Response to: http://eat-my-special-k.blogspot.com/2010/02/antichrist.html

Having not actually seen the film - my squeamishness and tightness with money preventing me from buying it - I can't really comment on its plot with much authority. However, since first hearing about it some time ago, I have done a fair amount of 'research'. i.e. discussing it on message boards and reading reviews...

However, it is my understanding that this is something of an Art-house film, and thus it is perhaps somewhat lacking in a cohesive narrative. I get the impression that this is intended to be uncomfortable viewing. It's not so much that Lars von Trier believes the scenes he put to film are suitable for a mainstream audience, partly because this is not a mainstream film. The only reason I feel that it's garnered such publicity is that it has been described as, "ironic torture-porn and derided as meaningless naval-gazing".

I for one, have never been into the whole 'torture-porn' genre. Hostel and Saw (maybe the first one's pretty good) do nothing for me. Yet, Antichrist is an artistic statement, not a hollywood blockbuster.

It is a window into von Trier's id. One clouded by depression and dark thoughts. From what I have heard, it is simply a showcase of primal human behaviour - humans driven to the point of near insanity. Humans at their lowest. To achieve this - that is, to truly delve into the minds of these characters - we must see their actions as clear as possible. Laid bare. Exposed. Metaphorically and physically.

von Trier is simply unflinching in his portrayal of the two characters. He wants us to be shocked by their actions; to truly acknowledge and appreciate every event. It is only by being as graphic as censors will allow, that von Trier can "accurately" express the depravity, sickness and desperation which humans can sink to.

So essentially, I say, why not make the film graphic? If this is what von Trier wishes to show, then he should show it. There is much art to feature nudity and genitalia, and for good reason - we've all got those parts; why are we afraid to see them on screen?

No, the film is not appropriate for watching by a good majority of people (I think this is one which definitely justifies the '18' rating) but for those who are prepared to watch an act which many of us perform on a regular basis (I feel I should make a joke here, but I won't) it is nothing we haven't seen before.

Sex, that is. Not Willem Defoe's penis.

Masturbation

Masturbation is a subject which far too many people turn their noses at.

One which strikes embarrassment and shame into people’s hearts, and indeed faces.

But why? We all do it? Why deny it?

Of course, from a religious standpoint, it may be understandable to not admit to the act (if it is committed at all) but for everyone else, it is simply a natural act.

Animals do it. We humans do it. We’re compelled to. There should be no shame, as there should be no shame in the discussion of sex.
Of course there are times when discussion may be inappropriate – say, when grandma is round for tea – but otherwise, what’s the big deal?

http://www.syl.com/articles/antiquitysviewofmasturbation.html

Tom Pettytheft and the Lawbreakers

Stealing is, for me, acceptable if the ends justify the means.

I recall in the lecture on this subject, it was suggested that under no circumstances can this be considered ‘ok’. I argue that if a person cannot, by legal or moral means achieve the requirements needed to live, then surely breaking the law is the only solution?

Is the law above human rights? Is it above our right to exist on this earth? I think not.

Another point made, was that such a situation will lead a person to commit more, and indeed worse crimes. For example, stealing chewing gum from a supermarket, may then lead to burglary. Or at least this is the impression I got.
I can’t help but feel that this is something of a ridiculous notion. Committing one criminal act does not in any way mean the offender will increase the severity of crimes in the future, or even that they’ll repeat the offence.

Burglary cannot be compared to petty theft either. Taking a few mass produced items from a corporation cannot be compared to taking the possessions from a family home.

However, when all this is said and done – stealing without valid reason is, in my mind, wrong. Yet, petty theft to me does not qualify a person as a criminal. Maybe technically, but I don’t play by the rules of technicalities.

http://www.businessknowhow.com/security/shoplifters.htm

Stalking

What is stalking?

10 years ago, it would be physically following a person around. Waiting outside their home/place of work, etc. Not unlike Mark Corrigan in that episode of Peep Show, in which he follows a woman to her University.

However, Mark gives us another example of stalking in an earlier episode; this time, taking a more modern approach, by hacking into the object of his affection's email.

