Anticristo

John Doe says in "Se7en": "Wanting people to pay attention, you can't just tap them on the shoulder. You have to hit them in the head with a sledgehammer." L. von Trier was tapping on the shoulder with "Dogville". He turns to a sledgehammer with "Antichrist". The problem is that when you have been hit by the extremities of his latest endeavor the most appropriate question you may want to ask seems to be suggested by the next line of the late detective Mills: "What makes you so special that people should pay attention?"

This movie doesn't strike as an overt emotional manipulation like "Dancer in the Dark" (the fact that the latter is really something that can be described in such a way was eventually admitted even by the director himself). The cinematography is stunning - in a good sense of the word. Several frames with Willem Dafoe's face will certainly enter the gallery of iconic images provided by modern cinema. Even the dedication to Tarkovsky was not vain. But von Trier is neither stupid/ talentless nor childish/egocentric - hopefully, at least - to the extent to actually consider making movies a kind of therapy, and the screening room his own private couch at a shrink's. So he is trying to bring in a meaning here after all. If so what is it?

What is that point he is trying to deliver? Human nature is far from being perfect? It's hardly new news. The aesthetic audacity and harshness of images in "Dogville" were fully justified by a consistency of its message, which they conveyed in a completely adequate way. As far as I can see, von Trier was talking then about the unbearable hypocrisy of our modern civilization and an inevitable catastrophe this civilization is heading for (while his account made I'm afraid a pretty accurate description of the actual situation). What does he have to add with this feature? Is it that all evil which falls upon people is intrinsically immanent in human nature? Having experienced or witnessed a critical amount of grief, pain and despair man comes to some point when even a concept of good, God, hope or whatever you call it is becoming virtually inconceivable? And after that chaos reigns? That to fight that man has to kill an evil in himself which he might love? But this fight is doomed anyway if a natural arena for it happens to be a world "issued by Satan"? It's a kindergarten philosophy. Some of these things may very well be true and correct, but to make all these daring assumptions and observations it's quite sufficient to have read a dozen of books or had just one good look around. There can be several more interpretations - some somewhat less coherent, some even more banal. What are justifications of all this excruciating imagery we encounter in "Antichrist" then? It's not quite clear.

So I should say that it is a bit surprising that the audience has happened to be so polarized. In fact, this movie is neither too good, nor too bad. And I might be missing something but I have a strong feeling that von Trier can be quite justly accused on this particular occasion of doing something he was quite wrongly accused of doing on some previous ones - of trying to compensate in a badly provocative manner a certain shallowness of his work and its half-baked message by the extremities of the way in which they are presented.

Controversial, much lauded and horrific to watch, ANTICHRIST is Lars von Trier's showpiece film. It tells the tale of an unhappy marriage that breaks down due to grief, and the extremes that follow. It's a film that plays out as a two-hander for the most part, with Dafoe and Gainsbourg acting it up in a remote woodland cabin and taking out their rage and anger upon each other.

The film's simple storyline allows von Trier to concentrate on the things that interest him most. His intelligent, thoughtful script goes deep into the psyche of his characters, exploring the ways in which therapy can – and in some ways, cannot – help a parent to get over the loss of their child. The first half of the film is packed with foreboding that gives way to visceral horror in the second half.

Everything you've heard about this film's explicit nature is true; nothing much makes me squeamish anymore, but ANTICHRIST did. I can't stand sexual violence in films and von Trier incorporates it to chilling, disturbing effect, made all the more powerful due to its brief nature. In many ways, the second half of this film becomes HOSTEL in the woods, except it's all the more frightening because violence comes from a loved one rather than a stock villain.

Dafoe and Gainsbourg are both very good; they couldn't not be, seeing as what von Trier asks of them. Dafoe plays the more sympathetic role and Gainsbourg's character is a little shrill on occasion, but neither of them disappoint. Von Trier directs in classic art-house style with beautiful shots interspersed with grotesque imagery and true left-of-field interludes.

It's certainly not a film for the faint of heart or an experience I would choose to put myself through again, but I think that ANTICHRIST is a great example of a director following his vision without compromise.

Antichrist (2009)

*** 1/2 (out of 4)

Thought provoking but highly controversial film from von Trier has a husband (Willem Dafoe) and wife (Charlotte Gainsbourg) making love while their young son gets out of his crib and falls from a window to his death. After the grief sets in the couple head off to a cabin in the woods to try and cure the wife from her state but once there things take a turn for the worse. This film has a prologue, an epilogue and four chapters in between. Three of the chapters deal with grief, pain and despair. What the director was trying to say or do with this film is going to be in the mind of the viewer watching and I'm positive you could show this film to a hundred people and fifty would probably walk out. The other fifty would each have a different idea on the events in the film and that's probably why von Trier continues to be one of the most interesting directors out there. You might love him or you might hate him but no matter how you feel you're going to be feeling something, which is a lot more than most directors could have said about their work. This movie will certainly bring on debate and I'm sure it's going to bring on some strong feelings of hatred among those who see it but at the end of the day there's no doubt that the film will leave people thinking and questioning their own thoughts.

