AAARGH! Lars Von Trier's Antichrist

AARGH. I've heard about this film a bit, which to be honest, sounds like a lot of extremely self-indulgent bullshit.

What I must flag up, though, are the following comments from Xan Brooks at the Guardian. Particularly infuriating bits in bold:

Is Antichrist a misogynistic movie? That, inevitably, is in the eye of the beholder.

Couldn't help thinking: Translation: It features a woman mutilating her own genitals, but she's doing it so that's OK. No misogyny here, folks!

Here is a film that explicitly confronts the director's intertwined fears of primal nature and female sexuality. But does a fear of femaleness automatically equate to hatred? I'm not convinced that it does. Yes, the "She" character is anguished and irrational; a danger to herself and those around her. And yet for all that, she proves more vital, more powerful, and oddly more charismatic than "He", the arrogant, doomed advocate of order and reason

AARGH! AAAAAAARGH! Where do I start?!!

First off, where the fuck does this male writer get off, deciding what misogyny is?! Especially when he has just admitted the director's 'fear of female sexuality'?

And look at that - 'primal nature' and 'female sexuality' are intertwined. Gosh, how convenient. Says a lot, doesn't it? Women's sexuality is so GODDAMN PRIMAL. It's some huge, sweeping animalistic thing, that carries not a small hint of madness. Xan himself says: 'the "She" character is anguished and irrational; a danger to herself and those around her.' Wow, a crazy sexy woman - that's NOT a stereotype AT ALL! I can't help thinking here of countless VICE Dos & Don'ts, where they go on about how crazy girls are so much better in bed that 'normal' ones. Because, you know, it's up to a male to be the judge of a woman's mental state, whether he actually knows anything about her (beyond sleeping with her) or not!

Where have we seen 'crazy sexy ladies' before? That's right, kids: in Freud, of course! The idea of female hysteria predates Freud, but he took it much more mainstream. He thought that women who were 'hysterics,' were sexually repressed and/or had been abused in childhood. So you know, tying 'sex' and 'mental illness' together in a way that is both a) bullshit b) rarely done to men.

I find it bitterly ironic as well that in an article which hints at a feminist question and has the address:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jul/16/antichrist-lars-von-trier-feminism

that the first fucking person to be commenting is a male. Seeing as how feminism is meant to be about the equality of women, wouldn't it have been a NOVEL IDEA to put a woman's comments first? Instead of having Xan Brooks perched at the top, like he's the authority on whether a film is meant to be misogynist or not? Y'know, because not being a woman, he is so aware of what misogyny feels like...

I would apologise for the anger, but frankly, it feels good. I haven't been this clear-headed for a while. It is repeatedly disappointing to see the Guardian claiming to champion feminism in some ways and shying away from doing so properly in others.

I don't have a problem with Xan Brooks's opinion being sought - I just dislike the way the Guardian is putting him first as if to show how, even when a feminist Q is being posed, we are expected to put men's opinions first. On the up-side, it's a perfect subconscious reflection on who has the power in our societies. I can imagine people going 'Well, he is the associate editor of the Guardian website' and he does appear to have compiled the review. He could however have pushed a LITTLE further and not put himself top of the pile...

One thing I really can't forgive Mr. Brooks for as well is his literalist understanding of misogyny as 'hate of women.' This old chestnut:

But does a fear of femaleness automatically equate to hatred? I'm not convinced that it does

has been used, far less hesitantly, by sexist and misogynist pricks online, often on feminist articles or blogs, as a way to silence women. It is another form of 'it's all in your head.'

You see, these clever clever boys (and I wouldn't be surprised to find, some women too) go: 'Well, misogyny means hate of women. I don't HATE women, because some of my friends happen to be female and I like sexing them. Ergo, I win and you talk crap because you are referring to fear.'

This is of course nonsense. Fear and hatred go hand in hand, and why people won't acknowledge this more, I don't know. They don't necessarily ALWAYS go together, but in many cases they do. Look at racists, for example, who frequently combine the language of hatred with emotive stirring-up of fear about the Other. Hence it was that during the time of slavery, black people in America were brutally depicted as dumb savages (what is dehumanisation if not the putting-into-practice of hate?) and simultaneously depicted as animal rapists, keen for the delicate white woman's body. Urgh.

