主播大秀

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The Amazon entry has a review by one 'Doc Benway' saying "If you liked Antichrist you will be interested to see a lot of similar themes in Possession".
Must be a medical condition, perhaps.

There's definitely a certain Possession vibe about Antichrist, but I also see bits of Don't Look Now, Naked Blood and any Disney talking animal film you care to mention too. I may be the one person who is on the fence about Possession, I think it would have been more interesting if it was a straight ahead exploitation film rather than a strange art house one (it was clearly an influence on the ridiculously entertaining Devil Foetus), but by the time World War Three broke out I was well and truly lost: too many ideas for its own good (or for mine anyway).

I've also been looking for a copy of Possession ever since your first review of Antichrist; I'll keep my search going. In the meantime, I've been exploring the Lars von Trier back catalogue and I was wondering where you stood on the early stuff. I know you like Dogville and Manderlay, you loathe everything from Breaking the Waves up through Dancer in the Dark (as do I), but are Zentropa and The Element of Crime worth a look?

I was going to watch Drag Me To Hell tonight, but for you Mark I will watch Possession instead.

"oh Lars. Stop it" The ghost of Dick Emery lives on.

tried to get a copy of 'antichrist' from my local retailer which is a multi-national and they were'nt stocking it although you can purchase it through their website-i'll get it this weekend whilst in Manchester

by the way, just watched a few trailers on imdb of new/future releases and there is some rotten stuff coming your way Mark

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

On all official releases of the film Possession.

***The scene where Adjani miscarries in the bus station is missing a frame where she sees a pair of eyes in the slime of her miscarriage. This frame also does not appear in the Japanese release***

It is your homework Kermode to get this film released on DVD in its uncut format.

too scared to watch it...sorry :)

I bought a copy of possession when it was briefly released on dvd, glad i did because copies of the dvd second-hand are going for ludicrous amounts now. Not so sure on the similarities between possession and anti-christ, both are excellent studies in nightmares. After my first time of watching possession i felt mentally drained, so i totally agree with your comment about no one being blase about the film, its still a very powerful film.

Weirdly enough, I did just watch Antichrist and thought "ah... that's alright" or something of the sort; more like... "uhm... OK". I had many "Oh Lars" moments with the rather crude and honestly boringly obvious use of the symbology; no sense of satire or depth. It felt limp. I watched that very night Serge Gainsbourg's/Jane Birkin's Je t'aime moi non plus and I felt that movie had all of the desire and intensity and just beauty that Antichrist somehow, in a very unconscious way, wanted to have. And then I thought "oh wow, I hadn't thought about that, Charlotte's parents"... and she, on the bathroom floor, and a couple more shots, is the best thing in the movie anyway.

Possession looks great.

I do have Possession on DVD, I disagree that its an arthouse horror classic, I would also disagree that it's in any way a repulsive film.

It was just wierd, bizarre and non-sensicle.

Haven't seen anti-christ to compare it to, so can't really comment there. But if half the reviews I've read that are anything to go by, I would say possession is a damnsite tamer.

I don't understand the fascination with antichrist. It means nothing to me...

Possession is indeed a very hard film to get hold of so I'm afraid I can't possibly comment on that.

What I have noticed is that looking at the DVD of Antichrist on Amazon, there's a very unusual pattern in the customer reviews in that they're almost completely evenly spread across the board. There's a couple more one-star ratings than others but generally there couldn't be a more mixed response.

Got to speak up and wholeheartedly agree. Possession is one of my favourite films- it's properly mental probably one of the most intensely deranged films i've ever been lucky to witness (up their with Alejandro Jodorowsky's the Holy Mountain). I'd really advise people not to read about Possession and just watch it as singling out any number of the more extreme scenes is really reductive and doesn't do the films overall 'beyond broken' atmospheric tension any justice. You could really spoil it.

Andrzej 呕u艂awski is massively overlooked imo. His stylistic signature would be that has all of his actors delivering their lines with the intensity of people on the edge of death, typically staring directly into the camera, leaving the viewer almost at the stage of flight or fight but with no idea what exactly the threat is.

Another really interesting avenue is his half finished SF film 'On the Silver Globe' which is one of the most otherworldly film's i've ever seen, and clearly imo what Chris Cunningham had watched before he made his Madonna Frozen video. 呕u艂awski would have made a great DUNE.

