Antichrist and The Mail: How not to review a movie
Posted by Daily Quail
July 21st, 2009
The Daily Mail resides in a terrifying alternate reality. In this dark and hopeless place, decent middle-class folk are surrounded by pernicious subliminal messages of hate designed to brainwash them into murdering, maiming, pillaging and setting fire to each other. The inhabitants of this world have no control over their actions; sinister forces fill their tiny minds with sex and violence and, inevitably, they succumb to the evils of the media induced orgy of societal destruction.
With predictable regularity, The Mail has clutched at its pearls and warned readers of the impending apocalypse every time a new movie, video game or book is released that contains depictions of sex and violence. A few years ago, Chris Tookey, the Mail’s resident film critic (who, bizarrely, appears to despise almost every movie ever made) described Eli Roth’s Hostel as ‘the most revoltingly violent pornography ever to have polluted mainstream cinema’ under a headline that hooted ‘Disgusting! Dangerous! Degrading!‘ from behind its chintz covered sofa.
Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but for The Mail it isn’t enough to simply dislike something. If The Mail doesn’t get on with something, be it immigrants, the BBC, teh gays, or that Twitter, it must be presented as harmful, or at the very least, a symbol of moral decay. Think what you will of Hostel (and I, for the record, don’t particularly like it), but blaming any film for creating ‘a desensitised generation’ that ’sees nothing wrong with torture and mutilation’ is a bit of a stretch. Perhaps I’m too jaded to be affected by it, but Psycho doesn’t make me want to murder hotel guests in the shower and Goodfellas didn’t convince me that it’s acceptable to shoot barmen who ignore me.
The Mail’s alternate reality was similarly shaken by the Grand Theft Auto franchise which was blamed variously for stabbings, arson and even sexual assault – despite being lauded by the very same newspaper as a 5-star ‘epic’. The Dark Knight was linked to knife crime and the corruption of Britain’s children, while Korean cult classic Oldboy, it was decided, was entirely to blame for the Virginia Tech massacre. The fact that the gunman was a twisted, gun-obsessed maniac before seeing the film had nothing to do with it, naturally.
All of the above cases shared one common element: you had to actually see the offending films or games before your mind exploded in a fit of sick filth induced spasmic doublethink. Now, it seems it is not necessary to actually experience the gratuitous screen sin for your soul to be defiled, as broad-minded Christopher Hart explains in The Mail’s newest jolt of celluloid condemnation:
You do not need to see Lars von Trier’s Antichrist to know how revolting it is.
I haven’t seen it myself, nor shall I…merely reading about Antichrist is stomach-turning, and enough to form a judgment.
As Ernest Hemingway said of obscenity in a justifiably disgusting image, you don’t need to eat a whole bowl of scabs to know they’re scabs.
Hart finds himself able to discuss a film he hasn’t even seen, moved presumably by the sheer potency of the vile images contained in Lars von Trier’s Antichrist to a shamanic state of higher consciousness where he…just…knows…things. Nightmarish things.
After ruining the plot by revealing the beginning, middle and end of the film (just so even if you did want to go see it, there’s no point), he lambasts the British Board of Film Classification for giving Antichrist an 18 certificate, thereby granting it a release in this country. ‘As we all know’, he intones, ‘this is meaningless in the age of the DVD because sooner or later any film that is given general release will be seen by children.’ For Hart, this film he hasn’t even seen should never be seen, by anyone, anywhere, because he’s heard it’s wrong. Hilariously, his article is shrilly titled: ‘What DOES it take for a film to get banned these days?’. Well, I would assume actually watching it would be a good first step Mr. Hart.
Hart, who describes himself as a ‘libertarian’, goes on to implicate the unseen horrors of Antichrist in Islamic extremism:
It doesn’t shock or surprise me in the slightest that Europe now produces such pieces of sick, pretentious trash, fully confirming our jihadist enemies’ view of us as a society in the last stages of corruption and decay.
Before adding wearily that it’s all the fault of those bladdy Danes wot live where that von Trier sicko comes from:
It doesn’t surprise me that Antichrist was heavily subsidised by the Danish Film Institute to the tune of 1.5 million euros.
