Antichrist

“Antichrist”. Where do I begin with this film?! I am in my apartment, at night alone, and though I am grateful to be alone, as it is just one of those films…I’m still completely trembling from my experience viewing a movie that is both extremely beautiful and extremely grotesque. There is nothing mediocre here, everything is full-on something or other, whether psychotic, sad, hateful, loving, tender, hard…I found the last 30 or 40 minutes almost impossible to watch, I was squirming the whole time. That impresses me because I have never had a film do that to me before, but given some of the content involved I am not sure I could stand to watch it, at least in parts, ever again. I do appreciate the boldness with which Lars von Trier made this film. It is original in psychological depth and in stunning cinematography. The sound effects are well directed too. I recommend it but only if you aren’t a pantywaist, aka. obsequious 2-dimensional tool. This maybe is too heady for the average horror enthusiast.

Now don’t read anymore if you don’t want a spoiler….
I’m going to spoil….
Ok, did you ever see such an erotic and beautiful black and white scene that also involved a baby falling out a window to be crushed to death on conrete? And did I have to see Charlotte Gainsbourg, (my favorite Jane Eyre and Science of Sleep bookwormy darling), cut her vagina with scissors? That and when she was nailing the iron into surprisingly dashing Willem Defoe’s leg, ahhh! I thought Requiem for a Dream was a brilliant mix of captivating and cringe-worthy, but this takes the cake…that blood gushing form his leg and the scissors/vagina, it was the hardest thing to watch, it even surpassed what my imagination could envision from the terrible castration in “The Professor and the Madman”, or the scene in Murakami’s book “The Wind Up Bird Chronicle” when the soldier is being tortured and skinned alive, but that’s half because they are books and I probably took liberties to subdue their grotesqueness in my head, as my eyes wouldn’t allow in this film. Of course, my ears played tricks on me too with the terribly good music. I usually am disappointed by horror films but this one really sustained the suspense, created disturbances and outcomes I would never have imagined, visually and aurally enabled cringing and cooing. Damn’t, well done Lars von Trier. I hope I never have to see this again. Then again, it’s curiouser and curiouser, but I might have to replay it right soon.

The idea. Chapter headings include Pain, Grief, Despair. I suppose you could say there’s something for everyone in here! Some critics might complain von Trier is again mysoginistic, he’s tasteless, or off his rocker. I think he’s challenging our ideas of right and wrong, he’s elegantly assembled some nasty shit, and he’s interesting and only as unhinged as any other strong artist. “Nature is Satan’s church”. I suppose you can take what you will from Charlotte as she loopily coos the words. It may not seem so, but I’m pretty speechless. Really. I’m not sure yet how I feel because I’m a little disgusted by the aforementioned scenes. But I am obviously moved by something, so what is it? Ok, partly…I’m pretty much taking it as a touching film about a needy lady with a major guilt complex and an annoyingly objective, rational psychologist husband who has to figure what to do about it. This is what can happen when say you treat a spiritually starved emotional adult child with a tediously textbook diagnosis intermingled with your own frustrated desires. But there’s more.

I’ll conclude with a few words (ok, a lot of words, skim/skimp if you like) from my favorite wise cinema man, Ebert, because he has a knack for saying what I was thinking before I realized I was thinking it (PS. I gave it 4 out of 5 stars on netflix, it would be 5 for cinematic beauty but the misogyny is sometimes hard to swallow knowing that it was an intentional message about the evil of women, poopoo):

