MUBI

Antes de entrar na sessão de um filme como “Anticristo”, é necessário saber quem é Lars Von Trier, e já ter assistido a algum de seus filmes anteriores também contribui bastante para a experiência. Aos 53 anos de idade, Von Trier já coleciona em sua filmografia algumas obras-primas do cinema contemporâneo. Apesar dos estilos variados, seus filmes sempre carregam um ponto em comum: a polêmica. Foi assim com “Dançando no Escuro”, quando Bjork jurou que jamais faria outro filme depois da experiência com o diretor. Foi com “Dogville” que Lars criou um verdadeiro épico em um palco de teatro, sem cenários e quase sem objetos em cena. Recentemente, com “O Grande Chefe”, utilizou recursos técnicos em que a própria câmera escolhia quase aleatoriamente os quadros que ia filmar. Por que em “Anticristo” ele faria diferente?

A premissa é simples, mas só aparentemente não traz nada de inovador. Um casal (Willem Dafoe e Charlotte Gainsbourg) perde um filho pequeno em um trágico acidente, e decide se mudar para uma cabana no meio de uma floresta isolada, como forma de o marido (psicoterapeuta) ajudar a mulher a sair da depressão, de dimunuirem o sentimento de culpa (foi durante uma relação sexual do casal que o filho sofreu o acidente), de auto-punição. A coisa fica mais interessante quando descobrimos que a tal floresta é o “Éden”, que, apesar do nome, está longe de ser o paraíso. Aqui a aproximação possível entre a perda do filho e o pecado original de Adão e Eva, que os fez perder o Éden.

A história é dividida em 6 partes: O “Prólogo” e o “Epílogo”, e quatro capítulos centrais, intitulados “Dor”, “Luto”, “Desespero” e “Os Três Mendigos”. Depois de toda polêmica que o longa causou em Cannes, as cenas extremamente violentas já não são novidade para ninguém que ainda não viu o filme. Ainda mais já sabendo que Von Trier é um diretor polêmico, e Anticristo não será um filme para assistir na sessão da tarde.

Falando sobre a estética, este é sem dúvida o longa mais bem cuidado da carreira do diretor (lembrando que eu não assisti a nada dele anterior a “Dançando no Escuro”). O prólogo traz uma longa sequência em slow motion, que já se tornou uma das cenas mais lindas que vi no cinema nos últimos tempos. Grandes closes de cenas fortes, misturadas à cenas aflitivas da criança, tudo em tons bem azulados, ao som de canto gregoriano. Difícil de explicar. É o tipo de coisa que tem de ver para crer. E na telona, por favor. Ao longo dos capítulos centrais, o diretor retoma seu estilo peculiar de câmera na mão, planos bem abertos, e detalhes sempre chocantes.

E por falar em chocante, as cenas na floresta realmente chocam. E muito! Em mais de uma cena, eu não tive vergonha em assumir que não aguentaria e tapei meus olhos com as mãos, deixando a famosa fresta entre os dedos para, ao mesmo tempo, não perder um só segundo do filme. Mas o que pega mesmo em Anticristo não é o terror. As cenas são pesadas mesmo. Além das cenas de sexo, diversas cenas de mutilação completam as intermináveis discussões do casal.

Pra quem acha que fica apenas na polêmica, pode se surpreender ao perceber o quão profunda é a discussão temática do filme. A luta entre o bem e o mal é tema central, camuflada ou permeada pela dor dos pais ao perder o filho, recheado de conceitos filosóficos, científicos e até místicos. Pouco antes do final, começa a parecer que de fato “Anticristo” é polêmico apenas pela violência, e não passa disso. Mas o Epílogo fecha a narrativa com chave de ouro, te fazendo repensar o quão gratuito realmente podem ser consideradas algumas daquelas cenas.

Volto a insistir que quem assistir ao filme sem conhecer o universo do diretor (ou de outras obras no estilo), dificilmente assistirá ao mesmo filme que eu vi. Este não é um filme de terror convencional, que muitos estão acostumados a assistir com um belo saco de pipoca. Anticristo é obra de arte, e só reforça o status de Lars Von Trier, que ao longo dos créditos, dedica o filme à Andrei Tarkovsky, um dos mestres do cinema russo, famoso pela eterna discussão do funcionamento da vida e do espírito dos homens.

Antichrist : A Discussion

One of the most provocative films of the last decade, Lars Von Trier’s Antichrist seems to defy numerous genre obstacles and becomes a generous addition to his canon of work. As always a controversial director, Antichrist left audiences at Cannes either enthralled or appalled; many demanded that Von Trier either justify the creation of the film or simply to justify why he would think judges and jury at the Cannes Film Festival would respect such a work.

It is easy to understand why someone would be offended or even disgusted by the film that Von Trier has created; it is not an easy to digest picture for a fast-food audience, especially for an English language horror film, whose audience usually demands quick scares and forgettable pictures which could hardly classify as art, but more as part of a corporate agenda to sell tickets. Antichrist sells something far more intriguing and enthralling to its audience, something that could simply be lost on much of its core audience. For fans of Von Trier’s previous work, this seems only to be an extension of various themes he has covered in films such as Dogville and Dancer in the Dark.

Through his extensive depression, which led to the creation of the film, Von Trier managed to use cinema as a tool to excise his own proverbial demons; the characters in Antichrist may very well be extensions of Von Trier’s own psyche. It seems to be both a stark, personal film but at the same time a very broad, striking critique of many things that society seems to hold dear. When a film is called Antichrist, it is obvious that the picture is going to contain some sort of religious context, but through dialogue we vaguely obtain anything involving religion, except for perhaps a cabin nicknamed ‘Eden’ and a single line spoken by Gainsbourg claiming that “Satan is nature’s church.” In order for Antichrist to truly be appreciated as something more than an extremely well shot and directed act of disturbing and provocative art, one has to at least vaguely be familiar with various Christian ideologies and how they would pertain to the film.