Can you see where this is going? Sick film that will break Britain, made by a Danish director with Danish money, Denmark is a European country, we pay taxes that go to Europe…ohmigod, this disgusting movie is being forced upon us by that great Satan, the EU!!1!
I tried to find out more from the Institute, but to my small surprise they disdained to reply. But you can be sure that they in turn are funded by the EU and so by my taxes – and yours.
Yes, you can be sure that your tax pennies are funding this sort of abomination because of the EU, and because Christopher Hart rang the Danish film institute because he’s a real journalist and stuff. He may not have been able to find the time or inclination to watch Antichrist but at least he did some background research, right?
Well, perhaps not quite right. We contacted the Danish Film Institute and asked whether they had any record of a Christopher Hart attempting ‘to find out more’. The DFI said that they have no record of any email enquiries from Christopher Hart to their enquiries address and no record of any member of staff speaking to him. They did acknowledge that they are large organisation of over 100 employees, many of whom are currently on summer vacation, so there is a chance his correspondence was missed – but then, if we could get hold of someone there, it can’t be that difficult.
The very pleasant and helpful member of staff (who replied to us only a couple of hours after we asked for exactly the same information Hart claims he requested) also cleared up some issues regarding the DFI’s funding. The DFI is in fact funded by the Danish government through the Ministry of Culture as regulated by the Film Act 1997. Not the EU. They were even so kind as to provide documentation detailing exactly where the money comes from and how it is used (PDF)
An interesting figure worth noting is on page 8 which reveals that, in fact, the DFI only contributed 13.9% of Antichrist’s budget. The DFI also gave us a link to the Film Act of 1997 that sets out the framework for funding Danish film. For those of you interested in the finer legal details of the Danish Ministry of Culture’s working, it’s here.
Following Hart’s tirade against the big bad EU giving money to big bad Danish directors to make depraved violent pornography, he asks plaintively:
How do you feel about that? If not shocked, then weary, furious, disgusted? Well you can complain all you like, but no one is listening. Our arts mandarins, along with the rest of our lofty liberal elite, don’t work like that.
Quite. Here’s another question: How do you feel about a journalist pontificating on the evils of a film he hasn’t seen, making inaccurate claims about its funding, conducting zero research, and laying blame for his lack of evidence at the feet of what is actually a very open, helpful organisation? Does it shock, weary, infuriate and disgust you? Well? Does it? You can complain all you like, but chances are the editor isn’t listening.
Some bonus Antichrist links, courtesy of the good people at the DFI:
Categories: Media | Tags: antichrist, film, openly ignorant, review
The only time I know of when one of the Mail’s anti-film campaigns actually made any difference was in 1997 when it launched a crusade against Cronenberg’s Crash (partly on the highly moral grounds that it depicted homosexual sex and sex with crippled people). The film’s release was delayed for six months and it was banned in Westminster. Then I went and saw it three times. It was released uncut on VHS and DVD and, as we all know, the world has ended several dozen times since.
I wonder if there is a theme emerging around the Daily Mail’s contributors and their libertarian credentials.
Here we have Christopher Hart saying “I speak as a broad-minded arts critic, strongly libertarian in tendency. But merely reading about Antichrist is stomach-turning, and enough to form a judgment.”
26.02.2008, Richard Littlejohn said “I’m a libertarian, but liberty relies on restraint.”
You can paraphrase both these statements as “I’m libertarian, but…” It rather smacks of “I’m not racist, but…”
Agree totally
One thing i don’t understand is this ‘certificates meaningless in the age of DVDs’ line. Surely, with the vast majority of DVD players having a parental lock system there is MORE protection for children from violent images than in the old VHS era?
even if a DVD player doesn’t have a parental lock system or the parents don’t know how to use it, there’s nothing stopping them from using the old-fashioned method of putting naughty stuff under (physical) lock and key.
Excellent piece, Jamie.
