3 reviews

---

Lee Jones August 8, 2009

Ostensibly, Antichrist is about a therapist (Willem Dafoe) and his wife (Charlotte Gainsbourg) who retreat to an isolated cabin following the death of their infant son so that he can treat her grief. This ill-advised venture then goes horribly wrong, as one or possibly both of them descend into a far deeper madness.

Director Lars von Trier’s film explores many themes: loss, grief, madness, reason and superstition, and perhaps most importantly the oppression and destruction of women – or ‘gynocide’. The film appears to be about nature ‘turning evil’ (as the marketing blurb has it), driving Gainsbourg into violent insanity. Dafoe’s scientifically-minded character initially rejects the idea that nature can harm her and dismisses notions of good and evil, but is eventually forced to accept that the supernatural forces taking over his wife are real, in defence of his own life.

This is far from a typical horror story, however. It is extremely complex and can be read in many different ways (a feminist reading of von Trier as misogynistic is possible, for instance). The acting in this intense two-hander is astonishing, and the cinematography is superb; the opening scene in particular is one of the most beautiful things I have seen in cinema. The use of music and suspense in the long, slowly-paced first few acts is nothing short of gripping.

However, the film also contains some of the most shocking violence ever permitted on British screens: genital mutilation in grotesque detail is just one of the instances that mark a film where sex and extreme violence increasingly intertwine (the sex is also real at times). The sex and violence is not actually gratuitous, à la Tarantino, but it is very difficult to stomach (viewers have fainted) and the sheer physical reaction it provokes makes it hard to get at the meaning and purpose of the plot lying behind it. Antichrist is not just a film but an intense experience that will probably leave most people deeply shaken; its meaning has to be intellectualised in the bar afterwards – probably over a stiff drink. This masterpiece is not for the fainthearted.

---

Kevin Money August 5, 2009

Antichrist is a dark, dank, grisly nightmare of a film. It creates an intense feeling of pessimism and disquiet that sticks with you for days. Some people might be genuinely upset by parts of it. But seeing it can also be a powerful emotional experience, something that's often difficult to find at the cinema these days.

The story is about a couple finding ways to cope in the immediate aftermath of their toddler son's death. Their grief is compounded by guilt – the child fell from an open window while they were making love. The husband, played by Willem Dafoe (neither character is named during the film) is a psychologist, and immediately starts to treat his devastated wife (Charlotte Gainsbourg) as a patient. He's calm, rational, a bit patronising. She's weak, detached, bitter towards her husband and herself, and full of non-specific dread. In attempt to help her face her grief and fear, the husband suggests they take a trip to their summer house in a remote forest. Even if I didn't know I was watching a film, I think I would have spotted this as a bad idea.

And so it turns out. Almost as soon as they arrive, nature itself seems to turn against them – their surroundings seem to be deliberately trying to freak them out. The first animal the husband sees is a beautiful doe, but as it turns to run off, he sees that it is in the process of miscarrying.

There are weird clues about the wife's real character and back story, and the film then embarks suddenly on a very violent direction. I won't tell you what happens, but think about some of the very worst things people can do to themselves and each other, and you're probably not too far off. It's this last section that caused controversy at the Cannes film festival, with critics booing during performances and hectoring the director, Lars von Trier, at press conferences. He was accused of misogyny and deliberately trying to shock and offend, which I half-agree with. I agree enough to lop a couple of stars off my rating for the film, but not enough to tell people not to go and see Antichrist in protest.

If you've seen any of Lars von Trier's previous films, such as Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark (famous for being the film that persuaded Bjork never to act again), then you'll know that he does deal with female characters in a rather odd, creepy-obsessive way. Perhaps more importantly, there's always the suspicion that when Lars von Trier makes one of his emotionally exhausting films, he actually has his tongue in his cheek a little as he puts his characters and his audience through the wringer. It's a strange way of making films, but personally, I would rather be conned and manipulated into feeling some serious emotion in the cinema, rather than left cold by some bland Hollywood product or austere art-house picture.

Whether or not you take the film at its word, it is very effective, submerging you completely in the sense of dread the characters are going through. This is partly because of the performances, particularly from Charlotte Gainsbourg, but also because of the haunting, poetic imagery. My favourite moment was when, half-way through a rather clinical conversation in a hospital room, the camera suddenly becomes fixated by the murky water in a glass vase of flowers. It's the more original, subtle moments like this that really make the film.

If you're thinking of going to see Antichrist, my advice would be to have a stiff drink both before and immediately after. If you get two-thirds through the film and decide you have to leave, don't worry, you'll have got your money's worth.

The name of the film tells you what it is. The director has simply set out to recreate evil in the form of a film. All of the plot and presentation choices made were made to promote the sensation of evil more effectively - from the obvious shocks, to the insertion of ambiguity, which simply invokes a different kind of pain. That is what this is, and I'm sure that the director, having moved on, would probably himself feel horrified by the idea that viewers will spend time with this movie trying to work it out. Which they will.

Danny 21 Mar 2010