"Time of the Wolf" by I. Bergman seems more relevant mister Kermode...

My greatest tragedy was not being able to attend a screening of Possession at my local independent cinema a few years ago.

When I went to see Antichrist there was a couple sat behind me that laughed the whole way through.

My Dad fortunately enough has an old copy of Possession on VHS, I managed to watch it on a bad VCR player, but despite the quality of picture and sound I have to agree with you. Possession is a really strange, effective horror movie and damn scary to boot. I think it reaches a geniuine level of hysterical madness only matched by Ken Russell's The Devils. However I still think, and thought this the first time I saw it, that Don't Look Now is much closer to Antichrist. Think about it: A grieving couple who escape to an idyllic setting set on by the guilt of losing a child who was unsupervised in a dangerous situation, and in the idyllic place of escape wierd things start to happen. Whilst Possession is closest perhaps in tone to Antichrist, Don't Look Now is almost identical narratively and thematically. And I'm actually suprised that being a fan of Don't Look Now yourself, Dr. Mark you didn't pick up on this in your review.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Antichrist shares a lot of ideas and themes with the musical Norwegian black metal movement. I wonder whether Von Trier has read Lords of Chaos ("Chaos reigns!") or follows the press on bands like Mayhem and Gorgoroth (after all, he did start out as a music video director and has cast Bj枚rk.)

Unfortunately I haven't seen Antichrist though I managed to procure A copy of Possession a few months ago, safe to say it has since been forced upon my significant other, the majority of my friends and my mum to incredibly mixed reactions. Though no one though it thought it was just alright I did get someone calling it rather dull which angered me as I share your opinion that it's a great forgotten horror masterpiece.

I bought POSSESSION years ago in one of those Anchor Bay 'Double Feature' discs, which also had Bava's SHOCK on it.

I had never heard of POSSESSION so when I watched it I found it pretty hard going. But lately I HAVE been thinking about watching it again to re-assess it.

And it's interesting to hear that those DVDs may be out of print and quite valuable, and I nearly just gave mine away to a friend recently because he wanted POSSESSION and I didn't think too much of it.

Maybe I'll hang onto it for a while.

Antichrist? It's just two people sat in a dark room chatting about the existence of God and nature and stuff....I fell asleep in the cinema.

I haven't seen Possession good Dr. but I will place it on my to-do list.

You are right about the reaction you get from Antichrist though. When I finished watching it my head was spinning and I had to ring people and scream down the phone at them. I think it's a bloody fine movie too.

On films that make people faint: my friend watched Dancer in the Dark, cried for three hours and compared it to the holocaust. That's why I love Lars. Masochistic I know. Rob x

Not really relevant to the discussion but I thought I'd ask... In the wake of the news that Jonathan Ross will be leaving the 主播大秀, any chance that you'll be taking over his film show? That would be one hell of a new years gift.

Good timing. Just watched Antichrist last night. That's going to stay with me for a while. Dr.K, I watched Martyrs on your recommendation, too, so I'm getting used to films staying with me a while. I'm not sure if I like it or not but I guess that's a good thing...... or is it?

I'll try and track down Possession. I have no doubt it will be another uncomfortable viewing.

I would like the good Mark Fairey to devote some time and make videos for other genres as well,not only horror.Epic movies,drama movies would be a nice theme.Cheers doc :)

*cough* Isohunt for any bit torrent users.

Surely you'll be getting the Film 2010 gig now Dr. Kermode?

I'll try and track down Possession, it looks brilliant

I gave replying to this topic a good think over; but as you can see I have reconciled with any nagging thoughts I may have had and decided to post. This is due in part to the reaction Possession had on me. Without waffling any further 鈥� Possession is no masterpiece. At times it drowns itself in intrigue with a select few scenes impressing. However for the most part it is a messy cluster of a film.

The rocking chair scene for example where Sam Neil rocks back and forth manically is great. However it is followed by a number of scenes gratingly similar that are never quite as good. In the end the viewers are left asking themselves - Am I a fan of the pink socks? For you it is a yes, but for me, I prefer the rather fetching Anti-Christ branded pair.

I haven't been able to track down a copy of Possession but i was haunted by the strange trailer of it that accompanied my Driller Killer DVD about ten years ago.

