Antichrist

Antichrist

Antichrist - Written and directed by Lars von Trier, starring Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg - Not Rated (if it was, though, it would at least get an NC-17)

I broke a rule for this review. I usually never read reviews of movies I plan on reviewing until I've written my own. But I had to read some responses to this film first. I mention this because I'm going to repeat what a few of them say: I (dare I say it) liked Antichrist, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone...ever. I don't want to be held responsible for putting you through the film. I'm not saying it will scar you emotionally or anything (it made me cringe, but I'll survive), but at the very least you might feel angry for having watched such a movie and then your opinion of me might never recover. Oh, and you might think I'm a sick human being for claiming to "like" the film. So don't watch this movie. But if being told not to watch something intrigues you, then read on.

I'll get into some of the reasons why I wouldn't recommend the film later. For now, let me summarize the relatively basic premise. The film opens in black and white, extreme slow motion as He (Dafoe) and She (Gainsbourg) have sex while their toddler climbs out of his crib and falls out of a window to his death. The scene plays out like a graphic opera and I thought it looked amazing. (Note: "He" and "She" are not the characters' names, it is how they are credited since they never call each other by name.) She is obviously quite depressed after the incident and her therapist husband takes it upon himself to cure her. He thinks the best way for her to deal with her grief, pain, and despair (three prevalent issues in the film) is to face what she fears the most: the woods surrounding their cabin (Eden). Then stuff gets crazy, to put it lightly.

That may not sound like the most messed up plot in the world, but you can tell that this movie isn't a feel good film. Dark, evil things happen in this movie. When that's the case you usually need a clear-cut hero to side with. Antichrist doesn't necessarily have that, but it didn't bother me. For me, the acting was good enough that I didn't care whether or not I liked the characters. I liked the performances. Gainsbourg gives a painfully impressive performance; she is thoroughly convincing as a depressed and troubled woman. Dafoe is perfect in this film, down to his appearance. I can't imagine anyone else attempting the role. His weathered face speaks volumes during the slow motion scenes.



Speaking of slow motion, this film has a great style. Lars von Trier might be full of himself (he claimed he was the best director in the world at Cannes), but he has made a beautiful film. The images, of nature or of grotesqueness or of dreamlike quality, all look great. His camerawork is interesting as well. The slow zooms were a touch I enjoyed in the film. And even the simple framing of a conversation could lead to a discussion. Well, a discussion with me, anyway. The standout images all involve the cabin, Eden, and its wooded surroundings, though. The cabin is reminiscent of the cabin from Evil Dead and that's fitting, because some creepy things happen there.

Creepy is one word, but sick might be used as well. One review referred to this as an "art house" horror film. I suppose that's fitting, but it still retains a few images that are more gruesome than any regular horror film I've seen lately. It's psychological, but it's also shocking. I'm not going to spoil any part of the film in this review, so let me put it this way: the theatre I watched this in offered squeamish guides. The guide let you know when to look away. The theatre also usually serves alcohol (it's an independent theatre, which is why Antichrist was playing there to begin with), but they would not serve any to anyone watching Antichrist due to the graphic nature of the film. While I think that may be going overboard a bit, I must say that a few moments of Antichrist stick with you. (If you just have to know what happens in the movie, go to the message boards on IMDb or check out the Wikipedia page for the film.)

Whenever a film presents such graphic and possibly sickening images, I have to ask, is there a point? I say there is. The themes of the film (there are many, but I'll just focus on a few) require some of the brutality. The film probably would've gotten its point across by just implying some of these things, but it's stronger and more disturbing by showing them. In other words, I'll remember this film for a long time, whether I want to or not.