What may be the most essential piece of the Christian puzzle to the film would be the story of Adam and Eve. Eve is described in Genesis as an evil and malignant individual, who is responsible for destroying the Garden of Eden for the rest of the world and forcing everyone into original sin by eating from the forbidden fruit. While this may seem trite, considering that the log cabin is in fact called Eden, it sheds light on why She (Gainsbourg and Dafoe’s characters are never given names, so descriptions of the picture simply refer to the characters as ‘He’ and ‘She’) becomes such a vengeful and hateful persona by the climax of the picture. She intended to write her thesis (no more details are provided on this) on the concept of gynocide (a term coined by feminists relating to Christianity’s consistent torture and violent nature towards women throughout history) and how blatantly ignorant and wrong religion was to enforce such hate towards the women which inhabited the planet. As the film progresses however, the audience is shown that She has in fact supported the Church’s claims and agrees that women are in fact inherently evil and must be punished eternally for their mere existence.

He is furious that his wife has managed to completely reverse her thesis into believing exactly what the true heretics (religious hate-mongers of previous centuries) believed was not only right but necessary to ensure the safety and purity of the world. The film however conveys that She had serious signs of mental distress at Eden, and injured her son as well as lost sanity at the cabin. Her writings on gynocide became increasingly less legible until they became the scribbling of an insane member of society, probably not even readable by their author.

Putting forth too much effort on deciphering the religious aspect of Antichrist would only leave numerous other stones unturned however, as the film certainly contains more than one layer of inference and intrigue. The film continually pokes fun at therapists and psychology as a whole, despite being a victim of its own distressed and disturbed psychological palate. His ultimate failure at aiding Her in any way may very well be Von Trier succumbing to the very fantasy that many religious individuals hold so dear; the concept that many things in life are simply uncontrollable and unexplainable, and are the result of some sort of higher figure or being behind the scenes manipulating the human race like pawns on a chessboard. He cannot comprehend that there is perhaps something of a far higher order than a psychological analysis can even begin to comprehend or diagnose. The three figures of Grief, Despair and Pain are only a symbol of three emotions that are sometimes beyond any aid from the pharmaceutical -addled world of today, and are far more shrouded in the ancient mystifying religious stories of the past.

What would seem more logical however is that Von Trier, being the cinematic anarchist he usually enjoys to portray, has simply thrown the rule book out entirely; in essence he has said ‘shame on religion, and shame on science too, because both are meaningless and irrelevant.’ In a way, Antichrist is a giant middle finger to both opposing sides of the power struggle of ideologies across the planet. In doing so it becomes a very interesting social commentary on both religion and science, and turns its unnamed characters into symbols of the continuing struggle. Judging by the events in the film, does Von Trier then condemn religion as a violent, malevolent beast, and science to be its logical savior, the one which vanquishes such hate and disgust for humanity? The fact that the answers are not given blatantly to the viewer is only a testament to Von Trier’s entire point; just because he is a filmmaker which cares more about quality over quantity, he still wants to leave the audience pondering after the credits. In his desperation to do this, he crossed many lines by incorporating some extremely brutal and graphic scenes in the film, concerning themselves wholly of a higher purpose than similar shock tactics used by hack directors like Eli Roth. Von Trier is first and foremost an auteur and an artist, not a shock jockey. His films have raised controversy, and rightly so, but not ever without a purpose or reasoning. Is anything more relevant today than the clashing struggle between the old archaic rhetoric of a modern day religious pastiche, and the ever evolving scientific discovery and explanations that follow?

Those who deem Antichrist a ‘high-brow’ or ‘pretentious’ film know little about film itself, the term pretentious itself usually has absolutely nothing to do with pictures that are deemed as such by critics which cannot comprehend the works presented to them. Many also have termed the film as unapologetically misogynistic, without noticing that it is the character who believes women to be evil that is vanquished. The death of Her only proves Von Trier’s attempt to silence any justification of the atrocities suffered by women throughout the ages. As it stands Antichrist is an equally disturbing and thought provoking drama. Beautifully shot, and excellently performed (despite the controversy Gainsbourg won Best Actress at Cannes), Antichrist is along the lines of Pascal Laugier’s Martyrs as a horror film with a far higher purpose than a body count and unnecessary profanity and film clichés. To state that it is an important and standout film in a genre which is more or less dead in the English speaking world is an understatement.

Something of a Frankenstein’s Monster – both thematically and stylistically – with the all too viscerally raw treatment of its subject matter patched with a generally over-stylised visual surface with about half a dozen styles abrasively jostling for attention.

As an experience it’s not without interest, but that’s what it felt like: an experience (with all the allusions to the fairground and raw sensation). It’s essentially penny plain story is over layered (smothered even) in so much top dressing and hard-edged shock, that it almost becomes a staccato succession of sensations (rather than anything more cerebrally engaging) and the stiff, unconvincing dialogue rarely engages, especially in the psycho-babble that reveals ittle. One wished to scream out at various points that grief stricken characterisation is not just established by tears and screaming; yet here short-hand sketches seems to suffice in a paucity of true introspection supplanted by a wanton need to shock and let it all hang out.

Structurally it reminded me a little of the dread conveyed in the segmental Salo with its downward spiral of chapters; plus Misery, countless horror films and even the Tall Guy in that rather daftly set-up Prologue.

I rather liked its organic allusions to mans primitive place in nature (somewhat Green Man in tone), but even these felt more like decorative flourishes diminished by whooshing sound and stylised visuals than anything truly integral. Visual surface is not enough.

Sometimes one wishes to strip film makers of the SFX box of tricks and Dolby Digital sound and practically chain them to pen-and-paper in pursuit of a purposefully scripted story, not a dozen short pop videos and commercials laced together.