In regards to Antichrist, the most obvious influence i could see was to an episode of The Simpsons called "A Star is Burns", in which local booze hound Barney directs a film and it is shown at the Springfield Film Festival. The film is a pretentious black and white piece entitled "Pukahontas" in which very little happens but looks arty and beautiful and comes complete with a contemplative score by Phillip Glass and ends with the word "Fin".

Kind of reminds me of the mind numbing first five minutes (which wasn't as mind numbing as the ensuing 100 minutes by the way) of Antichrist...pity that Lars von Trier's pretentious codswolllop was nowhere near as enjoyable or indeed artistic or entertaining as either Barney's film or the entire "A Star is Burns" episode, then i wouldn't have left the cinema so angry at such a waste of time, at least Barney's Pukahontas only last a minute and a half!

Dr K,

I will definitely try to track down this film but first I would like to share some thoughts on antichrist and more importantly Lars Von Trier himself.

With regards to the film itself I do agree that there was something about it that had me intrigued from the very start. The photography was stunning, possibly some of the best work I've seen in a long time and I agree that once again Von Trier once again takes it way too far in terms of the violence and turns it into something ridiculous which annoyed me as all von truer's films do.

Now to the man himself. In my own personal opinion I've never been a big fan of Vin Trier. The Idiots is such a prententious study of absolute egotism and self indulgence as is every other film he has made. He is one of those filmmakers that has fallen in love with his own newspaper image. His main concern as a filmmaker in my opinion from what I've seen, is not art nor to present ideas in a unique and compelling way but simply to upset the middle classes and cause shock and outrage for the sheer sake of it. And it really annoys me that journalists and critics are continually seduced by his attempts at shock and vileness that simply masquerade as art.

It annoys me that he is a filmmaker that thrives on attention and is more like a child who screams and shouts and says "look at me, look what new upsetting thing I've come up with this week". It annoys me that the attention he recieves brings the attention away from first time or up and coming filmmakers making really interesting films which can actually be called art and stories that are actually interesting.

He is the kind of filmmaker I cannot stand. An attention seeking egotist, who only makes films to get his name in the papers and cause an uproar which in the end is pointless.

If we stopped giving him the attnetion then maybe, just maybe he might make something that is genuinely unique and actually compelling without being his own worst enemy. Himself.

Thank you.

I have to say, I am so glad you've dedicated a whole post to Possession. It has remained one of my favorite films since I first saw it a few years ago. Unfortunately I can't comment on the links to Antichrist (I was out of town during my local film festival and a DVD release hasn't materialised yet). I'm still curious, despite something of a seething dislike for Von Trier.

Possession is a fairly flawed film: it juggles tones awkwardly, is occasionally repetitive, and Sam Neill's performance is alternately too theatrical or not theatrical enough.

But I love it. I recognise those problems but simply don't care about them. They in no way diminish my enjoyment of Isabelle Adjani's performance or Carlo Rambaldi's distressing effects work.

It's certainly not for everyone but absolutely worth watching at least once. I'd be interested to know what the Good Doctor thinks of Zulawski's other output?

(Probably also worth making the obligatory long time reader/first time commenter statement)

Doctor, Doctor,

Thank you for the film recommendation.

I do see similarities in the role of the female in both films: The latent sense that there is something dangerously powerful about female sexuality, that it has the power to create and to destroy. This is taken to extremes with Adjani, who helps evil incarnate to become (hu)man (not to mention the implications of the miscarriage in the underground). Also, the hysterical tone of the films, women behaving badly, Berlin = Eden, etc.

But, coming back to your original statement that Lars drew his inspiration from Possession, I disagree. I see a difference in the motives and methods of the directors:

1) Regarding the methods:
Whereas Antichrist's exploration of female sexuality is introspective, turning towards the within (travelling INTO the forest, BACK in time to Eden and medieval, crawling INTO the fox's den) Possession is playing with the notion of "the Otherness" coming OUT into this world (Berlin as the western frontier, apartment on the border, the Beast EMERGING and finally manifesting itself in the here and now).

2) Regarding the motives:
Although the topic of female sexuality is the same in both films, Lars, as usual, can't resist bringing his misogynist streak into play. I would even argue that his main motive for the film was to demonstrate, once again, that women are at best conflicted and confused idiots. Possession on the other hand, seems to deal with the post-modern intellectual notion of "the Other" and how it might manifest itself in this world.

