Antichrist is the newest movie by Lars von Trier, starring Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg.

Plot:
After the death of their son, she (Charlotte Gainsbourg) suffers a nervous breakdown. He (Willem Dafoe) thinks it’s best to take her back to their holiday home “Eden” to confront her with her fears. Things get even worse from then on.

Holy shit, this movie is a complete mess. I went in, convinced that it couldn’t possibly be as misogynistic as everyone said it would be. But it was even worse. Apart from that, it’s confusing, illogical and makes no sense whatsoever. But it’s beautifully shot.

[SPOILERS]

So, to get the plot out of the way. They arrive in Eden and he discovers little by little that she was really mean to their son, putting on his shoes the wrong way round. Therefore, she’s the Antichrist. And she supports this theory since she was writing a thesis about femicide and now really believes that all women are evil. A fox, a crow and a doe show up in irregular intervalls. The fox talks. The woman cracks completely, drills a hole into the man’s leg, almost kills him, then there’s the famous scene of her genital auto-mutilation and finally he chokes her to death. When he slowly makes his way down from Eden, he is met by legions of women who are on their way to Eden to (though it is never said, it certainly seems that way) mourn her death.

Can you see the mess? If not, let me break it down for you.

It starts with small things: During the opening credits, which are beautiful to look at, we see the couple sleeping with each other, in black and white and slow-mo, set to “Lascia ch’io pianga” from “Rinaldo” by Händel. This lovemaking is juxtaposed with images of their son, climbing out of his bed and making his way to a window, finally falling outside. I would have no problem with that. Except that there’s a three second actual porn segment. And people, you know me. I don’t have a problem with sex, nudity or porn in general. But that was just so uncalled for… It wasn’t necessary and it just seemed like provocation for the sake of provocation. Which was met by me with boredom.

Then there are the scenes of her breaking down, while he stays cool and calm and collected. I wouldn’t have had no problems there either. But then he goes ahead and tells her that he wants her as a patient because, “Think about it, who could be a better therapist for you? Who knows you better than I do?” Which made me go like, “dude, did you get your diploma online or what? First rule of psychotherapy: No personal relations between patient and therapist.” Since she’s mentally ill, she agrees.

They go to Eden and the film becomes mind-numbingly dull. It’s raining acorns, he’s completely overwhelmed by the situation, her mental state deteriorates notably, he will not give up and get off the fucking mountain to get her the help she needs.

Then the carnage starts, half an hour of blood and decay and generally disgusting things, which never manages to elicit any emotions because by that point I was past caring about anything that happened in this ridiculous excuse for a plot.

The climax of the film is him slowly choking her to death, which was really disturbing. First, it was quite long for a film choking. Second, the camera remained on her face all the time and made for a really intimate feeling. And third, considering what had happened so far into the film, it almost seemed like a crude form of “putting her out of her misery and thus saving the earth from one more evil woman” which was particularly revolting.

That said, Defoe and Gainsbourg gave excellent performances, so that it’s even more of a pity that they chose to do this shit. And it’s obvious that von Trier actually knows how to make a movie – he just chose to do a plotless pile of misogynistic crap instead.

Female Perversions is the first movie by Susan Streitfeld based on the book by Louise J. Kaplan, starring Tilda Swinton and Amy Madigan.

Plot:
Eve (Tilda Swinton) is a lawyer who is intelligent and successful but seemingly gets all her confidence and self-esteem from being seen as beautiful. She has an affair with a man, but also with a woman. At the same time, she tries desperately to impress her father who seems to loom over everything.
When her sister Maddie (Amy Madigan) is caught shoplifting, Eve leaves her life behind for a while to help her out, which leads to conflicts and confrontations.

Female Perversions is based on a psychoanalytical book of women sutdies [and yes, I mean women studies and not gender studies]. It’s a little heavy-handed sometimes. But they still managed to make a stringent, interesting stories that touches on many issues in women studies. It’s definitely not without issues and the theory behind it seems dated, but it’s still very watchable if you’re interested in the field.

