Antichrist Review

Posted by Len Archibald on 10.23.2009

Does Lars Von Trier's new film deserve the title of "Most Controversial Film of 2009"? Will "Chaos Reign"? Read on to find out...

"Antichrist" Review

Willem Dafoe - He
Charlotte Gainsbourg - She

Written and Directed by Lars Von Trier
Produced by Zentropa Entertainments
Distributed by IFC Films

No MPAA Rating but contains scenes of explicit hardcore sex, extreme violence, gore, profanity, and frightening/intense scenes. Intended for Adults Only. In English.

Runtime - 105 minutes



I watched Danish filmmaker Lars Von Trier’s latest project, the appropriately-titled Antichrist days after it had made it's debut at the 2009 Toronto Film Festival and needed a couple of days to allow the images and story to digest – before watching it three more times. It is not an easy film to get through. It is also not one that can be easily put down - probably because it is very well made. It has made “waves” (credit to anyone who understands that little nod) around the two major film festivals, Cannes and Toronto and has split the audience under its controversy. Much like French auteur Gaspar Noe’s study in time vs. depravity, Irreversible (2005), either one will think Antichrist is a pure instantaneous masterpiece…or a master piece of shit. I think it’s simply a very, very good second draft.

Antichrist revolves around a three-chapter (with prologue and epilogue) story of “He” (Willem Dafoe) and “She” (Charlotte Gainsbourg) as a married couple who recently lost their son in a horrific accident. While making passionate love, he climbed a window and fell to his death. “She” is grief-stricken, to the point where she is put on medication. “He” believes she has been put on too much medication and it is in fact a crutch that isn’t allowing her to properly reconcile with her loss. “He” decides to take it upon himself to cure his wife of her ills. The illness isn't overmedication, but “Grief” itself.

The opening “prologue”, shot in stark black and white and in slow motion is some of the most beautiful photography I have ever witnessed on film. Cinematographer Antony Dod Mantle could literally take frames of each shot and teach them in a film class on how to use light, shadow, composition and exposure to achieve maximum effect. That includes a particular .5 second shot that resides in this prologue. If you want to know what it is, you can find it on the internet. My job is to review the film, not spoil it.

This is why a film like Antichrist is maddening. You can witness true talent at work. Lars Von Trier is an extremely gifted craftsman, who fully understands how to frame images that linger in your mind and evoke a strong emotion, but then falls back into the age-old cliché of “shocking for the sake of shock”. He washes out light behind Willem Dafoe for two key moments of the film (reminiscent of a famous shot from Eraserhead) and it looks right, because it feels right – despite the nonsensical manner in which it is displayed. The worse criticism to give to ANY film, regardless of its content is “too ambiguous”. Some films can get away with a sense of mystery and intrigue (2001: A Space Odyssey, Halloween) and others crumble under the weight of it (Public Enemies, The Limits of Control.)

“He” takes “She” to where it is revealed “She” is most exposed, vulnerable and fearful; “Eden”, their retreat in the woods. The exteriors of Eden - the lush green, yet towering and dark forest surrounding the damp cabin it is magnificent, giving sequences a terror-filled dreamlike atmosphere. It is here where “He” undergoes tedious psychological exercises, therapy sessions, banal conversations and peel away at his wife’s insecurities. “She” asks “He” at one point if he loves her, and he responds affirmatively, but I wonder; if “He” truly loved her, wouldn’t he allow his wife the space on her own to grieve? He never allows her this space, constantly chipping away, asking her questions, giving her his opinions and theories – treating it all as fact. Even when “She” displays some form of forward progress about her fears towards Eden, he balks. It can’t be that simple. “She” wonders if “He” is ever happy with her. This is “Pain”.

Charlotte Gainsbourg deserves an Academy Award nomination. She literally takes her character to the pit of hell, beyond, does a few laps, and returns to reality only to travel back. Whether or not a viewer agrees with the content of a film, there is something to be said when an actor is able to display a rainbow of raw human emotion – and does it convincingly well. “She” is a walking embodiment of despair: she shakes, screams, goes mute, finds adrenaline, exposes herself (completely…literally…completely) and is never false about it. It is a magnificent, bitter performance. Her orgasmic moans of pleasure during certain moments double as unyielding cries of agony.

Willem Dafoe has been known to take on strange roles and allow himself to go through extensive physical torture – the man played Jesus Christ on his way to Calvary. I would actually go as far to proclaim that this is Dafoe’s performance as Jesus in Bizzarro World. A lot of Dafoe’s acting is nuanced and more dialogue driven, but drips with sadism and a heightened sense of pride. A monologue he gives on a train sounds more akin to the Devil tempting Christ on the mountaintop than a therapy session. Both of these actors gave everything they could for Von Trier, and he should thank them wholeheartedly. Von Trier is no stranger to pulling some of the rawest performances out of his actors – mainly his female ones. Bjork (Dancer in the Dark), Nicole Kidman (Dogville) and Emily Watson (Breaking The Waves) have given lightening in a bottle type performances for the demanding filmmaker.