This is my first Von Trier experience and also the coldest film I’ve seen in years. I felt the uncomfortable lack of warmth throughout the film. This is a full-throtte depressng film. It was mostly about sex and then death, and then sex again, and then death again. I believe Von Trier reached his goal with this one. Who wouldn’t love this film? Many, that’s for sure! But I ain’t one of them. “Antichrist” is dark, distrubing, and crazy! It’s a grim film that wants you to feel the torment its characters do. I loved it! Literally one hell of an experience!

Fuera de toda polémica, la nueva película de Lars Von Trier es una de las mas interesantes del año pasado. Interesante por lo curioso de su realización, su puesta en escena y los temas que maneja, todo ello analizado y contrastado en el contexto en que se estrena y con el trabajo anterior de su director.

Von Trier quien fuera uno de los principales pioneros de un nuevo tipo de cine que se revelaba contra todo lo “artificial y poco realista en que se había convertido el cine” gracias en gran parte al culto a lo cosmético y efectista del cine industrial estadounidense.

En todo caso Von Trier, junto con Thomas Vinterberg, buscaba despersonalizar la realización cinematográfica con el manifiesto de Dogma 95, básicamente se intentaba conseguir un tipo de cine que no dependiera de los adelantos técnicos para la época (estamos hablando de 1995).

Pues bien desde ese entonces hasta el día de hoy Von Trier debe habérselo pensado mejor y decidió renunciar a ese manifiesto pues Antichrist hubiese sido imposible de realizar bajo esa propuesta o por lo menos el resultado, según creo yo, no hubiese tenido el mismo impacto que la película que tenemos ahora.

En primer lugar gracias a lo adelantado de la tecnología digital (la película se filmó con una cámara de vídeo digital de alta definición) las imágenes que logra capturar Von Trier son hasta cierto punto hiperrealistas. Sin embargo creo que a pesar de que podría considerarse que esta decisión es en detrimento del argumento (excesivamente sencillo, creo que es lo único que decidió conservar del Dogma 95) la verdad es que ayuda demasiado a desarrollar el tema de la misma que en mi opinión sencillamente es: el terror está en nosotros. El terror está dentro de nosotros.

Temáticamente la película me hizo recordar a otros largometrajes como La Noche de los Muertos Vivientes (George A. Romero, 1968), donde el conflicto viene precisamente de los personajes. Tal conflicto es acrecentado por las circunstancias de espacio y tiempo en las que se encuentran estos personajes.

Y con respecto a las escenas de violencia explícita que le han ganado a la película cierta polémica, puedo decir que están hechas con bastante elegancia, mostrando lo necesario. Muchas otras películas de terror actuales son mucho más generosas cuando se trata de mostrar sangre, este no es el caso.

En todo caso me atrevo a asegurar que es una de las películas más accesibles del director danés. Es como si Von Trier estuviese luchando por no ser Von Trier. De hecho es una película especialmente interesante de estudiar para aquellos que estamos interesados en el funcionamiento de una historia. Von Trier se ha sacado una película utilizando pocas locaciones y solo dos actores. En tiempos de crisis es algo a considerar.

The troubles of a grieving married couple (Willem Dafoe, Charlotte Gainsbourg) soon grow exponentially worse when they travel out to a cabin in the woods in order for the wife to overcome her fear of nature. The fear that she has, in fact, causes her physical pain and as a result her end of the grieving process has been a lot more troublesome, coupled with the fact that she blames herself for the death of their newborn baby who accidentally kills himself in the opening of the film. The wife had taken their baby up to the same cabin prior to the accident in order to write a thesis on historical atrocities. The husband, naturally, understands that her connection with these woods is what intensifies her guilt and therefore challenges her to confront her fears. However, things start going wrong. After several grotesque warnings from their woodland surroundings and an even more terrible revelation involving the circumstances surrounding their child’s death, it becomes clearer and clearer that there is a deep seated evil that lingers even deeper than the woods. Bloodshed, sexual mutilation, and terrible pain and agony ensue.

I apologize ahead of time for the unorthodox nature of this review, because I cannot tell you what this film is exactly. I think that however you react to this film will depend on your knowledge of film, your interest in horror film, your feelings about violence and the way people react to it, and your own bloodlust. This is a very subjective film, and I doubt that any two people who think that it works will like it for the exact same reasons that the other does. The most non-subjective way to put this film would be to call it an unusual horror film. I know that often times, when viewing or reviewing a film, it’s important to separate the knowledge that you have about a particular motion picture from the initial first viewing of the same motion picture. Well, with this one I could not really do that. Really, how could I? The film was met with more jeers than most films in Cannes film history, and it was even the recipient of the first ever Anti-award for it’s extreme themes and images of what most people would call pure misogyny. It also won Charlotte Gainsbourg a lot of acclaim, and she received the best actress award. So basically all I knew about the film was that a lot of people thought it was a very misogynist film, even more so than Von Trier’s previous works, and that Charlotte Gainsbourg’s performance is extraordinary. One thing is for sure, her performance here is about as good as any female performance I have seen this decade. Her performance has already become the stuff of legend, and I can MOST DEFINITELY see why. My god. Her work here chilled me to the bone. It is a heartbreaking, shocking, sickening, and at times slightly tender performance that I found tough to shake. I can see why her performance gets hailed alongside performances such as Isabelle Huppert in the rather quietly ferocious The Piano Teacher (2001) and Isabelle Adjani in the deeply deeply disturbing Possession (1981). Here, Charlotte Gainsbourg reaches the same level of genuine bodily horror, physical exertion, fearless emotion, and breathtaking beauty. It is one of the most unpleasant female performances I’ve ever seen and I almost hated parts of it due to how shattering her emotional impact was. I think that’s how the horror of this film works the most.

