Antichrist

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.

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.

This movie is violent and very sexually graphic, bordering at times on artistic but hardcore pornography; but it isn't lurid for the sole purpose of scandal. "Gory" appropriately describes some sections of this film but the word by no means encapsulates it.

If one is willing to stomach the periodic revulsion of watching this movie from beginning to end with a thoughtful and mature perspective they will find that it is full of symbolism, foreshadowing, and the kind of characterization that brings great success to novels. Few movies, in fact, possess the level of depth that Antichrist does. The movie isn't packed with moral insight but that doesn't preclude it from being intellectually engaging and, as a consequence, genuinely entertaining. One will also realize that the violent and sexual content is never pure excess. The gory scenes, though sickening, are always important in some way to the main themes of the movie.

At several points during the course of this film I couldn't help but rewind it to watch a scene again, discuss it in greater depth with my friends, attempt to extricate the finer details that are present in abundance both at the surface and underneath.

To anybody that tries to berate this movie as the deranged product of excessively liberal foreigners I must point you to movies like Saw, which drew American crowds young and old for numerous sequels that were basically just series' of elaborate and gruesome torture scenes, sometimes clever but never much more than that.

There is more to Antichrist than meets the eye, and I highly recommend it to anybody looking for a horror/suspense film that engages more than just the reptilian parts of the brain.

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.

Much as I hate to see personal heroes go down, this was a letdown in every way.

I'm betting that just about everything filmed in slo-mo, black&white & set to a classical tune is likely to seem wonderful. It's such a cheap trick! How can people say that the prologue is wonderful/brilliant etc, when it's a mere legerdemain of the lowest kind? I mean, get together a cute baby, a washing machine and a couple having explicit sex, and you have not a brilliant scene, but a brainless, comfortable attempt at stirring emotion. Bah.

In fact, the entire movie suffers from a lack of creativity: the ominous atmosphere is suggested by heavy fog (I mean fog machines), a fox speaks (everybody burst out laughing, no wonder!), a crow refuses to die despite being hit over the head repeatedly. How much must we suffer for von Trier's shortage of original artistic vision!

As for the rest, a friend explained it had to do with seeing women as intrinsically threatening because of their sexual drive. I recommend Odishon for that - more intelligent, less cheap.