I don't want to dwell on what this film means (especially since it's open to interpretation), but I will say that there is a point to it, and a compelling one at that. Okay, maybe I will dwell on what I think the point is for a moment. The film has been called misogynistic (it even won an anti-award for it) and I can see how people could come to that conclusion, but I would disagree with it. Sure, there are moments that might make it seem that von Trier is calling every woman inherently evil, but it could also be a statement on how some individuals succumb to stereotypes about themselves. Plus, it's not all about women and whether they are evil. The film is called Antichrist and their cabin is called Eden, so biblical issues are abound. I think it's quite easy to apply the story of creation and knowledge of evil to this film. Just watch how von Trier distorts the images of the outside world or how he shows you nature in its violent simplicity while the cabin seems to be a safe haven...from nature, anyway. There are multiple possibilities out there(one of the best involves the idea of Munchausen syndrome by proxy), but I think applying gender issues, good and evil, and nature is a safe bet.





No matter what your interpretation might be, this film will definitely lead to discussion and I find it hard to say a movie like this is good or bad (hence the absence of a "villain rating" this week). I said I liked this movie at the beginning, but I'm not sure if that's right. I did find this movie extremely interesting and I think that means something. Antichrist isn't a movie you like, it isn't a movie you recommend, it is a movie that makes you think, though, and while I may enjoy the mindless, fun movies more often than not, I still thoroughly enjoy a disturbing, beautiful, and, most importantly, thought-provoking film like Antichrist.

Eric Harris - www.canneltoncritic.com

Last updated: 2010-05-10 06:00:25 by user06

Antichrist de Lars von Trier

J'avais beaucoup d'attentes vis-à-vis de ce  film car ayant lu plusieurs critiques négatives et quelques unes  positives je voulais me faire ma propre idée du dernier film que Lars  von Trier nous a concocté. Ayant seulement vu ses films les plus connus;  Dancer in the Dark et Dogville, je pense que ces films démontrent tout le  talent de ce créateur hors normes. Dancer  in the Dark est un véritable chef d'oeuvre et Dogville une expérience intéressante  mais dont on se lasse rapidement.

Pour me faire encore plus  languir, Antichrist était  précédé d'un court métrage de Pedro Pires intitulé Danse Macabre. En plus, le commis au  comptoir qui me donna mon billet me demanda si j'étais prêt mentalement  pour le programme principal. Bref, tout pour me rendre encore plus  fébrile à l'expérience cinématographique qu'est Antichrist. Dans une salle du Cinéma Le Clap ou se  trouvaient environ une vingtaine de cinéphiles venus voir un von Trier,  l'atmosphère était mélangée entre l'excitation et la peur.

Un  magnifique prologue tourné en noir et blanc et au ralenti met en  contexte le spectateur qui ne peut rester insensible au décès du fils du  couple pendant leurs ébats sexuels. Pour passer au travers de la  dépression de la femme, le couple part dans un chalet dans la forêt pour  une thérapie donnée par l'homme. Là tout s'enfonce peu à peu et  dégénère complètement. À part l'épilogue, le reste du film est tourné en  numérique et à l'épaule selon le Dogme 95 élaboré par von Trier. Cette  technique donne un grain à l'image qui peut être très agaçant et qui lui  donne une apparence d'amateurisme et d'un autre côté de réalisme.  L'idée de départ du film est très intéressante et est une bonne matière à  travailler pour von Trier qui tombe rarement dans des thèmes faciles.  On peut lui donner ce grand point positif; il ne se complaît pas dans la  facilité.

Cependant, il prend toutes les voies pour provoquer,  de la sexualité explicite aux des violences sadiques et jusqu'à utiliser  un symbolisme outrageant. Il provoque son auditoire, et ce, pour  nourrir son propre ego de prétention. D'une part, il laisse sa propre  marque et son style un peu comme un certain Quentin Tarantino avec son  excellent Inglorious Basterds.  Lorsque le film se termine, on y voit une dédicace pour Andrei Tarkovsky  qui s'avère assez douteuse. Je m'explique; étant un admirateur du  travail du poète visuel qui nous a laissé trop peu de films et qui s'est  même permis un dialogue avec le 2001;  A Space Odyssey de Stanley Kubrick et qui n'a rien à lui envier  est dans les meilleurs cinéastes de tous les temps. On peut considérer  les films de Tarkovsky comme des films contemplatifs et religieux. Ce  dernier a toujours su faire des films esthétiquement parfaits et  complets remplis d'une imagerie magnifique. Pour ce qui est de von Trier  on est loin de la contemplation et encore plus loin d'un esthétisme  agréable, et ce, surtout pour son Antichrist.  Il quitte sa trame principale et s'enfonce dans le symbolisme religieux  et dans la vulgarité. Il torture ses personnages et tout autant son  auditoire (qui se verra diminué de la moitié durant la séance).

