaint and peaceful. In reality, nature is savage as fuck

Werner Herzog was filmed making a similar argument against the mistaken "beauty" of nature

>>79271818

It's a really, really stupid movie.

>>79271818
I got the impression she was meant to be possessed, hence the title.
If you want you can say "mentally ill" instead of possessed

>>79271818
If I remember the chick becomes misogynistic herself and goes insane, all from her studies of female history and the fact that she took dick while her baby fell and died

>>79271818
Wasn't the point that the whole thing was told from the man's point of view and it's actually a feminist film or something?

>>79271955

>femininity
>nature

choose two senpai

>mistaken "beauty" of nature

it's not mistaken, nature is simultaneously beautiful and horrifyingly brutal. It's not a binary thing, anon.

Also, OP, exploring the negative aspects of femininity isn't "misogynistic." You're doing yourself a huge disservice by constantly viewing the world through this lens.

>>79272022
>she took dick while her baby fell and died
Was that supposed to have been her fault or just an accident?

>>79271977

She was. That was the point.

Defoe's character arrogantly took her out there thinking he knew it all. He couldn't help her because she was clearly dis-associative, demonstrated in the scene where she can't remember throwing the wrench.

It's about the arrogance of man. Instead of realizing she's fucked up, he thinks she turns evil and strangles her.

>>79272140
it was an accident but she blamed herself
the idea is, she was supposed to be looking after her baby and it died because she was busy taking dick
and her research at the cabin regarding women and their bullshit throughout history
she blamed herself and went insane

>>79272140
She watched it happen and didnt do anything coz she wanted to orgasm and was sick of not being able to have sex coz of the kid.
Its why she cuts her clit off later in the film as a "punishment"

>>79272140

It's unknown.

>>79272184
Sorry its been years since ive seen it and can only really remember the graphic parts. I even forgot he was a psych till yoi brought it up

>>79272184
you're stupid

>>79271818
It's a criticism of women. Full on misogynistic? I don't think so personally. I can see why some people think it would be though.

It explores the theme that women are inferior and weak. If you think it makes a definite statement on either perspective then you are retarded. Lars is insane and loves hitler so he loves the idea of "I'm just wonderin" when it comes to his movies

>>79271818
>I can't figure out whether it's misogynistic or not
Anon the explicit theme of the movie is that women are the root of all evil. So yes, it could be classified as misogynistic.

I remember Kermode arguing with Defoe on the radio. Kermode said it's _about_ misogyny. Defoe thought it was not.

>>79272566

yea well, that faggot gave Ghostbusters a good review sooo..

>>79272085
Please elaborate on that... if you could.

>>79272129
I'm not claiming that exploring the negative aspects of femininity is "misogynistic", maybe I worded my thoughts wrong, I'm just curious whether Trier's intention WAS to make a misogynistic film, or not, and I want to see arguments for that. It's intriguing to me.

>>79272140
>>79272185
>>79272219
It WASN'T an accident, see: >>79272193
There's a flashback scene where she clearly sees him falling out of the window and doesn't do anything to prevent it.

>>79272303
That's what I'm trying to say, but I also see how it criticises men (although, not as much). I just want some arguments against people when they claim it's "full on misogynistic".

>>79272566
Could you link me, please?

>>79271955
>mistaken "beauty" of nature
It's not "mistaken", it's just that it comes in many forms and in varying levels of influence for each.

>>79272129
>>79272788

It may appear beautiful to you, but objectively it's pretty fucking brutal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xQyQnXrLb0

>>79272852

it's both ya dingus

Herzog only sees half of the picture. He's kind of a nihilist.

>>79272852

listening to him speak is fucking painful.

>>79272961
Get out of here with that middle of the road fallacy.

And take >>79273005 with you

>>79272852

what an edgy diatribe

>>79273046

that's not an argument.

i suspect you have no argument against what I'm saying because deep down you know it to be the truth.

The duality of nature isn't a fallacy, you dunce.