As I said before, the movie is not without issues. One of them being that the theory behind the whole thing seems woefully out of date. [Psychoanalysis in general seems to have this problem. Much has been done in this field since Freud's days and Freud has made a lot of stuff happen, but seriously, people, the guy was a wacko and a coke-head and just plain wrong.]

To talk about only “female” perversions, as if there were perversions that are specific to one gender, is, in my opinion, wrong. To accredit it all, as usual [SPOILER] to childhood abuse [/SPOILER], is pretty one-dimensional. To basically leave out the matter of gender (there are some allusions to it, especially in the character of Edwina, but being butch seems to be a perversion in this movie, which I’d strongly object to) is just not okay anymore.

That said, I really liked how the book was incorporated into the movie: Every time you see something written, it’s a quote from the book. That was pretty awesome.

The performances were great as well. Not only Tilda Swinton’s, but everyone’s. And it was so nice to see a movie that aces the Bechdel test.

And there were some beautifully shot dream sequences.

Right after I saw Female Perversions, I watched Antichrist. And I’ll take misguided feminism over outright misogyny any time.

It was interesting but more as a historical document than actual modern feminism in application.

[Crossposted.]

Henry IV is a play (in two parts) by William Shakespeare, of which I’ve read the first part.

Plot:
King Henry IV has troubles with the Scottish, which keep him from going on a crusade to redeem himself from acquiring his throne forcefully. Additionally, a rebellion is stirring, led by the Percy family and Edmund Mortimer, named rightful successor by Richard II.
At the same time, King Henry’s son Henry (or Hal) also troubles his father by being generally subversive. Hal hangs out with a ragtag group of people, most notably John Falstaff, who is a kind of father figure for him.

I don’t think that I have to point out that Shakespeare is really good. But let me say that I really liked Henry IV. It was a rather quick read (as plays usually are), beautifully written, full of vivid characters and some of the greatest insults ever.

First, the insults, to share the glory: “whoreson caterpillar” and “mad-headed ape” are going to be in my day-to-day vocabulary from now on (New Year’s Resolution!).

I have to say that, only considering the characters, I’m in favour of the rebels. I much prefer the hotheaded, impulsive, but honest Harry Percy (or Hotspur) to the cold, manipulative Hal.

Just look at this passage, spoken by Hal:

I know you all, and will awhile uphold
The unyok’d humour of your idleness.
Yet herein will I imitate the sun,
Who doth permit the base contagious clouds
To smother up his beauty from the world,
That, when he please again to lie himself,
Being wanted, he may be more wond’red at
By breaking through the foul and ugly mists
Of vapours that did seem to strangle him.
If all the year were playing holidays,
To sport would be as tedious as to work;
But when they seldom come, they wish’d-for come,
And nothing pleaseth but rare accidents.
So, when this loose behaviour I throw off
And pay the debt I never promised,
By how much better than my word I am,
By so much shall I falsify men’s hopes;
And, like bright metal on a sullen ground,
My reformation, glitt’ring o’er my fault,
Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes
Than that which hath no foil to set it off.
I’ll so offend to make offence a skill,
Redeeming time when men think least I will.

He’s basically saying that he behaves badly, so that when he behaves okay, people will be all grateful and speak of his wonderful change and stuff. In my book, that makes him an asshole.

Falstaff on the other hand… he inspired more of my pity than I saw his alleged charisma. The way he seems to thirst for Hal’s approval while Hal seems to make fun of him at all times… that’s not a very charismatic thing to do.