C'est  un film qui a fait couler beaucoup d'encre et qui choque par son  contenu et sa lourdeur. Il détient probablement son titre de film culte  un peu comme le Salo de  Pasolini mais pas pour les bonnes raisons. Von Trier loin d'être un  poète visuel tel que Tarkovsky qui malgré sa maîtrise des éléments des  trois mendiants et de la descente intéressante dans la folie de l'humain  propose ici un efficace film d'épouvante mais un faible film sur le  deuil et la perte. En regardant ce film comme étant un film d'épouvante,  je lui reconnaît plus de qualités car il inculque la peur et le dégoût à  son auditoire. La peur est provoqué par les choses que l'on ne comprend  pas et qui nous sont nébuleuses et pour ma part c'est ce que j'ai  ressenti en allant voir ce film. Il y a trop d'éléments nébuleux dans ce  récit et trop peu d'explications.

http://cinephiliaque.blogspot.com/2009/11/antichrist-de-lars-von-trier.html

(Read Less...)

Recommendations: Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie, Duel

Last updated: 2010-04-27 16:09:30 by MichaelParent

Antichrist (2009, Lars von Trier)

**½
Denmark/Sweden/etc.

That von Trier would toy around with genital mutilation or talking animals isn't half as shocking and disconcerting as the fact that in a take on the hysterical dynamic between grief and sex he comes up with absolutely nothing worthwhile to say. Is the triteness perhaps the point? Is it a commentary on contemporary society in the sense that so many of us turn to hollow pop psychologists with ulterior motives only to close up the wound on the outside and leave it festering on the inside? Was the intention for Willem Dafoe to surpass woodenness and achieve a kind of serene ode (or is it blank-eyed verse) to non-acting? Did the fox really need to have his say? Charlotte Gainsbourg on the other hand perhaps deserves some kudos for tackling a joke of a character with such ferocity, heart and commitment. It's uncanny. Despite von Trier's best efforts, she avoids coming off as ridiculous or even pitiable, and throughout the wrench-wielding, clit-slitting shenanigans she remains searingly relatable.

Antichrist: A Season in Hell

So the green field
To oblivion falls,
Overgrown, flowering,
With incense and weeds
And the cruel noise
Of dirty flies.
-A Season In Hell, Arthur Rimbaud

Man succumbs to the deviltry of his antithesis, his masculinity replaced by emotional impotency, both victim and abuser of Mother Nature. Lars von Trier’s season in hell exorcizes his own personal demons through the dark glassily; the nameless characters avatars of human conceit, both lost amid their own secret gardens.

The film begins in a monochrome snowfall, the couple making love while their son tumbles like spun clothes. Cut to color and a month later where the woman is hospitalized in a deep depression while the man, a psychologist who seems cold like a hard rain and just as expressionless. He begins aversion therapy with his wife, discovering her atypical fear and confronting it, his relentless ego a brooding shadow upon her senses. She is inexplicably afraid of their summer cottage named Eden, where the previous summer she gave up working on her thesis about the Salem witch hunts. He forces her to confront each aspect of this wicked landscape and it soon subsumes her…and him.

