Antichrist review

I have been a Lars von Trier fan for several years now ever since my good friend Paul recommended a few of his movies to me. I was really excited after reading reviews of Antichrist at Cannes, and even more excited when Paul said he could come visit to see the movie. Unfortunately things don’t always work out as planned and that’s not going to happen, so I ended up going with my friend Ken instead. The movie is surely intense and really not something I’d recommend to everybody, but for fans of serious indie flicks it is really a must see, as long as you have a strong stomach. I’ve sat through both Hostels and five of the six Saw films and they don’t hold a candle to this puppy. Check out the trailer, and my review below:

Lars von Trier’s Antichrist is an uncompromising film that pushes viewers to their limits and challenges the audience to think about the nature of evil. It is unabashedly dark and bleak and definitely not a film for everybody. A simple plot combined with gorgeous filmmaking and two extraordinary performances make Antichrist worth seeing, but it is surely not for the faint of heart. It is not an exaggeration or hyperbole to say that there are certain images from this movie I can’t get out of my head, though I would very much like to.

Antichrist opens with an epilogue that is one of the most beautifully shot sequences I have ever seen, filmed in slow-motion black and white set to soaring opera. A couple, credited only as He and She, make love in their apartment while in another room their infant son escapes his baby gate and falls out an open window. Things go down hill from there. She (Charlotte Gainsbourg) is grief stricken and hospitalized after the incident, He (William Dafoe) concludes that he can use his skills as a therapist to help her better than her doctors could. Those that are familiar with von Trier’s work should immediately recognize that such an act of arrogance cannot go unpunished. The couple goes to their cabin in the woods, tellingly named Eden, to mourn and heal. He creates a series of therapeutic exercises for She that become increasingly difficult for her until she finally snaps and subjects He and herself to nauseating acts of sexual violence.

After the epilogue the films proceeds through four chapters: “Grief”, “Pain (Chaos Reigns)”, “Despair (Gynocide)” and “The Three Beggars” before finally concluding with an epilogue. As with many of von Trier’s films Antichrist relies heavily on symbolism and subtext more than actual plot to make his statements. I found Antichrist to be more ambiguous than many of his other films, something like Dancer in the Dark seems almost straightforward in comparison. As with all great avant-garde cinema Antichrist is certainly open to interpretations as to what this enigmatic film is about. I’ve considered several theories and find few to be rather compelling. The first would be that this film is exactly an inversion of the Christ story, with She as an evil female the direct opposite of the male Christ. This is supported by opposing symbolism to the Christ story, such as three beggars instead of three kings, the death of an infant instead of a birth…etc. Much of the film deals with the nature of evil as well as evil within nature, a paradox that seems illogical but seductive at the same time.

The other interpretations I found were more literal, that the absence of Christ in the lives of He and She allow both of them to spiral into madness and despair at the loss of their child. There are clues that She has Munchausen syndrome (by proxy) subtly planted throughout the film, feeling neglected she will harm herself or the child for attention and sympathy. He is not an innocent in this either, as the film continues on their shared psychosis depends on his cruelly withholding the affection she clearly needs in favor of superficially professional “therapeutic” help. As the story continues a literal interpretation draws many parallels to the shared delusions of the couple in the 2006 film Bug.

Stylistically Antichrist is a great achievement, at once hauntingly beautiful and shockingly graphic. The saturated greens of the scenery are truly breathtaking as is the close attention paid to detail in all the slow-motion sequences. A largely atonal score adds a sense of foreboding to even the most innocuous sequences. Dreamlike images of falling rain and acorns are contrasted by nightmarish reanimated animal corpses that speak directly to He. It must be stressed that the violence in this film is extreme, repulsive and unflinchingly filmed. The seriousness of the film makes the violence even more disturbing than similarly graphic depictions in movies like Hostel, which eases the discomfort with a ludicrous bordering on campy plot. The fact that my screening was prefaced by an announcement from theater management that the audience has to leave in the first half hour to receive a refund should give a pretty good indication of what to expect. I do not doubt any of the reports of fainting that are said to have occurred at Cannes when the film debuted.

It would be inconceivable to write about Antichrist and not mention the riveting performances of the leads. Both Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Dafoe deliver award worthy performances full of raw emotion (Gainsbourg has already won Best Actress at Cannes for this performance). With characters that experience everything from sexual ecstasy to gut wrenching torment it truly is a wonderful showcase for acting talents. Erotic and explicit love scenes combined with depression, despair and torture take the actors to places many wouldn’t be willing to go, but Gainbourg and Dafoe do so fearlessly. It is perhaps the most exposed, physically and emotionally, I can remember two actors ever being onscreen. Through the starkly poetic imagery of the setting to the visceral brutality of the action the performances ground the film in reality. Antichrist is a challenging film, but those who are willing to explore the depths of darkness in sinks to will appreciate its craftsmanship, beauty and through provocation.