If she doesn't care about her child falling from a window, why all the sorrow throughout all the movie? Doesn't make sense.
shareI know right they should have a character explain everything so I can be told how to feel and what exactly is going on.
shareJust because you are a moron ready to be mesmerized by whatever bullsh*t gets put in front of you doesn't mean the rest of us are like that, I expect a movie that makes fvking sense.
shareIt seems a lot of people had the same problem. And then there is the discussion about misogyny and all. The movie goes deeper than that, psychologically; or allegorically, I suppose. The characters are not so much people as universal, primal archetypes. And the movie is very tightly wrapped when the pieces fall in place. It addresses the questions of the nature of nature, of our nature and the disconnect between here and there. When asked about her fears she names the cabin in the woods they call "Eden" and when she goes there in her imagination he tells her not to go into the cabin, that it is the outside area she fears. But at the top of the pyramid is an as yet unspecified higher fear. It is this which is behind her slippage and the failure for the characters to connect on a deep level. He keeps trying to get her to the core of her problem and she is afraid that they will get there. "There" is that despite his reassurance that nothing could have been done about the child's accident she noticed the child knocking the three statues from the table but was too busy having sex at the time for it to register in socially conditioned way. It wasn't that she decided to let the child go, even though the reversed shoe thing might suggest she was less than committed as a mother, it was a disconnect at a critical moment. It is like she mused about the acorns and the over exuberance, if not wastefulness and cruelty, of nature. I don't see the movie as a dark interpretation of nature, ours or the larger one, so much as a head's up that natures ways and aesthetics are not the mythologized and proscribed ways and aesthetics of civilization. And when push comes to shove there's no question of which is the more powerful force. Pivotal in the movie is when she (who say nature controls women's bodies not themselves) tells the man "You're just so damned arrogant. This may not last. Have you thought of that?" This is nature confronting civilization with the bad news we've heard so often... "clever; but unsustainable".
Freud toyed with the idea of a death instinct to explain masochism; but it was picked up with enthusiasm by those who used it to justify authoritarian and oppressive agendas. I credit Lars as an artist and so I don't feel that he is promoting the idea of nature and human nature being evil in this film. It is the job of the artist to get you thinking about something rather than to give you answers so you stop thinking about something, and this film gives you plenty to think about. Our history is the history of estrangement from nature, both of them. I see the epilogue's vision of food from nature and masses of nameless women struggling up-hill (struggling against social convention?) as Lars' opinion and the rest of the movie to be about the cost of failing to recognize, connect, and appreciate... the fall from Eden, if you like.
You can ascribe meaning to absolutely anything, I can see a piece of sh*t and somehow what you wrote could apply to it to. That's the problem with modern art,it's a cesspool of quacks and emperors with no clothes and the idiots who follow them.
Film is totally different. Just like literature, it's an artform based on NARRATIVE and being so, it simply has to make sense. It is not abstract artform, it can't possibly be. And this movie is an example, it simply does not make any sense.
In sorry, that is incorrect. Film is an art form based on nothing but the illusion of movement created by projecting still frames in rapid succession. A clear narrative is mainstream audience expectation, not an obligation on behalf of the filmmaker. You seem to be anti-art, as you seem to find analysis to be without merit because "anyone can ascribe meaning to anything" so my question to you is why are you even watching Von Trier films? Perhaps there's something more on your level you could watch instead that spells everything out for you and resists interpretation.
And ANY art form can be abstract if the artist makes it so. Your ignorance and the confidence with which you expel it is borderline hilarious.
I'm with you here. Film is literally just capturing moving images. People just enjoy using it to tell stories. However, narrative is not necessary. It seems that OP only enjoys film as a storytelling medium, which is completely understandable. However, it's simply wrong to assume that that is the ONLY purpose for film.
Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) is fairly standard storytelling at first, but the further it goes on, the more it turns into a character study, before completely abandoning narrative for the last two episodes and simply explores the psychological states of the main characters. I think it's a brilliant way to end the series, but a lot of people don't like it, and understandably so.