Trier’s maddening narrative remains elusive in meaning and ripe in interpretation: is she suffering from the trauma of her lost son? Does she become possessed by some feminine malignancy represented by Nature? Cause and effect has been erased and reversed blurring the lines between external horror and internal conflict: in this storm only chaos reigns (rains). We begin to suspect that she has loathed her husband for some time, and had begun torturing their son the summer before. In a revisionist flashback, we see her cruel eyes focus upon their son moments before his fall from grace as if she could have saved him…but chose not to. Her passion has transformed into hatred, and sex becomes a violent weapon whose edge cuts both ways.

The lush cinematography imbues this world with a vibrant realism underscored by a damnable crescendo of entropy. The violence is brutal and anarchic, the comfortless man suffering the trials of 17th century women while his wife becomes tormentor. Their roles reversed, she is consumed by her masochistic behavior while his lament blossoms into a spiritual awakening: he is finally embraced by the ghosts of woman past, and becomes a daughter of the dust. Final Grade: (B+)

(Read Less...)

Recommendations: The Birds, Breathless (Jean-Luc Godard, 1960), Funny Games

All reviews copyright Korova, Ltd. Visit Alex at his Home Theatre Blog, http://korovatheatrepresents.blogspot.com/

Last updated: 2010-03-09 08:22:33 by AlexDelarge

Antichrist

I admire the audacity of Lars von Trier because he doesn't play by the rules and he doesn't shy away from controversy. His films are hard for me to grasp because lately he had become self indulgent and insufferable. His last movie "Dogville" made the short list of movies I have ever wanted to walk out of mostly because it was excruciating to follow and not because I was offended. Lars von Trier's "Breaking the Waves" is one of my all time favorite movies and one of the most powerful films I have seen. So I know that I like what he brings to his movies and that he is not afraid to push buttons. I wanted to like his newest "Antichrist" because of it's boldness and it's breathtaking first half but then I think the movie got away from him. Not because of the graphic sexuality or shocking gross out scenes but I felt the story got off track and didn't make it's point of view clear.I needed just a little sense of closure. I still don't know what point he is trying to make and there are baffling, loose ends. I don't mind movies that leave you hanging and answering questions but you have to make some points connect.

This bafflement is not a bad thing though and there is much to recommend this but be forewarned. It deals with the death of a child as husband and wife played by Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg have to deal with their grief. The movie is divided into a prologue,chapters and then an epilogue. This is not a movie for the weak of heart for it's scenes of self mutilation and violence between the couple are tough. There are things in here that I have never seen before and I have seen a lot of graphic sex and violence in movies. These scenes didn't bother me except for two scenes that really made me ill. Though if you are adventurous and you like dark material you might actually find this great. The first half of the film is painful but beautiful and the movie is beautiful to look at. I found it haunting, stimulating and compelling and I was intrigued by what von Trier was trying to establish in story and tone. The performances are very brave and incredible by Dafoe and Gainsbourg. Willem Dafoe always seems to lean towards dark, heady stuff and I love that he rarely goes the Hollywood Blockbuster route. He is an intense actor and he is very good here. Gainsbourg also gives a brave and powerful performance. The pain she has to endure, physically and mentally as does Dafoe, is brave and she handles the material brilliantly. So I found the performances amazing, the story challenging and interesting but I didn't come away with a feeling of closure. Von Trier is truly an auteur and he has a bold voice and I love the surrealistic touches here and the challenging material. I am ambivalent about this movie but I want to see it again and maybe a second viewing will be what I need to finally embrace it.

Vincent Snavely

Antichrist

THIS REVIEW IS NOT SPOILER FREE. IT IS INTENDED FOR THOSE WHO WATCHED THE FILM.

“Antichrist” tries to be a complex, surreal experience. Movies like this can often be misleading about their quality — after all, a bad camera angle or a stupid line of dialogue can simply have a deeper meaning your feeble mind held together with duct tape and spit isn’t quite grasping, right? This movie made me feel this way several times. This is not actually a sign of quality.

The movie tries to dissect humanity and nature, but sabotages itself by failing to have a decent story — if the characters aren’t believable, how is the audience supposed to see them as Trier intends us to: as representations of our species? And in fact, how does he even expect to embody all this into two single characters? Why did he even try, going as far as blurring out the faces of everyone except for the main couple and their baby?