In short,
Lars, may have been inspired by Possession, but his love of mistreating his actresses in the name of misogyny, made his film an entirely different beast.

Yes,its a complete nightmare to find a copy of this movie.For anyone who's interested the whole movie has been downloaded to 'You tube.'Just look under 'Possession movie'.

While this is a hard film to seek out I think it would be a great idea if the Good Doctor could recommend an overlooked film each week that will provoke debate, just as Possession is. I like watching films that I know nothing about, makes it more interesting.

Maybe something that's a bit easier to find next time wouldn't be a bad idea though.

Just wanted to add into the mix with the Antichrist debate by saying that apparently there's a video game being developed based on the film I wonder what the press will make of that one?

Oh dear!! Having just watched this movie I have to say that the Dr is wrong.This is not a classic,but very thought provoking.The themes are interesting as is the creature design,but it guides itself between art house with all the art house cliches and ponderous meanings(Yes,I get the idea the two sam neill characters are the two halfs of Germany and the varied meanings of the word possession played out) and horror movie and falls between these two stools,not know what it wishes to be.Sam neills acts as though he was handed the script page by page on the day of shooting( I have never seen such bad,wooden acting in a long time.At one point it was so wooden I though someone had thrown a chair into the room.Thank God!he has improved.)So,as far as I can see this is a marmite of a movie.You will either love it or hate it.The good Dr was right though,you leave this movie with an opinion.Loved the frantic possession though.

Maybe I'm just old and jaded but I found Antichrist a bit...meh. I just kept thinking "nice photography" which is a sure sign of my complete emotional disengagement from a film. The overall look of the flm was reminiscent of the pop promos of style mag favourite Chris Cunningham.

I didn't find the film shocking in the way that Gaspar No茅's Irr茅versible was or that it delt with body horror as effectively as David Cronenberg in The Brood, Videodrome or Crash. References to the Bible and the historical treatment of women were red herrings, designed to give the illusion of depth and portentousness that just isn't there. That said I'll always await a new Lars Von Trier film with interest.

I'm off to Youtube now to watch The Possession.

Have seen Antichrist and enjoyed it as I thought it was an intense thought provoking film.
Never heard of Possession.
Found it.
Watched it.
Didn't get it.
Watched it again (Dr.K influence or wot!)
Didn't get it again (but have a yearning to own a pair of pink socks)

Sorry ... would recommend Antichrist to people but not Possession.

PS "Oh Lars, stop it ... " LOL

I have now seen both possession and antichrist. I think both feels are both about feminism gone mad. I thought it has brutal moments especially when Sam Neil went mental and beat Adjeni. However Possession does delve more into theology the antichrist does, Possession has more to do with is God belief mading or freeing and how people are possessed of the devil.

Antichrist was better shot, however I think Possession has better perfomrances and is the better film as you do not see the end coming at all. I think Sma Neil, has never been this good again and I like Adjani and think she iss good in Subway but excellent here.

I think this was an influence on Triers but I can't say its a remake as Wilem dafoe is more indenial of his mental state and sam neil embraces him.

WARNING

anyone watching film's on youtube be careful they tend to remove the audio and sometimes the picture in certain chapters e.g. when you've already seen 40 minutes of the film

that's all, carry on

"I don't understand the fascination with antichrist. It means nothing to me..."

I'm glad I'm not the only one, just found the film boring and pretensous if anything.

Never heared of the film Possession Mark is on about, I thought it was the Aaron Eckhart one at first.
Now that was a boring film by Neil LaBute, but not as bad as the Wicker Man remake.

I saw Possession years ago on video, on the old VTC label. It was "interesting", but I don't think I really knew what to make of it beyond a sense of "ew... urgh... hmmmm", but I haven't seen it since and the current DVD issues are ridiculously expensive.

I have seen Antichrist, however, in the big screen on the Haymarket, and thought it was undeniably beautifully shot, but otherwise it's a load of big floppy pants and one of the worst times I had in a cinema in 2009. It's possible my mood was soured by watching it immediately after the astonishingly rubbish Bruno, but then again you'd think *anything* would have been impressive after Bruno, and Antichrist wasn't. "Oh Lars, stop it!" indeed.

I just watched Posession, I liked it but didn't understand it, did anyone? do you mark?

