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

37 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

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
Luigi said...

Posted on Aug 09 2009 02:56 Mixed results in my opinion, but one of that movies one day we'll be probably called a masterpiece. Dafoe totally uninspired and distant, Gainsbourg simply awesome. Visually a masterpiece, dialogs sometimes risible. It is clearly a product of a depressed mind, so you can't expect logical coherence, but simply a disturbing trip in the director's nightmares. As such, it is an interesting movie, that stay with you for quite a long time.

Report as inappropriate
Liv said...

Posted on Aug 09 2009 00:46 Picture this: A slow motion pornographic sex scene as a toddler climbs out of a window. The amorous couple knocks a bottle and as it plummets so does the toddler out of the window. Music by Handel wallows over the top. Does Lars Von Trier think he’s being clever or classy? This is something a student would hand in and pretend was symbolic after pulling an all nighter . Lars Von Trier seems to have a love of gimmicks and he’s truly excelled himself this time.
For the next 45 minutes or so, you will be subjected to some very boring try-hard Bergman scenes. Then voila, attentive Therapist husband takes grieving wacko wife off to a forest called ‘Eden’ where she promptly goes even more insane and attacks him (she is obviously a terrible, evil woman). Violence and genital mutilation abounds (be sure to keep your eyes open when she pulls the scissors on herself- there’s a close up!). Murder happens and oh, guess what we get to revisit the Handel music! Oh, and did I mention the talking fox and really terrible religious references (Eden being only one of the oh so subtle religious sub content)? Lars Von Trier has issues with women- perhaps his mother wouldn’t buy him chocolate when he was small or some terrible cow of a woman stamped on his poor little heart- whatever it was it all comes out in this lovely misogynistic, tacky, visually revolting, try-hard piece of self indulgent porn (both literally and metaphorically) masquerading as ‘art’. And the dedication? Trite and insulting. Tacky tacky tacky. Save yourselves! Go watch G.I. Joe- I haven’t seen it but it has to be better than this.

Report as inappropriate
Wai said...

Posted on Aug 08 2009 01:58 I was surprised to like the film; it's definitely very different from any film I've seen in a while (I joined cineworld so the choice is pretty limited). Admittedly I did fall asleep sometime during the first half- not because I found it boring, but it has a slow motion, dream like effect that just made my eye lids feel heavier and heavier- which I found quite pleasant really. Then as the 2nd half unwinds the dreamy quality mutates into a frantic nightmare........ It's a really powerful film that's stayed with me even after a 1 week- which is very rare. It reminds me of David Lynch's smaller films and would appeal to the same type of audience; You won't be happy if all you want is a typical horror slasher film or expecting something Hollywood. We desperately need original fearless film makers like Lars von Trier now more then ever with the film industry churning out endless formulaic mindless dross angled on merchandising and sequels.

Report as inappropriate
Cathy said...

Posted on Aug 03 2009 23:47 I feel like I have been witness to The Emperor's New Clothes.
I have watched most of Von Trier's films and have, if not enjoyed, then certainly got something out of them.
However, I found this film to be quite dull, with a little bit of gore thrown in here and there for good measure. Before anone asks, I was not shocked or appalled and didn't flinch or avert my gaze from the screen for a single moment of the film.
I WANTED this to be a great film, but it was just very badly made - the characters as written weren't even two dimensional, (although I have to take my hat off to Willem Defoe who still managed to deliver a very good and convincing performance), the "symbolism" may as well have been a road sign in the middle of the screen and seemed very laboured, something worthy of GCSE drama students attempting "edgy".
Right from the outset, you could see the cogs turning and exactly what was going to happen next.
Also, can we have just one film where women aren't persecuted, whether by god, blindness or themselves, please? It's getting a bit tired.

Report as inappropriate
Phil Ince said...

Posted on Aug 03 2009 13:30 I was puzzled that this film's accused of being intellectual, pretentious or laughable. It's horrible in places but it mostly seems to be a straightforward film about a couple who might already be mad whose madness then becomes explicit.
There is some comedy early on after their baby's death. The therapist husband dismisses his wife's psychiatrist and the drug treatment although he's unqualified medically to do this; antipathy to psychiatry, professional conceit and perhaps a controlling nature seem to motivate him. He goes on to push his wife into suffering through therapy - encouraging her to experience the most unpleasant things she can think of - and even denies her the comfort of sex because he's now her therapist. She then goes barking mad - bashes him in the crotch with a breeze block, wanks him thereafter until he spunks blood, drills a hole in his leg, attaches him to a millstone and then cuts off her own clitoris. Nothing gory is actually seen but then it’s clear enough without being shown.
The photography is often sensational although the script isn't very coherent - is this a quality of Triers'?, that he doesn't want to make films that resolve?
By the end, the husband seems to be hallucinating, too. The famous talking fox addresses itself (briefly) to the husband and he throttles to death his lunatic spouse in a punitive way that reminded me of Fatal Attraction. There's some confusion in the ending scenes though. At one stage, the wife seems to have buried hubby alive and then exhumes him quite a while later. If the wounds she inflicts on him actually happened, its hard to believe that he'll even hobble away as he does at the end. I do wonder if the bulk of the film is fantasy.
It’s nasty towards the end, brooding in the middle, moving and funny after the tragic start. A 2 star film because it lacks purpose, I think, but has something interesting to ‘say’ at the start and has moments with unique looks.

Report as inappropriate