“Lars von Trier’s new film will not leave me alone. A day after many members of the audience recoiled at its first Cannes showing, “Antichrist” is brewing a scandal here; I am reminded of the tumult following the 1976 premiere of Oshima’s “In the Realm of the Senses” and its castration scene. I said I was looking forward to von Trier’s overnight reviews, and I haven’t been disappointed. Those who thought it was good thought it was very very good (“Something completely bizarre, massively uncommercial and strangely perfect”–Damon Wise, Empire) and those who thought it was bad found it horrid (“Lars von Trier cuts a big fat art-film fart with “Antichrist”–Todd McCarthy, Variety). I rarely find a serious film by a major director to be this disturbing. Its images are a fork in the eye. Its cruelty is unrelenting. Its despair is profound. Von Trier has a way of affecting his viewers like that. After his “Breaking the Waves” premiered at Cannes in 1996, Georgia Brown of the Village Voice fled to the rest room in emotional turmoil and Janet Maslin of the New York Times followed to comfort her. After this one, Richard and Mary Corliss blogged at Time.com that “Antichrist” presented the spectacle of a director going mad.
Enough time has passed since I saw the film for me to process my visceral reaction, and take a few steps back…..
I cannot dismiss this film. It is a real film. It will remain in my mind. Von Trier has reached me and shaken me. It is up to me to decide what that means. I think the film has something to do with religious feeling. It is obvious to anyone who saw “Breaking the Waves” that von Trier’s sense of spirituality is intense, and that he can envision the supernatural as literally present in the world. His reference is Catholicism. Raised by a communist mother and a socialist father in a restrictive environment, he was told as an adult that his father was not his natural parent, and renounced that man’s Judaism to convert, at the age of 30, to the Catholic church. It was at about the same age that von Trier founded the Dogma movement, with its monkish asceticism.
If you have to ask what a film symbolizes, it doesn’t. With this one, I didn’t have to ask. It told me. I believe “Antichrist” may be an exercise in alternative theology: von Trier’s version of those passages in Genesis where Man is cast from Eden and Satan assumes a role in the world.
The Prologue, a masterful sequence lovely b&w slow motion, shows a couple, He and She, making love while their innocent baby becomes fascinated by the sight of snow falling outside an open window, climbs up on the sill, and falls to his death. This is Man’s Fall from Grace. Consequently, She (Charlotte Gainsbourg) falls into guilt and depression so deep she is hospitalized. That is one half of Original Sin. The character named He (Willem Dafoe) insists she cut off her medication. He will cure her himself. That is the other half. Her sin is Despair. His is Pride. These are the two greatest sins against God.
He and She go to their country home, named Eden. He subjects her to merciless talk therapy, relentlessly chipping away at her rationalizations and defenses, explaining to her why she is wrong to feel the way she does. I suspect many of the reviews will focus on the physical violence She inflicts upon He in the next act of the film. It is important to note that the earlier psychological violence He inflicts is equally brutal. He talks and talks, boring away at her defenses, tearing at her psyche, exposing her. Listen to Dafoe’s voice in the trailer linked below. It could be used for Satan’s temptation of Christ in the desert.
There is little sense at Eden of real lives together; He and She they are locked in combat that seems their inescapable destiny after the loss of their child. The violence in the film is explicit, but is it intended to be realistic? I don’t believe you can have a hole drilled clean through your leg, an iron bar pushed through it, and a grindstone bolted to it, and do much other than be in agony. That He can even speak, let alone crawl into the woods, contend with her and defend himself, is remarkable. I think the violence illustrates the depth of her venom and that She, like He, will stop at nothing.
Images suggesting Bosch are evoked toward the end of the film. Human limbs rise up to grasp He and She as they have sex. There is a talking dog, bluebirds, a deer, inhabiting the world of Man. At the end He stands atop a hill while a legion of unnatural humans ascends toward him, evoking “Night of the Living Dead.” The suggestion is Biblical, but not from the Bible we know. The human figures are not naked, climbing toward birth, but clothed, climbing toward death. After their fall in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve learned shame, and covered their nakedness. In this evil world, they are created covered, and by their sins are cast out into nakedness.
Von Trier’s original intention, it’s said, was to reveal at the end that the world was created by Satan, not God: That evil, not goodness, reigns ascendant. His finished film reflects the same idea, but not as explicitly. The title “Antichrist” is the key. This is a mirror world. It is a sin to lose Knowledge rather than to eat of its fruit and gain it. She and He are behaving with such cruelty toward each other not as actual people, but as creatures inhabiting a moral mirror world. As much as they might comfort and love each other in our world after losing a child, so to the same degree in the mirror world they inflame each other’s pain and act out hatred. This would be the world created by Satan.
If I am right, then von Trier has proceeded with perfect logic. Just as a good world could not contain too much beauty and charity, an evil world could not have too much cruelty and hatred. He is making a moral statement. I’m not sure if he’s telling us how things are, or warning us of what could come. But I am sure he has not compromised his vision. He has been brave and strong, and made a film that fully reflects the pain of his own feelings. And his actors have been remarkably courageous in going all the way with him….
In his own defense here at Cannes, von Trier has described himself “the greatest director in the world.” Well, if Le Film Francais says he is merde, what can he be expected to say? He is certainly one of the most heroic directors in the world, uncompromising, resolute. He goes all the way and takes no prisoners. Do I believe his film “works?” Would I “recommend” it? Is it a “good” film? I believe von Trier doesn’t care how I or anyone else would reply to those questions. He had the ideas and feelings, he saw into the pit, he made the film, and here it is.”

I remember now that I read this review awhile back. Now I can safely say, having seen the film, that I do NOT think von Trier is the greatest director in the world. I do indeed think he is quite damn good. But I would never date him. Nor would I EVER want to walk alone with him in the woods. Nope.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s