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.