Antichrist [reviewed by Lackey]

108 min. (uncut “Protestant Version”), 2009
Directed by Lars von Trier
My rating:
IMDB • Official Site

A beautiful, disturbing mess.

* * *

Premise

After the tragic death of their toddler son, a married couple (only identified as He and She) retreat to Eden, a cabin in a remote wooded region. The purpose of their trip is twofold: to deal with their grief, but also to force her to confront her greatest fear, which she identifies with Eden. His concern for her mental state increases when he finds notes for a thesis on misogyny she wrote some time earlier, which seems to indicate a disturbed mental state…and it’s not long before her behavior escalates into outright madness.

Critique

Antichrist starts with what must be, in artistic terms, the most beautiful love scene ever committed to film. (As I’ve never seen Shortbus, Nine Songs, The Brown Bunny, or anything by Catherine Breillat, it’s also the most explicit I’ve yet seen in a mainstream film.) Presented in slow-motion and black-and-white, set to a choral piece by Handel, and ending with the death of the protagonists’ son after he falls out of an apartment window, it sets the stage for what follows: slow and angst-ridden, with lots and lots of sex. Considering the film doesn’t even run two hours, it demands a lot of patience on the part of the viewer. Such patience is, for the most part, rewarded, even if the film isn’t quite perfect.

The film’s writer/director, eccentric Danish filmmaker Lars von Trier, places his own name before the film’s title in the opening credits, without adding “a film by” or “directed by” or any other indication of what his role actually was. The implication is clear: despite the presence of two well-known actors, Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg (who is also the daughter of Serge Gainsbourg and Jane Birkin, but I’m sure you knew that already), the real star of Antichrist is Von Trier, his visual aesthetics, his obsessions and his neuroses.

Antichrist credits a script research consultants for misogyny and anxiety (and also one for “horror films,” which could be my dream job). I’m not going to say that only Von Trier would do that, but I will say that I think it highly unlikely that anyone else would. Antichrist is definitely the sort of movie that’s more “about” its themes than its plot; I think Von Trier’s treatment of the themes is a bit muddled, which keeps the film from being as successful as it might be. Antichrist seems to have something to say; I just wish I knew what it was.

There seems to be a lot more going on than your typical “empowerment through castration” movie (see also: Teeth, Hard Candy). Von Trier seems to want to comment on misogyny by being specifically and deliberately misogynist. I think he intends for She to be a much less sympathetic character than she ultimately ends up being. (She is a grieving mother and, well, you just can’t help feeling for grieving mothers—Grace notwithstanding. Meanwhile, He is a psychologist, and Von Trier clearly has some contempt for the profession, so that pretty much means that He comes off like a jerk.)

I have other issues with the writing: the symbolism, while arresting, is a bit confusing (what exactly is a talking, self-disembowling wolf supposed to mean?) and the plot can be a bit hard to follow. (I managed to miss the conclusion She reaches at the end of her thesis, which actually turns out to be a major reveal.) There’s also something in the plotting that lacks urgency and a sense that the film knows where it’s going. When events escalate they seem to do so out of nowhere.

Now–it could be that I need to see this more than once. I can definitely see that, after repeated viewings, this might become a four-star movie.

Fortunately, whatever problems are present in the script, Von Trier makes up for in direction. He’s got a great eye for striking imagery and he makes great use of his locations. In particular, I was impressed with how he was able to make Germany credibly double for Washington state (Von Trier’s fear of flying is legendary). I was also impressed with his use of lighting. And, of course, there are the disturbing sequences, the sort of thing that made people walk out of the film’s debut at Cannes. The “blood ejaculation” scene has gotten the most press, but it’s the grindstone that’s always going to stick with me. I’ve already mentioned the wolf…it’s really, really hard to make talking animals work dramatically (see the “talking dog” scene in Summer of Sam for a great example of how something like this can become unintentionally hilarious) but here, it succeeds.

He and She are the film’s only speaking roles, and indeed only one actor other than Dafoe and Gainsbourg is credited—Storm Acheche Sahlstrøm, as the couple’s late son. (That’s not counting Dafoe and Gainsbourg’s body doubles, who provide the stunt genitals for the sex scenes.) So the acting needs to be a bit better than usual. Dafoe does well enough, given his tendency towards hamming it up (which often works—he’s the only thing in The Boondock Saints that’s worth watching). Gainsbourg occasionally comes off as a bit too dispassionate, but there are a number of sequences in which she really nails it (not surprisingly for this film, one of them involves masturbation, and another involves scissors and genitalia). It’s one of the bravest performances I’ve seen in a while.

Despite some problems I had with the narrative aspects of Antichrist, I am very impressed with its artistic aspects. It’s not hard to feel a sense of admiration for Von Trier for producing such an uncompromising, unflinching film—it’s not a work of entertainment, and it’s not for everyone.

• A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge [reviewed by the Drudgeon]
  [Zero stars] Why Freddy, why?
• Poltergeist [reviewed by Lackey]
  4 stars: The perfect justification for PG-rated horror.
• Terror of Mechagodzilla [reviewed by the Drudgeon]
  2 stars: Mechagodzilla is back and he has some help.