Row Three » Greatest Movie Poster Ever - Where Cinema is more than just $100 Million productions

Greatest Movie Poster Ever

Chief Imagination Officer

Nov

2009

Antichrist. In limited release right now. Definitely in contention for my top ten of the year list. A new “poster” has been released. If you’ve seen the movie, this poster makes a lot more sense.

.
Thanks to /film for the heads up.

47 response about Greatest Movie Poster Ever »

that. is. amazing.

Comment by Goon — November 10, 2009
What’s the big deal?

Comment by Allan W Janssen — November 10, 2009
If you’ve seen Antichrist and are at least aware of Wes Anderson’s The Fantastic Mr. Fox, you would get the joke.

Comment by Andrew James — November 10, 2009
Mildly amusing.

Comment by Henrik — November 10, 2009
A great inside joke. Apparently, things went really crazy with the Chaos Reigns at Fantastic Fest this year, and I bet there are a lot of giggles going on as this poster does the rounds.

Comment by kurt — November 10, 2009
So, what’s the consensus on AntiChrist around here? I usually have a lot of insight into LVT but with this one I don’t really know what to think.
I will say it completely failed to shock me. I guess that’s the downside to every single human being on the planet telling me how shocked I’ll be months in advance. Fuck critics, seriously.
It’s very artfully composed though. I appreciated that. I feel like I need to see it again but I just don’t want to.

I’ve halfway convinced myself it’s actually the closing chapter to LVT’s America Trilogy.

Comment by Rusty James — November 10, 2009
The bullet point reaction to Antichrist (My full review is here: http://www.rowthree.com/2009/09/07/tiff-09-review-antichrist/ )

* Wonderfully shot and oozes atmosphere
* Borderline parody in its shrill hysterics (there is precedent for this approach, Cronenberg’s Videodrome)
* Full blown parody of art-house symbolism in its talking animals, particularly the Fox.
* Performances are fearless, but characters are props more than people, and being able to relate to them or understand them is darn near impossible.
* The shocks are there to poke people, not for any narrative or even atmosphere reasons. Seasoned moviegoers may wince but will hardly be ‘OMG!’ shocked at this film, but genuine surprise if you didn’t know better would certainly be the reaction to the films more lurid images.

In total, the movie is scary and atmospheric and cinematic and gross and fun as hell. Turns torture porn (Saw, Captivity) and art-house implacability (Picnic at Hanging Rock, Charisma, etc.) on its ear. You’ll get as much entertainment (and that is the films chief purpose in my eyes) as you are willing to let LVT do his thing.

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 10, 2009
@ In total, the movie is scary and atmospheric and cinematic and gross and fun as hell

I’m in complete agreement until you threw in “fun as hell” and then I’m lost. It’s kind of pedantic.

What do you think of AntiChrist as the final to the America Trilogy.

Dogville being about Christ’s coming to earth, crucifixion, resurrection followed by God’s wrath (revelation)

Manderlay being Christ’s reign on Earth following resurection. And at the end setting up a confrontation with the antichrist.

AntiChrist continues the confrontation as some kind of parallel to Eden. The nameless female character being the latest incarnation of Grace.

Comment by Rusty James — November 10, 2009
I don’t know about capping off the trilogy, but AC perfectly melds the art of cinema with the horrific that I seriously think this movie will be in my top 3 of the year. The camera work, editing and cinematography alone has standing no where near any of it’s peers in theaters this year.

It is truly something different and wonderful – and that is the kind of statement that gets me to back any film.

PS – I agree with everything in Kurt’s bullet point review above.

Comment by Andrew James — November 10, 2009
“fun as hell” in a sort of ironic hipster way. The experience itself is kind of punishing (and yea, a tad pedantic hither and yon) but if you step back for just a moment to grasp its ‘OMFG’ tone, it is kind of funny.

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 10, 2009
@ It is truly something different and wonderful – and that is the kind of statement that gets me to back any film.

I think this is Kurt’s bad influence on you.

