Comments on: Willem Dafoe Says ” ‘Antichrist’ Is A More Dangerous, Risky Movie Than ‘Nymphomaniac’ “

By: ElenÃ©

ElenÃ© — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:55:19 +0000

Wow, what a difficult question! I think that one first have to decide in what way these dangers manifest. I think that 'Antichrist' is more dangerous in a psychological way, changing the way we see parenthood, gender, grief and tragedy, and relationships. 'Nymphomaniac' on the other hand is dangerous in the way that it challenges the way we view our own sexuality, and the sexuality of the opposite sex- whether we ourselves are male or female. Considering that both these films are part of the depression trilogy, they (to me) resonate quite dangerously on a depressive level. What I mean by this is that these film portray two very dangerous, and different, sides of the 'depression' coin. In that aspect, yes, these are both two dangerous films.

By: j

Mon, 23 May 2016 05:55:19 +0000

who cares they are both trash movies made by a trash no talent hack film maker who never felt college .Lars von trier is a sick individual who likes too smear his shit on the walls and has the nerve to call every other than what it really is .Its films like this that make me glad that blockbusters are still dominate and win out over these little insignifcant indie films.that think they are smarter than there audience that they r teaching them something.I'm surprised someone like willem dafoe would do a von trier movie being the respected actor he is.You figure he was better than that

By: TJ

TJ — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:55:19 +0000

While I can't say with certainty which film is more "risky," I will admit that Von Trier is an important filmmaker making important films.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Mon, 23 May 2016 05:55:19 +0000

I don't know how a movie can be dangerous. Maybe if it makes people do dangerous things, like jump off a cliff. But anyway Antichrist is the better movie of those two, imo.