Yep. That is a vagina at 0:01.
W T F
P. S. I'm pretty sure I saw what I think I saw at the 0:01 mark.
Yep. That is a vagina at 0:01.
If you've seen Von Trier films, this seems pretty par for the course.
Nothing too shocking.
repost: delete please
A war is coming, I've seen it in my dreams. Fires sweeping over the Earth, bodies in the streets, cities turned to dust... retaliation.
Hollywood is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until everything you love is dead.
Wasn't this story already done more tastefully in Shame?
an understated ensemble that puts the "b" in subtle
Yes and apparently his first cut was 5 and a half hours, which the studio ended up having to find 90 minutes to cut and then split in to two 2 hour movies.
so is this an artsy porno?
I doubt titillation is the goal of Von Trier.
Welp, time to bate.
If porn was defined as 'something you can masturbate to' pretty much everything would be porn for at least a small group of people.
That changes rule 34 a little.
If it exists, it is porn.
Isn't this the one that made a buzz because some of the actors were actually having sex in the scenes?
Will there be clits cut off with scissors?
Will there be dicks smashed up and jacked off til they cum blood?
If not, I'm not interested.
I heard there were body doubles for at least some, eg Shia LaBouf.
On another forum I frequent, this was posted:
Originally Posted by Luturb
So do they have a list of which pornstars genitalia will be representing the actors/actresses? If not, I see a fun new game coming called Guess Who's Genitals! Inb4 some guy chooses Ron Jeremy.
A realistic yet dramatized portrayal of the sexual proclivities of an emotionally distressed young woman?
That's porn. I will grant you that it is a very high class OF porn, probably the highest possible class of porn. Maybe surrealist art-porn is higher, maybe lower, I dunno Germans do some weird "i'm not really sure if that counts" shit...
All I mean is that you can do a movie about "A day in the life of a prostitute" and that's a perfectly legitimate story to tell. And you can use that to explore plenty of artistic themes. But that's gonna be porn if you show her getting bukkake'd at a bachelor party. You see what I mean?
Edit: Isn't that basically the sort of dishonesty that leads hollywood into making summer blockbusters and then claiming, "But we're not glorifying violence". Do cumshots and graphic penetration really add anything that can't be arrived at any other way here? I'm not pre-judging, that's an honest to god question. And even if there isn't and those are just the tools he wanted to use, that's fine too. But they're pornographic tools. The pre-judgement is that sex sells, even arted up sex.
Last edited by Iannis; 11-25-2013 at 06:30 AM.
Von Trier frequently makes use of meta-narratives. So while you may be watching something considered pornographic, there's a story to be had beyond the image itself. If you watch the film Antichrist, and you tell me it's about a man and wife grieving the loss of a child--your really missing the better story being told.
Additionally, he likes making his audience uncomfortable. He even likes putting his actors into situations they are uncomfortable in. He's a bit like a behavioral scientist gone mad--poking people to see what they'll do. So the idea of making the audience his petri dish doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
Oh hey, look, Lars von Trier is back with yet another overrated, over-hyped, badly acted shocker film that tries to out do everything he has done before. Is it that time of the year again? Seriously, this is one of those guys who gets off of people being shocked at him. If he wasn't a film director with access to millions in film funds and a following of artsy-fartsy hipsters who view this crap as "art" then he'd be no different than your average park flasher.
The day after Trier releases a shocker film that no one is shocked about will be the day he is found hanging naked in a BDSM harness from some sleazy hotel room in Cannes.
Antichrist was that movie with Willem Defoe where his penis...things happened...Same guy doing this?
Antichrist was a pretty powerful movie.
as normal, youtube did take it down for a time
After THR [The Hollywood Reporter] confirmed with a spokesperson for the film that the clip had been removed over nudity, YouTube reversed its decision and restored the footage on the site. "With the massive volume of videos on our site, sometimes we make the wrong call," says a YouTube spokesperson. "When it's brought to our attention that a video has been removed mistakenly, we act quickly to reinstate it." The service also added an age-restriction in order to protect younger viewers.
Another shitty self called auteur film where nothing happens on a meta level. Any of his films is a pedantic fraud where not-so-wild emotions are falsely put into an arthouse shaker for the sake of "doing something different". So he has seen Godard / Truffaut / Rohmer Nouvelle Vague films during his youth and that makes him an artist because he had fucked up nudist parents ? Lol, and that Dogme 95 bullshit is just hillbilly level cinematography, where it screams "I have no talent so when I occasionally take a decent shot call it a masterpiece please". You want real unsimulated sex in traditional cinema ? Be my guest. You want actual actor direction, genuine cinematography and quality writing ? Go somewhere else.
I detect rustling from those jimmies
I really understood the genius of Dogme 95 when, working on the professional shoot of one of my buddies' short film, we spent half a day adjusting the lighting, putting stuff on windows to make them darker, building a ramp for an actress in order to cheat with the perspective and finding the right timing for the adjustment of the focus. All that for a shot that did not make the final cut. Dogme 95 is mostly about eliminating the bullshit that gets in the way of making film, it's a liberation that is simultaneous with the availability of compact and affordable digital cameras (just like 16mm for the New Wave).
Knowing nothing about Dogme 95 other than what I find in the wikipedia article linked, doesn't the trailer conflict with rule 10 (The director must not be credited) when his name flashes a dozen times through the trailer? Also, doesn't rule 2 mostly go out the window for Antichrist?
That said, I didn't come here to discuss the director or his method of film-making. I'll probably end up watching this for the fucking.
Trier made a single Dogme 95 film: Idiotern.
Did anybody watch this movie? I caught the first part and found it pretty enjoyable if somewhat hard to watch. Uma Thurman was really good in a small part (one scene). The part with her Dad in the hospital was fucking gut wrenching.
Going to watch the second half tonight.
Supposedly Trier split it in two parts a bit reluctantly for the theater release. On BluRay it should be a another cut that merges the two parts into the one film he had in mind originally. I am waiting for that version.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)