Antichrist and the cinema of attraction

Tom Gunning, a well known movie-writer, coined the term Cinema of Attraction in an essay he wrote in the 80's. Gunning states that cinema started as cinema of attraction used to showcase the film as a medium. The movies was used almost as a carny show, exhibiting strong men and bearded ladies. In this way the moviemaker showed off moving pictures and also appealed to the instinct of sensationalism. The trend in Hollywood the last ten years has been aimed at appealing to these instincts. The Saw and The Hostel movies in addition to a horde of modern horror movies are just some examples. In Europe this has manifested itself differently. Moviemakers such as Michael Haneke, Gaspar Noe and Ulrich Seidl use extreme violence or explicit sexual content, but instead of the glossy glorifying approach of Saw and The Hostel, these filmmakers draw a more complex and darker picture. Haneke uses long takes, a distant camera and deeply pessimistic stories of the human psychè to give the movie's violent sequences meaning outside of just being shocking.



Though I have not seen Lars Von Trier's Antichrist, it seems like he has "jumped the bandwagon", though this could be just a hasty conclusion since I have not seen the movie. I think it's important to make movies that have impact on people, that shocks them. It has a confrontal quality which few other mediums share. Also, the ruckus surrounding Antichrist is in a way good publicity for the movie as a medium. That movies still can create controversy and being talked about all through the world is in my opinion important. But Von Trier has in a way jumped the bandwagon. In the past, Von Trier always made highly original movies that were not occupied with trends (like Dancer in the Dark , Dogville and The Idiots). Of course, I have not seen Antichrist and this is just based on the controversy surrounding the movie, but it seems like he's taken shortcuts, instead of making highly original movies. I hope I'm wrong here, and that Antichrist is the deeply disturbing piece of art I want it to be. I ultimately find Von Trier a fascinating public person and an interesting filmmaker. Cinema needs controversial figures and themes in order to remain important as a medium and I am looking forward to seeing Antichrist. I hope it doesn't disappoint me...

The ideal movie

Defining one's own taste in movies is a hard task. Also in doing so, one is risking being perceived as close-minded. I must admit I don't have one ideal movie, some rigid sets of preconceived rules which a movie must adhere to. I am pretty fond of variation and watch a lot of different movies. But, if I am completely honest with myself there are some hidden ideals that are of a general nature.

I am very fond of brave statements and movies that challenge our outlook on life and art. Pier Paolo Pasolini is one director I admire very much for this quality. Movies that deal with moral questions, spiritual questions that are draped with mystique and carefully considered symbols and images are what I consider important. Basically, the movies that mean the most to me are not genre-excercises, but unique movies that often avoid straightforward narratives. Genre-movies could also be interesting, especially if they redefine or break with genre-conventions, but they are rarely considered favorites. I'm not much of a formalist, though I can , and often do, love a movie based on cinematography, or great bravura shots. It's often what the movies stands for politically and philosophical and how it gets this across to the viewer, that is most important to me. I like original statements, and also hold the director in high regards, in typical auteurist fashion.

I could mention some important directors: Ingmar Bergman, Carl Theodor
Dreyer, Alfred Hitchcock, David Cronenberg, David Lynch, Federico Fellini, Andrej Tarkovskij, Louis Malle, Fritz Lang, F.W. Murnau, Michael Haneke, Roman Polanski, Jean Pierre Melville. As you can see, I am both fan of dramas, art movies, horror, surrealism, stylized crime movies, science fiction and thrillers. I seldom rate comedies highly (which I admit is a bit stupid when I think about it) and I am not a very big fan of realism. I think movies should transcend real life, and think that real art lies in the manipulation of reality.



I have a great deal of respect for the medium. The movies I dislike, are movies that merely exploit the medium, being made purely for financial reasons without trying to be original. Movies that tries to exploit a trend (the recent superhero movies, capitalistic shopping movies and romantic comedies spring to mind). I am not a film scholar, though I have attended a university course in Film History. I probably won't get into technical details much in my writings, but more general musings around movies, directors or genres.