Movie Review: Antichrist (2009)
“I am the best film director in the world,” proclaimed Lars von Trier rather brashly following the debut of his newest film at the Cannes Film Festival. This was immediately after he entered the media room to a shower of boos from critics who had just painstakingly viewed Antichrist, the latest from the Danish director. Much controversy has arisen because of this film, with several groups vying to get the movie banned due to the explicit graphic nature of the film, which is probably an understatement as to exactly how violent this film really is.
The movie starts off with a marvelous sequence that depicts the death of a child who falls out of a window while his parents are making love. This leads to the mother, She (neither main character is given a proper name) enters a state of depression in which she faints at the funeral service and is then hospitalized. Her husband happens to be a therapist, and decides to go against his own preachings and treats a member of his family, much to the chagrin of his wife, who would rather just stay in the hospital and be treated by “actual doctors”. He and She then venture off to an isolated cabin in the woods, known as Eve, to tackle her greatest fear as a way to overcome the grief. What happens then is a series of events that I care not to explain, as each event in the movie adds a new twist to the film, as well as opening another perspective on what the film is trying to say. The film is divided into four parts; Grief, Pain and Despair are the first three, in which all three feelings combine to create the Three Beggars. Each emotion has an animal representative, and opens to the film to new possibilities in each of their respective acts.
Obviously with the title, there are many religious aspects of this movie, but von Trier doesn’t hammer away at the subject, and introduces the majority of the issue in the final acts. There are many who have questioned the Danish director about his interpretation on women in this film. At first, I nearly shrugged this sentiment off as people looking too much into something and trying to stir up controversy. But much to my surprise, the characters themselves bring up the issue, and it adds yet another viewpoint at what is being said. This is one of those films where you almost have to ask another person what they got from the film, because more than likely they came up with something different, because there is no one clear-cut message one can get from the film.
As for the acting, Willem Dafoe is very effective as the controlled husband. But the majority of the movie rides on the character that Charlotte Gainsbourg creates, and she delivers the performance with near perfection. Gainsbourg goes above and beyond to emanate the emotional damage that her character is going through, which is jarring and disturbing. Slumdog Millionaire cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle creates an atmosphere that is pitch-perfect for what the movie is trying say. There are many dream sequences in this film, and they are absolutely astonishing, and help with the overall haunting experience. This movie will haunt you. I would almost bet everything I have that you will squirm at least once, and some people may not be able to stay in their chairs during the third act.
A movie that can be described in many ways, Antichrist is a riveting movie that defies what people tend to describe as graphic and takes you on a perilous journey through the grieving process. Haunting and downright disgusting as it may be, it is also one of the most artistic movies that you will see in this day in age. I’m not sure if I can ever bring myself to watch it again, but I urge you to watch it at least once.
As far as von Trier’s belief that he is the best film director in the world? This viewer certainly isn’t arguing against that notion.
A-
Notes: This film is not rated, due to the extremely graphic and violent nature, 104 minutes.
![Watch: Creepy Trailer for Slasher Pic ‘Maniac’ [NSFW]](http://www.anomalousmaterial.com/movies/wp-content/themes/yamidoo_pro/scripts/timthumb.php?src=http://www.anomalousmaterial.com/movies/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/elijah-wood-maniac-tb.jpg&w=50&h=50&zc=1)
11 Comments
Even thought, I gave this film a perfect score when I saw it back in October. Now, looking back on it, it was an okay film. I was repulsed. I liked some of the elements in the movie with the struggle of men and women.
Is he the best filmmaker in the world? Hell, no. He is delusional.
I saw this one awhile back and was very on the fence about it. I like what’s going on in the movie but the violence in it was nearly impossible to watch. On the other hand, the movie has some beautiful shots in it and is just amazing to look at. I’m glad I saw it but the entire concept is way over my head for just one viewing. The problem there is that it’s just too hard to go back a second time.
I never had a problem with the violence in this movie because people go every Halloween to see much more morbid things in those awful “Saw” flicks. At least von Trier’s violence makes us think.
Awesome that you liked it, it’s truly a brilliant film and Gainsbourg is impressive.
