Film

What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases

Updates:

Antichrist (2009)

Director: Lars von Trier

Time Out rating

Average user rating

42 reviews

Movie review

From Time Out London

Click here to read our interview with director Lars Von Trier

I’ve seen Lars von Trier’s ‘Antichrist’ twice now and experienced such wildly different reactions to it each time that you might want to consider this review as written in sand, not stone. The film is equivalent to witnessing a wild fight between strangers. It pulls you this way and that and convinces you of different versions of the truth. Its provocations repel, while its honesty attracts.

Von Trier never makes the same film twice. Yet once he finds a new theatre for his stories – whether it’s the musical (‘Dancer in the Dark’), the Brechtian morality play (‘Dogville’, ‘Manderlay’) or, as here, the horror movie – familiar ideas come bubbling to the surface. He’s interested in the control of women by men. He’s interested in how power emerges, persists and perverts. He’s interested in how we, as an audience, process these ideas and the emotions they provoke. Discomfort, too, is a well-used weapon in his armoury. He likes to shock, and there are moments in ‘Antichrist’ – not least two featuring genital mutilation – that threaten to mask the film’s serious side. In person, von Trier displays paradoxes that spill over into his work. He’s the reticent artist who thrives at Cannes press conferences. The loner who loves a crowd. The reclusive showman. No surprise, then, that the study of grief in ‘Antichrist’ is quiet and sensitive, while some of the telling is loud and grandstanding.

On the surface, ‘Antichrist’ is a horror movie about a married American couple – he (Willem Dafoe) a therapist, she (Charlotte Gainsbourg) an academic – who retreat into a forest called Eden to work through their grief after the death of their son. The opening, black-and-white prologue is a thing of shallow beauty as we watch this pair make love (with a thrusting shot) as their child falls from a window. This initial slickness will surprise those familiar with von Trier’s down-and-dirty style, although much of the rest of the film is a more earthy mix of greens, browns and blues.

Grief overcomes Gainsbourg, while Dafoe tries not to mix business and pleasure by treating his wife as both patient and lover. He fails. The mood is claustrophobic as we’re stranded with this couple in despair. Some of these early entirely domestic scenes, although piercing in their sadness, drag a little, especially as some of the dialogue feels false. But there’s no doubting the power of Gainsbourg’s performance, nor von Trier’s sympathy for her, as Dafoe insists on dragging his wife through therapy. Nor is there any doubting von Trier’s attitude to Defoe’s trade: he thinks it’s a sham.

The film moves beyond realism when Dafoe asks his wife to imagine ‘Eden’. It’s best to read this as an invitation to a parallel world – a psychological one – as they travel to a metaphorical cabin in the woods. The forest, the cabin, the animals (including a ridiculous talking fox) are familiar horror symbols, but the gender war is pure von Trier. The forest turns on the couple, while the couple turn on each other. The results are so hysterical that what we witness feels most like a piercing primal scream from within von Trier. At some points it feels deeply feminist, at others deeply misogynistic, although the overriding feeling is of sympathy for the wife and antipathy for the husband – plus pessimism about humans in general. Yet there are moments that defy any clear reading. This is a film best viewed with reason switched off.
What can we take away from it?

A troubling but refreshing sense of an artist uncloaked. A violent conflict of ideas and images. A certainty that von Trier loathes therapists. A suggestion that a man can do his worst to a woman and still come across as a messiah. But any logical, unified theory? Any neat conclusions? Any satisfaction from loose ends tied and questions answered? Forget it. It’s just not that sort of film.

Click here to read all our 'Antichrist' content

Author: Dave Calhoun 2009-07-21 11:11:43

Time Out London issue 2031, July 23-29, 2009

Bookmark

User reviews of this film

Paul said...

Posted on Feb 09 2010 22:33 A fantastic deep film which has been marred by over the top reviews and terrible marketing (ie scissors artwork, making it look like Saw 6) The controversial scenes, which are brief and not particulary offensive have overshadowed the beauty of this powerful film which is open to multiple readings. The performances are incredible.

Report as inappropriate
Aristidis said...

Posted on Feb 05 2010 19:20 I think LvT seeked out intentionally to create such a movie simply to amuse himself out of depression! All this anger, all this scorn, all this fear would certainly amuse even Nietzsche.
LvT cares not for psychology or psychotherapy. A clever educator seeks to better mankind by challenges and puzzles. The question is more important than the answer, try for once not to mud it with agentas and hopless morality systems.
On top of the pyramid the He scribes "ME".

Report as inappropriate
Vlada said...

Posted on Jan 09 2010 02:18 I have just watched it and am clearly in shock. Absurd and abnormal, that what comes first to mind to describe this art work. I guess, von Trier calculated well in his strive to seem original. Perhaps, his unwillingness to give explanations just reveals his own confusion and generally, absence of any meaningful message behind this all. The film just shocks, that's probably the effect it has to make.
I give 2 stars only because I managed to watch the film to the end.

Report as inappropriate
James said...

Posted on Dec 15 2009 21:35 I kept poking myself in the eye so I wouldn't fall asleep- I couldn't see too well by the second half which turned out to be a blessing- what was the point in all the genital mutilation close ups? gross man, just gross- didn't need to see that. Oh, and what was with the random porn at the beginning? This film is lame lame lame. Lars Von Trier wasn't intelligent or talented enough to pull this off. Unless you take yourself too seriously don't watch it!

Report as inappropriate
jools said...