Looking at the film itself, is it a misogynist picture? Definitely. That’s not to say that Lars Von Trier is a misogynist, but it’s easy to see why based alone on the female character in his own The Element of Crime. Here we have Antichrist, and this film is misogynist for completely different reasons. Antichrist may be a horror film, but above all it is an exploration of misogyny and the use of misogyny as an art form above all. When looking at the film in this way, there are a lot of things that make more sense. Von Trier has some incredibly fascinating ideas about guilt and how guilt can be used as a weapon against the people who you love (or in some cases who you pretend to love), but upon deeper thought the circumstances surrounding the grotesque series of events in the last act of the film seem a lot more simple. People force themselves to believe in good and evil, the film appears to be saying, but looking at the world in such a black and white way can cloud our judgment and make things complicated when the actual explanation is a whole lot more simple. I personally do not believe in true evil, and that’s probably why I found this film to be so deeply disturbing in some ways. The husband in this film is mostly an unassuming, conflicted victim, despite taking part of the blame for the tragic events that occur in this film. Because of this, we are forcibly distanced from both of them so as to get more of a sense of their chemistry and less of a sense of their personal feelings and reservations. Because of this, the film’s suspense is a lot more effective. We don’t know for sure what these characters are willing to lose, and that’s where the film succeeds at being a horror film. Looking at the film as it is, however, it would be impossible for a person who is truly misogynist to make a film like this. Alfred Hitchcock is probably the most blatant example of this, despite the fact that he’s a brilliant filmmaker and an even more brilliant storyteller. A lot of horror film directors have successfully garnered horror out of women being stalked and hunted by mad psycho killers and monsters. Even Brian DePalma is guilty of the same thing! We’re talking about the guy who made Carrie (1976) here! Just take a look at his extremely tragic suspense thriller Blow-Out (1981) starring John Travolta and Nancy Allen. It’s one of my favorite films of all time. It’s a perfect film in my opinion. Looking at it today, however, there are some very misogynist images and themes that run throughout. The film works, first and foremost, as a political suspense thriller, so obviously this isn’t important. The film, however, opens with a man looking through several windows at several girls, some of whom show skin. Yes, the reasons for this gratuitousness are explained soon after, but that doesn’t mean that the audience to escape the fact that we just saw women take off their clothes and be displayed as almost alarmingly vulnerable. It wasn’t the film’s intention to look deeply into those scenes, and so it’s important that we don’t. The major difference between a film like Blow-Out and a film like Antichrist, however, is that for the former it’s not necessary to think about the female characters in order to be kept in horrific suspense by the film. With Antichrist, it really is necessary. Ironically, after viewing Antichrist, I watched a film that does exactly what Blow-Out does, only to the utmost extreme. It is a film that I cringe just saying the title of, because I know that it’s probably the most controversial film in a long time. A Serbian Film (2010). Yes, trust me. I am ashamed. I’ll share my thoughts on that film sometime after this review. This much I will say though. This is a very graphic film that has some disturbing scenes involving torture and bodily mutilation, but comparing A Serbian Film to Antichrist is like comparing Jaws (1975) to Flipper (1996). It is so much worse than Antichrist. Actually, A Serbian Film is probably the most disturbing film I’ve ever seen. But anyway, enough about that. I’ll talk plenty about it in it’s review.

Even if you aren’t the kind of person who will be scared by a film like Antichrist, chances are you will at least be haunted a bit by it or at least shaken up. That has a lot to do with the way it is photographed. The look of the film is very dark, luscious, and slightly dingy. It’s also very colorful and not washed out at all. The shots of the trees and plants and the entire atmosphere that accompanies it is nothing short of breathtaking. The shots of the woods and of the interior locations reminded me deeply of Tarkovsky’s The Mirror (1975). In fact, if there’s any film I can say that this is inspired by, it’d be The Mirror. They both have the same dreamlike quality, the same emotional imagery, and the same sense of disorientation. Antichrist is kind of like a cross between The Mirror and Häxan. The film’s only humorous aspect, in fact, comes in the form of a dedication to Andrei Tarkovsky in the credits for the film. I do not know whether Tarkovsky would have loved or hated this film, but one’s thing for sure. He likely would have at least laughed at the ending credit dedication. Lets face it. Lars Von Trier loves to pick fights. His only reason for including that dedication, as far as I understand, is so that he can try and claim the title of being the next official Tarkovsky-esque filmmaker. It’s something he’s been trying to do ever since he made The Element of Crime. I mean yes, Von Trier went off the deep-end when he started making films in the mid to late-nineties that took place in heightened reality. Antichrist is a combination of both of his styles. His stylized and visually provocative style used in The Element of Crime, Europa/Zentropa, and The Kingdom, and his raw, horrific, and personal approach used in Breaking the Waves, Dancer in the Dark, and Dogville. Above all of that, I see Antichrist as a faerie tale in the style of the Brothers Grimm. It has the talking animal, the colorful setting, the dark tone, and the idea of something from the past coming back to bite you in the ass. When I looked at Antichrist as that, I found it to be an almost enjoyable descent into psychological madness and the destruction of togetherness amongst two beings who want nothing in life other than for one half to complete the other and likewise. It is heartbreaking, yes, but there is a lesson to be learned.

So despite personal feelings toward Von Trier’s approach to the nature of evil, I found Antichrist to be an effectively scary, beautifully made little film with a lot to offer the cinematically adventurous and even more for those seeking a challenge within their own personal beliefs about misogyny in film. Above all, however, if one is to view this film they need to be able to want to be challenged and they need to be willing to be frustrated if the film is going to allow it’s emotions and it’s humanity shine through. I haven’t talked about the sexual content of the film because I’m not even sure what to think. I will say that I do find a couple of scenes to be a little too gratuitous, but I think that it’s a very creepy and very haunting little film. Is it my favorite film of Von Trier’s? No way. I will say though that in terms of challenging cinema and challenging images, it succeeds in spades. I think it’s a brilliant return to form in the vein of unfiltered and stylized filmmaking, and I cannot wait to see what Von Trier is planning on making with his next film. He’s one of the weirdest filmmakers out there, but if he can make more films like this and continue to show no fear in abusing the viewing audience then he’ll most definitely be remembered. Hell, I already appreciate the cinema of Von Trier about as much as I appreciate the cinema of Tarkovsky.

