Guest zaphod Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 i think i know what pbn is saying, but i want him to step up and explain it without condescending. anyway, i want this to be good. i was intrigued by the trailer. also the description of enter the void has made me want to see that as well. i'm pumped for a lot of movies this year, i just hope they can deliver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 this idea that the absolute highest value is 'freedom' in the sense of license is an absurd prejudice of people under 30, and basically everyone on here; some things are more important than art on the other hand, misogyny is a deep and time-honored tradition that speaks to men of all ages ;) Do you really think all his films are about license? I'd say Dogville probably - though the most trenchant points it tries to make are about social conformity - but is Breaking the Waves? I honestly can't remember anything about Dancer in the Dark except Bjork getting lynched. I'd say torturing women ranks more highly in his films than any celebration of license. License would be more like Caligula, or Clockwork Orange, or any number of other 70's flicks, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr Salads Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 i dont get what is wrong with misogyny. Especially, ESPECIALLY, in movies. I think this has just made my most anticipated film to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squee Posted May 19, 2009 Author Share Posted May 19, 2009 *fires shotgun into air* What the hell are ya'll talking 'bout? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playbynumbers Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 i didn't mean to sound condescending, exactly; it was more just anger and annoyance, at the film and at society in general. also, more specifically, i read a detailed scription of the film, in a review, and have literally had nightmares for the last two nights. but yes, sure, in general i'm disgusted with the direction of the West since about the 19th century, and especially since the 1970s. the lurid sensationalism and thrill-seeking and nihilism ... like, for example, hearing that a movie is all about genital mutilation and torture porn, which may not even get an NC-17 rating, and was clearly made by a deranged human being (mr. von trier, in the midst of clinical depression) ... this makes me want to reiterate that there really are such things as good and evil, and that in all societies at all times in all places, prior to roughly the 1960s-70s in certain western countries, a film like this would never have been permitted to see any sort of release --- and this is a good thing. censoring evil is a good thing. there are values higher than artistic freedom. and when i say that 'freedom' in the sense of license isn't the highest value, i mean that, films like this POISON YOUR MIND, AND ARE EVIL. yes, the word 'evil'! wow! i'm being so judgmental and anti-art! i sound like a republican or evangelical christian! who are living straw men, and are unable to argue this position well enough, and that's the problem. they've won the argument, the people who think that the highest value should be 'artistic expression', who set up the human will up as a god, to be worshipped and set free to do whatever depraved sickening thing it wants to do, who think that this should provide order to our existence. (and maybe the film can give us us some sort of half-assed pseudo-freudian/lacanian 'profundity' from lars von trier as well, which would make it all worth it! two or three film students could write insufferable essays about 'reductions of the feminine in the work of lars von trier'! great!) and, you know, i can't wait to see the new gaspar noe film as well; maybe i should go back and watch 'irreversible' four or five times, and masturbate to the anal rape scene (which at least one person on watmm reported doing). and what's wrong with that, after all; who am i, who is anyone, to say that that's wrong? what value is higher than my freedom to indulge in any sexual or moral perversion? anyone who says otherwise is obviously just repressed, or a republican, or something, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 chill, duuude comparing von trier to noe is unfair. I tried watching irreversible and it just gave me a headache. first time I saw breaking the waves it made me cry, despite hating trier's "ironic" chapter headings. It seems like you've built up a pretty nuanced critique of modern thought, with which I might agree in part, but do you really think it was any better before this? Depravity has always had a role in human affairs. and I completely disagree about censorship. "Censoring evil is a good thing"? So I take it you'd ban Mein Kampf to take the most obvious example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playbynumbers Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 depravity was never celebrated as a virtue before about 40 years ago. and i'm not saying that we should actually censor lars von trier; i was unclear. my point is that society shouldn't have to go through the trouble of censoring; a film like this shouldn't have an audience at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 um...the romans? Gladiators and vomitoriums and whatnot? Voltaire, the Marquis de Sade? The Medicis? Seeing as the definition of vice changes over time, I guess you could argue whether or not they consciously considered what they were doing as "vice" or if it's only from