@Brenden- I’m not claiming him to be the best filmmaker in the world. I just can’t argue AGAINST the notion that he might be. I’m under the impression that if any other director would’ve even attempted Dogville, it would’ve been a major flop. Ditto for Dancer in the Dark.
@The Film Reel- Exactly. The fact that I probably won’t be able to watch it again is why I had to dock it in the letter grade.
@Jose- For me, the difference between this film and the Saw films is that the tension in Antichrist was so high and the movie seemed so real that the violence was more grusome than anything that the Saw films had to offer….which is also why Antichrist is considered one of best movies of the year by some, as well as why people were questioning why they were making a Saw 3…and we’re on what? Saw 20?
The buzz surrounding “Antichrist” has been unreal, and from the reviews I’ve read it seems to be deserved. I plan to see it, but I’m not sure I can say I’m “looking forward to seeing it.” That’d be like saying “I can’t wait to go home and watch ‘Requiem for a Dream’ again!”
What intrigues me from the reviews of this movie that I have read is how many people say they were extremely disturbed by the violence — makes me wonder about why some scenes of violence bother us more than others. I could watch the latest “Rambo” installment all day long, but 10 minutes of “Chaos” has me hiding under the covers.
All about the tension and the environment that director is able to create. You listed ‘Requiem of a Dream’in comparison to ‘Antichrist’, a couple movies that come from two of the true auteurs of this past decade. They’re among the best for a reason.
(that’s a sad reminder that I need to revisit ‘The Fountain’ here soon. I liked it the first and only time I watched it, but I was so horribly lost.)
‘Rambo’ is indeed one of the most violent movies I have ever seen, but John Rambo ripping through 20 guys in a matter of 2 minutes was outdone by Charlotte Gainsbourg at least twice in this movie, maybe more.
That, and Rambo’s kills are bloody fun to watch….Gainsbourg and Dafoe’s torture and mutilation? No so much.
The first thing to say about Lars von Trier is that he should never be taken seriously or literally in anything he says on screen or in person. This includes “I am the best film director in the world”. There is always a degree of satire in everything he does even when it isn’t obvious or overt. I always feel he is laughing at the uninitiated who don’t get this.
As for the film it is bold daring and breathtaking, I really liked it.
As for M. Carter above, you commented on my blog about it back in July. I know it didn’t make it to a cinema near you but its on DVD now, no excuses; I want to know what you think of it. And rent Dogville while you are at it.
I just saw this movie and I must admit, I did not share your love of the movie Red.
The intro is brilliant but pretty much taken from Raging Bulls then I found the film to be quite slow and dull for the first hour until everything goes ape-shit lunatic in the last forty minutes. The film is very artsy and all the nudity, violence and sex seems to be cheap excuses to disturb the viewer. Charlotte Gainsbourg gives a haunting performance but the movie itself tries to be thought-provoking but fails and seems designed to be highly controversial just for the sake of recognition.
Definitely not a movie I would rewatch a second time.
C+
Yeah, it’s definitely not a movie that everybody is going to like. While the first hour of the movie did move a little slow, it wasn’t to a point where I thought badly of the film. In the film’s defense, Von Trier was taking the film at the same pace as it would take to discover Gainsbourg’s fears and why she was acting the way she was. Therapy isn’t a short and simple process, and with the way Von Trier filmed it, he was puting you in the eyes of Dafoe’s character, trying to dig into the sould of Gainsbourg and discover what is truly bothering her, which is quite the lengthy process. I thought it was a brilliant way of making the film.
Excellent write up Red! I am in utter love with this film (which thinking about it, I probably shouldn’t say that out loud to too many people). I personally think the film is rich with symbolism and emotion. The performance are unbelievable – especially Gainsbourg.
I think this film is flawless; I’ve watched the opening over 50 times and I just can’t get enough of it. As for the funeral scene, the emotion that Dafoe and Gainsbourg show us is just so unbelievable it almost brought me to tears.
I felt this was the second best film of the year, and one of the best films ever made.
I really enjoyed your write up! Thanks for the great post!
Antichrist is clearly aimed at an international market as it stars an American and is in the English language, but it is made in the style of a European film. Lars von Trier has not compromised, this is a proper horror film.
Trackbacks