I couldn't understand why Bess went back to the boat where those thuggish sailors were. They tried to rape and/or kill her, so what was she thinking? She should have told the police what they tried to do to her. Was she going there to die on purpose or what?
shareWe can't be entirely sure, but the logic of the film suggests that she knows, on some level, what will happen to her. She is prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice, because she believes that it will save Jan. [Remember: Bess has gotten "results" from her earlier encounters with men--i.e. Jan gets better. When she leaves the boat the first time, he gets worse. So she thinks that she needs to go back to set things right/make Jan get better again.]
shareIf you follow the nasty ugly logic of the film it is obvious why she returns. The twisted misogyny of it shows that the Bess brings about her husbands serious injuries by her selfish prayer to bring him home.
The moral is simple. Women are the root of all men's problems. When the ghastly creatures are degraded, humiliated, beaten up, slashed up, and killed THEN the man will be OK. Oh and heavens bells will ring out with joy.
Sitting through this film made me feel like an accomplice to a sexual assault - I really regret not turning the vile thing off mid way through when I could see how vile it was becoming.
Sheahan
Excuse me, but the men in the town are portrayed as being horrible human beings.
You are confusing the main characters "perceptions and shortcomings" with your perception of the world.
Bess was a "simpleton" who was raised in an overly religious and uneducated in environment; she craved love and escape, and did not have the "tools" to know how to go about obtaining those things in a healthy way. The main character perceived that her behavior was the cause of what was going on - that is very different than the film stating that that is the reality of the situation. Everyone but the main character was able to see her misguided thoughts and actions - but because of her simplicity, lack of education, desires, and needs, she made very bad choices. Also, because ALL of the men that she grew up around are so horrible and suffocating, it's almost easy to understand why she is willing to do what she does for the one man who "rescued" her from her family and religious townspeople. Desperate and insecure people (both men and women), who are not intelligent (and even some who are....), do VERY unhealthy things in the name of lust and/or love.
The film showed the strengths and weaknesses of humans (men & women) in a specific setting and situation. If anything, this film showed how this simple & confused woman, had more strength and determination than almost all of the men in the film. She was determined. .... but she was simple, uneducated, and as a result her choices and decision-making skills were severely limited. The film also absolutely shows the dangers of male-dominated societies- especially ones where religion plays such a strong role.
...and those bells at the end...they were supposed to be a sign/testament to the strength of Bess' [misguided] determination and enduring love.
Your interpretation says much more about you and your life, than it does about any weaknesses/short-comings the film may or may not have.
You sound like a very angry lesbian.
Thank you sexorcist6969!
shareSexorcist, why, oh why, do you have to end your post with "You sound like a very angry lesbian"? Up until that point, your post--while I disagree with some of it--is very interesting and reasonable. You fall victim to the very thing you're accusing Sheahan of: you reveal something about your life and your own shortcomings there.
Anyway, I don't agree with Sheahan--I agree with you that von Trier is trying to point out just how restrictive and sexist Bess' society is--but he or she has a valid viewpoint. If you've watched von Trier's oeuvre (particularly the Golden Heart trilogy) then you know that he has a penchant for putting female characters through horrific, brutalizing ordeals (and often killing them off in said horrific/brutal ways). At some point--i.e. by the 5th or 6th film of this nature--one has to begin to wonder why his critique of society (especially gender relations) always has to take this particular shape.
A point of disagreement with your reading of the film: I think von Trier is inviting us to consider the possibility that Bess is *not* a "simpleton," i.e. that she really *is* communing with God and performing these "miracles" that make Jan well. Jan's recovery and the CGI bells at the end of the film force us to go back and reconsider Bess' relationship with God and the acts she performs; more specifically, Jan is alive and walking (her sacrifice worked) and the bells signal God's acceptance of her and her ascent to heaven.
And I think you are confusing rather weak pseudo liberal excuses for the real reactionary meaning of this film. As meg9justin points out in the post above - Trier (and by the way the Von bit is something he added in his college days to make himself sound more aristocratic and important) has a track record of this kind of misogynist violence. As meg9justin put it
“At some point--i.e. by the 5th or 6th film of this nature--one has to begin to wonder why his critique of society (especially gender relations) always has to take this particular shape”
It can be argued that Trier hates men as well as women – but it is the women who have to be tortured, abused, raped and killed. Funnily enough in my view of the world these are BAD things … you might have to explain to me what that says about me and my life!