What an unbelievably ignorant and stupid thing to say. Film is a LANGUAGE, just like literature, instead of using words it uses frames as an alphabet, and just like the point of a fvking book is to have a narrative that makes sense, so it is for film. Nobody would ever treat a book of gibberish as a art, nobody, because that is not what literature is about. But with film, stupid people feel that gibberish is somehow art and valid for the medium, well it is not, and film is so much more than just capturing moving images, so much more but that fact clearly goes over your dumb ass head.
shareFilm to YOU is about capturing more than moving images. Film is what we make of it, see? And interestingly, filmmakers can make films that are about what film means for them. It doesn't mean you have to like it or appreciate it, but it doesn't mean you get to dismiss it for not fitting in to YOUR narrow-minded view of what film should be.
Again, since you're making your statements with such confidence and bravado, and being so belittling of those who oppose you, I'd like you to back up your statements with credible sources. I would like to hear a film scholar or historian echo your view that film is a narrative medium and that anything that doesn't have a standard Hollywood narrative is "gibberish".
Now, I AM going to back up MY argument with facts. It was very simple. All I had to do was search the definition of "film":
film
film/Submit
noun
1.
a thin flexible strip of plastic or other material coated with light-sensitive emulsion for exposure in a camera, used to produce photographs or motion pictures.
"he had already shot a whole roll of film"
2.
a motion picture; a movie.
"a horror film"
synonyms: movie, picture, feature film, motion picture; More
verb
1.
capture on film as part of a series of moving images; make a movie of (a story or event).
"she glowered at the television crew who were filming them"
synonyms: record (on film), shoot, capture on film, video
"he immediately filmed the next scene"
2.
become or appear to become covered with a thin layer of something.
"his eyes had filmed over"
synonyms: cloud (over), mist (over), haze (over); More
Film is what we make of it, see?
Not that I have to justify myself to the likes of you, but I studied film in university for over 3 years and am quite well-versed in the "language" of film, thank you very much. That's why I know your ridiculous viewpoints are, in fact, ridiculous and thoroughly uneducated and plebeian. You don't have to agree with me, but don't ever claim I'm ignorant. Considering you had no counter-points to the meat of my post, I'm assuming you've basically conceded you've lost this argument. An advisable move, if you ask me.
shareWhat an unbelievably ignorant and stupid thing to say. Film is a LANGUAGE, just like literature, instead of using words it uses frames as an alphabet, and just like the point of a fvking book is to have a narrative that makes sense, so it is for film. Nobody would ever treat a book of gibberish as a art, nobody, because that is not what literature is about. But with film, stupid people feel that gibberish is somehow art and valid for the medium, well it is not, and film is so much more than just capturing moving images, so much more but that fact clearly goes over your dumb ass head.
share[deleted]
My dreams don't "make sense". Why should cinema?
My film collection: http://6travisjohnson.filmaf.com/owned
Because cinema is an art, not your stupid nonsensical dreams.
share"Art". You need to put some flesh on that skeleton.
My film collection: http://6travisjohnson.filmaf.com/owned
Why?? You have a problem with terms? You don't know what words mean'
shareI don't know what you mean when you use one of the most disputed terms.
You seem to say that it is a requirement that art "make sense" but offer no supporting argument as to why it should be so.
I could just as easily claim that something is only art when it doesn't "make sense".
My film collection: http://6travisjohnson.filmaf.com/owned
Your claim is the claim of an ignorant person that doesn't know anything about art. Art is equal parts concept and technique. The technique will always be mechanical and technical and it has to make sense. For a sculpture to remain a sculpture it has to be able to carry its own weight, its construction needs to make sense and needs to be planned out, it's even mathematical. To even deny it is to completely put yourself in evidence as an incredibly ignorant person. When it comes to movies, it is a NARRATIVE MEDIUM, period. It is most similar to LITERATURE than all other artforms. And a nonsensical narrative is gibberish. Nothing more. So a movie that doesn't make sense, that is not properly constructed is just gibberish. It's a bad movie. It's bad form. It says nothing. Like this movie, it doesn't say anything. I can ascribe a puddle of mud all the meaning in the fvking universe, it doesn't stop being nothing more than a crude, gross puddle of mud. And so it happens with this movie. What is it even about?? Nobody knows, it can't even keep up with its own plot points and narrative. It only attracts the ignorant like sh*t to flies I'm sorry to say.