By turning them into absolute archetypes, Trier establishes he’s going to depict humanity through them. This was, of course, doomed to fail because of its tremendous contradiction: while the characters are archetypes, the situation they’re experiencing and the situation that caused it are very personal — and so is their drama. Trier apparently refuses to accept this, so instead of creating interesting, believable characters that could perhaps depict a facet of human nature, he tries to depict human nature as a whole through a man and a woman.

The Man is rational and calm, with an explanation for everything and a wish to control, feeding on the Woman’s suffering, believing he understands it enough to fix it. The Woman is… batshit insane, basically. At one moment she’s cold and distant, then she’s warm, then she wants sex, then she tortures her husband. But for all his flaws, the Man seeks not only to understand her, but to help her. Despite the self-interest (which, c’mon, is a natural aspect of being human), he truly wants to help her. Meanwhile, the Woman is self-centered, judgmental and has an incredibly incoherent mood.

This is where the accusations of misogyny start, and I’m afraid Lars Von Trier not only embraces them, he reiterates them as the movie progresses, through the excessive symbolism that is a constant in “Antichrist”. Let’s break this down:

Nature is portrayed as evil, constantly trying to hurt them. Falling acorns cause a continuous, unsettling sound on the roof, the Man is tormented by gruesome visions of animals (such as the fox that eats itself) and the very forest is depicted in an oppressive, cruel manner. The Woman fears it deeply, or so the Man initially thinks, but as the movie progresses he realizes she fears not only nature — she fears herself.

The Woman is Nature and therefore evil. She says so herself, that she is convinced that all women are inherently evil, something the Man argues against, but is ultimately proved wrong by her and the director himself, who contributes to this point by using symbolic imagery — such as the tree that seems to be comprised of wood and women’s bodies, as if they’re one. Not to mention the Man and the Woman are having sex by that tree, and from the angle Trier films it, it looks like the Man is having sex with the entire tree — which is to say, with Nature.

There’s more symbols that express the exact same point: the three animals seen throughout the film, in the end, all join the Woman in the same frame. And in the epilogue, the Man is seen walking past a part of the woods that seems made organically of women — and finally, he sees a huge crowd of them walking the woods as one, while he seems like a complete outsider, out of his element.

This can be taken even further, to a Biblical sense: Nature is the Snake, which corrupts Eve, who corrupts Adam — in the film, the Woman lost her mind while living in the woods with her son, then she finally corrupts the Man by making him go over the edge and killing her — causing him to give up his rational behavior and give in to his desire. This symbolism could even work if the Bible wasn’t utter bullshit.

You could say that this does not necessarily mean the movie is misogynystic — that only this particular woman is evil. But there’s no such thing as a “particular woman” in “Antichrist”: not only she and the Man are not given names, but all the other actors have their faces blurred. The archetypes are clear and intended. She is a representation of the Woman, which in this film are portrayed as evil, selfish, confused and incoherent.

You could also say that the Man himself isn’t good, and therefore that the movie’s misogyny is instead misanthropy. But while the man is certainly flawed (as we all are), he is by no means a bad person. He is arrogant and pedantic, but he tries to help his wife, whatever his own reasons may be aside from the wish to see her happy again.

In fact, he endures her sudden mood swings with all the calm in the world and listens to and considers every single word she says. Even when she is physically violent toward him, he doesn’t hit back. He is rational to the point of being cold and brutally honest, but he is not evil. In fact, the movie seems to believe that the act of accepting the Woman’s sexual advances instead of resisting them is an evil thing to do — after all, it was the orgasm that made the woman not care their son was falling from their window. It’s like the Man, by feeding her sexual urges (and it’s always HER sexual urges, of course), is commiting a terrible sin — eating the forbidden fruit.