it’s hard for me to “rate” this movie with a; 3 out of 5 stars or a thumbs up/thumbs down kinda thing. Lars Von Triers “Antichrist” is more like an “experience” than just a simple movie. I don’t mean to sound so dramatic, but that’s the best I can do when someone asks if the movie was good or not. Wilem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg play a married couple trying to deal with the death of their young son (who fell out of window while they were having sex). Things get complicated when Dafoe’s character tries to play double duty as a supportive husband and psychiatrist to his wife who seems to be taking the lose much worse. As the story unfolds, Dafoe starts to discover some disturbing things about his wife, and what she’s been up to while he wasn’t around. This movie will do nothing to shake the misogynist label that many people have tagged Von Trier with. Damn near all his films show a female character either; murdered, beaten, raped or all 3. I’m not exactly sure, but with Antichrist, Lars Von Trier might be trying to say something about women in general (which is something really dark and disturbing). Now, this isn’t the most disturbing movie EVER, and I think some of the reviews after it showed at Cannes where a little over the top (there were reports that people felt “violated” after watching it. I dunno about that…). But still, this movie will stay with you a few days after you see it. I recommend that this not be the last thing you watch before you go to sleep. It’s a good idea to have a “happy” movie on deck right after you’re finished watching this. Oh yeah…Lars Von Trier needs a hug. Badly.

I think the ‘message’ of this film is that women are evil and are so hungry for sex that they will watch their child climb out of a window to their death and not do anything so as not interrupt their orgasm. This seems to be it.

Wrapped up in a lyrical, beautifully shot film is such grotesque behaviour and actions that I cannot like this film. I do not understand almost all of Willem Defoe’s actions as the husband.

This is very difficult to watch in places, but with an opening like that, you are not expecting an easy viewing experience. The most interesting line is about nature having been created by Satan, not God. What a great, interesting idea. If only this had been explored instead of what was.

A lot of the imagery is impossible to decipher and its meaning is still unknown to me. Maybe the genius of the film lies in understanding these, but I will never re-visit this film so I will never know.

A film easy to love for many of its images, hard to like for almost everything else. Charlotte Gainsbourg’s performance is rightly being lauded and the Cannes prize for her was well deserved.

Antichrist n’a pas grand chose de sulfureux. Cette provocation christique sur le couple (où le romantisme et l’érotisme se dispute au masochisme) vire plus facilement au grotesque onirique et symbolique qu’au pamphlet. Si la qualité formelle du réalisateur est toujours là, elle ne sert ici aucun propos qu’un film expérimental et potache, type années 70, faussement sulfureux et anxiogène, plus bête qu’écoeurant. Un film à l’image de cet enfant qui “meure du désir qui l’a fait naître”. On regrettera ses films conceptuels (Manderlay, Dogville… formidables), contre cette farce qui renoue avec ses obsessions d’étudiant attardé.

well, it looks amazing and the tribute to Tarkovsky is interesting and quite apparent, although T didnt go in for extreme slow motion shots (frankly most film students must realise that this is a cheap effect and never use it again). Sadly I was disappointed – as a native english speaker the English speaking acting seemed so false and Gainsbourg really is no Huppert. The shocking violence reminded me of Misery so it kind of fails in terms of originality. This is the kind of film that becomes a cult because a lot of peole are unable to be honest and are taken in by explicit sex and violence as a (false) indicator of high quality. I prefer to be shaken by a stronger sense of ‘realism’ and subtlety. ‘Genova’, for instance, was actually more scary in my view.

Whatever the fuck it did, it did it well. Now I just have to figure out what the hell it did. The way I’ve been reading the reviews for this film seems to indicate people either hate it or thought it was excellent. The language of that is important. People who hate it, don’t think it was a “bad film” (though some might deny that). People think this film is excellent will never (and unless they’re a sociopath, should never) admit to loving or even liking this film. I thought the film was excellent. I’d recommend anyone interested in film to see it, even though they’re not gonna like it.

A gorgeous prologue, in sumptuous very slow motion black and white, showing a couple making passionate love intercut with their child leaving his crib and fallling to his death from an open window. The emotional fallout is understandably severe, and is explored fairly closely in Lars von Trier’s latest film, the mysteriously named ANTICHRIST. The film has a much narrower focus than von Trier’s other films, amounting basically to a series of therapy sessions between the unnamed He (Willem Dafoe in what might be his best performance that I’ve seen) and She (Charlotte Gainsbourg, admirable in a tough role), the mother and father of the late child. She falls into a deep depression that lands her in an institution, and He, unhappy with the therapy she is getting, takes matters into his own hands (it is established that he is an experienced therapist) and brings her home. He soon decides to take her to their remote cabin in the woods, rather too symbolically named Eden, in order to confront her fears. There’s a good deal of talk in what follows, and a good deal of supernatural goings on as well.

It turns out that there is Evil In The Woods. Von Trier seems to be simultaneously channeling the David Lynch of TWIN PEAKS (plenty of Lynchian rumbles and techno humming and oddly threatening trees and nature) and Andrei Tarkovsky (certain shots recall Tarkovsky’s THE MIRROR and von Trier dedicates his own film to Tarkovsky’s memory before the final credits roll). I can’t deny the intelligence of the production, or the skill of the filmmaking and the performances. Moments of transfixing beauty and of real danger are conjured with an ease that Lynch and Tarkovsky would recognize as their own, I think. It isn’t fair to dismiss ANTICHRIST as a bunch of acting therapy exercises strung together with some shock moments involving genital mutilation and some CGI talking animals, most memorably a fox that tells He that “Chaos reigns,” but I have to say that the point of the film simply eludes me. There’s just something missing. ANTICHRIST leaves a lot of questions unanswered, mostly about He’s motivations. The biggest question of all being: why does He keep going with this mode of therapy, so completely isolated for so long, long after it should be abundantly clear that his therapy isn’t coming close to working? I guess it is fair to assume some dark motive on He’s part, but von Trier never gets around to making it at all clear, and such an important element of the film deserves considerably more clarification: it shouldn’t be left as completely open as the issue of Rick Deckard’s status as human or replicant in BLADE RUNNER.