Now, in regards to the now-infamous final third of the film, entitled “Despair” – the one in which Antichrist received boos from the audience and a “0” rating from the judges at Cannes – and the lingering question that is constantly posed, “Is this a horror film?”: First, I do not feel this is a horror movie – not in the conventional sense. I think fans of The Evil Dead, Susperia or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre will be severely disappointed, as they would need to stay for the better part of 50 minutes and get through some well-written, yet seemingly banal and tedious dialogue to get to the meat, and perhaps the “real” reason they would want to see this film. This is more akin to a “psychological drama” with a “special guest” scene directed by Alexandre Aja. Also, I don’t feel the violence is as extreme as people make it out to be (even though it is NOT for people who willingly enjoy Tyler Perry films – not that there is anything wrong with that; it is just not for that kind of audience.) I think Irreversible had a more graphic scene of violence.

The violence in Antichrist, in my opinion, is not realistic. Of course, this may have to do more with the world that “He” and “She” inhabits than the actual physics. Roger Ebert believes that the violence depicted is a representation of how passionate “He” and “She” are to each other, and the depths of their emotions. I will give you this much – which isn’t a spoiler, but just the basic theory one may need to understand in entering this film: The world that exists is opposite of ours. The theory here is that Satan, not God created Man, so the spiritual realm in which this Earth revolves in is a little different than what we may expect. This is the reasoning behind the title. “Antichrist” does not describe Satan’s spawn, but the mirror universe – “Anti”, as in opposite. “He” has committed pride, “She” has committed despair, the two primal sins against God, but in a world where Satan reigns, anything goes…I suppose.

There is also another, far more diabolical theory in this film. Observe what symbol is used for the letter “T” in the title’s font. “She” is writing a thesis about medieval misogyny and witchcraft, only to fall victim under the spell of her own research. What is Von Trier trying to say? That Woman is inherently evil? Or perhaps, that in our “real” world, it is Man that is evil. It’s never explored further and little misses like that, unfortunately, is the main criticism of this film.

I will give credit where credit is due: Lars Von Trier has created a universe that is completely honest and logical to his theory. In our world, when a couple tragically loses a child, they will more often than not form a bond that will bring them closer where love and a sense of understanding will help ease the pain. In Von Trier’s, it can only destroy. Nature – Human Nature, is “Satan’s Church” so hate is the dominant emotion that stirs the heart. The chants, sounds and music that fill the air of “Eden” give a sense of impeding dread; the sounds of acorns and hail falling along the rooftop of the cabin sound like violent explosions from the darkest mind. It is a triumph of atmosphere and style. But style is not the only thing that makes a movie great.

Let me end by saying that my two eyes have seen many “atrocities” on the big and small screen in the name of “movies” and “art”: Cannibal Holocaust, Salo: The 120 Days of Sodom, Caligula, and other smaller films that I sometimes wonder if I had just witnessed a snuff film – or a reason to have a pretty actress fellate over the filmmaker (See Gallo, Vincent.) Over the years, filmmakers, film critics and film goers in general have grown accustomed - or desensitized - to more “shocking” fare. Whether that has helped or hurt the art of film is another debate altogether, but that mindset may have assisted me.

The films I mentioned above are ones I can’t stand. Sure, they deal with some of the more gruesome images and ideas put to celluloid, but the macabre has been around human existence for the beginning of time. I would have more respect for these films if they were well made. The moral dilemma is, “Should Antichrist be condemned for its use of shocking, not-so-borderline pornographic imagery (both of the sexual and “torture” label) or applauded for its bold thesis, compelling performances and extraordinary photography?”

I want to give more credit, but as it stands, I feel Lars Von Trier’s latest effort is full of great, complete performances and photography bogged down by an *almost* great, yet incomplete story and unfulfilled idea.

Not that Lars Von Trier cares what I, or any other critic for that matter, cares what we think.

The 411: Antichrist is an exquisitely-shot and superbly acted piece of cinema with an underlying theory that is fascinating for its audacity. I feel if Von Trier explored the idea in a more complete manner, the final acts of violence would have been twice as unsettling (or perhaps, not even needed to be as graphic in nature) and he may have achieved the best film of the year. As for now, it is just another “good” film in a year full of “great” ones. The only thing that sets it apart from other “good” movies is its own impending infamy. It may be forever cursed to be known as “that movie” with “those scenes”, instead of being a great film, where “those scenes” would have accentuated it. It will be a limited release - check it out...if you dare!

Final Score:  8.0   [ Very Good ]