Throughout the film, the Man attempts to make the woman face her fear of Nature — which is to say, her own nature. It’s like by doing this, the Man unlocks the evil within that the Woman has, and therefore should be to blame as well.

But what the fuck does this mean? That all women are bombs standing by for the detonator to be triggered by the foolish, curious men? Maybe that this is a symbol of Man’s constant search for the meaning of their existence and that the Woman is God, the creator — or in this case, the Antichrist? So the hole beneath the tree symbolizes the uterus and when the man emerges from it after hiding there, he is reborn — and like a baby, he is only comprised of Id — and his Ego, so common in his overly rational behavior, is now gone, allowing him to succumb to his Id and kill his wife and oh God make it stop make it end.

Apparently this is the true horror of “Antichrist”. Having to go through all these questions only to find out the answers are appallingly stupid.

Even worse, in order to ask those questions, Von Trier sacrifices the story and his characters. If he had dropped all the religious symbolism and pretentious archetypes, and instead had written a story about a couple who lost their son — it could have been a great film. Instead of being archetypes, each of the two main characters could receive names and be simply facets of the human species, not attempting to represent us as a whole.

“Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind” is a wonderful study of human nature and the importance of our memories. And it studies those questions through two likeable, complex protagonists. “Angel Heart” has a narrative that is ambiguous but that makes sense in any way you read it, never sacrificing its plot or characters. And “Antichrist” relies on a story that doesn’t make sense protagonized by unlikely characters who distance themselves from humanity by trying to embody it as a whole (since NO human being is capable of embodying all of us) in order to ask questions that have idiotic answers.

However, it does have its moments and mostly succeeds in atmosphere. Thanks to Anthony Dod Mantle’s superb cinematography, the film causes a constant, unsettling feeling, and it’s particularly genius, the way he and Trier go from a shaky, nervous camera to a completely still one without changing the angle — a noticeable change the movie uses to denote its transition into surreality (when the Man is having sex with the Woman by the tree, the nervous camera travels near the Man’s hair, then goes completely still and zooms out again in a perfect, smooth movement, revealing the tree made out of wood and women).

Not only that, but the lack of elegance in the editing contributes to the uneasy tone of “Antichrist”, with Trier and Mantle deliberately breaking filmmaking rules. When the Woman is talking to the Man on her hospital bed, the camera cuts back and forth between her face and his, some times without changing the angle they’re seen from — so instead of looking at each other, they seem to be looking at the same direction.

And while the movie’s prologue, shot in super slow motion with still camera angles in black and white, could easily be a pretentious, exaggerated attempt to be visually pleasant, it’s actually done very effectively, with some particularly striking moments — like the angle that shows the kid falling on the snow from far away.

Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg play bad characters extremely well, managing to save them partially, giving them some humanity the audience is capable of relating to now and then. But there’s only so much they can do with such a weak script and terrible dialogue. Still, the two performances are exceptional.

Trier deserves applause for being unflinching in his depiction of sex and violence, never using either for their own sake, but instead to build up the oppressive, cruel atmosphere. The imagery is genuinely disturbing, and it’s meant to be. Shame it’s not servicing a better script. And what made Trier think the talking fox could cause anything but uproarious laughter?

“Antichrist” creates a complex web of symbols that ultimately just shows a simplistic view of human nature. It’s beautifully-shot and constantly unsettling, but it’s shallow and even immature beneath its seemingly complicated surface.

