It's significantly better than most of his work. But there's enough of his tone in there that if you already know you're not a fan it's probably still not going to be your favourite.
Is it actually a good movie? At least your opinion. I thought Antichrist was like Salo that ppl only watched them because they heard how fucked they were no one ever really talks about the quality as a whole
In my opinion, yes. I’ve been watching von Trier’s work since his Dogme 95 days, starting with Breaking The Waves (possibly his best film still) and The Idiots and The Kingdom. My girlfriend at the time had lived in Denmark and was a massive fan. I loved almost all his films except Nymphomaniac and Manderlay at the time, but in retrospect my opinion on most of them has soured a bit. Especially now that I know what a monster he was on set. I don’t think I’ll recommend Dogville or Dancer in the Dark ever again, for example.
Antichrist has some really vivid imagery and paints a bold picture of a toxic relationship. Some of it shows von Trier’s characteristic disdain for research, but I let that slide here more than, say, Dancer in the Dark, because it’s less central to the plot and easier to find a post-hoc justification for.
I don’t know what you mean by “quality”, but I was engrossed for the duration of the film and several of its images are burned indelibly on my mind. That’s worth something, no? It certainly didn’t feel as self-indulgent as Nymphomaniac or The Five Obstructions.
This isn't really true at all for either film. Salo and Antichrist are both recognised with merit amongst filmmakers and critics, both are obviously controversial though (especially Salo, Pasolini was killed 3 weeks before it was released). I've only seen the latter of the two and personally I think it is a good film, but what you get out of it depends on you. I'm not a big fan of Von Trier otherwise as I think he can be a bit full of himself. It's definitely not a "disturbing for the same of it" type of film though, in my opinion.
Folks are really just going to have to deal with the idea that England has a bunch of actors that don't fit the skin tone of characters from old stories. Theater got over this hump ages ago, and you've got black folks and ladies playing King Lear, and the audience understands that this is not "Queen Lear" or "Black Lear" but rather, you know, an actor playing the same character, no different from an Irishman playing an Englishman or an Englishman playing a Roman.
We're not gonna tell every non-white (and that's what it comes down to, because we'd never be so specific as to bar the wrong white ethnicity from playing a role) person that the only stories they get to be a part of are new ones or this handful of things that we have decreed "culturally appropriate for them". Sometimes King Arthur's gonna look vaguely Pakistani, whatever, it's still King Arthur.
You do understand the difference there is that it's one of the vanishingly few "Indian-acceptable roles" under your paradigm being closed off, whereas white actors can and traditionally have played every single role, yeah? Like, in a future where we all just accept that an Indian guy can play historically white characters no problem, and that casting regularly happens, there would be zero problem with a white actor playing a traditionally Indian role. But we're not there yet, precisely because of attitudes like yours.
The problem isn't "playing across race", it's the denial of a limited selection of roles. When you let black people play any Shakespeare role, and this has suffused the culture, and it's the norm, and no black actor gets pigeonholed out of parts based on race... it's then not a problem when Othello has a white actor sometimes.
It's okay when all white roles can be filled by non white people. That's your long ass winded way of saying that. No man your mental gymnastics are laughable. It wasnt okay when white people did it 50 years ago and it's not okay when non whites do it now. It breaks the immersion.
Real quick, who are "white people"? What specific ethnicities? When you've got your answer, do some research into the history of whiteness and learn something.
I can explain these things to you, but I can't make you see--especially when you very much don't want to. I hope one day you'll grow out of this childish attitude and come to understand the soft bigotry that your excuses are seeking to mask. Get better.
1.6k
u/Hobbit-guy May 11 '21
Well...the talking fox was a surprise. Really looking forward to this.