the modern viewpoint that you judge them. Also, you are crazy, no matter how detailed the description you read, you still haven't seen the film yet. If it's as wretched as you say, it won't have much of an audience outside the "cult" rack. Have a little faith in your fellow man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr Salads Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 depravity was never celebrated as a virtue before about 40 years ago. and i'm not saying that we should actually censor lars von trier; i was unclear. my point is that society shouldn't have to go through the trouble of censoring; a film like this shouldn't have an audience at all. Im not sure what this means though. Films dont have built in audiences. People saw it because von trier is a filmmaker you cannot ignore. He has made some pretty crazy movies. And in a festival where most of the films are mediocre, I think this one stood out even more when it was compared to its competition. And since we havent even seen it, we shouldnt really be condemning it just yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playbynumbers Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 um...the romans? Gladiators and vomitoriums and whatnot? Voltaire, the Marquis de Sade? The Medicis? Seeing as the definition of vice changes over time, I guess you could argue whether or not they consciously considered what they were doing as "vice" or if it's only from the modern viewpoint that you judge them. Also, you are crazy, no matter how detailed the description you read, you still haven't seen the film yet. If it's as wretched as you say, it won't have much of an audience outside the "cult" rack. Have a little faith in your fellow man. sure, pre-christian culture often reveled in barbarity (though not always); this is part of the problem, that we're returning to the decadence of the late roman empire. as for voltaire and the marquis de sade (the latter was much worse!); well, de sade wasn't exactly beloved by his countrymen, and for good reason. today i'm sure he'd be given a university professorship for being so fearlessly transgressive, or whatever. and vice actually isn't relative; murder and rape have been condemned (in law if not in practice) in every culture. anthropologists have sometimes claimed that there's some tribe where this is okay, but no. and anyway my point is that depravity was never CELEBRATED before; it's not as if the roman emperors tried to mount a defense of such things by using hellenistic philosophic and religious arguments. a detailed description of a film, in my experience, aligns with the film that it's describing; unless the guy who wrote this was deliberately trying to deceive me, i already know what to expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 my point is that depravity was never CELEBRATED before; it's not as if the roman emperors tried to mount a defense of such things by using hellenistic philosophic and religious arguments. um, is Von Trier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr Salads Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 um...the romans? Gladiators and vomitoriums and whatnot? Voltaire, the Marquis de Sade? The Medicis? Seeing as the definition of vice changes over time, I guess you could argue whether or not they consciously considered what they were doing as "vice" or if it's only from the modern viewpoint that you judge them. Also, you are crazy, no matter how detailed the description you read, you still haven't seen the film yet. If it's as wretched as you say, it won't have much of an audience outside the "cult" rack. Have a little faith in your fellow man. sure, pre-christian culture often reveled in barbarity (though not always); this is part of the problem, that we're returning to the decadence of the late roman empire. Because some movies are really crazy? I think thats a bit ridiculous. If you wanted to talk about cage fighting, we could mount an argument for it though. as for voltaire and the marquis de sade (the latter was much worse!); well, de sade wasn't exactly beloved by his countrymen, and for good reason. today i'm sure he'd be given a university professorship for being so fearlessly transgressive, or whatever. and vice actually isn't relative; murder and rape have been condemned (in law if not in practice) in every culture. anthropologists have sometimes claimed that there's some tribe where this is okay, but no. and anyway my point is that depravity was never CELEBRATED before; it's not as if the roman emperors tried to mount a defense of such things by using hellenistic philosophic and religious arguments. a detailed description of a film, in my experience, aligns with the film that it's describing; unless the guy who wrote this was deliberately trying to deceive me, i already know what to expect. Are you going to see the movie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 sion) ... this makes me want to reiterate that there really are such things as good and evil, and that in all societies at all times in all places, prior to roughly the 1960s-70s in certain western countries, a film like this would never have been permitted to see any sort of release --- and this is a good thing. censoring evil is a good thing. evil is only evil if you perceive it that way. because you have such strong feelings about this movie you give it power. Some people will probably be able to treat the movie like a comedy, do they perceive it as evil? probably not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr Salads Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Evil comes with power, you dont need to supply it with any. Thats the thing about evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Evil comes with power, you dont need to supply it with any. Thats the thing about evil. i think evil is a mental projection most of the time, especially if you consider a piece of art or film 'evil' anything OTHER than somebody actually trying to do direct harm to you or other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr Salads Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Youre right. Me raping and killing your family isnt evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zaphod Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 i don't think this movie is going to rape and kill your family, although i'm all for it if it decides to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian trageskin Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Youre right. Me raping and killing your family isnt evil. tsss hahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr Salads Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Whats stopping me from doing it after I see the movie though NOTHING LARS VON TRIER DID IT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squee Posted May 19, 2009 Author Share Posted May 19, 2009 Wow, some of you are taking this waaaaay too seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Youre right. Me raping and killing your family isnt evil. read my post again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playbynumbers Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Because some movies are really crazy? I think thats a bit ridiculous. If you wanted to talk about cage fighting, we could mount an argument for it though. films like this are a symptom; as is cage fighting. Are you going to see the movie? maybe, but probably not. honestly i just find von trier to be very tedious and boring; if you're going to be shocking, at least be a better filmmaker. my point is that depravity was never CELEBRATED before; it's not as if the roman emperors tried to mount a defense of such things by using hellenistic philosophic and religious arguments. um, is Von Trier? sure; he's celebrating his right to make this film, he sees it as some sort of meaningful worthwhile exercise (even if within the film itself, and it's debatable in this case, he isn't 'actually' being misogynistic). the artistic license that creates films like 'antichrist' is being celebrated, is my point. and there's obviously a sensationalistic 'torture porn' aspect to a film like this, where people are titillated by shocking violence and imagery; and this has now been mainstreamed. torture porn is a GENRE, ffs. think about that for a second. evil is only evil if you perceive it that way i don't even know where to begin. could there be a more prevalent fallacy? why is everyone under roughly the age of 35 a relativist? tolerance of opinion is the only value left. "truth is just, like ... your perception, man!" this is nihilism; this is the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr Salads Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 The worst criticism I heard about the "torture porn" element is that it's redundant. Now imagine that. Imagine having a movie thats so fucked up, genital mutilation actually becomes redundant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 evil is only evil if you perceive it that way i don't even know where to begin. could there be a more prevalent fallacy? why is everyone under roughly the age of 35 a relativist? tolerance of opinion is the only value left. "truth is just, like ... your perception, man!" this is nihilism; this is the problem. there are some things in this world i will agree could fall under the definition of evil, but fictional films made where no one is harmed? no. If you want to project evil into it that's your doing, not the film imo. I don't think a work of art can embody evil unless it was made by say killing people. i just think its a little ridiculous you are letting yourself get worked up over this film. If i didn't know any better it seems like you are using your own overly prudish (in this instance) subjective values as a means to put yourself on some sort of intellectual pedestal to criticze the movie, when in short you are offended by the film because it shows clits getting cut off for entertainment. if you had said that instead in the beginning it would be perfectly understandable but i feel like you have this urge to rationalize to a ridiculous degree your base emotions about this movie. if you think this film should be censored so that the public is not allowed to see it i really think maybe you should think a little more relativistically it might do you some good. and i laugh at your assertion that i am a relativist or a nihilist i just think on this particular issue you are very much letting your own sensitivities get the better of you. edit: i also think that equating movies like Antichrist with ACTUAL human barbarism is an irresponsible and blatantly false claim to be throwing around in a serious debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 torture porn is a GENRE, ffs. think about that for a second. i've thought about for literally one second but then my thoughts got interrupted by the fact that actual torture happens everywhere all the time where real people die not fictional movie characters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.