Originally written by André Navarro on January 8th 2010 

(Read Less...)

http://andrenavarro.wordpress.com/

Last updated: 2010-01-08 13:06:39 by andre_navarro

Antichrist - 4 stars

Lars von Trier has not exactly been the ideal director to find likable qualities in. He has been accused of putting stake in misogyny, and putting his cast through excruciating experiences while filming his works. He has also dubbed himself the best director of all time. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending upon your feelings toward this director’s style of filming, I have never seen any of his previous efforts. I meant to catch the Nicole Kidman vehicle “Dogville” but with classes becoming more hectic and time consuming, my Netflix queue has not really seen much shrinkage in the past month or so. Overlooking his resume, nearly all of his films have been received with a mixed hand. For every one critic that called “Dancer in the Dark” a musical triumph, there was another to tout it as pretentious, self-indulgent, and too experimental for its own good. Doing my own research on the particular auteur, “Antichrist” is universally seen as a departure of sorts for von Trier. Usually his films focus on Anti-American notions and substituting set sound stages for immense movie sets. If you have read anything about “Antichrist” you would already know the controversial buzz that has been swarming around the release regarding the explicit psychosexual content, and the shocking actions leading lady Charlotte Gainsbourg puts on herself in the films chaotically charged second half. Although “Antichrist” may not be for some- perhaps unsuitable for most, there will be one or two in a mainstream crowd that will appreciate the artistry and craftsmanship of a work like the one exhibited by von Trier here. You can count me in the latter.

Right away von Trier lets the audience know that he will be placing you in a no-holds-bar type of atmosphere. The film is divided into six parts; a Prologue, four chapters entitled “Grief”, “Pain (Chaos Reigns)”, “Despair (Gynocide)” and “The Three Beggars”, along with an Epilogue. The Prologue is filmed in black and white, paced in slow motion sequence and scored to the beautiful aria “Lascia ch’io pianga” from Georg Friedrich Handel’s opera “Rinaldo.” Although some may label it self-indulgent, I found what I was watching a stunning sequence of events. While a couple is having sex with the baby monitor turned off, their child crawls out of a window and falls to his doom. Von Trier films the sex sequence in full form, showing the penetration in clear and concise fashion. Was it necessary? On some levels, it prepares the viewer for what he/she will be getting themselves into. On the other hand, it probably could have been done without, getting the full effect of the sequence without having to watch the deep sexual drive the two embark on. As for me, with or without the explicitness, the sequence is a sight to behold. Before an initial viewing of the film I thought I would be seeing a disgusting, vial, piece-of-cinematic torture porn much in the vein of “Hostel” and “Saw.” While the film would later wander into those territories, most of its first half is devoted to building tension and suspension, providing a beautiful gothic canvas for von Trier’s artistry work, and developing a conflict that will be eradicated and explicated through the stages of grief.

Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Dafoe play “She” and “He,” respectably. They are the only two cast member listed in the credits. After their child dies, She has been experiencing intense feelings of grief. It is obvious that she feels an immense amount of guilt for her child’s death. He, on the other hand, is a therapist who takes an interest in treating her himself. He knows it is unethical and probably inappropriate, but he states that “no other therapist knows you like I would.” Through various breathing techniques and experimental emotional trial runs, Dafoe’s He tries to help his wife endlessly. He asks her where her greatest fears lie, and she claims the woods. Although at first confused, as it was her that decided to take their child to the cabin ironically titled “Eden” with her to write her thesis last year, He figures it would be best to go to the woods and face her problems head on. They travel together to the secluded cabin, where after a little while; the film takes a drastic turn-of-events into the realms of psychodrama, misogyny, witchcraft, religious undertones, abusive behavior, patriarchy, and deep philosophical symbolism. It seems as if von Trier took all of these elements (and probably more I have not listed), put them in a blender, chaotically brushed them onto the film, and carefully glazed it over with superb acting and some of the best cinematography you will see all year (compliments to Anthony Dod Mantle who made “Slumdog Millionaire” the great looking movie it is).