I really liked King Henry IV, though, but most of all, Edward Mortimer. Such a romantic hero! Look at this (he’s married to a Welsh woman he doesn’t even understand):

Mortimer:

I understand thy looks. That pretty Welsh
Which thou pourest down from these swelling heavens
I am too perfect in; and, but for shame,
In such a Barley should I answer thee.
The Lady again in Welsh.
I understand thy kisses, and thou mine,
And that’s a feeling disputation.
But I will never be a truant, love,
Till I have learnt thy language: for thy tongue
Makes Welsh as sweet as ditties highly penn’d,
Sung by a fair queen in a summer’s bow’r,
With ravishing division, to her lute.

Glendower:

Nay, if you melt, then will she run mad.

*le sigh*

Well, to read the play takes away a lot of the enjoyment, I have to admit. I mean, an epic fight scene is so much better when there’s an actual fight and not just:

[They fight. Douglas kills Blunt.]

On the other hand, reading it, you really get to savour the language. And that’s completely worth it.

[PS: I really need to rewatch My Own Private Idaho.]

Happy New Year! Resolution: Get together with friends and just move.

Like so:

30 Seconds to Mars – Kings and Queens

or so:

Editors – Papillon

Books

I, Cthulhu, or, What’s A Tentacle-Faced Thing Like Me Doing In A Sunken City Like This (Latitude 47° 9′ S, Longitude 126° 43′ W)? by Neil Gaiman.

Music

Movies

On Avatar: Fantasy vs. science fiction: James Cameron’s Avatar. When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like Avatar? James Cameron’s Avatar: Watch Some -isms This December!

New Project by David Cronenberg with Keira Knightley, Michael Fassbender and Christoph Waltz.

Terry Gilliam’s Three-Reel Circus.

Politics

The Danger of a Single Story.

Religion

Science

In Utero Images of Animals.

Completely Different Things

Internet Meme Database.

Love the Kitsch. :)

Wham! – Last Christmas

Sorry I haven’t really been around for a while… In these past few days I had to bake five different types of cookies, babysit my niece and nephew, do my Christmas shopping, go to the hairdresser, have a Christmas party, finish a book, go to the movies (twice, or actually three times, except that I didn’t get to see a movie one time) and do loads of things and my digital life got pushed to the back burner.

Here’s to hoping that things are kinda back to normal now.

Anyway, breaking news first:

Avatar sucks. Avatar is Dances With Wolves, except that the wolves have six legs and wings and the natives are blue. Avatar is much too long. Avatar is sexist and racist. And I’m really glad that I didn’t have to pay for my ticket. [More on that in my actual review.]

[And my apologies to B. and abstrakt that I didn't go with them as planned, but I got an offer I couldn't refuse. :)]

Books

The 15 Best Time Travel Stories of All Times.

Movies

Natalie Portman to star in Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.

Trailers for Clash of the Titans and Iron Man 2.

The Guardian counts down the Best Movies of the Decade: 11-100.

Religion

Science

Mario Made with Genetically Engineered Bacteria:

Completely Different Things

The Best New Words of the Noughties.

Installing Windows Considered as a Literary Genre.

1. In two words, explain what ended your last relationship.

8000 km.

2. When was the last time you shaved your legs?

Don’t ask… what’s winter for, right? :)

3. What were you doing this morning at 8am?

Riding on a train on my way to the utterly sense-less training I’m receiving right now, so I won’t show up in unemployment statistics.

4. What were you doing 15 minutes ago?

Writing another blog post.

5. Are you any good at math?

I can hold my own as long as it stays abstract. If you ever try to explain anything to me that involves some geometry, I’m going to die a hundred thousand times before I understand anything.

6. Your prom night?

I wore a black dress, I danced a bit, though not the opening because my partner cancelled on short notice and I generally found it rather boring, I have to admit.

7. Do you have any famous relatives?

Depends on what you call famous. One of my uncles is a writer (though not hugely successful), one of my aunts is the head of a university in Berlin and the family of my mother’s first husband (with whom I really have nothing to do at all) was somehow related to Walter Brennan.

8. Have you ever taken out a loan to pay for school?

No.