Comment by Rusty James — November 10, 2009
Kurt, I’m afraid I just don’t know what you mean.

Comment by Rusty James — November 10, 2009
@Rusty, “Dogville being about Christ’s coming to earth, crucifixion, resurrection followed by God’s wrath (revelation)

Manderlay being Christ’s reign on Earth following resurection. And at the end setting up a confrontation with the antichrist.”

I think you are RRRREEEEAAAALLLLLLLYYYYY stretching it.

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 10, 2009
…I mean I can sort of buy the martyr/crucifiction and even resurrection Dogville (Where does the ‘revenge-wrath factor into that though? Confused). And I don’t get that read of Manderaly at all.

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 10, 2009
Not at all. I’ll back nearly anything that is something different and interesting – if it’s done halfway decently.

And wow, I just think AC is beautiful film making. I don’t think it’s really all that scary. It’s just… interesting and hypnotic in a way. The performances rock, yes. But it’s the beauty of all the camera work and aural stuff going on that gets me. I can’t wait to see this again on the big screen when it hits Minneapolis next week.

Comment by Andrew James — November 10, 2009
@ Rusty, “Kurt, I’m afraid I just don’t know what you mean.”

Chaos Reigns, Rusty, Chaos Reigns.

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 10, 2009
Really? Watch it again.

Honestly, I keep forgetting that the rest of the world has yet to catch up with me on this and realize that LVT’s America Trilogy is obviously a satirical take on Catholic Doctrine.

Consider:
Supposedly Dogville is about imigrants. But Grace is an extremely poor analogue for immigration. First of all she has blond hair and blue eyes. She is clearly of greater economic means than the towns people, and that factors in prominently to the story’s end.
Also, how can one person represent immigration. It doesn’t even make sense.

Now think about this. Grace keeps talking about her father, and what’s going to happen when he returns.
The titular dog of Dogville is named “Moses” and when Grace arrives he’s run away.
She arrives to help but is eventually treated with scorn and hate.

Lastly, “grace” is christ’s gift; salvation through grace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_grace

When grace leaves the shed to join her father in the limo (resurrected from the grave and ascending to heaven to sit by God’s side) the argument they have is between Grace who wants to forgive the town, and her father who wants to inflict his wrath upon them. Her father wins out and the ensueing chaos is representative of Revelations.

In the bible revelations is followed by Christ’s thousand year reign over earth which brings us to Manderlay.
Grace arrives at Manderlay looking to show up her father. This time instead of a humble servant she arrives as king with a squad of goons (four cherubim and a flaming sword) to enforce her will.
She frees the slaves who don’t wish to be freed. Over throws the corrupt ruler and tears down Mam’s law (the characters are clearly saying Man’s Law.)

Her reign comes to a fiery end due to some shadowy figure on the periphery who I would assume is supposed to be either the Antichrist or Satan.
The film ends having set up some confrontation between Grace and her nemsis supposedly to be hashed out in a film called Wasinton.
Man, God, Sin: Some scholars believe that the cross represents man’s seperation from god by sin. So the cross image of the cross is woven into the titles through the series.

This is Catholocisms (well, all of christianity really) misanthropic message. That mankind is unworthy and sinful. That free will is our curse, that we must be ruled over by some divine dictator and his temporary representative the Church.
Grace is a character similar to Voltaire’s Candid. A bumbling do gooder who is constantly proven wrong by the story. She thinks she can save mankind, that they deserve “grace” but they keep screwing it up via their sinful nature. So her father has to step in and set things straight with the iron fist of wrath.
(god’s plan is great, it’s us human being who keep messing it up)

Good god, I’m supposed to be working.

Comment by Rusty James — November 10, 2009
@ Not at all. I’ll back nearly anything that is something different and interesting – if it’s done halfway decently.