The idea that this film rejects the morality of the men and religious community seems absurd to me. As usual Trier portrays sex as an ugly act with a tendancy to violence and brutality. And you ignore the point – Bess prayers causes the accident – she is the real wrong doer. She has to pay for the sins. For a presumably a typical northern European protestant background Trier shows a very Catholic sense of the original sin in women. The whole tone of the film AND explain to me again why those bloody church bells are a testament to anything other than the film makers and traditional religions love of the suppression and mistreatment of women.
If I were to fall into the kind of finale you did I would say you feeling that a woman being humiliated, raped, and murdered is somehow a ‘sign/testament to the strength’ of love says much about you and your live.
You sound like a woman hating gay man*
(*NB this is a repost – I have no reason to imply gay men hate woman, then again I am not a lesbian, not that there is anything wrong with that)
Yawn.
shareI think if you put a lot of effort into finding misogynist propaganda in this film (or any of Lars's work), then you'll probably get just as much back. But you'd really be missing the point - especially with regards to this film, which is, if anything, one of the most blatant anti-misogynist films I've seen.
It's like saying Saló is pro-torture and rape of children simply because that's what it depicts.
These bastards!
LMAO!!! Sheahan-1, your understanding of this film is no better than what my dog understands if I read him the newspaper...
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."
Oscar Wilde
The twisted misogyny of it shows that the Bess brings about her husbands serious injuries by her selfish prayer to bring him home...
...Bess prayers causes the accident – she is the real wrong doer. She has to pay for the sins.
The moral is simple.
As usual Trier portrays sex as an ugly act with a tendancy to violence and brutality.
For a presumably a typical northern European protestant background Trier shows a very Catholic sense of the original sin in women.
The whole tone of the film AND explain to me again why those bloody church bells are a testament to anything other than the film makers and traditional religions love of the suppression and mistreatment of women.
Tchoutoye,
Brilliantly logical reply to that guy's asinine interpretation of the film and von Trier's intentions, but I'm afraid your well put arguments are lost on his type. I really enjoyed reading them, though :)
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."
Oscar Wilde
"without the usual romantic crap we get in Hollywood films: no cheesy saxophone music, no candles, no soft focus, etc."
I have a problem with this statement. Why is it 'crap' exactly? That stuff is what makes it sexy for women to watch. Like David Lynch said - people don't want to see the mechanics of sex onscreen - they want to feel the thrill of it.
Have you seen Atonement? Exactly the same sex scene is seen twice - once from the point of view of the characters engaging in it and another by a person walking in on them. It's erotic the first time (shot in tight close-ups) and downright ugly and ridiculous the second (filmed from a distance).
That said, the sex in this film is the only genuinely loving onscreen sex I've ever seen. It's not even remotely titillating but it's not meant to be.
I really despair for the people who can possibly see this film as misogynistic. So that makes two people: you and Mark Kermode (who I think hasn't actually seen it).
This film, much like Dancer In The Dark, shows women as victims of male pathology. The men in this film (even the "good" ones) come off far worse than the female characters. To say that its misogynistic because it portrays misogyny is completely missing the point - that's like saying American History X is racist or The Passion Of The Christ is anti-Christian. I'd even say there was a stronger case to be made for Antichrist being misogynistic than this film.
These bastards!
[deleted]
I didnt red all ur comments guys,but I think she went back cuz as u can see in the beggining of that chapter it was named "Sacrifice" so imo she made a sacrifice to save Jan's life.
PS: Be good or be bad...your choice!
Sheahan, I watched Antichrist yesterday in the theater and I thought about your initial post at several points, particularly your claim that BTW makes you feel like an "accomplice to a sexual assault." I've thought very hard about the film since yesterday, and I'm pretty sure that its clearest message is that women are evil. I love von Trier and I'm trying to excavate a different--less condemning--takeaway from the film, but I'm afraid I can't. Have you seen it?
share-----------------------------------------------------------
[The Antichrist's] clearest message is that women are evil.
-----------------------------------------------------------
But are women evil by their own nature, or does our tradition make them so? Just think on the guilt assigned to Eve in the story of the Fall. Is the character played by Charlotte Gainsbourg in Antichrist inherently evil, or her obsession is triggered by her research in the witch-hunt? And doesn't her husband say expressly (if I remember it correctly) that evil is in all of us?
