[UPDATE: Alex B. pointed out that Dafoe actually had a dick double for Antichrist. I was under the impression that Gainsbourgh and him did all of their own sexy stuff, but also found that the shot of the penetration was done with porn actors. This still doesn't take away from the fact they used unsimulated sex in the movie, though. I think my question still stands about whether this is a selling point.
Also, Nate K. posted the box office earnings along with the budget of Antichrist (you can check the numbers in the comments section). This was the commercial success I remember it being, but it has been included in the Criterion collection. That inclusion tells me that a lot of people with good taste think highly of this flick, and I think being stamped with the Criterion logo makes it a success.]
Willem Dafoe has now joined Lars Von Trier's newest movie, Nymphomaniac. Shia LeBeouf signed on early in pre-production and has been publicly announcing that he is more than willing to participate in the unsimulated sex. The same gimmick that (in my opinion) fueled the success of Antichrist, Von Trier's 2009 flick.
My question to all of you is whether the real sex is a valid selling point. It's not unheard of, Vincent Gallo was famous for the fellatio scene in his 2003 movie, The Brown Bunny. That one--on the other hand--is a little more unnerving considering Gallo wrote, directed, and starred in the flick where Chloe Sevigny gave him head. I can only imagine the conversation before hand.
"Okay, Chloe, you're going to have to give the star a blow job. For real," Gallo-director says.
"For real? As in, actually putting the star's penis in my mouth?" Sevigny clarifies.
"Well, yeah. It's in the script. I want to do the brilliant writing justice." Gallo-director says.
"Okay. I mean, I guess I did sign on for his."
"Great! Let's shoot this scene!" Gallo-star says.
When I watched Antichrist I was a little off-put by the close-up penetration. It didn't add anything to the story for me and was more distracting to the overall effect of that scene. I thought it was beautifully shot, but couldn't shake the image of a wiener just ramming in there. Was the movie good? I didn't think so, but that is easily arguable. I know a lot of people who really liked it. Did the real sex have an added effect? Again, I don't think so. But this time, I think supporters of the movie would be hard-pressed to convince me otherwise. I think it was a shock gimmick to get people into the theatre.
So I was bummed when I saw that the crazy old Hitler sympathizer was at it again with Nymphomaniac.
So I ask:
Is this an actual selling point driving people to buy tickets?
Maybe it worked the first time, but is it going to work again?
How far can you really take artistic pornography?
Is this an actual selling point driving people to buy tickets?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. The hip hop mantra, "Violence, drugs, and sex sell," holds true in a marketing sense. Something about seeing and hearing other people act upon their most basic instincts seems to stimulate interest in ours minds. My questions are: Where does the drive to see others acting in this way come from? Could this be an example Fruedian psychology: repression of the id and our catharsis through the debasement of others?
Maybe it worked the first time, but is it going to work again?
I would argue that it did not work the first time. The budget for the film was approximately $11 million, though the film grossed only $400,000 at the box office. (Not sure how it did in DVD sales and festival earnings, but I doubt it covered the other $10.6 million.)
How far can you really take artistic pornography?
I would have to agree with what you said in your blog regarding the penetration. That does seem like a step too far. I can appreciate the artistic integrity in having the actors participate the actual activity, but if acting authenticity were the end goal, then showing the penetration close-up suggests one of two things in my mind: 1. either Hollywood, simulated, sex-scenes are authentic enough to the audience and close-up of the penetration are necessary to establish that actors are having sex, in which case the close-ups are unnecessary as the acting has sufficed; 2. Von Trier did not feel that DeFoe and Gainsbourg could adequately convey their sexual relations the the camera, thus he felt the need show the penetration, if which case, he basically slapped the two actors in the face.
I really enjoyed the film when I saw it a couple years ago. I had actually forgotten how graphic some of it was until I read your blog. I felt that the acting, directing, cinematography and writing were all excellent and the excessively graphic scenes were not really necessary. Melancholia, Von Trier's most recent film, incorporated all of the aspect of excellent filmmaking mentioned above but did not include the excessively graphic scenes contained in Antichrist. I feel that Von Trier should continue making films like Melancholia and avoid trying to make porn scenes tasteful.
PS I will never see a movie that features Shia LaBeouf's dong. His acting is repulsive enough.
Do your research. Dafoe had a wiener double: http://www.thelmagazine.com/TheMeasure/archives/2010/01/19/lars-von-trier-finds-willem-dafoes-penis-confusingly-large
ReplyDeleteI'm going to address Alex first: You got me there. Now I'm blushing with embarrassment. Although, my point still stands with unsimulated sex.
ReplyDeleteNate: Thanks for posting the box office numbers. I should have done that myself. I based the majority of my reasoning on talking to people about the flick. The sex in the movie seemed to be a driving point for some people to go see it. I still haven't watched Melancholia, and I think a part of that is because I didn't really like Antichrist. I just checked rottentomatoes to see the critics take and it's at 48%. Not great, but I would venture to say it's better than I would have imagined. I think this is a movie that you'll either love or hate. And that is an admirable result.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the film. I found the penetration a bit off-putting personally, but I think that it can be argued that it was important for the movie, or for the feelings brought up in the viewer, I certainly felt unsettled the whole time and could never really relax or feel comfortable, both during the sex scene as well as 90% of the other scenes. The sex also relates to the themes of violence and sex that are present throughout.
ReplyDeleteThough doing full penetration again does suggest a gimmick to me.
Also, to add, according to "the numbers" the film got a bunch more money internationally than here in the US and made nearly $2.5 million total (http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2009/ANTIC.php). Still significantly under the $11 million price tag.
Thanks for finding a link to the international numbers. I was just watching the special features on Prometheus yesterday and they were talking about something that might be overly gross. They asked Ridley Scott if they should try to put it in and someone said, "Maybe for the European version." It cracked me up. It shows that they do have a higher tolerance for the overt, though.
ReplyDelete