I’m not saying it’s not a sincere opinion. But I do think it reflects Kurt’s influence.
He puts a lot of emphasis on novelty and a film’s academic subtext often times over story and artistry: Southland Tales, Happening, Pontypool.
It’s probably the thing I find myself most at odds over with Kurt. For instance all that subtextual stuff in regards to Dogville works for me because LVT is good story teller. He comes up with a dramatic situation and good characters and tells it in an interesting way. Same with BSG. I really appreciate the political subtext but I appreciate it because it plays second fiddle to the story and characters. Kurt’s made it clear he feels the opposite.
If you’ve ever gone to any kind of art school you quickly develop a lot of cynicism toward pure novelty. The world is full ambitious types with big ideas who can’t quite bring it all together, they’re a dime a dozen. I’ll take execution over lofty ideas.

Comment by Rusty James — November 10, 2009
Maybe not as black and white as you make it there Rusty, but more or less correct. There has to be some kind of half-way decent execution to the thing though.

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 10, 2009
I completely agree. I’ll take artistry, style and story over some message or “academic subtext” any day of the week. That’s what I think AC has going for it in spades. I’m not sure what exactly it’s trying to say and I don’t really care. It’s the visual style and tone/mood the film sets that works for me.

I’m like that with music too (always have been). Even though I know a song’s lyrics word for word and can sing it at the drop of a hat and know it like the back of my hand, I rarely stop to consider what it is I’m actually singing (with a few exceptions). I really only care about the beat, melody and instrumentation. Lyrics/poetry mean almost nothing to me.

Comment by Andrew James — November 10, 2009
@ Maybe not as black and white as you make it there Rusty, but more or less correct.

I don’t think I’m making it out to be black and white. I’m not saying you’re one dimensional. It’s just a general pattern I’ve observed.

It’s as much a statement about me as it is about you.

Comment by Rusty James — November 10, 2009
touché!

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 10, 2009
I don’t speak french.

Comment by Rusty James — November 10, 2009
“So, what’s the consensus on AntiChrist around here?”

“Honestly, I keep forgetting that the rest of the world has yet to catch up with me on this and realize that LVT’s America Trilogy is obviously a satirical take on Catholic Doctrine.”

So were you interested in talking about Antichrist, or just wanted another opportunity to spout off this theory for the millionth time? It’s getting a little old.

Antichrist for me was shocking and shaking (I saw it way back when, in december 08, without knowing anything but the director and the title, so no hypemachine, thank god), but fell well short of its obvious role model, Viskningar och rop.

Comment by Henrik — November 10, 2009
@ So were you interested in talking about Antichrist, or just wanted another opportunity to spout off this theory for the millionth time? It’s getting a little old.

Well… I keep bringing it up but no one really acknowledges it either way. So I’m kind of forced to keep bringing it up.

Like when you say “I got new shoes” but no one responds. So you end up repeating yourself again and again until finally someone says: “yes, new shoes! We get it!”.
But if they just said “Oh yes, I see” in the first place then you wouldn’t have kept repeating yourself.

You see my dilemma.

It’s something I’d like to discuss but no one seems to have any opinion. So, Henrik what do you think about it?

Comment by Rusty James — November 10, 2009
And yeah, I’m interested in hearing what people have to say about AntiChrist. Though I don’t have much to say myself. Like I said, I don’t really know what to think.

I did think of both Cries & Whispers and Persona as well.

What did you find to be the main parallels.

Comment by Rusty James — November 10, 2009
And since you’re french could you please translate Kurt’s comment for me?

Comment by Rusty James — November 10, 2009
I can’t translate it, I have no idea what it means.

Well, Cries and Whispers (do you prefer the english title?) deals with tragedy, through a slow, stylized world where pain and grief hangs over the characters heads, and has disturbing scenes of self-mutilation. I wrote to mr. Trier after seing Antichrist, that I felt he had gotten the mood and the physicality of Cries and Whispers, now he only needed the depth. I find antichrist to be a shallow, gorgeus movie without any real human beings in it to make it truly relevant.

Comment by Henrik — November 10, 2009
“Like when you say “I got new shoes” but no one responds. So you end up repeating yourself again and again until finally someone says: “yes, new shoes! We get it!”.”