>>79272852
He's confusing "nature" with life itself. Nothing he said doesn't also apply to existence as a whole; "Overwhelming misery" isn't inherent to nature, and in fact dwelling on Nature's misery is mere projection on his part. E.g. he says "the trees are miserable", which is more of an interpretation of the given atmosphere than the trees themselves being "miserable" in any way beyond reaction to stimuli and constantly resisting entropy for the duration of their lives.

>>79271818
>A movie can't focus on one flawed character if that character happens to be a woman because that's misogynist.
>There has to be a flawed man to even it out so I don't get offended

>>79273168
...
I'm just curious whether Trier's intention WAS to make a misogynistic film, or not, and I want to see arguments for that. It's intriguing to me.

Wait... so why is the film called "ANTICHRIST"?

>>79272713

>It WASN'T an accident,

That's what happens at the end after the POV changes. It's not actually what happens.any more than talking foxes and unkillable birds.

It's a modern take on an old story. She went into the woods to debunk all that shit and was consumed into believing it. So did He when he took her up there.

>>79273103
No u

>>79274248
If the gospel and purpose of Christ was to uplift your sight to things beyond the world, the purpose of this film was to divert your gaze down to the natural world, to the chaos inherent in this existence, to the fate of terrestrial beings and their flaws and madness

hence Antichrist

File: dagobah boy.png (332KB, 660x418px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 660x418px

>>79274445
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM...
care to explain boi?

In her intense research of the treatment she became to believe they must have been inherently evil to have been treated like that, so she begins to act in evil ways her self. She watches her son walk to the window and fall out mostly because of this. She prioritizes sexual pleasure over his life to fit the image of the evil woman

>>79274666
But... what? She began her research once they were in the cabin - before the son died... so, that doesn't make much sense, y'know?

>>79272852
>obscenity
>suffocation
>asphyxiation
>fighting for survival
>misery
He's essentially a christfag (or has a christfag attitude) deluded into believing in the inherent kindness of the natural world who comes in contact with the reality, and is shocked to find that God's world is savage, Darwinian, and brutal, and so must be God, too.

The best remedy to prevent people growing up pathologically altruistic and tenderhearted is having them watch nature documentaries as kids, and explaining to them that that's how life actually is like.

>>79274772 spelling error on my part, the research on the treatment of women in the past is what i meant

>>79275058
That still doesn't make sense to me, my man, the film doesn't indicate in any way that she started the research before going into the cabin in the woods (at least as far as I'm aware). So... do you see my conundrum?

>>79275139
She was doing the research during the earlier visit to the cabin with their son and developed her evil behaviours as a result. it started with putting the sons shoes on the wrong way on purpose and snowballed from there. I don't see what you aren't understanding here

File: thing ting.png (74KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 240x240px

>>79275247
Oh, my bad. Need to re-watch the film again. Was putting on the shoes the wrong way really on purpose? I thought the scene conveyed a sense of "realisation" like "o shit I fucked up my son's feet"

>>79275336
My reading of the scene was that she was remembering what she did and knowing that it was her fault was fucking her up, like when it shows her remembering watching the son walk to the window and regrets it. She knew she did it but seeing the picture was forcing her to think about it

>>79275500
Ahh... so as in, not really doing those things "on purpose" but then forcing herself to think that she in fact DID do them on purpose because of her "evil nature"?

This is a good discussion, I'm happy.

PLEASE, EVERYONE...calm down.
von Trier is a female apologist and has been throughout his entire carreer...every female character is madonna and the whore.
It's an inherently cucked trait that rears his head in nearly all his movies, because von Trier's mother chose not to tell him his jewish stepfather wasn't his real father.

This is what's actually going on, its von Triers's oedipal complex.

>>79277195
shut up, idiot.

>>79271938
Nice tantrum you little bitch.

>>79272219
It is known.

File: spoiler nigger.png (321KB, 593x426px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 593x426px

hey guy's whats up