While I'm not sure I want to see The Antichrist this month, when it's at the Lagoon, I am assuredly not offended by the picture used to advertize the film. Unlike 7 people in England, who are concerned children might see the ad.
The ASA is apparently like our MPAA, giving the film an 18 rating (NC-17). I found their criteria/comments regarding the ad interesting:
was "unlikely to cause sexual excitement"
in ... The Times and The Independent, which the ASA felt children were unlikely to see.
"If children did see the ad, it was not considered particularly explicit.
"unlikely to be seen as irresponsible or cause serious or widespread offence"
"cinema at its most extreme"
Intriguing that whether or not a child see it impacts where it's offensive.
Then, there was von Trier's comment:
The Danish director defended his work at Cannes, saying: "I don't think I owe anyone an explanation. I made it for myself."
Well, unless he's a lot richer than I'd guess, this is a bit disingenuous. He made it for his investors, not himself.
Eclipse Path Maps
2 days ago
1 comment:
Producers make a film for the investors (often themselves), not the directors. Producers are the money guys. Directors are the "auteurs." So, von Trier was absolutely on the money....(giggling)
Post a Comment