-------------------------------------------------------------
And you ignore the point – Bess prayers causes the accident – she is the real wrong doer.
-------------------------------------------------------------
To answer Sheahan-1's posts, the movie doesn't convince me that the husband's accident was caused by her selfish prayer, nor that von Trier believes it so, merely that Bess, with her simple mind, believes it so. But I didn't thought until now that a character's point of view necessarily reflects the author's one, or that von Trier has a simpleton's point of view on reality.
----------------------------------------------------------------
As usual Trier portrays sex as an ugly act with a tendancy (sic) to violence and brutality.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The sex scenes between Skarsgard and Watson didn't actually seem to me very ugly or degrading, but, of course, I could be mistaking, and these could be interpreted as sexual exploitation of a innocent woman - for being mentally ill, how could she be expected to love? As to the ugliness of the later ones, can it be disputed that a sacrifice's value is proportional to the value of the good that is sacrificed? There seems indeed to be a link to Kierkegaard.
Hi Meg
Apologies for not repling before - after seeing a few posts of just abuse I gave up looking at this thread.
No I haven't seen Antichrist, and to be honest having seen four of Trier's films and having read reviews nothing would induce me to see it.
I think in you first post you said that Trier's very frequent use of dedstruction of women might be more than just social critique - well Abntichrist just furthers this as far as I can see. The fact he uses (or didn't object to the logo on posters etc) the female sex sign as the T in antichrist sugests he not only is playing with misoginist ideas but thinks it is quite an amusing lark too.
Sheahan
[deleted]
Bess goes to the boat the first time because nobody in town wouold be with her. Men realized what she wanted and refused to use her or let themselves be used just so she can have something to tell her husband.
The second time she goes for three reasons: 1. there's nobody else left, 2. she considered what happened to her husband a punishment for her "selfishness" and therefore she thought she deserved whatever those men would do to her, 3. she didn't care if she died. At that point, her life was mere torture - she lost any connection to her husband and felt like a failure for not even being able to supply him with the depiction of real experiences, the only way he would allow her to be close to him. She would rather die than give up, and if those men were to kill her, it would be at least a death without committing the mortal sin of suicide.
Bess' character is the ideal of emotional innocence and absolute love - she simply cannot live without her man - she would walk through hell to be with him, or die trying. This is the reason why the bells rang in the sky - it was God welcoming a truly pure soul into Heaven.
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."
Oscar Wilde
As I see it, Bessie is a christ-like figure, like christ she is a martyr whose death would redeem and save those who are suffering (in this case, Jan). Bess understands that she'd die in that boat. She knows it but she doesn't care. Bessie offers her life in sacrifice selflessly and the consequences of that act of martyrdom can be seen in the last shot:
Jan recovers miraculously and the bells tolls over the church as a warning and/or reminder to the religious zealots who obviously have forgotten that before worshiping any law or word, they should love and respect human beings.
Of course that act has lots of implications, I can think right now in a couple more, however IMO the self-sacrifice of Bess in order to save Jan is the most plausible.
PS: Sheahan stop making a fool out of yourself, plz.
Les Luthiers....very intelligent post.
share[deleted]
If you follow the nasty ugly logic of the film it is obvious why she returns. The twisted misogyny of it shows that the Bess brings about her husbands serious injuries by her selfish prayer to bring him home.
The moral is simple. Women are the root of all men's problems. When the ghastly creatures are degraded, humiliated, beaten up, slashed up, and killed THEN the man will be OK. Oh and heavens bells will ring out with joy.
Sitting through this film made me feel like an accomplice to a sexual assault - I really regret not turning the vile thing off mid way through when I could see how vile it was becoming.
Why did Bess go back to the boat?
Once I saw the chapter marker I was hit with a wave of anxiety which only got worse once she was on the ship. After she escaped it became clear to me that her delusions were only going to land her in more trouble the next time. I couldn't watch that happen. So, I guess she returned to sacrifice herself for Jan which most people already stated. Is it right that Jan recovered? I think so. At least there was a point to her sufering. If Jan would have died, I think, the film would have been more overwhelmingly tragic.
These are some movies of mine. Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/lanser87