Some people wouldn’t bring it up unless somebody asked.

Comment by Henrik — November 10, 2009
yeah, but the point is that if you bring it up then you’re looking for some feedback. If no one says anything then you’re left wondering if anyone heard you.

obviously if you have rubbish shoes then you don’t bring it up.

Comment by Rusty James — November 10, 2009
But if the people you are talking to are of the impression that your shoes are rubbish, even though you clearly do not think so, they might shut up out of sheer curtesy.

I think I should say at this point that I haven’t seen the movies you talk about, I saw the opening 20 minutes of Dogville and went to bed.

Comment by Henrik — November 10, 2009
Are you guys serious that you don’t know what touché means or are you being facetious (i.e. playing dumb) again?
I don’t know the literal translation but I’ll bite.

touché = “you win” or “I give up.” “Good show.” “Good comeback.”
Usually one would say this when defeated in a duel of words.

Comment by Andrew James — November 10, 2009
As for the Von Trier thing. I have not seen Dogville and I gave up on Manderlay half way through. Not a fan of that style. So I can’t comment – that’s why I “ignored” you.

Comment by Andrew James — November 10, 2009
@ touché = “you win” or “I give up.” “Good show.” “Good comeback.”
Usually one would say this when defeated in a duel of words.

I was being facetious. It means “touched”. So Kurt was saying he found my remarks touching.

Comment by Rusty James — November 10, 2009
fabulous poster.

Comment by Laura Desiree — November 10, 2009
Rusty’s got it. “Good Show” or “Hit!” is the usual (and yes, in this case my intended usage)

Comment by kurt — November 10, 2009
I thought you meant that you were touched emotionally. hmm.

Comment by Rusty James — November 10, 2009
I was playing along with Rustys facetious joke (a pretty horrible joke, but who am I to ruin the fun). I also am not french Andrew .

Comment by Henrik — November 11, 2009
How the hell does ‘Touché’ mean good show? It originated I believe, because in fencing whenever somebody got touched (which in fencing means you got owned and lost and you are now behind in score), the judge would say “Touché”. I sincerely doubt it would in any context mean “Good Show!”.

Comment by Henrik — November 11, 2009
Well, you would be wrong Henrik, Touché is often said in fencing not by the judge, but by the other fencer, the one that was hit, as if to say, yea, you got me, which in an optimistic and pleasant camaraderie can be easily stretched into “Good Show!”

Comment by Kurt — November 11, 2009
Touché!

Comment by Henrik — November 11, 2009
So Kurt, any thoughts on my Dogville theory? Have I quelled your skepticism? Or am I just spinning my wheels like Mike Rot?

Comment by Rusty James — November 11, 2009
I am putting together an Amazon order for a few films, and Manderlay is on the list, so I’m due for a revisit of both that and Dogville. I’m sure the theory will be on my brain while I watch it again.

I still remain skeptical in the theory, but would agree that America and Religion are themes in most of LvT’s films from Breaking The Waves onward….

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 11, 2009
I just rewatched Manderlay a couple weeks ago… surprised how much of it I forgot since theatrical viewing. Somehow it uses the same basic punchline of the first film but does it even better. Both viewings made me laugh out loud at the whole William Dafoe seeing how Grace is doing bit.

I really hope he finishes this trilogy.

Comment by rot — November 11, 2009
America is a pretty big theme in my favorite movie of his, Europa.

Comment by Henrik — November 11, 2009
Sadly, that one (Europa) remains a blank spot in my LvT filmography, along with The Boss of it All

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 11, 2009
Funnily, those are probably my two favorites. I laughed my ass off at The Boss of it All when I saw it. It wasn’t quite as good on second watching, but I think that’s because we used it up quoting it all the time.

Comment by Henrik — November 11, 2009

Greatest Movie Poster Ever

47 response about Greatest Movie Poster Ever »

Leave a comment

Recent Comments