Are all of these ideas and thoughts processed well on the screen? Perhaps not, but I found it so thought-provoking, intriguing, compelling, suspenseful, interesting, ambitious, and unique that I was enthralled with this beast from start to finish. It is similar to my experience with experimental films like “Mulholland Drive” and “Donnie Darko.” Although the two latter masterworks are undeniably difficult to comprehend or make sense of on a first time viewing, I deeply appreciated all of the artistry and craftsmanship that went into bringing these innovative projects to life. Additionally, while von Trier works his way towards a second half filled with gore and gruesome bloodshed, he continually raises the bar on the mood and tone of the picture.
“Antichrist” is not a traditional horror film where things pop out at the screen in ridiculous and clichéd ways. This is an exercise in mood and tonal craftsmanship. The breathing and experimental emotional techniques used throughout the first half are extremely intense, and qualify for further viewing. There are two instances where He has to help She with her breathing routines. The latter is, for starters, well acted, and perhaps insinuates He’s continual progress to make She reborn in some fashion. One of the smaller conflicts tackled in “Antichrist” is Therapist procedures vs. the natural order of human nature. Von Trier has stated that he was depressed when he wrote and directed this film, and his therapist character could be seen as a commentary on the medical practices he might have experienced or thought about while undergoing his depressed state-of-mind. But again, this is a small conflict in a film filled with many conflicts.

What many critics and audiences have responded to are the performances. This is probably the one single element nearly all viewers will agree on. William Dafoe plays an arrogant man, one who probably cares for his wife naturally but regretfully neglected their family while the child was alive. Although as great as Dafoe is, it really is Charlotte Gainsburg as She who takes the picture into new directions. I’ve read literature that claim von Trier films have always invested an emotional and tiring burden on its female cast. I can clearly see evidence to support this theory in “Antichrist.” She’s devastatingly believable as a mother who is grieving and entirely authentic when her role is switched to display almost the complete opposite of what her character called for in the earlier segments. It’s a performance that has every right, privilege, and license to be nominated for an Academy Award, but there isn’t a thought in my mind that will defend the Academy’s ideology in choosing the safer picture over the more ambitious works.

At the risk of giving too much away, not everything appears as it seems. What looks to be a grieving couple longing over the loss of a child is soon removed from the film’s focal stress point. Devices such as the child’s autopsy report and the unfinished thesis of a year ago on misogyny are all brought to the table in von Trier’s second half. A scene that triggers the dark events to follow proclaims Dafoe’s He as having weird dreams. There is a scene involving a talking fox, three animals consisting of; a deer and its stillborn calf, a self-cannibalizing fox, and a buried black crow that refuses to die. All three are insinuated as “The Three Beggars.” Perhaps guardians for this hell hole, in which She declares “nature is Satan’s church,” the three animals play integral roles in the eventual downfall of the couple. Obviously done on purpose, von Trier drenches much of his second half in ambiguity. Sometimes this can be done the wrong way. For instance, David Lynch’s most recent work “Inland Empire,” is so muddled and wrapped in its own cognitive world that we as the viewers, cannot cohesively make much of anything that was put forth onto the screen. While some may believe this philosophy can be applied to “Antichrist” it is my fairly firm belief that this film indefinitely had a thesis behind it. What is it to be exact? Well, I’m not here to explain that, although the inner film student in me (I’m really not one, but I like to think I am) would love to share some type of interpretation to strike engagement in viewing this NC-17 film.

Contrasting in casting an interpretation of the film, I can simply tell you that if you watch this with a buddy who is into art house productions or strange movie experiences as much as you are, you will be endlessly debating the overall meaning and ideology behind the film. But reviewing a film is to answer the age old question; was it any good? This particular reviewer thoroughly enjoyed most of what he saw displayed on the screen. It poses fascinating questions regarding nature and its exchanges with religious and psychotherapeutic theories, regardless of whether he was offended or shocked by the three minutes of indefensible gore that von Trier chose to eradicate from his arsenal. To sum this up, “Antichrist” appears to be a poetic study on a couple grieving over the loss of a child. However, explicated in its second half, the film dives into the nature of women, the battle of good vs. evil, the symbolic rebirth of man, the aforementioned conflict between Therapy and the natural order of human nature, the burdens one carries when processing grief, and the battles we face when confronted by psychological disorders. The ending is one that see’s a reverse in ideology for a certain character, and an occurrence that will probably have endless interpretations and contexts. Could I have asked for more?