I did a double feature last night of Possession and Antichrist! (As you can imagine this led to a pretty restless night).
Firstly about possession, why have i not heard of this film before, its one of the best i have ever seen. Uses horror in a similar way to early cronenberg films like shivers, however this is a lot more elusive to multiple readings, a lot more deeply disturbing in a subtle and oblique way and is subsequently even more powerful and intelligent than cronenberg at his best! I absolutely loved it, and can actually see comparisons to the shining of all things, in the manner that its shot, as well as its suggestion of an understated evil within the very material of the film.
Secondly on Antichrist, I don't know what all the cannes fuss was about. Whether it was a myth to actually promote the film, i felt it was a highly intelligent film that uses horrific symbolism in a very tactful and effective manner for the themes it was dealing with. I felt myself being constantly braced for unspeakable acts that never materialised throughout the excellently acted and brilliantly shot and paced story-line. I felt it was a more obvious effort than Possession in terms of what it was saying, but it definitely succeeded where the idiots and breaking the waves failed. I actually felt it had something in common with Claire Denis' Trouble Every Day which if you havn't seen uses horror and themes of gender sex and sin in a very similar manner.
I hope next weeks home work is half as enjoyable!
Cheers Mark

I found Antichrist to be influenced by Bergman's "Hour of the Wolf", (particularly the demonic and sexually charged scene in which Johan murders the vampiric boy on the rocks) and the paintings of Hieronymous Bosch.

Personally, I think Antichrist is either a really good horror movie or a really bad arthouse film.

Just had a Baader Meinhof moment. Before stumbling on this review by accident. I saw Possession (again, accidentally)2 days ago. Struck like lightning. Just when I thought I have seen it all and couldn't be shocked anymore. It just so happens that a Week before that a friend of mine lend me a copy of Anti-Christ.

Possession is compelling and beyond simple genre classifications. To call it arthouse horror is making an understatement not to mention inaccurate (at one point the film goes full action).

I was overwhelmed and floored by the sheer relentless audacious intensity of the film and the acting (particularly the porcelain beauty that is Adjani). It is bursting with visual ideas.

The setting in the heart of cold war Berlin with the wall featuring prominantly and the bleakness and emptiness added much to the alien psycho sexual break-down of the couple. I thought there was something Antonionian about the dialogue (exercises in miscommunication). The greatly clausterphobic use of the flat and the kitchen. It also reminded me some elements of David Lynch.

I knew the director of the film was going through a messy divorce and being rejected by his native country at the time. I guess this is an out-pouring of angst against the perceived latent, irrational and sublime nature of female sexuality. His repulsion and alienation from it and the morbid fasination with it. I am not sure there is meant to be a rational meta-narrative behind the film that will 'make sense'. Which ironically makes it stronger considering the subject matter at hand.

After seeing it again I strongly feel it should have gone down in the annales of cinematic history as one of the all time greats. At least up there with other odd-balls like Eraserhead. I am sure this will stay in my system for a long time to come.

I am not sure I want watch Anti-Christ now that Possession is still fresh.

Alright, I just watched Possession (The version I got is 2h03min long ) and Im not sure what to say. I still have to catch Antichrist thou and see if your comparison is right but I wanted to share my ideas about Possession first.

As I said, I just catched it and Im not really sure what to think but I will share my thoughts which I think makes sense anyways. I do know that it was kinda weird to see Sam Neil look exactly as he always does (a bit weirder thou) and I got to say that I really like what Isabelle Adjani does on the screen, the same goes with Sam Neil. To call it a horror movie is a bit far even thou it's a bit bloody and Im not sure about how "Artsy" it is (Today it might have aged into being an movie of that genre but today we dont have the Berlin Wall or living in the same day and age). Im a bit surprised over my reaction to it thou.

I really liked it and it's not even one of those movies I would ever could see myself watching. Now I did and Im glad I did so, for what's it worth I think that the movie comes down to and revolves around relationships and what a relationship can do to people and maybe more important, what it can make people do and also in what state it might bring people to in the end.

I really liked the movie, that's what's stuns me the most. Im not sure if it's a masterpiece but it leaves me thinking and that's what I want a movie to do with me. I'd much rather call it a very weird masterpiece and Im not sure if I've ever seen one of those.

Last night I watched Possession, and I was hugely disappointed, not for the fact that it was a twisted weird movie, but the fact that YOU, Mark Kermode hyped it up to the hilt, as an unsung masterpiece, that can still have people fainting.

