Comments for Film Quarterly

Comment on Non-film: Steve McQueen’s “Shame” by Tristan Burke

Tristan Burke — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:31:20 +0000

Though isn’t that ‘therapeutic editorializing’ about being from a ‘bad place’ exactly what is at stake in the film? Where is the bad place? It’s a far more deliciously ambivalent statement than it at first appears because it raises the question of how much these bourgeois characters are responsible for creating the very bad place that they are from.

Comment on “Antichrist”: A Discussion by ac

ac — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:46:53 +0000

Thanks for the excellent discussion that competently hits the important and interesting parts of the film, and once and for all slices through the arrogant, uneducated idea that von Trier makes misogynist art.
I think von Trier’s lament that he was too mentally under the weather to do the film up to his own standards is true. I think if he were in better shape he’d have made a couple things a little more clear for the sake of enjoyment. But as it is, the film deals with witch-hunting on a level of honesty and maturity perhaps never done before in movies.
The discussion of witchcraft is particularly helpful in this article. People who throw misogyny at von Trier first of all are not male artists like myself, who know that it’s damned hard to depict women in art realistically. The fact that von Trier keeps trying and gets it right half the time is not misogyny; it’s commendable effort. Not trying, and presenting women as a male artist and sticking to old formulas that everyone accepts but that are total crap, is misogyny.
The film can be looked at as a film for men, who are encouraged to learn this lesson: if you go into women’s world, you implicitly give up all the pragmatism you cherish, because your skills are from the other half. His experiences in the film are beautiful renderings of absorption into women’s world, which we men cannot understand, and the couple’s ridiculousness as explained by the authors of this article demonstrates men’s world failing as soon as it hits women’s, all our psychological edifice be damned. So, are psychology, reality and morality still misogynistic…?

Comment on Rare Westerns from the Archive by Peter Stanfield

Peter Stanfield — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 20:39:20 +0000

Let me echo Noel King’s comments . . . Reading Ed Buscombe on the Western is as good as it gets . . .

Comment on “Antichrist”: A Discussion by katie

katie — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:05:33 +0000

What is up with women climbing the hill at the end

Comment on Lars von Trier’s “Melancholia”: A Discussion by Shawnee Cuzzillo

Shawnee Cuzzillo — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 07:32:39 +0000

I want to pick up on what Rob pointed to, Voice’s J. Hoberman reported that, upon leaving the Cannes screening, he “felt light, rejuvenated and unconscionably happy.” I actually felt the same way and I have a theory of why that was so, at least in my case.

I was oddly gripped by the approach of the planet looming gorgeously in the sky, changing the light and the air, imagining myself being able to bravely face the end of the world, and behold it with terror and awe. The raw purity of knowing there would be absolutely nothing to do but behold and experience, even if for a moment of life, that seems to me to be an enlightened state. In that moment, as the planet approaches irrevocably, things just are absolutely larger and more powerful than any human drama, anything a human being could possibly do or not do.

I don’t romanticize more ordinary deaths, of old age, or car crashes or heart attacks. But there is something about imagining this type of end, where the natural world proves itself to be so much more powerful than any of our human accomplishments or frailties, that I find oddly exhilerating. No comfort in being remembered by those who survive, there will be no survivor. The force of nature, huge and arbitrary, simply destroys and creates.

Comment on Lars von Trier’s “Melancholia”: A Discussion by Jan

Jan — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 02:33:11 +0000

This is a point that Mr White seems to misunderstand, by misreading Freud, and attempting to confine Freud’s notion of melancholy purely within the dimension of neurosis. But of course in order to side with a certain affirmationism, he has to try and place negativity and neurosis together, and dispense with Freud and psychoanalysis entirely.

Comment on Lars von Trier’s “Melancholia”: A Discussion by Jan

Jan — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 02:10:32 +0000

The paragraph on “knowledge”, which borders on the “mystical” can be elaborated in the shift which divides depression from melancholy. In depression, there can still be doubt, uncertainty, one can speak of a neurotic depression. But with melancholy comes utter certitude, no doubt, “the world is evil” etc. This is no longer a neurotic point, but rather a psychotic one. The question, which the film presents so well is, is what is the truth of the melancholic zone?

Comment on Lars von Trier’s “Melancholia”: A Discussion by David Ehrenstein

David Ehrenstein — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:11:47 +0000

At the end of the day it’s about nothing more than the world’s worst wedding reception.

Comment on “Antichrist”: A Discussion by Damon Graumann

Damon Graumann — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 03:21:02 +0000

Anti-Christ is anti-man; opposed/against even the ultimate man (Christ). She realizes she hates man and the God who created man. Man enters woman during sex (invasion). God makes woman/en endure the pain of bringing new life into the world. God has let billions of people suffer throughout the centuries because “one” woman disobeyed God. (God of the old testament is a mean, egomaniacal, tyrant). She is justifiably anti-christ because Christ is the too little too late “meek-man” savior. She knows man is not meek. Man has mostly been invasive, selfish, controlling thoughout history. (and this is even “with” the “veneer” of civilized society).

Sometime during her research and time at the cabin with her son,she discovered and became angry/furious with “man” throughout history. From God condeming mankind for woman’s supposed disobedience (natural curiosity?) To the persecution of women by men down through the centuries. She eventually saw her own son as just another future man/controller/abuser. This leads to “torturing” him with the switched boots enough to permantly disfigure his feet. Later the muted baby-monitor, distracting her husband with sex, and knowingly watching her son fall to his death is part of her revenge. All the rest of the movie is just a working out in creative ways this “opposition to Christ” in the form of god made into man.

I (though a man) understand the hatred of God. Agnostic in my beliefs; if I decide to believe in a god I will choose NOT to worship It. If we thank god for making flowers, puppies, trees, clouds, sunshine etc. Then I feel he also created or lets exist all the bacteria, viruses and sickness in this world. I could almost classify myself as a God-hater. I don’t appreciate the set-up of “life itself” that its creatures are killing each other just to eat? To me nature is cruel and full of killing. But why does nature have to be Satan’s Church? It could be God’s church and God could be bad, mean, cruel, sadistic or plain disinterested in our comfort or happiness.

I understand her anger. The sad fact of infanticide has been a fact of life as long as men and women have walked this earth (it is not new). And if God put us in this predicament of human and animal suffering; then I understand being Anti-Christ. Christ being God’s too-little too-late “gesture” to mankind. Even centuries after Christ man was still killing each other and persecuting women for centuries.

I liked the film . . .

Comment on Rare Westerns from the Archive by Dr Noel King

Dr Noel King — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 05:33:57 +0000

It is always a delight to read Edward Buscombe on the western; graceful prose and depth of historical knowledge inform and impress all readers.