Dubstepforum.com

Laszlo wrote:You have never experienced true depression, have you.

I don't know if once being suicidal counts as an true depression... And then again, you can't really compare a bipolar disorder with an 'normal' depression.

Nihilism wrote:I don't know if once being suicidal counts as an true depression...

No, not necessarily.

Nihilism wrote:And then again, you can't really compare a bipolar disorder with an 'normal' depression.

No one was comparing and no one said 'normal'.

What's up with the question then? If you think i don't know a thing about mental issues, then you're just wrong.

And i think it was Von Trier's intention to hate the characters, 'cause what a tnucs. And i understand that's part of a bipolar disease, but then again, he didn't do any effort to let you sympathize with the characters.

You are wording it as if he isn't in control of how his disease is put into his work which Is a false logic. You could say that it would influence his mood having to work a lot of hours during filming or even in which subjects someone like that would choose, but you can't say that because he has mental health issues, his social behaviour magicly becomes the behaviour of his characters - thats actually a bit crazy .
I haven't watched it yet so please don't ruin the ending, but have you seen 'breaking the waves' there's certainly a point to how different the ending is from the rest of the film?.

Definitely watch antichrist though, but expect the characters to behave like the title and try to see his work more as a feeling portrayed than a social commentary on society imo.

Also he kind of works with the concept of a trilogy -in this sence melancholia is related to both dancer in the dark, the idiots, dogville and mandalay.

Nihilism wrote:What's up with the question then? If you think i don't know a thing about mental issues, then you're just wrong.

There was no question mark. It was a statement implying that you yourself have no experience of the issues presented in the film, otherwise you wouldn't have said "it's just a pretentious dull arty farty movie.".

But Laszlo seriously, do you think it's fair to come down on someone like that based upon an assumption?. You don't seem to consider how answering that could put someone in an akward position - just for discussing the merits of some film - it's not medicine after all but just a portrayal of a pretty existential subject.

hubb wrote:

And i think it was Von Trier's intention to hate the characters, 'cause what a tnucs. And i understand that's part of a bipolar disease, but then again, he didn't do any effort to let you sympathize with the characters.

You are wording it as if he isn't in control of how his disease is put into his work which Is a false logic. You could say that it would influence his mood having to work a lot of hours during filming or even in which subjects someone like that would choose, but you can't say that because he has mental health issues, his social behaviour magicly becomes the behaviour of his characters - thats actually a bit crazy .
I haven't watched it yet so please don't ruin the ending, but have you seen 'breaking the waves' there's certainly a point to how different the ending is from the rest of the film?.

Definitely watch antichrist though, but expect the characters to behave like the title and try to see his work more as a feeling portrayed than a social commentary on society imo.

Also he kind of works with the concept of a trilogy -in this sence melancholia is related to both dancer in the dark, the idiots, dogville and mandalay.

I didn't know he had mental health issues. I was just wondering if it was his intention to hate the characters; 'cause like i said, he didn't do any effort to let you sympathize with the characters. And the bipolar disorder thing wasn't about him, but about the characters.

hahah I did think it was weird to think it would be as 1:1 as that.

I can tell you that without a doubt he made an effort to have you un-sympathise with the characters . He's not out to brush peoples hair but to ruffle their feathers.

Laszlo wrote:

Nihilism wrote:What's up with the question then? If you think i don't know a thing about mental issues, then you're just wrong.

There was no question mark. It was a statement implying that you yourself have no experience of the issues presented in the film, otherwise you wouldn't have said "it's just a pretentious dull arty farty movie.".

So because i call this a pretentious dull arty farty movie it means that i'm having no idea or experiences of the issues in the movie? I know movies and books that did a better job at exploring themes like this then this movie. It's not because i don't like the movies that it means that i don't like the subject. Or don't know a thing about it.

hubb wrote:But Laszlo seriously, do you think it's fair to come down on someone like that based upon an assumption?. You don't seem to consider how answering that could put someone in an akward position - just for discussing the merits of some film - it's not medicine after all but just a portrayal of a pretty existential subject.

I don't see how I was coming down on anyone. I'm just saying if he had any experience with deeply depressive states (either him or someone close to him) then it'd be virtually impossible to to dismiss it as arty farty nonsense.

Nihilism wrote:

Laszlo wrote:

Nihilism wrote:What's up with the question then? If you think i don't know a thing about mental issues, then you're just wrong.

There was no question mark. It was a statement implying that you yourself have no experience of the issues presented in the film, otherwise you wouldn't have said "it's just a pretentious dull arty farty movie.".

So because i call this a pretentious dull arty farty movie it means that i'm having no idea or experiences of the issues in the movie?

No. Because you said "just a pretentious dull arty farty movie."

I'll allow you coz you're Belgian though

I don't see how I was coming down on anyone. I'm just saying if he had any experience with deeply depressive states (either him or someone close to him) then it'd be virtually impossible to to dismiss it as arty farty nonsense.

I agree with that. Fairplay. Us foreign folk do need a bit of levey (or language lesson... I think i just said rofl my feathers or something.. )

Nihilism wrote:

Laszlo wrote:

Nihilism wrote:What's up with the question then? If you think i don't know a thing about mental issues, then you're just wrong.

There was no question mark. It was a statement implying that you yourself have no experience of the issues presented in the film, otherwise you wouldn't have said "it's just a pretentious dull arty farty movie.".
So because i call this a pretentious dull arty farty movie it means that i'm having no idea or experiences of the issues in the movie?