Writing this minutes after finishing the film, my mind is still all over the place on what exactly it was that I watched. I do feel disturbed, which is saying quite a bit considering some of the films I've seen in my life. The atmosphere created by von Trier is extremely disturbing and this is before we get to any of the controversial stuff. That stuff I won't ruin but all the hype you've read is certainly lived up to and von Trier takes on a new form of sexual violence that most people haven't seen. The bizarre sex scenes are never erotic but at the same time there's a level of love to them. This will leave people will more things to debate but I think the title refers to nothing here as the movie isn't about the antichrist but instead about human emotions to one level or another. Another thing I do know is that the two actors turn in incredibly brave performances and they're names should certainly be remembered at Oscar time but I have a feeling they won't be. Both are challenged physically to be brave because of the nudity, sex scenes and some extremely bizarre situations both are put in. You applaud them for that but they also take it to another level and deliver complete and haunting characters. The pain both actors display is quite amazing to watch but at the same time you almost hate to watch because of how painful they make it. There isn't another actor in the film so it's up to these two to carry everything and they pull that off without a problem. The visual style of von Trier is something else that people love and he turns in another real beauty here. The opening prologue is in B&W and it's perhaps one of the most haunting, tragic and beautiful images I've seen from a film in quite a while. The masterful music score playing over this sequence makes it even more haunting but there are other great visual touches throughout the film.

Some have made people believe that this is a porn film hidden behind the label of art but I think that's quite unfair. While there are hardcore sequences I think most people still look at them as being taboo. I, on the other hand, have become very familiar with this type of stuff since I'm a fan of the likes of Jess Franco so I don't mind this type of thing. I think it does add a lot of realism to the movie but people shouldn't think it's non-stop sex and torture from start to finish. The first few minutes feature some sex and then the rest of the movie is pretty clean up to the final thirty-minutes. In the middle is a lot of dialogue, which is perfectly written and delivered by the actors. You'll certainly have a lot to take in as, again, we're asked countless questions about what's going on but then your senses will be attacked when the actual torture does set in. This isn't an easy movie to watch and I'm sure many will walk away needing a shower but it does bring out emotions, feelings and thoughts, which is something not too many films can do. Love it or hate it this is a pretty unique movie.

Down the road from me is a coven of Christian filmmakers. It is a school and the purpose is to make films that evangelize. This fascinates me; generally their stories are about fighting the devil, a narrative that encompasses both what is in the film and what surrounds the making of the film. Some day, they might make engaging films and who knows what will happen.

This interests me because most movies are made by professional storytellers. Scorcese and Fincher (for example) not only makes a wide variety of stories, but they deliberately do so. The connection with their lives is — with few exceptions — with the art. Most singers are this way as well. Connected with this is films that have a love story that features a woman the male filmmaker is in love with. This often grabs me.

Now here we have a man deeply depressed, possessed. He makes a film painfully pulled from his soul, so difficult in the making that he is suicidal. It works. It is so deeply disturbing that I caution you to stay away from it. I was a bit vulnerable when encountering this world and it affected me.

Lars von Trier has built a life making films that exploit experiments in convention. I find them interesting, but there is always an academic distance that keeps them from connecting. They engage for how they are made, not what they are. At each juncture, I wonder how powerful a film might be if he used what he knows to communicate, rather than to practice. Now I know. He was so depressed he simply made. Looking at the usual areas where he is disciplined, you can see he is sloppy. Everything is imprecise. There is no theory at work here. Where it is technically competent, it is only temporarily so. That is what makes it so, so very powerful. His gush of expression floods past his constraints of Danish discipline.

The story is identical to "Don't Look Now." We as viewers think we see a child lost, and follow a couple in a grief that swallows them. But we see it from the husband's untrusted eye. He is confused, haunted, magically twisted through the sexual magic he and we see but which permeates and guides the narrative. This is a tornado of witchcraft, like the Roeg film, but from a filmmaker within it. Causal mechanics are not what we think we know from the beginning. The shoes are reversed. I do not know from outside sources what caused his depression, but it is pretty clear from this desperate message from within.

There are some pretty powerful images here. Some involve genitals, an ordinarily off-limits zone. Some involve a graceful death of an infant, made more terrifying by the beauty in which we receive it. Some involve damaged animals. Each of these is amplified by the rush of emotional confusion, the onanistic waterfall of acorns on the tin roof. Experience this at your peril.

The actors are incredible.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

This movie drained me...

Without a doubt the most unpleasant and despairing movie I've ever watched. It's not just the graphic imagery that got to me, but the overall tone of the movie was incredibly dreadful and you could almost feel a presence of some sort of "evil".

This is a hard movie to review. It crosses all barriers when it comes to movie making...ALL. It makes you question yourself about what art is and if there's anything as going "too far"?

But don't dismiss this. It's certainly much more than just being graphic for the sake of it. First off, the cinematography is absolutely flawless. The opening scene had me in absolute awe. Beautiful... And my deepest respect to Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsburg. I could only imagine how much this would drain the actors both mentally and physically. They are amazing and deserve Oscars.

I have to mention the violence too, since it's a critical aspect. This isn't "torture porn" of any kind. It's natural (it's looks almost too realistic), physical sexual violence. That's why it works so effective on the audience. You can almost feel their pain. Never before have I watched a movie where I felt the urge to look away. You would think that, in the end, all this violence and self molestation is just a shock tactic, but I assure you it's not. There is actually a plot and a sensible progression of the movie. I of course won't say too much. People need to see it.

I can understand why some people wouldn't like it, and that's okay. This is most definitely not for everyone.

It may not be a movie that made me feel good, but it made feel something and had an effect on me. It's beautiful, sad, poetic, horrific and in the end, oddly uplifting. A genre masterpiece.

A must see.

10/10.