College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students Jobs and internships for students -

Antichrist -- 3 1/2 Stars

Published: Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Updated: Wednesday, January 6, 2010 17:01

ant

Courtesy of Wikipedia

Charlotte Gainsbourg stars in Lars Von Trier's 'Antichrist'


*NOTE: Before I begin my review of Lars Von Trier's “Antichrist” I want to paint a little picture about the film and my viewing of it. The film debuted at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival back in May. After the film premiered, critics were writing that this film was “amazing, disgusting, sexually explicit, beautiful” literally every single adjective you can think of. Roger Ebert wrote about 3 essay's within a month of the film premiering, so needles to say I had to see the film. I believed since the film was such a small-foregin picture it would never come to Chicago. I then saw it was playing at the Music Box Theater and had to see it. The day of I was incredibly nervous to see it, I didn't know what my reaction was going to be after reading all the reviews. I went into the screening and had one of the most odd viewing of my entire life. I left the film wondering a lot. And now my review*

The film opens with a crudely-crayon esque drawing of the director Lars Von Trier's name and the title of the film, “Antichrist”. We are then shown a prologue that is very sexually graphic and shot in black and white. A couple He (Willem Dafoe) and She (Charlotte Gainbourg) are making love while there son falls to his death from a window. I can say it's one of the most disturbing, lush, operatic film sequences I have ever seen.

After the death of their son, the couple is completely distraught and do not know what to do. Dafoe's character is a psychotherapist who decides to treat his wifes grief with his own practice. He is trying to figure out where her fear is generated from and what her own personal hell is. He deduces that a lot of her fear comes from their cabin named “Eden”, where she spent time with their son, while she was writing and researching a thesis on gynocide. It is there that the chaos begins.

The couple come to the cabin and it is there that He begins to sense that something is a miss. His wife begins to slowly unravel and becomes crazy with the notion that all women are inherently evil (her research on gynocide was about the persecution of women by men in the middle ages) She constantly attacks her husband and herself before the final climax happens and all is revealed.

The film is divided into four chapters (Grief, Chaos Reigns, Gynocide and The Three Beggars) and includes a prologue and epilogue. The film looks at how grief and other emotions can take apart a human being and completely change them into something they would never imagine on being. The environment where “Eden” is located also plays a part in the transformation of the character. It's a forest that seems to be the place of evil. You have animals (namely a fox, crow and deer) who represent different parts in the grief process. They seem to bring the story full circle, but I am still curious about a lot.

Roger Ebert brought up that the point that the character's are already at psychological tipping points after the death of their son. She did research questioning if women are inherently evil, which causes herself to devalue herself and inflict pain on her and others. He is a controlling smug man who believes that he can control everything and has to after the death of his son. They are characters that have been so distraught by these events that they choose to punish themselves. The performances by Dafoe and Gainbourg (especially her) are amazing in the fact that the audience can be completely mystified by them.

The film is extremely graphic both violently and sexually. Some might categorize this in the “torture porn” genre, but it really is in the eye of the beholder. I see it as more of a psychological horror film. I say that some scenes are completely unnecssary and disgusting but it all sticks with you in the end. Von Trier who has directed “Dogville” and “Dancer in the Dark” directs this film in such lush way. The first half is so beautifully shot and so nicely paced you think you have a masterpiece on your hands. He let's his actors bring everything out. But as the second half comes around I was wondering what he was thinking.

I walked out of the film not knowing what to think right away. Every single one of my emotions had been tested; I even laughed (as did the audience) at a few scenes that were just ridiculous. But the film had stuck with me. The first hour of the film is one of the best things I have seen all year. The second half get's a bit crazy, but it only questions more what is happening and challenges the ideas of the first half. I feel that Von Trier was just toying with you, with the first half and then blows you away with the second half. It's an extremely hard film to watch (even though I saw it twice) and I do not look down on anyone who would think this film is vile and disgusting. Von Trier himself said this is an “unreasonable film” and I agree with him in some ways. I cannot endorse this film, but I cannot condemn it, you have to take this film with a grain of salt. I don't want people to see it and blame me for your nightmares. SEE IT AT YOUR OWN RISK! It's an extremely polarizing film that I believe could be misunderstood, but in some ways is a messy masterpiece. I will say this is the best film I have seen with a talking fox saying, “Chaos Reigns!”

 

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

Be the first to comment on this article!







log out