Skip to content

Chaos Reigns

Chaos Reigns published on

Having previously been tortured by Lars Von Trier’s “Dogville” and “Dancer In The Dark”, I elected to see “Antichrist” only because of the evil woman theme. Let me make this clear – Lars Von Trier is a hack. He is an Ed Wood with pretensions to Ingmar Bergman’s throne, nothing more.

In “Antichrist” however, Von Trier’s dream-inspired and depression-driven script and cinematographer Anthony Mantle’s gorgeous and hallucinatory imagery make for one of the most remarkable horror movies of the last ten years, a slab of nightmarish atmosphere not easily forgotten.

The focus of this article however, is not on the artistic merits of the movie but rather on the way it was received. I must point out that this piece is being written for those who have already seen the film. If you have not yet seen it, please stop reading now as major spoilers are included. And if you are planning to see it, beware of the scene in which the female lead gives herself an impromptu clitorodectomy – there’s also a scene where the male lead’s penis gets hit with a huge piece of wood, but alas we’re all too inured to that by now.

(Those who haven’t seen the movie are probably asking themselves what’s up with the creepy fox and the title “Chaos Reigns.” The fox is one of the animal characters, and at one point he stops eating his own guts, looks up at the male lead and in a deep, distorted voice utters the words “Chaos Reigns!”. It’s that kind of movie.)

Most of the attention the film received focused on its transgressive aspects, aspects supposedly embodied in the scenes of genital violence. This however, is the mainstream media being disingenuous – while Antichrist is an extremely transgressive film, what makes it so are not the scenes of genital violence, but rather the representation of women as evil at a time in history when women are the only sacred cows left in Western society. I think it is clear that Antichrist is a statement about female evil, not merely about one evil female. This is shown not only in the female lead’s belief that the female sex is evil, but more importantly at the end of the movie, when the husband is passed by dozens of women apparently making their way to Eden, presumably to learn whatever dark lesson his wife learnt on her previous stay.

Imagine if you will a hypothetical version of this film in which all violent acts are retained but in which it is the male sex which is portrayed as evil. Would the outrage have been there? I doubt it. Most writers for the mainstream media already believe men are violent trash, so why would there be any great outcry that Von Trier was agreeing with them? What happened with Antichrist is that a mere man stepped outside the rules and made a movie portraying women as evil. Not a woman, as in Basic Instinct or Misery, but women as a group, and it is this forbidden act of rebellion which begat the outraged reaction to the film.

Do I agree that women are evil? No, but the way the message was received is a good illustration of the cultural rules as they stand – when it comes to women, we must hear no evil, see no evil, and above all, speak no evil.

One Hit Wonder Trashed At “The Village Voice”

One Hit Wonder Trashed At “The Village Voice” published on

You may recall Michael’s clash with a manhating scuzzbag by the name of Josh Olson (writer of A History of Violence) over my awarding Otep the Misandrist of The Month award. Anyone who has read Michael’s piece on his ad-hominem strewn comment knows that this is a man who is verbally abusive, intellectually dishonest, and above all self-loathing.

Well, the pasty faced geek has done it again, this time with a diatribe at “The Village Voice” aimed at his lessers, namely those who haven’t yet made it in Hollywood but who will probably be looking down the ladder and pissing on his head ten years from now. Not only does the article give further evidence of the kind of asshole who would defend a song such as Menocide, but it has led to a flurry of comments by his detractors, amongst them myself, at the Voice.

Interesting claims are made as to Olson’s behavior when not in cyberspace, including his treatment of women…

“n. now. here” claims…

“A few years ago Josh was dating a lovely girl who loved him very much. He asked her away on a weekend trip and she was so happy, he got the honeymoon suite, champagne and a very intimate love making session. After the love, she thought he was going to propose.
Oh no. He dumped her in a post coital embrace and made her get her own ride back to the city. Left her to her own devices and she never did anything wrong. No cheating or lying. He was just sick of her.Such a classy guy.Can’t expect too much from this Neanderthal-oafish-sweaty poor excuse for a man.”

If true, this is support for my theory that the most strident male supporters of feminist extremism are often men who are trying to make up for their bad treatment of women by taking it out on the rest of us.

Another admirer has this to offer…

Heli0tr0pe claims…

“Funny piece.

I must, however, relate the fact that Josh Olson used to date an acquaintance of mine about five years ago, and among our group of friends he was infamous as the most pompous, annoying, self-aggrandizing, self-centered asshole who ever lived. Whenever the guy was around, jaws would routinely drop at his utter loudmouthed obnoxiousness.
He has bad breath and horrible B.O. as well.
Oscar-nominated screenwriter? Yes. Complete fucking asshole? Most definitely!”

Oh dear, he must be quite a catch, what with his charm, his flabby body, his geeky glasses and his receding hairline – what a fine figure of a man he is. Look at him, ten years from now he will look like this dude, except with worse breath and less sex…

“Go with Him” claims…

“am I the only one who remembers Olson did a segment for Batman: Gotham Knight? His segment borrowed liberally (or stole) from a famous episode of Batman Animated. More complete theft than homage. Jeez Olson, bring your ego down a bit.”

No comment here as i have seen neither of these works, but i sure as hell wouldn’t put plagiarism beyond this guy.

Let’s take a quick look at the greatness, the cornucopia of benevolence and talent that is Josh Olson. Before getting lucky with A History of Violence – for those who don’t know, all he did was adapt a graphic novel to the screen, so none of it was his original work – Josh was a minor writer on discount bin fare such as “Instinct to Kill” and the director of garbage like “Infested”, which has a Rotten Tomatoes rating of , well nothing, because virtually nobody reviewed it. If these modest achievements have been responsible for fueling his assholiness to such a height, it’s a bloody good thing he isn’t one of the greats like William Goldman or he would probably be going around spitting on small children and kicking old ladies in the teeth – hell, he probably already does.