quote:

Originally posted by seanflynn:

quote:

those that write this one off thanks to some idea of what it is or will be are not true film lovers.

This from someone who doesn't like Citizen Kane or The Godfather.

It would be very easy for someone to say you aren't a film lover.

And it would be wrong.

So are you in your description of those who choose not to see Antichrist.

At least I saw both of those films, studied them and developed my own response to them. I feel completely secure discussing them and their merits, drawbacks, whatever.

I'm not the kind to say "wow, Citizen Kane looks boring... I'll never watch this film unless I have a personality rehaul". That's philistinism. The responses to this film have been so varied, so passionate on both sides of the spectrum, that true cineastes have an obligation to give it a chance.

Those posters acting like this is "Hostel 5" really make me angry. There is subtext here, the violence is not gratuitous (it makes sense in context) and the film is rich in symbolism and metaphor. It is a great film for discussion. It really does pain me to see so many prominent posters on this site swear it off. Because if there's one thing that is true about this film, whatever it is, it won't ever be completely what you expect.

for the record, I quite like Citizen Kane. But I don't love it to death.

None of which has anything to do with your insulting statement that if, for whatever reason, someone doesn't want to see Antichrist then ipso factor he or she doesn't love film.

quote:

Originally posted by seanflynn:
None of which has anything to do with your insulting statement that if, for whatever reason, someone doesn't want to see Antichrist then ipso factor he or she doesn't love film.

SEE? seanflynn can (and does) play both sides, when it suits him.

Depending on who the poster is, seanflynn is quite happy to defend-or denounce-those who haven't seen a particular film but harbor certain preconceived notions about it...

I dont like...torture. I just, cant handle that.

^
true (to Pucifer's post)

also, this isn't about von trier, really. I'm mixed re: him, at best.
If someone said something like this about the new Campion, or the new Haneke, or the new Rivette, etc etc etc etc, I'd say the exact same thing.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: puxzkkx,

quote:

SEE? seanflynn can (and does) play both sides, when it suits him.

Depending on who the poster is, seanflynn is quite happy to defend-or denounce-those who haven't seen a particular film but harbor certain preconceived notions about it...

Once again, you just make stuff up.

Babypook has only decided that she doesn't care to see this film; she has not expressed an opinion about the film, since she hasn't seen it.

That's entirely different from what you do all the time.

quote:

Originally posted by Pucifer:

quote:

Originally posted by seanflynn:
None of which has anything to do with your insulting statement that if, for whatever reason, someone doesn't want to see Antichrist then ipso factor he or she doesn't love film.

SEE? seanflynn can (and does) play both sides, when it suits him.

Depending on who the poster is, seanflynn is quite happy to defend-or denounce-those who haven't seen a particular film but harbor certain preconceived notions about it...

I just dont want to see torture, like I've said several times before over the past four years. Just like, you dont want to watch Judd Apatow films and pux doesnt want to see crowd-pleasing films which are probably too plebian for him (except Knocked Up and Orphan).
It's not as if I havent seen many of Carson Clay's other films.
If he makes another one, without torture, genital mutilations and bloodied woodland creatures, and it's not, all about him, I'll watch it.

You show me one post where Babypook has ridiculed someone for liking Antichrist, tried to make them inferior to her for liking it, then you can call her decision not to see it the same as what Pucifer does all the time.

Until then, it is not the same thing.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,

quote:

Originally posted by seanflynn:
You show me one post where Babypook has ridiculed someone for liking Antichrist, tried to make them inferior to her for liking it, then you can call her decision not to see it the same as what Pucifer does all the time.

Until then, it is not the same thing.

You're such a classy gentleman sometimes. Lol.
thanks.

I never said babypook ridiculed anyone for wanting to see Antichrist.

Truth is, I wouldn't care if she did.

Still, my (educated?) guess is that von Trier is not celebrating torture, genital mutilation, or bloodied woodland creatures, although it is probably a safe bet that he does not hold a high regard for sanctimony and illusions about "life," which I wager he deems nasty, short, and brutish.

quote:

Originally posted by babypook:

quote:

Originally posted by puxzkkx:

quote:

Originally posted by seanflynn:
[QUOTE]those that write this one off thanks to some idea of what it is or will be are not true film lovers.

This from someone who doesn't like Citizen Kane or The Godfather.

It would be very easy for someone to say you aren't a film lover.

And it would be wrong.

So are you in your description of those who choose not to see Antichrist.