Bunuel and Biblicism for Dummies (or those who don’t know what a Bunuel is or have no passion/soul) 101.

RULE ONE: If it’s Danish, has fucking, and has a shitload of vague kind-of “LOOK! I AM AWARE THAT THIS EXISTS SO I AM SMART!” kind of name listing, then you better bow down, bitch.

RULE TWO: If this is the case, then you are always, and ALWAYS a vulgar, stupid ape who knows nothing about cinema in comparison to THIS director.

RULE THREE: If you are lost, you are stupid and don’t get it, Thank You Very Much.

If you like this movie, then congrats. You are either a) someone who can really find beauty and soul in anything, b) someone who truly cherishes all aspirations to art, and all films, each as miracles, or c) genuinely insane.

Or I just don’t get it? This is just like Dogville, except more artistically [overposed; arrogant] blood-cumming and rape, more disgusting (and boring), and even more unsophisticated. And was that just me, or did I see a subtle semi-Evil Dead reference there, between all the baby-killing ‘intellectual montages’, and all the senseless Adam and Eve and Eden namedropping? On second thought, actually, most likely just my overactive imagination or an obscure sort-of-coincidence.

For those who object to this film before they’ve ever even seen it or to those who judge it based on reputations and egos like little youtube commentators in the night: It feels as if people already wanted to hate this movie or find it intellectually idiotic since they KNOW who Lars Von Trier is and what his reputation entails. It seems to be the predictable bane of the critic nowadays to attack a film on its use of violence or sex or ‘misogyny’ in order to placate the morally righteous or politically correct. I’m not asking anyone to look past the violence or the other controversial issues in this movie but to not OVER BLOW it. The violence and ideas and sex in the movie are all woven in the same emotional sinew and it seems nutty to think it’s all childish hogwash. This film is being treated like rabid, phony art that must be thrown to a fiery sea simply because (for some) their hearts feel it’s simply just not something they can confront. It’s disgusting or wrong or pointless.

I honestly found comfort in the movie. I enjoyed knowing there is a filmmaker with the riskiness, the heart, the pain, and the skill to relate to us in our understanding of the wounds and chaos of love and grief and recovery. There is a beauty in this movie that is oddly being obscured by those that are ‘so offended’ by its imagery. Maybe it’s good in a way. Maybe it’s meant to shock those who are so flimsy and self-righteous about what should or shouldn’t be shown and flow along with those who are attuned to it. Stupid it definitely is not. Like all modernism, if you don’t feel it or feel confused by it then please don’t keep yourself from admiring it. Especially one as alive as this one.

Embrace that films like this are even being made. Art with fire in its heart.

I don’t think it was misogynistic; I think it was calling attention to misogyny. Outside of that, this movie was bullshit and had little else meaningful to say. Maybe deer with dead offspring hanging out of their wombs is just over my head.

Beautiful cinematography and truly unsettling. However, Willem Dafoe’s character really got on my nerves with every one of his lines consisting of strung-together psychology terms. He was so arrogant and annoying, which might have been the point, but he almost ruined the movie for me. And although Charlotte Gainsbourg gives it all in an emotional performance, I didn’t like Von Trier’s decision to have her porky-pigging it pantless for the last half of the movie. There’s a lot of angry sex and a lot of sad sex, and very little happy sex.

I still say it’s worth seeing, if not just for a few shocking scenes that are good conversation pieces.

I just saw this Saturday in Austin, so it’ll be some time before I can settle my own inner dialectic as to how I could rate it (this hinges mostly on what to make of the content rather than the form). But there are two things I wanted to share:

- This film does seem to be the anti-Terrence Malick (or, Tarkovsky?). Halfway through the film, the focus on Nature’s hostile antagonism to the characters pressed upon me an inversion of the world Terry portrays. I couldn’t disagree more with the philosophical outlook presented in Antichrist, but the film completely overtook me with the way the world resisted the characters, much in the way the characters resisted their own “nature” (which brings me to my other comment, more of a question).

- In light of all the ideological resistance to this film, to what extent can we attribute this world view, and depiction of human nature, to von Trier? Has he, with this film, described what the world is like, and what we are like? Or, has he created a world that represents some other world view (say, Christianity), in order to expose us to certain hidden and unanalyzed essentials that we haven’t noticed?

Trier sent me on an emotional rollercoaster, not just thematically but through filmic appliances; camera movements, mis en scene and sound. It has been a while since I have seen a film where every scene is so packed with a physical presence, a presence that is so easily adopted on to me. The ride, even though it was a slow and quiet one, did not stop until the end credits. The way the scenes are shot reminds me of Terence Malicks beautiful natureportrayals, the effect of which reveals the psychological state of the characters. Or a combination of Lynch’ ominousness (if that is a word) and Malick perhaps. But it is truly a Trier film and one of his best at that.
The classic theme of woman as nature, evil, unknown had a different twist to it, I found. Having read so much of the critique supporting that notion beforehand I did not find that to be the message, if you will, at all. It was rather the struggle of man, men and women, to rid oneself of the guilt that religion and culture bestoves upon us. A reminder of how madlike our feelings and desires can be, and that these desires and feelings have no place in our culture or religions as part of being human. We have to kill it/them off.
It made an impact on me in a positive sense, seeing as it uncovered the myth that fear of the unknown is man made, meaning we create our own fears in the face of others, through others and thus seek to destroy the mirror of our selves. Hmm something like that.
Beautiful movie, lots of thoughts

Very bold idea as always from von Trier but not developed at all. I think the problem lies with the script which could’ve been much much better. I agree with Andres – the prologue is truly beautifully conceptualised but then things go completely awry. Also, the camera feels intrusive and is quite distracting… I’ve felt this in other von Trier films too, especially Breaking the Waves. Moving it around too much just to prove a stylistic point. Quite disappointing.