9. Do you know the words to your MySpace song?

What the hell is a MySpace song?

10. Last thing you received in the mail?

The normal snail mail? Some advertisement for a local circus.

11. How many different beverages have you drank today?

Two: coffee and water. And if you count the tea I drank last night after midnight, three.

12. Who did you lose your virginity to?

Some guy in Brasil. I think his name was Jean, but I only saw him once. It was generally a rather sucky experience, one of the “well, there, now I’ve got that behind me, on to other things!” experiences.

13. Do you draw your name in the sand when you go to the beach?

No. But I like to make paw prints with my fingers.

14. What’s the most painful dental procedure you’ve had?

I had never had anything done that was really painful.

15. What is out your back door?

I don’t have a back door.

16. Do you like the ocean?

Who doesn’t?

17. Have you ever received one of those big tins of 3 different kinds of popcorn for Christmas?

Nope. And I would be really disappointed if I had.

18. Have you ever been to a planetarium?

Actually, not that I can remember. I mean, I’ve been to the Urania, a planetarium/cinema/evening school in Vienna, but only to the cinema part, never to the planetarium itself. I don’t even know if it’s still in use.

19. Something you are excited about?

Christmas!

Btw [via presti]:

20. What is your favorite flavor of jello?

Raspberry.

21. Are any of your great-grandparents still alive?

No. I met one of my great-grandmothers when I was little but she died shortly after.

22. Describe your keychain?

Uhm, pretty full? It’s a fixed ring with a winding where you can screw a plastic thingy on or off. It’s not very exciting.

23. Where do you keep your change?

In my wallet.

24. When was the last time you spoke in front of a large group?

Depends on what you mean by large. Today I spent an entire morning training a group of five people. If you want more than that, we’ll need to go back a couple of months or so, the it would be doing a presentation in front of about 30 persons. Larger than that, we’ll have to go way back to June when I spoke to the 100 or so guests at my sister’s wedding.

Well, bottom line: I don’t have a problem with it and I do it fairly frequently.

25. What kind of winter coat do you have?

I have two, an orange one and a black one. Neither are very exciting.

26. What do you think of the person you copied this from?

I have no idea anymore from which random site I stole this. Sorry.

27. Do you sleep with the door to your room open or closed?

Opened. Because I’m alone in my flat. When I’m not, it’s usually closed.

Orlando is a movie by Sally Potter based on Virginia Woolf’s book of the same name, starring Tilda Swinton, Quentin Crisp and Billy Zane.

Plot:
Orlando (Virginia Woolf) is a young man during the reign of Elizabeth I (Quentin Crisp). When he vows never to grow old, he doesn’t. The movie follows his life and affairs, first with the Queen, then with the Russian Princess Sasha (Charlotte Valandrey). After Sasha returns to Russia, Orlando leads his life pretty love-less and soon ennui sets in. Then one night, he falls asleep and can not be woken for quite a period of time. Finally he wakes up and finds himself metamorphosed into a woman’s body. And that’s when his trouble really starts.

I admit that I have never read anything by Virginia Woolf, so I can’t compare the movie and the book (yet, at least). But I really enjoyed the movie. It was funny, interesting and beautifully shot. And it has really awesome costumes and a great set design.

The movie is a little strange but with that topic, how could it be different? [And I'm pretty sure that the book is, too.] But in any case, it’s a good kind of strange. What can I say, I like magical realism.

The cast was really good, even Billy Zane (and I do not say this lightly). But of course, the movie focusses on Tilda Swinton, and rightly so. She shines as if the role (and by extension, the book) was written for her.

But probably the best thing about it were the luscious costumes and the sweeping set design. It’s playful, beautiful and really colourful. Very awesome.

Sally Potter does a good job directing it, though the pieces sometimes seem to be a little non-sequitur and more randomly jumbled together. But that never takes away from the enjoyment of the movie.

Summarising: instant classic and utterly rewatchable.