A newspaper advert for controversial Lars Von Trier movie, Antichrist - which shows a naked Willem Defoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg having sex - has escaped censure from the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) with the ruling it was "unlikely to cause sexual excitement".The movie, which contains graphic scenes of self-mutilation, was given an 18 certificate in the UK but the advert for the film - which appeared in national newspapers including The Times and The Independent - received seven complainants saying that it was pornographic with concerns that children might see it.
The ASA ruling continued: "If children did see the ad, it was not considered particularly explicit. The dream-like context, introduced by the hands protruding from the tree, had the effect of making the image of the naked couple seem removed from reality."
The ASA did carry a warning about the film's content, however, including "strong real sex, bloody violence and self mutilation". This is "cinema at its most extreme," it added.
The film, starring Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg, is a gruesome psychological horror thriller about a grieving couple who, after the death of their son, retreat to their cabin in the woods and encounter strange and terrifying occurrences.
At one point, Dafoe's character encounters a fox devouring its own flesh and the animal tosses its head and snarls the words "Chaos reigns." Apparently, the scene's aphorism has taken off with US fans, who have started a #chaosreigns Twitter stream and are demanding T-shirts with the catchphrase.
At this year's Cannes Film Festival, where Antichrist received its premiere to a mixture of derision and critical acclaim, director Lars Von Trier defended his work , saying: "I don't think I owe anyone an explanation. I made it for myself."
Antichrist is in select cinemas now and on DVD from 11 January.
Reader Comments (8)
crazyleds at 1:08PM on Nov 4th 2009
Well Willam Defoe needs love too
B A at 2:13PM on Nov 4th 2009
When will all these Anti-sex, Anti-love weirdos get off their soap boxes. Do they seriously believe that young children start very, very early in their Sex Education. With or without their parents permission. Remember, they usually have free access to mobile phones and computers as well as magazines, which I may add, their parents have bought and, brought into their homes. No, I am convinced that exposure to various aspects of nudity and sex are the least of our problems. What is much worse and more worrying, is the exposure of young people to Violent films and games. Just look at all the horrific crimes committed by very young people specifically, as well as those committed by older children. So to those who insist on preaching to others, get your heads sorted out and see sex for what it is, even though you may have the sex drive of a demised Do-Do and, spend more time preaching against violence in Films, games and comics.
Beth at 2:40PM on Nov 4th 2009
I agree with BA - all the games I see on sale are all violent. Personally I don't play any comp. games - because I dont't agree with all the shooting and killing - doesn't matter what it is, Star-wars things or this Street crime thing - I think they are all disgusting and offencive - the effect on kids must be horrendous.
Eugene at 2:40PM on Nov 4th 2009
I'm sure that a lot of complaints about films like this are motivated by religious bigotry. Religion has never felt comfortable with sex but it embraces war and violence with unholy enthusiasm, and killing in the name of god, king and country. AOL did a feature on nudist beaches a few days ago, and pixillated out the breasts and genital areas of nudists. Why?? Who does it offend? It's beyond belief and plain, common sense. Why not pixillate out rifles, war-planes and tanks?
CHRIS REES at 5:38PM on Nov 4th 2009
I agree with Eugene-it is appalling to see the women's breasts pixillated out, and the genitals.
They are pandering to the snottiness and stupidity of their anglo-saxon clientele. Why can't we be more grown-up? It is the same with the supposedly "erotic" TV channels.The stupidity of the law that says penetration can't be shown is absurd.I often switch to something else, or switch off because I am so disgusted.
Beth at 2:57PM on Nov 4th 2009
Eugene - you can't expect AOL to be unbiased in any way - they couldn't lead a market if all the rest died - when it comes to their commentaries and articles, they are pig-ignorant and totally two-faced, as well as completely childish.
vonnie at 6:38PM on Nov 4th 2009
sex is "natural" - at one point we will all divulge no matter what species - all kids at some point will see mum and dad in their natural state so what is the problem - agree with Eugene - shouldn't we be pixelling out the rifles - that is NOT natural Maybe if us adults showed less "disgust" at the naked body our kids would have less problems.
Dion at 4:38PM on Nov 13th 2009
To state that the display of sex should be restricted isn't the same as saying that sex is disgusting, which is why I think that every post here seems to oversimplify. To exploit our interest a natural human activity and saturate a culture with images of it IS unnatural in its own way, because it overstates.
The portrayal of sex is used gratuitously nowadays, often to sell products that don't even relate to sex, and the young ARE mislead. Teenagers may have an obvious and healthy interest in sex, but they also fear the social alienation that comes from not showing a constant interest in it when amongst friends and peers. And advertisers and movie studios know just how to exploit this.
Eugene, I may not be religious but I don't ascribe religious stress on self-witholding as 'bigotry'. Religious leaders have long predicted that the sexualisation of our culture will have unwelcome social consequences, but unfortunately for the scoffing atheists among you, statistics on unplanned pregnancy and STDs among the young seem to have proven them right.
Chris, conservatism, far from being 'Anglo Saxon', is far from it. The UK and North European nations such as Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands are almost uniquely tolerant of displays of sex. Preach your gospel in rural Italy or Nigeria and the locals will hardly be stripping off in fond salute. And opposition to gross displays of sex doesn't necessarily erupt from a Christian or 'patriarchal' culture: from pagan nature cults to modern Hinduism, eroticism may get its due, but is still bound by laws of decency and appropriateness.
And as for the point about violence and agression, who says that these things are unnatural? Violence is central to Darwinian law. Nature documentaries often depict violence, ironically given the opinions here, as a precursor to sex: males compete sometimes to the death in contest for a mate. The idea that violence may spring from natural instinct rather than corrupt social codes may repulse everyone here, but hey ho, maybe it's your turn to be prudish.