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

38 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

James Irwin said...

Posted on Jun 10 2009 19:00 @ Dan T & Noel - your comments and ratings only seem to confirm that you haven't even seem the movie as you are not able to relate to it in a meaningful way. Maybe the movie is over your head - which is a shame... for you.
However, don't blame the movie if you don't have the mental capacity to absorb it.

Report as inappropriate
Dan T. said...

Posted on Jun 08 2009 13:43 Any words would be too many to spend on this pretencious and utterly self obsessed film. It will probably didvide the critics and create a lot of noise, which is a same because that will only bring more attention to it than it deserves...just as Terminator Salvation has...dear, oh dear!

Report as inappropriate
D Nicholls said...

Posted on Jun 02 2009 00:07 Can't TimeOut get some more objective reviewers? Or is reviewing all about getting all emotional and trying to mock somebody's work? I think that 'Antichrist' is pretty amazing personally but opinions aside, can we have some more intellectual and informative writing on these pages?

Report as inappropriate
toby said...

Posted on May 31 2009 22:44 I´m baffled by the almost hateful reaction of the reviewers regarding this film. As another reader puts it in here: great art causes reflection, and I don´t recall being this interlectually challenged by a movie for a long time, dealing with unpleasant, talntalising but essential themes regarding the power-balance between men and women, lust as a weapon for good and bad and the balance between intellect and instinct. Its not for everybody - and it definetly unsettles you. Theres no easy, positive morale, which you can take with you, no comfortable confirmation of your world, and thats probably what pisses the critics of. In my opinion this movie will stand out as a cinematic masterpiece i n a couple of years, and the critics writing it of will stand as conservative ignorants

Report as inappropriate
Poul J. Basse said...

Posted on May 31 2009 00:14 'Antichrist' is a film about the schisma between untaimed sexuality ('the nature' in the humans (in women)) on one hand, and on the other hand, its about guilt.
The theme of the movie refers to the philosophy of Nietzsche, who has the idea, that you should let Dionysos rule, and that christian morality is bad.
I think the point of view of Lars von Trier, the director, is, that he sees this schisma as a conflict in human life, and that he thinks, that it is not possible for a human being to live like an animal. (In the movie the female character is punished by her own feelings of guilt and is eventually also punished by her husband).
The movie is very 'rough' in its form of expression. You have the feeling, that no form of censorship has been utilized).
Also the pictures in the movie are beautiful, and the actors play wonderfully.
All in all - its a 'tough' but intellecutally and emotionally provocative movie.

Report as inappropriate
badzi0r said...

Posted on May 27 2009 10:49 Where and when can I see this film in London, UK?

Report as inappropriate
Beth Aynsley said...

Posted on May 22 2009 02:23 I haven't had a chance to read the full review yet, so perhaps I shouldn't be commenting at this stage but I think this is a film well worth seeing if you enjoy being challenged.
It is troubling and bold and will leave you wanting to discuss it for days.
Of all the films I saw in Cannes this has stayed with me the most.
Please check it out if you are able.

Report as inappropriate
Mads Nygaard Pedersen said...

Posted on May 21 2009 21:16 Anticrist is a brilliant movie.
True - the movie deals with taboos such as mental ilness, sexual repressions and personal violence. Those themes alone are too controversial for some to handle without being offended. Some - probably a lot - just wont be able to fit this movie into their belief system. They will reject it as controvery worshipping or throwing cheap 'below the belt' shots simply to promote immorality.
Its neither. Antichrist an origial artistic masterpiece that elevates and transcends the horror genre of our time.
The brutal expressionistic vibe of Trier's narration and the disassociated character development is a journey into the realms of basic human instinct and . The themes are classic - there part of humanity and our culture and beings (though some will have a hard time facing it). The honestly haunting images and Trier's unusually personal take is a breath of fresh air to the genre. At best is haunted by unexpected plottwists as their main vehicles (Take for instance M. Night Shyamalan's movies or the recent series of Japanese horror movies such as Ringu / The Ring).
If Anticrist is as testament to Trier's own problems (he suffers from depressions) it not the first time in history catharsis is obtained through release of artistic creation. Well, the isolation factor is a human phobia and a classical horror cliche isn't it? The primal fear resides in desolation - after all it's a method of torture for some to be left alone and people die from getting lost in nature. On the other hand the wilderness can be a release of the self for others. The protagonist transformation in the wilderness is classical. Personally, I do not think such a setting has been explored this intelligently on film before. In books - Margerat Atwood's "Surfacing" comes to mind in regards to character development and loss of self - albeit in less violent terms.
If you are willing to take on Trier's premise with an open mind chances are you'll experience a movie that you'll want to see more than once. It will potentially haunt you - but you'll have to let it in first. Once you have invited it inside you will probably have a hard time deciding what to think of it - and that's the magnificent accomplishment by Trier. You'll be oscillating in the sphere between certainty and uncertainty for a long time. You'll need to reflect to figure out what the hell just happened. Great art causes reflection.
In the end you'll love it or hate Antichrist. That's the point. Are you afraid to confront humanity and look yourself in the eye. Do you dare to listen to the snake? Or do you prefer to cling on to your rational and harmonic vision of Eden?

Report as inappropriate