Oh, how I love that “all DVDs will be seen by children” argument! We’ve already seen the logical conclusion of this, in the form of nutty David Alton’s thankfully failed bill some years ago which would have banned on video any film not suitable for viewing by kids. You’d be fine if you like Disney, I suppose, but apart from losing your conventional sex’n'violence you could also kiss goodbye to any film which dealt with adult themes in a responsible way: Schindler’s List, for example. Any unflinching anti-war film, anything with harmless nudity, anything which portrayed drugs with more than Grange Hill nuance: all gone, so that lazy and frightened parents wouldn’t have to either police their kids’ viewing, or equip them emotionally to deal with what they might see. That’s the world that this faux-libertarian Hart wants for you.
Christopher Hart must be the only film reviewer who attempts to review films that he hasn’t seen. As has been said on here before, it reminds me of all those government ministers who tried to up their support back in 2001 by condemning the Brasseye special when they hadn’t seen it.
Well done on your article and the smattering of research, Jamie Sport, it was most informative. You are obviously more able than those inept prudes at The Mail.
I do love how The Dark Knight is linked to knife crime. If there had been a rise in fatal stabbings with pencils I could understand the hysteria, but knife crime?
Excellent demolition and top notch research. The original article required almost no change for a classic Quail item.
There used to be a Tory rentaquote backbencher (whose name escapes me ) during the 80s who regularly called for bans on stuff he hadn’t seen.
Eric the Fish is obviously thinking about David Amess. Ban “Cake” now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0g5kUBwVbCw
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199596/cmhansrd/vo960723/text/60723w10.htm
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - –
Drugs
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action the Government propose in respect of the import of (a) khat, (b) gammahydroxybutyrate and (c) “cake” to the United Kingdom. [38968]
Mr. Sackville: Neither the khat plant nor the substances gammahydroxybutyrate–GHB–or “cake”, which we understand refers to 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-benzylamphetamine, are controlled under the international United Nations drug conventions or under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs considered the misuse of khat in 1988 and advised that there was no evidence of a social problem arising from its misuse in the United Kingdom such as to justify bringing the plant under the controls of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. We have no current plan to bring khat under legislative controls but will continue to monitor the position.
The misuse of GHB is to be review by the advisory council at its next meeting in November.
We are not aware of any reports of misuse in the United Kingdom of the substance known as “cake” but the advisory council nevertheless has under review the question whether this and a number of similar substances should be brought within the scope of the 1971 Act.
Loved the bit where he agreed with the Jihadists – Do you need any more reason to believe that the average Daily Mail writer is crazy?
Another excellent article – but I have a horrible feeling that in the time it took to do the research and to compile the evidence, another 10 similar articles will have been published in the Mail. A never ending struggle.
Excellent piece. If anyone has ever flicked through the film reviews in the Mail you’ll soon realise that they hate pretty much every film made since 1960.
To be fair to DM readers I think there’s only two or three comments underneath the article agreeing with him. The rest (50-odd) are basically questioning how a film critic can review a film he hasn’t actually seen or has any intention of seeing
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-%26-entertainment/antichrist-is-great%2c-says-man-who-hasn%27t-seen-it-200907221924/
“As Ernest Hemingway said of obscenity in a justifiably disgusting image, you don’t need to eat a whole bowl of scabs to know they’re scabs.”
Well yes, but you have to still LOOK at the bowl of scabs to know it’s a bowl of scabs…much like a film it’s the looking that is the important bit, not the eating…
Not only was Christopher Hart’s “review” (how can you review a film you haven’t seen) of Antichrist illinformed and hysterical it was another excuse for some serious Daily Mail style bashing of “lefty liberals”, the BBFC and the EU.
Hart said if he was the film it would poison his mind. How the fuck does he know when he won’t even go and see it?
What he wants is a BBFC that stops him and other adults seeing films for his and their own good.
No thank you!
[...] The Daily Mail have been reviewing films without bothering to watch them… [...]
Good work getting the confirmation about EU funding. I suspected it was nonsense from some cursory Googling which provided no evidence of any money coming from the EU for this film, but that didn’t confirm it. I was amazed he made such a big deal out of it when it was pure speculation on his part.
Well, not that amazed, this is a guy writing a review of a film he’ll never see, after all.
To be fair to the Mail on Sunday, their actual film critic tends to get it right most of the time and doesn’t seem to be a drooling mentalist.
The MoS critic isn’t that bad, but Chris Tookey (the Friday film reviewer) seems to have a pathological hatred of anything committed to celluloid. Clutches his pearls as tightly as Mr Hart too.
