Talk:Antichrist (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looking for a few good eyes....[edit]

Chances are real good news and photos from the filming of Antichrist will appear in European news before it does in the U.S. If you have a nice source, add it. Or leave a note on my talk page. Thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gnosticism[edit]

Does the plot seem to come from some Gnostic sources?

I mean the "Devil" creating the world.. sounds Gnostic to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.7.134.118 (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


There's no specific source. Trier often mix a lot of different things together.
Also, unrelated to this question, its wrong to label it a horror movie when it's actually not. It has some quite scary and disturbing scenes, but it's not something that will get your heart beating faster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.211.217 (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cannes reaction[edit]

Here's a link to an AP article describing some critical reaction and comments from the director that could be worked into the article:

–Fierce Beaver (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis?[edit]

I saw a preview of this film and I have no clue what it's about. Will someone add a full synopsis? Heidismiles (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Running time[edit]

According to the Danish Film Institute, the film has a running time of 104 minutes. [1] But other sources, like the British censor board, say that it is 109 minutes (108s 34s). [2] And if you go to the Swedish Film Institute's (co-producer) info on the film, it says that it was 104 minutes long when it premiered in Denmark, but 109 in Sweden. [3] Which one is real?

I can answer that question partionally. I'm an filmoperator in a danish cinema and we MEASURED a running time on that movie of 108 minutes at 24fps (Frames Per Second). So, this should be quiet close to the "108m 34s". But often, movies get showed at 25fps, which will shorten the screening by approxiametly 4-5 min. - therefor the confusion. Now, it will be important to know, in how many fps it actually was filmed. I just don't know. :-(
-9k.lai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.63.92.74 (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game[edit]

I read recently that a survival horror video game based on Antichrist is in development. The game is apperently title Eden. Their is no information about this in the article, I jut thought you might like to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.24.82 ([[User talk:86.167.123.238.76.134 (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)24.82|talk]]) 17:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it sounds like it might be an ARG? 75.38.120.154 (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ebert Review?[edit]

This article had a quote from Roger Ebert praising the film and attempting to interpret its significance. This has been removed and instead we get nothing but negative reviews? Any reason for this? Or should I go ahead and re-insert it? Wellesradio (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's nothing but negative reviews. In addition, Ebert has not published his full review of Antichrist yet; what he has offered are preliminary thoughts. It would be good to cite Ebert, but let's wait for the full review. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot structure and length[edit]

I see no reason for the plot to be split up in different sections like it is now. While it could be useful to mention where the chapters start, headings and subheadings are tools for navigation, and I just can't see the demand for direct links to chapters from the content index at the top. The plot is neither complicated nor non-linear (per wp:mosfilm#Plot), and the split structure might also encourage users to expand the sections to an unjustified length. The plot is currently over 1000 words long (not counting headings) and needs to be trimmed down to the 400-700 words recommended in the style guidelines. Smetanahue (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed the subheadings and will try to trim down the plot length. Any help or input is welcome. Smetanahue (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arch and Structure[edit]

The structure has been analyzed as being fundamental to reveal the arching deeper meaning of the movie. One meaning that may not be left for interpretation, easy to find by anyone, something the plot itself would not reveal. One message of what would be a formal cinema Christian sermon, pointing to a very focused and defined indictment by the movie maker. It might shed some light on why there has been so much feminist outcry against the movie which would not fit the international feminist party line (but not necessarily individual feminists); Though that is not the main point, it seems, the same analysis seems to at least loosely equate modern feminism with the sisterhood in the movie, which would be consistent with a lot of criticism of the movie by some feminists, uncomfortable feeling so accused, and perhaps uncomfortable seeing the party line's paradigm undermined by this movie, by what would be among other things a "masculinist" movie. Such analysis would be consistent with Lars Von Trier having been praised in the past for his consistent expression of humanistic values in his movies. So far, except for this analysis, I did not see such a humanistic message revealed for Antichrist based on an analysis of the plot only. Based on the name of the beast revealed, Wikipedians might expect opponents of Lars's moral position to fight fiercely to deny the very relevance of such a structure.

The Name of the Beast http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0870984/board/thread/152292976?p=1

Embedded in the structure, Lars Von Trier might have left a key to explain his big idea. It may help understand why he often has a very marked expression of his chapters and parts, during his movies in general, giving his audience simple clues about his message, and hints on how to read his movies. 97.118.8.109 (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but it's obvious that the article would gain from having a Themes section. I have thought about starting one myself, of course baised entirely on official interviews, but hesitated since I fear that if it isn't very well developed already from the start, it might kind of open the door for people to throw in their own unsourced interpretations. I have collected some articles anyway and might give it a shot soon, if not someone else does it before me. Smetanahue (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smetanahue, I was particularly worried about your words: "I see no reason for the plot to be split up in different sections like it is now", which could be seen as a partisan way of denying possible interpretations, possible utmost important interpretations. Particularly considering the hot name of the beast, which by itself screams NPOV red flags all over, considering the very serious indictment, according to that analysis. This objection makes the case that the movie's structure should be as emphasized as Lars himself emphasizes them in the movie, if not with subsection headings, perhaps in bold, or something. Movie makers do not typically have such clearly marked partitions. It is one of Lars traits. I do however understand your concern to keep the plot section short. That concern should not penalize structural elements potentially crucial to preserving the integrity of the movie's most important message.
For your themes project, good luck with that. There are some interviews-related trails on that IMDB post, if you care to explore.
97.118.8.109 (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of the fox[edit]

I removed a detail stating that the voice of the fox is the director's. It turns out that the voice is Willem Dafoe's but it is heavily modified anyways and I'm not sure if it's really that relevant to point it out.

The source comes from an interview with Lars Von Trier: http://au.rottentomatoes.com/m/1210830-antichrist/news/1856901/i_dont_hate_women_lars_von_trier_on_antichrist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.220.9 (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

I disagree that this is a horror film. It seems more to me like a psychological thriller. Comments?78.86.61.94 (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The very foundation of the film is that it follows horror film conventions. It might not have ended up very scary, but I'd still say it's a horror film, in a similar way a horror spoof film still is a horror film. There are references to psychotherapeutic methods in the movie, but they're quite nonsensical and pretty much used as an element of horror. I don't see how it can be categorised as a thriller at all except for one or two scenes toward the end. Rather a horror drama in that case. It would be a good idea though to expand the development section to include the application of horror film conventions - which films Lars von Trier picked them from etc. I've seen that pretty well covered in various interviews that could be used as sources. Smetanahue (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a paragraph to the development section so the genre is better covered. I also changed the lead section to not just smack on a label that I realise can be confusing, and instead wrote that the film follows horror film conventions. Do you think that works? Smetanahue (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whine[edit]

The whole article needs a major rewriting. The English grammar barely makes sense at times, invented words and usage errors are numerous. The person who wrote this article could not possibly be a native English speaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.30.143 (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Starship porn star designation[edit]

Unless she also performs under another name it is questionable to call her a professional porn star. This is the only film that has a Mandy Starship in it that I have been able to find on Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.202.36 (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Antichrist (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Antichrist (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antichrist (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antichrist_(film)&oldid=1198820342"