People think of 'love' and 'hate' as absolute points. Points which must be worked towards. This is, of course, nonsense. You can grow up having prejudice subtly and more directly instilled into you, and become a hater - it's not necessarily always a choice. Neither are hate or love exactly like the sort of things we read, see or hear in books and films and music. For example, the depictions of love as some sort of tornado or whatever - somewhat inaccurate to say the least. Most of the time, love is so subtle that we don't even realise when it actually kicks in, until it reaches high levels. That doesn't mean that love hormones haven't already started pumping and fixing our attention on that 'special someone.'

I think hate works the same way. When sexists say 'I don't hate women,' they are not completely lying. They are partially engaging in self-deception by using an absolutist understanding of 'hate.' 'I haven't killed or raped any women; how can I possibly hate them?' Well, refusing to treat them with the respect you accord to yourself IS hateful, mate! You're dehumanising them. At least be honest and say: 'Well, according to me, I don't hate women - I just strongly dislike them.'

Some men have managed to avoid this by simply claiming they hate feminists instead. Oh dear. I can't even go into the lack of intelligence this shows. Suffice to say, sorry, you ARE still a misogynist even if all your closest friends are women. Though I'm sure that when you tell this to these women, in your head, they'll back you to the hilt. 'Cause, you know, collaborators can't be misogynists, they're female! Yay! NOT.

Let us think about it on as elementary a level as sports. Often, you - reader-person - may come across a sport or activity that you struggle to do. Did you ever convince yourself that you hated something because you couldn't do it, despite trying repeatedly? I know I have; I feel that way about making chapattis. You blissfully ignore the existence of said activity, until it emerges in your face and you can't get away from it. You feel fear - will I be humiliated? and anger - I hate it, why do I have to do it?

Naturally, not everyone will react with fear and hate/anger together, but it is likely that the more you are confronted by this activity - say, you're at school and you have it every other day - the more you will hate it. Just because you don't kill or maim the person teaching you, that's hardly proof that you *don't* hate it, now, is it?

This is precisely what happens with feminism. The more feminists dare to challenge men on their privilege, the more prickfaces turn up to feminist blogs and demonstrate their misogyny. It is really laughable, the way so many of them put the lie to their deranged belief that 'feminists rule the world and want to kill all men.' Right - they're so powerful that their blogs are hugely mainstream and read by millions. NOT. Right, they care about men so much - that is, hate them so much - that they (feminists) discuss topics with each other peacefully, whilst YOU (misogynist males) turn up unwanted in THEIR space, getting in their face and trying to troll and intimidate.

Then, steadfastly REFUSING to listen or engage whilst loudly demanding that others do to you - the trolls claim victimhood when they are inevitably banned. God, my heart breaks for you - so much so that my tiny violin is playing itself.

I must just return to Antichrist and that review. Joanna Bourke, who (bless her) acknowledges yet tries to play down the film's misogyny, contradicts herself elsewhere:

Despite the erotic beginning, Von Trier has little interest in desire; his focus is on Sadeian extreme pain and enjoyment

But - de Sade wrote his stuff in order to get off, and you say VT is inspired by 'Sadeian extreme pain and enjoyment,' so how is there 'little interest in desire'?


Then at the end of the interview we get:

Von Trier has admitted that, of all his films, Antichrist "comes closest to a scream". It exposes us to an untamed erotic and aggressive aesthetic without redemption.

So... the film is erotic after all?


Linda Ruth makes an excellent point, calling our tabloids on their hypocrisy:

If only tabloids campaigned against real clitorectomies, done on real baby girls, rather than fabricated ones done in fiction movies.

but then comes out with this:

Of course, Von Trier probably doesn't "mean" any of it.

Oh, well, all dandy then!


A belated round of applause for Jane and Louise Wilson:

Unfortunately, this film leaves you quite unfulfilled. It's pretty damning about the whole of human nature. And, of course, the woman gets it in the end. Of all the to-dos you could have, there's a demonised mother, a witch who seems to prioritise her own sexual fulfilment over the safety of her child.

STICK 'EM BACK IN THE FUCKING KITCHEN! Wow, von Trier, that sounds like a revolutionary sentiment to me.