Dear Mailwatch,
I emailed both Susanna Neimann and Vicki Marie Synnott in the Press Dept of the DFI, on July 13th, but had no reply. I can forward you copies of the emails if you like.
Since the article – based on a fear that we are getting nastier and more vicious as a society, and Antichrist is a symptom, though not a cause – I have been variously called a fucking moron, a twat, Cunt of the Day and so forth, mostly from the anonymous safety of blogs and websites. One wrote of me that ‘Someone should piss in his eye and give him AIDS,’ others hoped that I would be mutilated, or die, or that if I had children, they would die. Another fantasized about posting human body parts through my letterbox. All of which bold examples of freedom of expression, ironically, only serve to confirm my conservative pessimism about the way we are going.
Best CH
Hello, Chris. I’m on of the editors here at MW and yes please, I would like to see copies of the emails:
bloggerheads DOT com AT gmail DOT com
(PS – I fail to see why you’ve catalogued abuse when none of it came from us… unless you mention it only to reinforce your “conservative pessimism”.)
I’m off topic from the above two comments here.
My favourite ‘non’ review in the Mail on Sunder was for 28 Days Later. It was a short side column, and it gave the film 0 out of 5. Called it pretentious stupid zombie nonsense and the second half made no sense.
Of course now whenever the film gets mentioned its ‘Danny Boyle’s seminal film’.
Hello Christopher. I know this might sound horribly obvious, but don’t you have a phone? It’s a great back-up when trying to get in touch with people. Anyway, I’d have thought that the thing to do know would be to say sorry – to the DFI, to the EU, and everyone else you inaccurately maligned in that piece. But then I’m a degenerate lefty.
@ Chris Hart:
Hey, telling readers ‘they can be sure’ something is happening when you haven’t got the first idea if it has can backfire. Who could have guessed?
In any case, since you were wrong about the EU funding (as well as being wrong about the film’s content, according to the Mail’s critic who took the unusual step of actually watching the flipping thing – who knew criticising movies without actually watching them could backfire, too), will you be attempting to get the Mail to clarify in some way? Perhaps you could request an edit of the online version. What do you reckon?
To Chris Hart:
I’m sure that much of the insults directed are highly unpleasant for you, but you must be aware that these are obviously empty threats whose authors are venting anger and frustration in the only form possible? Were they determined to act against you, they could easily do, but they are confining themselves to insults. This might not be the most “decorous” behaviour, but it is perfectly acceptable freedom of expression, which you as a self-described libertarian are obliged to defend. After all, which child hasn’t said “Do that again and I’ll kill you” to their siblings or friends?
All those emails and comments show is that there is an overwhelmingly opposing feeling to your article and its lack of research.
to mr hart:
i find it a little curious that you mention being called “cunt of the day” on your list of insults, as this appears to be a reference to a thread on the message board here, in which you are never mentioned. however i’m willing to accept this could be a reference to a website elsewhere.
as for the other insults, they should come as no surprise to you, alongside annoying a great number of people by passing judgement on something about which you know nothing, you actually went out of your way in the artical to provoke anger. i myself refer to you on the message board here as a “tit” and “knobend”, both of which i stand by, and i think are entirely appropreate responces to a man who perpousfully spoils for others the end of a newly released film without warning. when you behave in such a bitter, malicious, and childish fashion you shouldn’t really be shocked when others respond in kind.
i have no idea what you had hoped to achive by writing your artical, but its worth noting that the bbc’s mark kermode (who did a rather nice little impression of you i might add) believes you have done the film a great service in promoting it.
To be fair, I have to disagree with *some* of the attack on the Mail here.
I consider myself a hardcore horror fan. The brutal Saw movies are amongst my favourite. But having seen AntiChrist yesterday, I actually felt myself turning into “Dailymail mode” – I was outraged, disgusted and sickened. It was the one film I have ever seen that actually made me want to leave because I was so disgusted. And believe me, I am not a squeamish person at all.
