Advertisement
A friend pointed me to this inane editorial in the Guardian Daily Mail, in which Christopher Hart rails against the British ratings board for giving Lars Von Trier’s Antichrist an 18+ certificate rather than banning the film outright. Comparing the film unfavorably to the eye gouging scene in King Lear, Hart writes,
The world of Antichrist, by contrast, is blatantly amoral, without any sense of justice or retribution whatever. Its mingling of sex and violence, the cheapest and nastiest trick in the book, is usually one which the BBFC pounces on in a straight horror film. But here they are blinded by their own cultural snobbery, swallowing the lie that Antichrist is Art.
Harsh words … which might actually merit serious argument from me if not for this preceding admission:
You do not need to see Lars von Trier’s Antichrist (which is released later this week) to know how revolting it is. I haven’t seen it myself, nor shall I - and I speak as a broad-minded arts critic, strongly libertarian in tendency. But merely reading about Antichrist is stomach-turning, and enough to form a judgment.
Being that the universally accepted threshold of obscenity is that the viewer knows it when they see it, perhaps Hart’s just playing a Von Trierian game in pretending to suggest that the seeing part be taken out of the equation. But I’ll take him at his word and argue that, actually, you do need to see Antichrist to understand how the elements which Hart complains upset his stomach are much more complicated in practice. You do need to see a film before you declare that “the world” it depicts is “blatantly amoral” or that it’s a “lie” to call that film “art.” Even most of the film’s detractors — I mean, the ones who have actually seen it — would probably argue that once you do see Antichrist those “revolting” descriptions lose much of their power to shock. I argued something similar myself. Meanwhile, you really shouldn’t need to see a film in order to synopsize it correctly, but Hart manages to simplify the plot of Antichrist into inaccuracy.
Hart invokes no less an authority than Ernest Hemingway to excuse the act of publishing hundreds of words on a topic which he admittedly does not know via first hand experience: “You don’t need to eat a whole bowl of scabs to know they’re scabs.” Maybe not, but one would think you should at least take a look at the bowl.
Kevin Buist
FLAME + CITRON Review
Christopher Campbell
Happy Halloween Links. Today in Film...
Brandon Harris
5 80s Literary Adaptations Worse Than...
Kevin Kelly
John Krasinski, Brief Interviews With...
Karina Longworth
SpoutBlog, Now Available in Book Form
Paul Moore
October 31, Karina’s Last Day
Lauren Wissot
Sasha Grey Interview
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
This is from the Daily Mail, not the Guardian.
Nikki Finke is even worse. A couple of years ago she was bragging about not seeing Hostel II, while simultaneously encouraging her readers to pirate it and naming/shaming the execs involved in its making. She went as far as to say Lionsgate shouldn’t be allowed to make such films. I’ll be interested to see if she now takes up the cause against Antichrist, a film presumably more defensible as art.
You might want to correct this article, because as your link testifies, this editorial by Hart was in the Daily Mail (not the Guardian). Peter Bradshaw wrote a piece for the latter, interrogating Hart’s editorial (along similar lines to your own critique). Otherwise, well said! And thanks for your fascinating analysis of Antichrist back at Cannes.
Ugh. This kind of short-sighted censorship-mongering really bugs me. I’m with you, Karina. This guy has an argument until he reveals major plot points and analyzes a film he hasn’t even seen. Totally undermines everything he argues in the piece. I for one can not wait to see Antichrist, and hope that we American audiences are lucky enough to choose for ourselves (gee, what a weird concept) whether or not we want to see the film. The debate alone will be fun to join.
I agree that it’s absolutely ridiculous for a critic to comment like this on a film he hasn’t seen, except… since this film is directed by Lars Von Trier, it IS actually completely acceptable to assert that it’s not fit to be viewed by anyone.
[...] – Yesterday, Spout Blog’s Karina Longworth spotted a troubling anti-”Antichrist” editorial in the Daily Mail, a UK newsrag. The author of the opinion piece crucified Lars Von Trier’s controversial art-horror flick, calling for an outright ban despite having never seen the film. Karina rightly takes the the ignorant fool to task. There’s nothing wrong with negative criticisms, unless you’re basing those criticisms on a second-hand (or worse) account! (SpoutBlog) [...]
[...] – Yesterday, Spout Blog’s Karina Longworth spotted a troubling anti-”Antichrist” editorial in the Daily Mail, a UK newsrag. The author of the opinion piece crucified Lars Von Trier’s controversial art-horror flick, calling for an outright ban despite having never seen the film. Karina rightly takes the the ignorant fool to task. There’s nothing wrong with negative criticisms, unless you’re basing those criticisms on a second-hand (or worse) account! (SpoutBlog) [...]
I wanted to add something about the discussion around this film. I think this is very important to consider when talking about Antichrist.
I work for a UK cinema chain and we know the person responsible for arranging distribution of films within the U.K.
When Antichrist was shown at the Cannes film festival it was derided by all who witnessed it. This derision even went as far as a standing BOOO from the audience when the film ended. Upon seeing it, the person who arranges distribution for U.K films claimed that Antichrist would NEVER be released in the U.K.
However, because of the negative response what happened was that the distributor Artificial Eye reduced there costs by 85%. Then the film was seen as marketable again and low and behold was released.
Now what happened is that they have all that money to spend on advertising and critiques etc and this film is suddenly all hot.
For me I think it is really important what we ingest and this includes culture and if were feeling uncomfortable about something, then it is natural to try and reduce that discomfort. Art is about feeling, not Lars Von Trier. People are all worthy of good art that corresponds with what they enjoy.
My point is that Antichrist is not ART it is ECONOMICS…
But that is just my opinion
Interesting point of view. James, but your argument would kind of fall apart if you had gone to the Cannes screening that I went to, at which there was no booing. And it was not by any means derided by all who saw it — not at that festival, not at Karlovy Vary or any of the other festivals it has screened at since. Look at indieWIRE’s review from Cannes, look at the many reviews from British outlets, like Little White Lies and the Financial Times — these reviews aren’t completely dismissive or glowing, but are engagement with the film on a creative level, which is what a provocation of this kind deserves.
Maybe it makes sense from a business perspective to promote ANTICHRIST as a hated film. But that doesn’t mean it’s not art.