As I am always seeking something new, I’ll flock to controversy. Well since seeing Antichrist I have exercised my mind in a sort of moral arguement about my enjoyment of this picture. It begins as one of the most gripping psychological thrillers I’ve ever seen. The two performances are completely cathartic, accompanied by especially odd cinematography. It starts with a surreal and sensual black and white, deevolves into raw dogmatism, and then mutates by way of deceptive camera movement and jolting cuts. The visual departures into imagination, as well as moments of deep intensity, are marked by extreme slow motion that is hypnotic beyond belief. It ultimately becomes remeniscent of The Shining by being a psychological drama designed as a horror film that becomes a horror film in the worst imaginable way. Once demonology rears its ugly head, Antichrist departs from the psychologically disturbing to downright grotesque. The graphic sexual violence is so relentlessly explicit that it releases the boiling tension rather than elevating it. It becomes shocking and nothing else. The cummulated symbolism is effective, but pretty much blank, putting the extreme nature of the movie in moral question. I cannot in my right mind recommend it to everybody, but it is certainly unlike anything I’ve seen. It’s beautiful brutality, a technical masterwork.

Perfect, perfect, perfect. I have an extremely high threshold for all things disturbing and disgusting, and this movie made my jaw drop and definitely made me cringe more than a few times. Ridiculously fantastic performances from Dafoe and Gainsbourg. Visually, Antichrist was stunning, also. The slow motion sequences were gorgeous. I wouldn’t change a single thing about this movie. It’s probably one of the best things I’ve ever seen.

James Berardinelli,one of my favorite film critics,can’t decide whether to give this movie a 0 or 4 stars.well,after watching ANTICHRIST myself,i got the point. This is one of the most brilliant,and at the same time,the most pretentious filmaking i’ve ever seen.

the opening 5 minutes (the prologue,in which von trier tells it)is just beautiful. i’ve never been as captivated (at least,not since the opening of THE FALL) by the extraordinary cinematography (once again,Anthony Dod Mantle proves,that he and von trier is a match made in heaven).

But after the opening,here comes the pretentious side (which fortunately for ME,i find it rather Genius than pretentious). with a lot of disturbing scenes comes around,the slow moving paces of the revealing truth,.and (as usual) a ‘more than meets the eyes’ ending (i myself still can’t find the meaning of that last shot,now please someone tell me!)

as much as it is von trier egotastic project,this is also Gainsbourg and Dafoe playground. there are no one else on screen(except for a brief scene that feature their son).and i’m glad that they really deliver.it is their performance that makes me goes to a rather favorable more than disgust it (and believe me,the line is very very thin)

so overall,regardless of all the controversy,i think antichrist is a pretentiousness at its most genius

This film has some beauftilully jarring imagery and the tone and feel of the first hour and ten minutes I was really into. Once the, quite literal, gore porn got into full effect it really lost some of the interesting artistry that the beginning half had. All in all though, I can’t stop thinking about this film and for some strange reason I really liked it. The performances are great, and I like the cheekyness of the “he” and “she” characters that I didn’t notice until after the film was over. The score was very affective, the camera work and scenery very interesting and the story, for the most part, executed well. I am an oddly perplexed fan of this movie. It was an absolute experience to watch.

SPOILERS AHEAD:

Like Europa, technically it’s amazing. Von Trier knows how to handle the camera, manipulate sounds and get very good performances out of his actors.

Unfortunately, like Europa, the film is also vapid, stupid and lacking any emotional resonance a film like this needs. In his interviews, he’s completely po-faced and serious when it comes to this film and the film is done without a single hint of irony or humor, but when I see someone come blood, cut off a part of their vagina (in extreme close-up) and a fox yell “Chaos reigns”, you can’t help but laugh. It’s just so ridiculous and over-the-top. I’m pretty sure he didn’t mean to provoke the type of reaction (I could always be wrong though), but I couldn’t help myself.

I also get very, very tired of seeing symbols beat you all over the fact (painfully obvious ones like the forest called “Eden”). Any time a film relies on throwing symbols about Freud and the church all over your face, it feels like it’s the directors attempt to make the film look smarter than it really is.

Interesting watch though, and I’m sure many people will get a greater kick out of it than I did. When the credits starting rolling, I just couldn’t help comparing it to Andrej Zulawski’s far superior psycho-drama/horror film, Possesion, which tackles the idea of a failing marriage with a (I think) far more sinister and humorous view point.

I am a very big fan of many of Von Trier’s previous films, however, I was extremely disappointed by Antichrist. I thought it was pretentious in the extreme. It started well in what could have been Von Trier’s take on Bergman’s Persona. Emotionally wrenching relationship drama turns nonsensical. A story that begins with dealing with grief and fear and coping with loss turns into blather railing against misogny (it’s not misogynist as some critics have misinterpreted). It also spouts out a lot of mumbo jumbo about nature and evil and women’s inherent evil nature. The third act just goes woefully wrong and way off track. This also seems to be a betrayal of Von Trier’s belief in minimalism as dictated by Dogme 95. This was a major disappointment and I hope Von Trier rebounds from this and makes better thought provoking and interesting cinema in the future.