I love euro horror, even at it鈥檚 most trashiest, because they鈥檙e not hyped up, so my expectations is average, but when critics hype films like these up, as the most controversial movie ever, for me, ruins any chance of the film to stand on it鈥榮 own.

Total respect for anyone who see's Possession as the masterpiece it is. I always see people complaining about it on message boards as a horror movie in the traditional sense - which of course it isn't - Zulawski isn't a traditional film maker and here is a great feast of a movie that offers up many different layers into which we can sink our teeth. its about relationships, its about division, its about power and loss of control - Which is where it resembles Anti Christ so much. And of course if you haven't a VCR, then seeing it is going to be pretty difficult.
Which, for a while at least was the trouble with Von Triers film. But now you can its probably too much to take in. Took me a couple of go's to get it. Definately its about Misogyny, but also about the place of Misogyny in cinema. Its about traditional values in film (horror film especially) and the very masculine sense those films have. It also confuses people on message boards in the same way as Possession continues to do who think they're going to see something straight up and gruesome. Gruesome yes, straight up? ha! I think the films lensing certainly suggests Tarkovsky although its content does not. Anti Christ is also about film, the love of film and the power it holds.. And we're back to Possession and familiar themes.
Possessions beautiful closing shot is one of my favourite in any film, and Adjani is utterly luminous.

Mark thankyou so much for recommending "Possession", it was incredible - especially Adjani's performance! I have yet to see "Anti Christ" ...By the way, is there any news about the long-awaited DVD of Ken Russell's "The Devils - Director's Cut"? - What's holding it up??

Possession isn't confusing, it's just bland. The acting was awful especially Sam Neil, how he managed to have a career after this is beyond me.

The characters were random, and uninteresting. The movie is only controversial thanks to media hype (if it had any), and not down to moral panic. It was an average film, and I have seen far more shocking films that were made in the same period, and even earlier.

I think possession is a mesmerising cinematic experience primarily for the hypnotic performances (Sam Neill - wow!). It's also very funny (Heinrich is a hoot). Antichrist is more of a visceral, cinematic mind blast that provokes you into thinking about it and commands an impressive atmosphere of uneasiness. I think Antichrist is more thought provoking and challenges the audience to wrestle with uncomfortable themes, but possession is a thrill ride that sort of leaves you thinking WTF? Both amazing, amazing films (ie double amazing).

Sam Neill and Isabelle Adjani circa 81 starring in Antichrist would have been a blinder!

Wow. That was a wacky little film! Now to give Antichrist a whirl.

Good Doctor. Obviously I subscribe to your blog thus I am a fan. But I do feel that you, like many others, have completely missed the underlying point of this film (Antichrist). This film is about depression. Quite simple. The reason there seems to be so many "themes" in the film is an example of the characters grasping at any "meaning" they can at a time of crisis. I feel I am completely unequivocally right about this and that all the models the characters place on trying to understand what is happening has acted as somewhat of a red-herring for critics. That is why it seems a mess. It is. It is about depression. Sorry... but durrrrrrrrr