With the advent of the internet, and in particular email and social networking, cyber stalking has become quite the problem. A dedicated cyber stalking can find much information on a person via the internet, and can quite easily locate various accounts on sites they use.

Yet, to many, this isn't stalking. The very fact that it carries a different name, and obviously the lack of physical threat lead many to dismiss it as nothing more than an annoyance.

Stalking can be considered merely a display of affection; albeit one which "the stalked" would clearly not approve or understand.

Again, stalking is a problem defined by an individual's morals. The phrase 'stalker' is thrown around very lightly these days, and it's rare you do hear of actual cases.

Following somebody around as they go about their daily business, however, cannot be deemed anything other than wrong, no matter how you look at it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jan/29/stalkers-are-criminals

Infidelity

Infidelity is an interesting concept, and one which seems to be as subjective an idea as any covered in the module. Where exactly is the line? What constitutes an act of infidelity?

To some, so much as looking at other women can be considered wrong, or indeed, bad.

To others, only the act of sex itself crosses the line.

Emotional infidelity is an intriguing concept. I know personally some people who view looking at other people, or even dreaming of them – a completely subconscious act as wrong, and in their eyes, immoral.

I also know people who don’t view physical cheating as much of a stain on a person’s character. Many people will argue that there is no excuse for cheating. Others suggest that some circumstances, from a lack of needs being met, to excessive alcohol consumption.

Apparently [according to a poll in a magazine I was told about], women see emotional cheating as worse than physical, and vice versa for men.

This makes sense, and in a way, I can see why emotional infidelity may be considered a more ‘heinous’ act. Yet, on the other hand, our actions are what we have control of – not our emotions.

I also suppose it depends how separated you view sex and emotion. There’s the idea shared by many that sex cannot exist without some form of emotion, or connectivity to the other person involved. Others see it simply as a physical act, and nothing more.

At the end of the day, relationships would probably be a whole lot easier if boundaries were laid out from day one. Though, that’s probably not something to bring up on a first date.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2010/mar/07/polly-vernon-infidelity-betrayal-help-relationships

Lies

Everybody lies, I imagine on a daily basis.

They may often be insignificant, but the principle remains the same.

Many people regard lying as some sort of terrible, evil crime, that should never be committed. Indeed, I believe some members of the module suggested they don't (or shouldn't) ever lie.

The fact is, the world would not be a better place without lying. It wouldn't help avoid conflict, in fact, it would likely encourage it.

If you take a disliking to somebody, surely pretending to get on with them for the sake of avoiding hostility is the right option?

Surely it is better sometimes to tell a friend you are feeling fine when you are not, so as to prevent them worrying?

Of course, the truth is, more often than not, the best option. However, in many circumstances, it is simply not.

If it benefits your life, does not have a negative effect on the lives of others and your conscience allows it (it should) then why not lie?

But hey, lying to kids is fine though, right?

http://www.paulgraham.com/lies.html

Smoking

I've never smoked a cigarette in my life, and until recently, planned to never do so.

Of course, we all know the negative aspects, i.e. the cost, the health issues and so on, but I truly cannot see the positives.

Maybe as a means to calm oneself, but even this does not seem enough of a pro to counter the obvious cons.

That being said, I will admit at times I have thought of the image behind smoking being 'cool'.

For me, it's part of the rebellious attitude (despite not actually being rebellious) which I associate with Rock and Roll.

It makes little sense, but for me, certain people's images are enhanced by their smoking. For others, I see it simply as a disgusting habit.

Maybe this is what happens when you idolise rock stars.

To put it in perspective, if I saw a man with a guitar, covered in tattoos, smoking and holding a bottle of whiskey, I'd probably think he was pretty damn awesome.

Take away the guitar, and you just have an unhealthy drunk.

RE: The week 12 trip

Perhaps we should take the idea of a trip literally, and partake in some substance abuse.
I'm sure at least one of us would reach a bad place.

Notes would of course be taken, but these could then be turned into a competition, to see who has the most legible handwriting when under the influence.

But perhaps not.

I'm struggling to think of any ideas at the moment, so I shall do so later on.
Right now my mind is merely jumping between 'group trip' and 'masturbation', and that's never a good sign.