I invite anyone who scoffs, to view the film at a cinema (perhaps it won’t seem to bad watching on a tv screen in your bedroom) and see what you think. For the first time in my life part of me has seriously thought that something in a movie should NOT have got through the censors!!! So yes, the DM’s coverage was over-the-top and they have a history of over-reacting on violent films/games etc, but this time they actually had good reason to get outraged. Just my 2 cents.
i have no interest in seeing “antichrist” anyway because of what i know of the content from various reviews and articles about it, but i just think it’s a bit twattish for an arts correspondent to write about it without ever watching it. if you’re a journalist then surely your job is either to see things, or research them well, in order to relay them to the public (although this seems to be happening less and less these days!). i’m genuinely sorry and surprised to hear that this guy got death threats for his article but he should have expected people to call him a twat.
@John The difference between you’re review of Antichrist and your reaction to watching it is the fact that you took the time to watch it. From reading the comments made on the article most people’s problem is the fact that Hart didn’t watch the film but felt the need to call it sick and for it to be banned. People would have more respect if he said “I watched the film and found it disgusting, I wonder what the BBFC were watching etc.”
I’m not outraged that CH thought it sounded ’sick’ or that it should be banned or even that he didn’t see it. I’m angered by the fact that he linked it to the rise of Islamic militancy and declared he was ’sure’ it was funded by EU money, which are little more than hysterical conjecture and lies. In that order. He completes the triumvate of Daily Mail hate targets with a reference to our ‘lofty liberal elite’ at the end. Do the Daily Mail have a software program to generate articles for them?
[...] That wasn’t in the Digital Britain Report, now was it? We’re doing our best. Meanwhile, MailWatch makes me think there’s probably space for a blog devoted to reviewing films it’s not [...]
Just to clear up a point; this Christopher Hart is not the Mail’s film reviewer, and this was not a film review — more likely (and I say likely because, in an astonishing burst of hypocrisy, I have not actually read the entire article) a piece written about the hype rather than the film.
Christopher (5-star Jurassic Park 3) Tookey is the Mail’s reviewer, and he pretty much writes off any film that does not match his moral outlook, which is that of an arse.
And isn’t the Danish government funded in some way by the EU?
Have a gander at the links provided by the DFI up there ^ for details on their funding, Opinion Pole.
What a dick.
I’ve read some of Christopher Tookey’s reviews and I am bemused at how he slips in constant digs at Brown. As for slating a film before seeing it – well, you couldn’t make it up! Oh wait, he must have done. What a prat.
Are we really really sure that the article isn’t a joke? It just seems too absurd when he starts talking about “horrors the likes of which I have never witnessed”…
Hey Christopher
Any review that starts with “I haven’t seen the film but…” cannot be taken seriously. Mr Hart, can I advise that you find another vocation if your frail sensibilities prevent you from doing your job properly and rob us of a review we can trust.
This was supposed to be a review of a movie not your own personal critique (and not a very good one at that) of the decadent society we live in!
Good luck Mr Hart in whatever occupation you hopefully will now pursue.
The line about films like this ‘confirming’ what monsters we are to anti-West jihads made my jaw drop.
Firstly, I don’t think that those who endorse suicide bombings, stoning to death, the hanging of homosexuals, extreme subjugation of women including rape, etc, are in much of a position to express horror about gory movie make-up.
Secondly, if from tomorrow every film produced by America and Europe past present and future was expunged of graphic violence and sex, would this dappen Islamic militant’s desire to see the West destroyed or taken over by Sharia law? Somehow I think not.
[...] I’d caught a preview of it a few weeks earlier and thought it looked interesting but I’m not really one for the cinema, although that might be changing. Even with that, I hadn’t specifically intended to go and see the film until I read this rather idiotic film review in the Daily Mail (interesting to note all the highly critical comments have been deleted – do love our wonderful open free press in this country) which was nicely taken apart over at Mailwatch. [...]
I truly enjoyed your post. Will link back from my site. Please post more often if you have time. thanks!
[...] Guardian Timeout London The Telegraph Total Film Daily Mail How not to read a Daily Mail review The Times In [...]
Does anyone know if there was a rise in people’s hearts being cut out with spoons after Costner’s Robin Hood film? I mean, Bryan Adams at number one in perpetuity was enough of a reason to ban the film anyway.