This is one of the most powerful and engaging films I’ve ever seen. I think it’s a film about depression. The story begins with the death of a man and a woman’s son, and then as a way to try and heal her grief they go to this woods area called “eden.” Essentially, the majority of the movie (the eden part) is a dreamy intensified view of depression, showing visually how one feels internally when they’re going through the roughest stages of grief. The whole Eden part is Trier exploring what “she,” Charlotte Gainsborgh’s character, was actually feeling at the very beginning. The film explicitly and disturbingly states the phases and results of depression. The fear, the feelings of helplessness. Most importantly, it discusses what depression does to those who try and help the grieving person. For the sake of not ruining the film for those who haven’t seen it I won’t substantiate my claims… Charlotte Gainsbourg gives possibly the best acting performance I’ve ever seen. If you’re not intrigued by this and don’t feel like you have to see it, then don’t. This is not for most people, and it is very hard to get through. I’m still not entirely sure how I feel about it because I’m sure it’ll run through my mind for the next month minimum but right now I’m ready to say it’s a near masterpiece that is a little too mysterious for its own good.

Antichrist is not the most accomplished work by Von Trier, or – it might be. Let’s get this out of the way first, the scenes you’ve heard so much about are nowhere in the vicinity of unwatchable, which is what some would have you believe.

I hesitate to agree with the “horror” label frequently assigned to this film. It’s a taut, pitch-black, psychological drama. There is no levity, there is little hope. It’s a film that opens at the peak of contentment and happiness with nowhere to go but down and it goes down fast.

There’s not much to say except see it, but only if you’re prepared for the psychological onslaught of a bleak and unrelenting exploration of how a mind can break when exposed to personal tragedy. For the most part, it’s clinical in its exploration and this leads to some emotional detachment from the characters. Detractors will seize on this and note the “shocking violence” as indicators that Von Trier is out of ideas and unable to connect his characters to his audience. I disagree. The violent acts are the unfortunate result of the break between reality and the mind(s?) of the subjects. They don’t just “happen,” with no connection to context, they are the tip of the mountain of grief and loss eating away at psyche’s ill-equipped for the burden.

Like the greatest of Von Trier’s films, it ends on an oddly uplifting note… if if you’re not quite sure what that note is at the time… it will sink in.

Technically: beautiful cinematography, solid direction, excellent sound design all suck you into the environment and kind of… make it seem as if you are an observer present in the moment but unable to act. Like a dream.

When the film first premiered at the Cannes Film Festival, the reception, for the most part, was negative, to borderline hostility. For those, who haven’t seen the film, the reason why the film was not so well received, was the film’s use of ultra violent scenes and the like. The reception to the film was so negative, that the jury decided to invent an ecumenical award for the most obscene film of the entire festival. Despite the negative press, this film did achieve a level of redemption by Charlotte Gainsbourg winning the best actress award for her portrayal of a grieving mother who basks in despair while on the brink of madness. And ever since the premiere at Cannes, every other film festival this year has either pulled it after just one screening, not showing the film at all, or go balls out (no pun intended) and just show the film before an audience.

Before watching this film, I had no idea who Lars von Trier was and what films he had made throughout his career. It turns out, that a few years ago, he shared an Academy Award nomination with Bjork in the best song category for the film “Dancer in the Dark”. Another thing that I found out about Trier was his use of ongoing themes in his films, with the exception to Dogville. Ordinarily, the ongoing themes of Trier’s films revolve around an innocent young woman who dies a horrible death that happens out of no comeuppance to those who have committed the crime. This film is a departure for Trier, who delves into the art house horror genre in a curious manner. Aside from the ultra violent and psychosexual themes, the film unto itself has some consolations to its credit. The first obvious point, is the beautiful cinematography by Anthony Dod Mantle of Slumdog Millionaire fame. Second, was Trier’s extensive use of symbolism, which proves to be part of a riddling film going experience. And lastly, Trier’s use of a simple, but complex theme of the human condition as a means to an end unto itself.

The premise of the film is surrounded a couple grieving for their deceased son, who lost his life by falling off an open windowsill. The two principle characters (Daffoe and Gainsborough) that Trier writes, are reduced to two psychological/ philosophical archetypes that are the polar opposites from each other. Lets just say, that the consequences of being stubborn and arrogant, and in addition to self-denial of grieving your own flesh and blood, can result in a series of chaotic events, needless to say is a messed up position to be in. After recovering from the barrage of chaos and destruction. I slowly made a few comparisons to some controversial films that are similar to this concept, and I came to the conclusion that this is a sister film of David Lynch’s Blue Velvet, Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut, and others that are in a similar light as Trier’s experimental Opus.

In retrospect, I never thought that I could endure such a barrage of cacophonous chaos that even makes the tough moviegoer into a limp, sore, and aching (mentally and physically) spectator. I’ve never felt such feelings for a film like this before, which brings forth a barrage of questions on why I even saw this film. I truly do not believe, in light of its own controversy, that this film will be nominated for any kind of Academy Award. Even if it deserved the nomination, the only categories that come to mind are best cinematography, best sound editing, and best original screenplay. At this point of the year, the film looks more and more like a long shot for any kind of awards contention. I’m not saying that this film is bad, but this film is a victim of its own controversy, I think that there were some parts of the film that needed to be cut out. But then again, who gives a hoot, it Lars Von Trier that allows his ballad of chaos to reign. I’ll give this film a mild matinee, but view this film with a sense of caution. Buckle up!

Rating:

HIGH MATINEE

This tops my list as thee most disturbing thing I have ever seen. It is so hard to comprehend that “Antichrist” is directed by the same director who created “Dancer In The Dark” (one of my favorite films). I can not recommend “Antichrist” to anyone. I am grateful I did not see this on the big silver screen, I might of had a heart attack or be in need of psychiatric help afterwards. For anyone who is of an open mind and deep faith, you might be able to see this film once, but you might want to do a whole lot of praying after that it doesn’t leave you scarred for life.

Preface – (I like art-house garbage, I like to dive deep into the bottom of the garbage can and scrounge around looking for something controversial and interesting).

With that said:

GREAT!

This is the FIRST film by Lars von Trier that isn’t overly clinical (and I love Dogville/Dancer/Manderlay). It felt like this movie came from emotion rather than just thought. With that, the film seems more free and up for more interpretations than anything before. It’s satisfying and it stays with you. It feels real ‘egoless’ which for an autuer can be near impossible to seem.