Don’t let my rating fool you about Antichrist. I’m decidedly in the middle because my whole being is split on this movie. Rarely does a movie’s merits and demerits hit me equally hard. All credit to the master of creating frustratingly creative films, Lars Von Trier.
Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg play He and She. It’s not exactly been the best run of late for Them, as their kid has just died from a tragic accident. She’s pretty despondent, and He’s a worried husband and psychiatrist. The two abscond to a secluded wooden cabin in the woods to hopefully examine and cope with their feelings; however, those feeling create an elixir of something…terrible.
Even for a Lars Von Trier film, there’s a moral repugnancy present in Antichrist that’s tough to stomach. I know the movie is purposely vague leaving itself up to interpretation, but most of the interpretations are truly despicable in their misogyny. The obvious interpretations involve how women are too emotional to cope with anything, and how female sexuality causes all sorts of awful things to happen, so we have to stop it. Yep, nothing like justifying female genital mutilation. Maybe Boko Haram watched Antichrist for some of its ideas. Conversely, He is empathetic and emotionally sound, pretty much right after the funeral. A less misogynistic movie might have translated his stoicism as guarded behavior, maybe made him more complex of a character. But the way Von Trier writes He, it’s pretty difficult to land on that interpretation. Also to foreshadow, Von Trier uses purposefully shocking imagery to make sure we’re paying attention, but that shock should make most viewers eventually get grossed out. If that’s Von Trier’s goal – to make you sick, then congratulations, but these images are only marginally useful in their storytelling and are exponentially destructive with each new grotesque image.
And yet, Antichrist isn’t a total abject failure. That’s because an artist as talented as Lars Von Trier is never going to miss 100% of the time. His ideas about trauma and how it distorts reality, not the other way around, are well executed and extremely thought provoking, using truly spectacular imagery that’s the opposite of Von Trier’s worst instincts. Also, for a movie where not a lot is said, Von Trier certainly elicits the feelings he’s trying to conjure. There’s a scene where Charlotte Gainsbourg is describing why she’s terrified of the forest that’s so riveting in its beauty and poetry I wish that Antichrist could have just been that mini movie, apart from its male centric message. The chapter headings are really unnecessary, as Von Trier’s knack for visual storytelling puts us entirely in a clear emotional headspace, aided by the all in performances of Charlotte Gainsbourg and Willem Dafoe. Von Trier does bring out great performances from his actors and actresses, and Dafoe/Gainsbourg are fully committed and acting the hell out of Antichrist.
There are 2 warring Lars Von Triers, both present in Antichrist. One is the stellar visual storyteller that services this art with a depth of storytelling that sneaks up on you, like Nymphomaniac Part I. The other is a smut film provocateur skating by on his artistic ability: Nymphomaniac Part II. Antichrist might be the first Lars Von Trier movie that ended in a draw between the 2 sides of himself. I guess draw is better than a straight loss…