No. Because you said "just a pretentious dull arty farty movie."

I'll allow you coz you're Belgian though

You're a fucking tnuc.

I think we need to start calling regular mainstream things for farty and then it could become a + term.

Nihilism wrote:You're a fucking tnuc.

Undoubtedly.

hubb wrote:
Definitely watch antichrist though, but expect the characters to behave like the title and try to see his work more as a feeling portrayed than a social commentary on society imo.

Also he kind of works with the concept of a trilogy -in this sence melancholia is related to both dancer in the dark, the idiots, dogville and mandalay.

I really like Antichrist but I just watch it as an incredibly well shot exploitation movie. I mean I was watching it in a frame of mind that it would be some sort of bold artistic film and just kept thinking it was laughably pretentious. Instead I stopped thinking of it that way and just soaked up the atmosphere and went along with the actual ride of the events within the film. I mean the shit where the fox talks and the bit with the things falling on Dafoe's charactr (conkers? It's been a while) made me burst out laughing. It is however a tense and great looking film with a cool soundtrack. I just can't get behind the whole "art" bit of it when you are essentially just watching really graphic scenes of sex and gnarly shit taking place in the woods filmed by someone who has access to a Phantom V4 camera. I mean the plost and everything to do with what is happening to the characters works but for me I just feel it's a film that works on the strengths of it's visuals and atmosphere and goes for a pushing boundaries type thing rather than actually saying anything I feel is important. It just feels like a weird horror movie made by an artistically minded director.

Dogville I honestly think may be the most boring film I've ever seen. Granted it was on late at night on tv and I gave up half way due to it's length so I'm not sure I can 100% make a judgement on it but if it's that boring I turned it off mid way it's clearly a sign something is wrong. I don't understand the point of basically filming an incredibly minimally set up play when making a movie at all. It basically defeats the point of film for me doing that. It'd be like writing a comic where you only see characters doing nothing in the art and then describing all the visual points in text in between. I thought the dialogue was drawn out in a way that made it feel like it was trying to be clever rather than actually serving any purpose or being believable. I'm really not sure I can think of a more pointlessly pretentious movie I've watched.

Completely agree on antichrist being more style than substance.
This is the film within his entire production where he starts to cater to an audience (maybe 'his' audience so to speak, which partly explains how a director could eventually find a logic in marrying the subject of the horrors of being responsible of a childs death, and feticizing that blame in the context of a loving couple, to a point where it's almost sadomasochistically sexual and still managing to combine that with an almost Tarkovskian 'everything is natural/nature'- attitude and bits of occult minimalism and part comedy to be able to swallow all that).
But once that is 'established'...it stays on 'that' level.
I think it's fair to say that even when it makes you and me laugh out loud, it still presents a very nuanced emotional plane that is timeless, not unlike Nietches talk of natures optics. It's just such a hard task he demands of himself and in that I think he uses humour- to then explain how ironically hopeless making art out of a subject like that becomes in the process. Also he is a cheeky tnuc.


Dogville is brilliant. It's a tough watch no doubt. It takes the whole concept of dogma95 a step further and although I wouldn't find it necessary to deal with the subject he has chosen, ie America and theatre in the way he did, it's pretty awesome to turn a film back into a play and have that whole meta fairytale going on. It was maybe a step too far just with dogville (not even considering the follow up mandalay) and probably more about him evolving his cinematographical language and pointing fingers at the other directors which always is his main concern, than making a film as good as his first couple of films that are mostly just outright stories in film format/-something -opics.

It basically defeats the point of film for me doing that. It'd be like writing a comic where you only see characters doing nothing in the art and then describing all the visual points in text in between.

Mona lisa is a shit painting ( or is it).

It's definitely about pointing fingers at special effects and whatnot aswell.

Breaking the waves is really a good film to judge his art by.

[+] Spoiler

Because it's just such a dry and unrelenting shitstorm that doesn't swerve- finished off with an ending that completely mocks the whole thing up until that point, but brings home the exact point he would make when exposed to people that would use faith as a gps. And it's hilariously cruel. It's purposely misleading along the way -like doing a speach on how much you loved grandpa at his funeral -and then topping it off with a wank on the casket infront of everybody.

I loved Dogville. You're basically watching a small town descend into collective madness with everyone refusing to take any of the blame. I think the minimal setting is so you can observe what the townspeople are doing when you should be focusing on the first plan action. you're not just a viewer, you're a voyeur. The end dialogue with Kidman & James Caan is really good and explains a lot of what Von Trier was doing throughout the whole film. The logic behind it and how it led to Kidman's choice were a really good ending.

It's still painfully dry and empty for no reason other that Von Trier wanted to see what it would look like if he stuck his head up his arse though as far as I can tell. I see no artistic merit in making it so painfully dull and having no sets. It's honestly one of the worst films I've seen as it's someone who's clearly talented making such a monumentally ad pointlessly slow film that is so unenjoyable I gave up watching it. I mean there are loads of films made badly that I can sit the whole way through or even be entertained by but to take a background in film making such as his and make something that's so excruciatingly dull is worse than any trashy director with no idea what they're do making something that's even a little watchable. It cost (EDIT: WROTE $10 000 BEFORE BY ACCIDENT) $10 000 000 to make for fuck's sake. Where did that go? Is white paint really that fucking expensive?

wolf89 wrote: It cost $10 000 to make for fuck's sake. Where did that go? Is white paint really that fucking expensive?

publicity and nichole kidman / von trier salaries.