Posted on Nov 18 2009 10:10 I saw this as a brilliant film about psychotic depression, not a horror flick - beautiful and tragic and intense. As a horror film, it's a bit silly, gory and all over the shop, but look beyond the bloody thrills at a portrayal of a woman falling apart mentally. Charlotte Gainsbourg is electrifying - she has one of those faces that changes with the light and I couldn't take my eyes off her.

Report as inappropriate
mick said...

Posted on Sep 11 2009 14:56 wow, this made a special effort to be bad. I felt sorry for the actors because they went all out and the director only made a half-hearted attempt and most of what they did turned out to be just gratuitous schmuck anyway,

Report as inappropriate
mick said...

Posted on Sep 11 2009 14:56 wow, this made a special effort to be bad. I felt sorry for the actors because they went all out and the director only made a half-hearted attempt and most of what they did turned out to be just gratuitous schmuck anyway,

Report as inappropriate
Alex said...

Posted on Aug 28 2009 10:27 Whenever an artist does something different, they are always derided and ridiculed by philistines. I agree with kaiser sibi's Van Gogh comparison, and would add Duchamp, Warhol and Mapplethorpe who have all caused public scandal, outrage and condemnation in their time. Some hysterical people have called Von Triers's film 'pornography' which is slightly ironic since the sole function of pornography is to stimulate sexual desire....... the film may turn a few people on, but I'm guessing they're the exceptions. Quite a few people find the film boring; it probably is if you're use to Hollywood films (which probably accounts for over 90% of films shown in cinemas) that are calculated to have an action/comedy scene every 3 minutes to keep people with low attention spans entertained; I'm not slating those movies- they're fun, light hearted and necessary to keep the vast majority of movie goers contented; but it's sad when a lone director bravely creates something daringly original, that's outside the box, without prioritizing commercial profit, and then having a lot of narrow minded people kicking up a fuss trying to stamp out any spark of originality........... but it's to be expected as the history of Art has shown. Time is the real deciding factor.

Report as inappropriate
kjlfwhkofjilfjos said...

Posted on Aug 28 2009 01:41 full uncensored version on ninjavideo.net You see everything, including the cliterodectomy roflmao. decent film. possibly better if watched alone in a dark room.

Report as inappropriate
liv said...

Posted on Aug 24 2009 02:18 Don't bother- it's just porn and gore disguised as 'art'

Report as inappropriate
Johnny B said...

Posted on Aug 22 2009 01:11 no good please use alternative movies..

Report as inappropriate
Johnny said...

Posted on Aug 22 2009 01:09 worst crap I have ever seen.. very depresing movie. is the first time I regret that I wasted my time

Report as inappropriate
fb said...

Posted on Aug 15 2009 16:17 Went to see this at Odeon Panton St last night. It started well enough with a prologue that resembled those poncey perfume ads ("Depression" by Lars Von Trier, anyone?) but revealed itself to be quite beautiful. After that, it was downhill all the way. The next stretch of the film was INTERMINABLE! On celluloid, watching a therapist husband guiding his grieving, guilt-ridden wife through their shared grief at the death of their son should have been eminently watchable. It wasn't. The dialogue was risible (inaudible at times, which was probably a blessing); there was no chemistry between Dafoe & Gainsbourg; and Dafoe's confused and half-baked attempts to treat his wife made for some of the most laboured and boring cinema I've seen for a long time. If VonTrier was trying to convey to us his (surely?) clinical depression by dragging out these scenes, fair enough: I suspect, though, it was just rank bad film-making.Then, to all our amazement, Antichrist suddenly mutated into Saw 6! It was - unintentionally, I'm sure - utterly hilarious! Is Von Trier's depression such that he can't actually feel ANYTHING? Speaking as a man, if I'd had my erect penis lunged at with a slab, then been brought to a blood orgasm before having a hole drilled into my leg and a heavy weight bolted to it, I'd be in UTTER, SOBBING, PARALYTIC, FUCKING AGONY! Not our Willem, who quickly manages to lug himself about and away from mad Charlotte. The clitorodectomy scene made me wonder whether doing the job with a pair of rusty scissors would have resulted in such a neat snip, rather than a ragged howl (I asked gf but strangely, she didn't want to discuss it!). Further hilarity ensued with mad Charlotte's screams of "WHERE ARE YOU, YOU BASTARD?" eliciting uncontrollable giggles from quite a few of us. And as for the talking fox...! Gainsbourg, to be fair, is decent in what is a terrible role in a terrible film. Dafoe, though, is awful, over-emoting like he fears facial expressions are about to be outlawed. There was one good line ("a crying woman is a scheming woman" - must remember to use that one in the next argument!) and I liked the bit about mad Charlotte putting her son's shoes on the wrong feet, but otherwise this was a film that epitomised (and realised) the very worst of what the sneering multiplexers believe any film with artistic intentions to be.

Report as inappropriate
kaiser sibi said...

Posted on Aug 10 2009 09:56 Look at Vangough! He painted what he felt, not what he saw. People didn't understand, to them it seemed childlike and crude. It took years for them to recognize his actual technique. To see the way his brush strokes seemed to make the night sky move. Yet, he never sold a painting in his lifetime. This is his self-portrait. There's no camouflage, no romance. Honesty. Now, sixty years later, where is he?
The director of this movie is just like vangough!

Report as inappropriate
kaiser sibi said...

Posted on Aug 10 2009 09:45 Although I have not seen the movie. I can already see that this movie is a masterpiece. Why?
Not all who wander are aimless. Especially not those who seek truth beyond tradition, beyond definition, beyond the image.
I think this will be one of my favorite films.

Report as inappropriate