Rob x

Hello Mr Kermode. I recently watched the two films Possession and The Antichrist back to back and enjoyed them both, though I found Possession to be much more affecting, daring and fun. I鈥檓 not sure whether it鈥檚 a masterpiece, but it certainly seems to have depth and meaning. I think the main similarities between the two films come from their focus on women.
Both women are tormented. At first, the source of She鈥檚 torment in The Antichrist seems clear and perfectly normal - the death of her infant son. However, as the film goes on it becomes less clear whether the death of her child was an accident or the result of her own neglect; or worse: her willing it. I think that the latter seems the most plausible, and that she can be seen as willing her own devastating grief, as punishment for who knows what. Anna鈥檚 self-punishment seems to manifest itself in the form of relentless ambition. What she does to a ballet student in one scene suggests how she treats herself. 鈥楩rom now on she鈥檒l know how much will she has in her to say 鈥業 am the best鈥�! Only in this case can she become a success. Nobody taught me that.鈥�
Both Anna and She have infant sons whom they torment. Anna, by doing everything to keep her relationship with her son and husband unstable, and She, by deviously mismatching her child鈥檚 shoes, leaving the child鈥檚 feet deformed and causing it alot of pain. However, She鈥檚 motives differ from Anna鈥檚. She comes to think of herself as evil, and as deserving the same sort of punishment as that of a woman suspected of being a witch in the 17th century. But she also gets revenge on those she feels responsible for her feelings of guilt and pain: males. I think it鈥檚 this tension which is responsible for the chaos she demonstrates through her histrionic and delirious shrieking and self-mutilation.
The notion of evil seems to loom large for both Anna and She. Anna goes so far as to say 鈥榞oodness is only a reflection upon evil鈥� and She identifies the whole of Nature as evil.
Both Anna and She torment their husbands. What Anna says in one scene rings true for both of them: 鈥業 can鈥檛 exist by myself because I鈥檓 afraid of myself, because I鈥檓 the maker of my own evil鈥�, and 鈥榃hat keeps me going is to know that he鈥檒l return and that I鈥檒l make him suffer.鈥� Both have ambivalent feelings about their husbands, despising them, but also depending on them - needing them around, if only to be objects to despise and hurt, perhaps in order to gain power and feel in control, however fleetingly.
Also, I agree with you that The Antichrist was concerned with misogyny, but I thought your dismissal of Willam dafoe鈥檚 objection a little silly and unnecessary! I agree that an actor does not have special knowledge about a film鈥檚 themes and intentions just because he/she has acted in it, but it鈥檚 just as fallacious to suggest that a viewer has a better understanding of a film than an actor, simply in virtue of their being a viewer! There鈥檚 enough evidence to refute dafoe鈥檚 claim that the film was not about misogyny without resorting to ad hominem attacks!

-Liam

By the way, I watched most of the second half of Antichrist with my eyes closed! I'm very squeamish anyway, but some of those scenes were so锘� nauseating!
Anyone else think that Sam Neill's character in Possession was like a cross between Steve Coogan's Alan Partridge and Richard E. Grant's Withnail?
Also, does anyone else think that the noise accompanying the end of the train station scene in Possession is the sound of the pump used to create the effect of blood and whatever else is pouring out of Anna?

I got hold of a copy of Possession last year after watching Zulawski's impressive WW2 film, The Third Part of the Night which is superb. The only way I could describe the former film to friends was to think of it as a kitchen sink drama with added madness and tentacles - like a film written by Ken Loach after reading too much H.P. Lovecraft.

I think Possession is one of those films that can be loosely described as a 'Lost gem' you will always hear film makers rating it but will find it hard to track down anyone you know thats seen it. Adjani's performance is at times jaw dropping and i think i read that Pascal Laughier showed it to his 2 leads in Martyrs as inspiration. For all it's plus points, the actors, the fox scene, the B&W intro i was kind of let down by Anti-christ and found it quite tedious and boring which i cannot say about Possession which still to this day has me in a trance when i watch it much like Adjani. That being said i have still bought myself a copy of it so will probably do the obligatory second viewing in case i missed something first time around.

Not to denigrate a masterpiece but I do think this is fantastically done:
I laughed for ages when I saw it.

For everyone moaning about the prices of the OOP Anchor Bay DVD - Possession is available on German DVD:



In addition, this version has the correct music cues (unlike the Anchor Bay DVD).

There is also a 55 minute documentary about the making of the film (with English subtitles) featuring Andrzej Zulawski, producer Marie-Laure Reyre, co-writer Frederic Tuten and camera operator Andrzej Jaroszewicz.

The disc also features the Zulawski commentary track recorded some ten years ago for the Anchor Bay release.

Regarding all this discussion about 'eyes in hands' - the scene is not in the original script, although there is a production still of Adjani with eyes in her hands - a shot of this turns up in the US Limelight Vestron VHS from the late 1980s.

Zulawski did not I REPEAT NOT include this shot in his director's cut. He says he doesn't remember shooting it. My guess is that it was a make up effect that he was simply unsatisfied with (however, it is a striking image nonetheless).

Anyone interested in Zulawski's other films can look for The Third Part of the Night (available on UK DVD / Secondrun); La Femme Publique, L'Important c'est d'amier, L'Amour braque (available on US DVD / Mondo Vision). The first 3 Polish films are also available in a Polish box set with English subtitles (Kino Polska).

I just took the prescription, Doctor K.
I found Possession in a little DVD shop a couple of days ago (it's available here in France) and I just watched it tonight and really enjoyed it. I loved how intense and crazy it was. There were certain sections of it that I was watching with my mouth wide open.
I agree that some comparisons can be made between this and Antichrist but I really prefer Possession and it's shame it isn't more well know.