At least I saw both of those films, studied them and developed my own response to them. I feel completely secure discussing them and their merits, drawbacks, whatever.

I'm not the kind to say "wow, Citizen Kane looks boring... I'll never watch this film unless I have a personality rehaul". That's philistinism. The responses to this film have been so varied, so passionate on both sides of the spectrum, that true cineastes have an obligation to give it a chance.

Those posters acting like this is "Hostel 5" really make me angry. There is subtext here, the violence is not gratuitous (it makes sense in context) and the film is rich in symbolism and metaphor. It is a great film for discussion. It really does pain me to see so many prominent posters on this site swear it off. Because if there's one thing that is true about this film, whatever it is, it won't ever be completely what you expect.

for the record, I quite like Citizen Kane. But I don't love it to death.

I havent watched any of the Saw or Hostel films. Cant do it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: babypook,

quote:

Originally posted by babypook:
I havent watched any of the Saw or Hostel films. Cant do it.

Understandable, but one might hope we aren't in Saw or Hostel territory in von Trier's film.

Okay, so I finally got around to seeing this on IFC ON DEMAND and it was...interesting...to say the least.

I like the way von Trier set's up the film with the prologue and then has each chapter represent a stage in the grieving process. I can't say I fully understood everything that was happening in the film though (LOL). William Dafoe's character is a know-it-all therapist who seems to think he should be the one to treat his wife's depression over losing their son. He embarks on a journey with her into the woods in order for her to face her fear (essentially). He begins to realize that what his wife fears the most (according to his pyramid of fear) is not necessarily the woods...but perhaps death...Satan...or something else. Charlotte Gainsbourg is absolutely amazing in this film, making her character so unpredictable that you never know WHAT to expect from her! For those curious to see the film, I can tell you the first hour is okay to watch (if you know what I mean). Watch out for that last 30 or so minutes though! I mean JESUS!!! haha. I didn't turn my head away once, but I kind of wish I did. Those torture scenes are INTENSE and leave you screaming WTF? WTF? WTF?...or at least for me, haha. Overall, I'm glad I watched it and would recommend seeing it as long as you go into it knowing:

A) The film is nothing, but symbolic.
B) This is not a normal film...even by indie standards.
C) The last 30 minutes have some unbearable scenes to sit through that will make you scream.

As long as you're okay with those facts, you'll find this an interesting film to experience.

Grade: B

Was the film shown with the proper aspect ratio?

In other words, like this:


Image within the lines properly:

______________________________________________


IMAGE FILLS SPACE

_______________________________________________

or like this, improperly:

______________________________________________



IMAGE FILLS SPACE



______________________________________________


In other words, the width of the image on your TV should have been around 2.35 times the height. If it was shown around 1.85 to 1, they cropped the sides of the image to fit the space.


unless they showed it as in the first image, you were cheated and no one should watch it On Demand.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,

quote:

Originally posted by seanflynn:
Was the film shown with the proper aspect ratio?

In other words, like this:


Image within the lines properly:

______________________________________________


IMAGE FILLS SPACE

_______________________________________________

or like this, improperly:

______________________________________________



IMAGE FILLS SPACE



______________________________________________


In other words, the width of the image on your TV should have been around 2.35 times the height. If it was shown around 1.85 to 1, they cropped the sides of the image to fit the space.


unless they showed it as in the first image, you were cheated and no one should watch it On Demand.

I really can't say for sure. My TV is really widescreen and I still had those black bars. The aspect ratio didn't seem to be stretched or cut in anyway, but it could have been. It didn't seem to affect my viewing of the film though.

Indeed, I love it when I watch usually a TCM on my big screen, and there are bars atop, bottom and left and right on my screen, effectively reducing the image size by about 50%! Very cheeky!

I appreciate the response, but it is a major noticeable difference - if the majority of your screen was black, it was properly shown. If less than half of your screen was black, it was not.

VIEW FROM A SNOB
I usually can't watch TCM, even passing on the most rarely screened movies. The image always looks like they are playing an ancient VHS tape.

No one is more aware of print quality than I am, and TCM does an excellent job with this. Their images almost always look excellent. When they don't, it is almost always the fault of the original print.

I actually am at odds with the TCM policy of not showing any number of films available to them (from MGM, WB, RKO, particularly Columbia) because the prints aren't in good shape. They are often the only real chance we'll have a seeing them, so I wish they would sometimes from their very high standards.

If you say so, but often looks fuzzy to me. Not to mention pan and scan versions!