Nice atmospheric shots though, I'll give it that.
When it comes to movies, it is a NARRATIVE MEDIUM, period. It is most similar to LITERATURE than all other artforms.
I understand more about this than you, obviously, and while rules can be broken, I have yet to see a filmmaker do away with the core of filmmaking, which is narration, and succeed. It is not possible. It is like writing a book without words, or with words in disorder, it is gibberish, and only morons get a kick out of that.
shareI understand more about this than you, obviously.
It is like writing a book [...] with words in disorder, it is gibberish, and only morons get a kick out of that.
And what the hell do you think montage is?? Even if the film is told in flashbacks or backwards, one shot is the direct consequence of the one preceding it, in the same way a word is a consequence of the one preceding it, otherwise it is NONSENSICAL, a film CANNOT be nonsensical. Did James Joyce write gibberish?? No, so what is your point?
shareone shot is the direct consequence of the one preceding it
Did James Joyce write gibberish??
This is true in conventional continuity editing, which is just one technique, not some law. There are many other theories of montag.
Even in films told in flashback, even in movies like Memento, one frame is still the direct consequence of the one preceding it.
That is why the concept of abstract filmmaking is beyond laughable.
that stupid eye being sliced cocteau film or whatever
Idiots are still cracking their heads open trying to understand it or ascribe meaning to it, yet it has none.
Lars Von Trier's films are shot in a conventional narrative
The only stupid one in here is you that beliefs filmmaking is not based on narrative. That's like saying literature is not based on narrative. It's moronic.
share"That's like saying literature is not based on narrative. It's moronic."
literature isnt based on a narrative though. most work of literature surely are but it isnt a law that literature should be based on a narrative. literature could jut be a bunch of thoughts put together. literature like every other art form could be about anything or everything. there is no law or limit to what literature can do. there are no rules for good literature like there is no rule for good art. by your logic wassily kandinsky, pablo picasso and other artists are talent less hacks. also me and the other guy you were replying to arent moronic but we are just open minded. first of all open your narrow mind and then call people moronic.
It's impossible for literature not to have a narrative. You don't get it. One word is the direct consequence of the previous one. That is narrative. It can't be escaped. Literature without narrative would be gibberish. Just like this film, visual gibberish.
share"One word is the direct consequence of the previous one.That is narrative."
not really. by that logic every film has a narrative also.
"Just like this film, visual gibberish."
but film isnt anything like literature. you are comparing apples with oranges. a film is more like a painting or a photograph and the most stupidest thing a person would say is that a painting or a photograph needs to have a narrative. 2001 and fantasia have no narrative either but one is said to be one of the best movies of all time and the other is an animated classic.also terrence mallick is one of the best director's of all time and even though most of his films have narrative they have scenes without narrative. the beauty of film is that there is no laws or rules. visual gibberish it might be but it always has a meaning intended or not. that is the magic of film. you might hate it but it is just moronic to call the artists who make movies like antichrist or tree of life talent less and people who love those films morons. it just makes you the moronic one.
You have zero understanding of this. Zero.
shareAat least i have more understanding of it than you. stop being a narrow minded *beep* and then start talking about who has zero understanding. you are the problem here, not the movie. you can't criticize what film can't be or what a film should be. that is just plain stupid
shareWhat's stupid is a person like you who understands zilch about this, trying to have a debate.
shareoh yeah. keep insulting me when you are the one who isn't even able to have a proper debate. also a person who says art is supposed to have narrative is probably the most stupidest person in the world. not insulting you but just stating the obvious. what you are saying is like a person saying "the world is flat". ok, let us say i know "zilch" about film but by that logic you know less than "zilch" about film. i don't care about your BS because what i said is a fact. ART NEEDS NO NARRATIVE.
sharelol it does you fvking imbecile, but I'm done with this conversation.,
sharefinally you show your true form. a swearing kid without a life. just what i wanted. now the board will see who you truly are.
shareThis thread is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Never have I seen such a childish interpretation of any film or artwork in general.
Don't claim to be knowledgable about film if Antichrist is all it takes to confuse you.
[deleted]
What makes you think that she didn't care?
share