Regardless, thanks again for the recommendation.
Best,
Adam

"You know what this is for? THE LIES!!!"

There are so many great moments in Possession.

The chair flinging fight!

"Does he wear pink socks?"

The underpass birth!

The creature!

Adjani!

I saw Antichrist on sale in a high street shop today which boasted of exclusive artcards as a DVD extra - for when you want an excuse to put pictures of female genital multilation around your house?

I think that Dr K summed it up well when he said that Lars had possibly watched Possession shortly before writing Anti-Christ - because this is different from saying that it's an intentional homage. Whether or not that was literally true, I'm not sure, but Anti-Christ is generally influenced by that era and type of film in its artistic aims - i.e. finding a new and effective way to communicate extreme mental illness on screen - to bring the audience into that mindset. It's pretty obvious that he's trying to take the audience through the journey of Dafoe, from detached bemusement to involved empathy. I think the type of people who get something from Anti-christ are the same sort of folk who might read a biography about Josef Fritzel or examine Kurt Cobains diaries - a fascination with the way people's minds can break down and the ordinary starts to become extraordinary and perverse to them. You have to buy into the fact that Lars is being deliberately indulgent before you watch the film, i.e. it's about his own breakdown and divorce - if you don't buy into that idea of empathising through film then you're not going to see the point in it (as many here don't) and you may even become disgusted by interpreting the movie as a mysoginistic denouncement of Mrs Von Trier.

I think the people who walked out AC screenings did so in protest at the idea that the female lead comes to believe that all women are indeed evil or the root of all evil (original sin) as some medievil christian groups believed - this must be a very uncomfortable idea for modern critics in a very religious country like France (cannes). There is one opinion on this page, for example that called the Charlotte Gainsbourg character 'feminism gone mad', proving that the film can easily be interpreted mysoginistically, which is what the critics thought it was playing into - more disgust at the imagined interpretations than the actual film itself, a social disgust.

In some ways Possession is much more obtuse, and in being more strange and baffling it does not lend itself to mysoginstic interpretation as easily. The problem people are having is that they are going into these films thinking that because they are 'arthouse', there should be a clear, deliberate directorial voice guiding the film and that this voice should be saying something sensible that redeems the nastiness and depression - but the directors are instead trying to communicate the experience of insanity, not make some virtuous 'point'. For example, why should the symbols/metaphors used be original or different? - we all use these conventions of 'good' and 'evil' in our lives at some point, so why would we suddenly get witty and satirical with our symbols when things break down? Many people have nightmares about very similar things. It's like asking,
"Why does that nutcase find the colour red evil and intimidating? It's just a colour! I'm indifferent to colour myself [smug look]."

You are spot on in regards to the clear influence Possession has on the overall feel and themes of Lars Anti-Christ. After viewing the latter in 2009 I sat for about 3-5 minutes after the film ended questioning, 鈥淲here does one go from here鈥�.
It was clear there was no turning back, this standard of artistic involvement has to be maintained, to watch a horror film with any least intellectual 鈥渆motional鈥� impact seemed nothing short of an exercise in futility, giving that the overall idea of the horror genre is that of controlled terror.
Anti-Christ however transgresses (something I had only every truly witnessed once before with possession) beyond it genre, whereby it attacks the audience and destroys any sense of security or even hope.
Both films power lays in the uncomfortable fact that their psychosexual theme exactly breaks free of the cinema screen and intrudes reality itself. These fact becomes evidence when one realizes the subject matter has to be endured to be 鈥渆njoyed鈥�, whereby in viewing either of the latter one becomes involved in an actual sadomasochist experience, therefore it must be excepted that the filmmakers are responsible for nothing less than 鈥渕entally abuse鈥�.
At this point I would like to state that I am in no way criticizing the filmmaker for there participation in these acts, as sadomasochism requires at least two parties, whereas the audience have giving there consent by viewing the material in question.
To conclude I think both films are master classes in what I would consider 鈥減ure鈥� horror cinema. Both show the power of genre transgression and that the true nature of art lays in its ability to create a powerful emotional response, weather that be happiness, exhilaration or (god forbid) those other emotions that the critics at Canne or the BBFC can鈥檛 seem to get there heads around.

P.S keep up the good work my man!