"Antichrist" review by Ben Kenber

It’s been over a week now since I saw the latest cinematic provocation from Danish film director Lars Von Trier. What I witnessed when I saw “Antichrist” is still on my mind, and it took me a long time to process all that I saw. I found myself talking to complete strangers about it as we each tried to interpret on our own terms. Some found it too long which had me wondering if they ever saw Von Trier’s “Dogville” which was 3 hours long (“Antichrist” is 109 minutes long). Some just didn’t get the story. Either way you look at it, “Antichrist” is to 2009 what Michael Haneke’s remake of “Funny Games” was to 2008; an immensely polarizing film event that people will have the most passionate of disagreements on. As for me, I found it a completely mesmerizing experience that had me transfixed throughout its entire length. No movie has been more thought provoking for me this year than this one, and I even watched it again as it was showing on Time Warner Cable’s On Demand service.

As those of you who have read my article regarding the saddest movies ever made can understand, seeing a Lars Von Trier movie more than once is quite an astonishing feat. He has never been about the easygoing mainstream movie going experience. In fact, Von Trier is the direct antithesis to it in a world where movie studios are infinitely risk adverse, and this realization proves to be more depressing than his films.

“Antichrist” stars Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg in performances that don’t deserve Oscars as much as they do Purple Hearts. They play a married couple who are referred to as “He” and “She,” and the movie opens with the two of them making love while their baby boy plays around in his room. There is even a hardcore insertion added to the sex scene which may seem inappropriate to some, but it ends up adding a raw carnality to a moment that makes it all the more immediate. Their act of sex becomes equated with death as their son goes up to an open window, fascinated with the falling snowflakes, and ends up plummeting to the ground. From there, “Antichrist” follows their road to repairing their lives as they cope with their son’s tragic death, but things just get worse for the both of them, and they get even worse from there. And just when you think they have hit rock bottom, things getting even worse than that. Yup, it’s that kind of movie.

You know, it really helps to go into “Antichrist” with no expectations and an open mind because it will not be anything you predict it will be. So much attention has been paid to the unnervingly graphic moments to where you think Von Trier is going out of his way to court the fans of the “Saw” and “Hostel” films. However, anyone expecting that will walk out of this movie horribly disappointed. Regardless of what many may say, “Antichrist” does not exist merely to shock its viewers with copious amounts of blood and gore. Being the provocative filmmaker that he is, Lars Von Trier seeks to challenge the things you believe in, and dares you to look beyond the darkness of our own human natures to get a glimpse of what he implies.

An ominous hum runs throughout “Antichrist” in the same way it runs through many of David Lynch’s films (“Lost Highway” and “Blue Velvet” among others). We know going into this that there will not be a happy ending. Willem’s character is a therapist, and his conflict of interest is clear from the get go as he questions how his wife’s psychiatrist is treating her. The wife disagrees, telling him he shouldn’t get involved, but the love he has for his wife overrules everything else, including common sense. Almost immediately, he makes her flush her medication down the toilet, causing her a frightening amount of emotional upheaval. He then takes his wife to a cabin they have been to before in the woods, which is ironically called “Eden” (it’s anything but). She finds this is the place that scares her the most, and he decides this is the perfect place to try exposure therapy on her. By facing her greatest fears, he feels this will be the way to get past the tragic loss of their only son. But like I said earlier, things only get worse.

You would think that Willem’s character has his wife’s best interests at heart, but the exposure therapy only exacerbates her grief and despair. We later find that her hold on reality is tenuous at best when He finds that She has been working on a thesis regarding gynocide, which itself is a take on the word gendercide; referring to the systematic killings of a specific sex., in this case women. He comes to see that She has embraced the witchcraft of women, and that they are seen as evil beings, something he quickly tries to disprove to her. But having made her emotional state even worse than it already is, He comes to see that through her grief, She has come to justify the punishment that She inflicts on herself as She lets herself believe that it is her fault their son died. She comes to inflict severe damage on her husband while She runs through manic states of love and anger, but also ends up inflicting even more severe pain upon herself.

Lars Von Trier has long been accused of rampant misogyny in his films, and yes, he does seem to put his actresses through an emotional wringer most of the time (the actors don’t get it much easier though). But while “Antichrist” deals with misogynistic themes, this does not in itself make it a misogynistic movie. I’m sure many will make a good case for that, but the film could also be interpreted as empowering in some respects. “Antichrist” does call into question how the female sex is viewed as nurturing and caring while the male sex is seen as stronger. But for the last half of the movie, even though She has gone completely mad, She seems to have all the power and proves to be anything but weak and helpless.

All of this led me to a big question when I walked out of the movie theater in my emotionally shaken state; who is the antichrist of the story? Many may see it as the Charlotte Gainsbourg character in how She embraces the sexist teachings that She has been studying, and of how the stick figure in the movie’s title seems to look like a woman. But I felt that this illustration was not gender specific in its design, so this makes it subject to interpretation. Neither character is of sound mind throughout the movie, and both deal with their soul sucking grief in ways that are far from healthy. Their collective greed manifests itself into a severe psychosis in not just the woman, but in the man as well.

Nature itself is a huge character in this piece, and the majority of the action takes place there. The house which sits upon “Eden” is much like the one we have seen from the “Evil Dead” movies, so you can see in advance that bad things will happen there. Maybe nature is the antichrist of the movie because out there, the laws we live under don’t exist in the same way, and there is no order to be found in anything. “Antichrist” almost ends up being like “Deliverance” in that sense, but without the demented hillbillies. No one is put in cages. This all leads to that moment where Dafoe encounters the fox who takes the time from disemboweling himself to utter the words that in many respects define the film:

“Chaos reigns!”

This scene apparently led to a lot of laughter in the audience at Cannes when “Antichrist” was shown there, but it is the most truthful and frightening of moments of the entire film. Whether or not you belief Charlotte’s character when she says that “nature is Satan’s church,” it is clear that the relationship between these two (let alone their state of minds) are descending into just that, total chaos. Many movies show how nature can force us to discover the animalistic parts of ourselves, the parts we would rather not know about, and “Antichrist” is no exception.

I took some time to look at the definition of the word antichrist and what it really meant. I mean, you think you know what it means, but how often do we read the dictionary? According to Christianity, the antichrist is one who fulfills Biblical prophecies concerning an adversary of Christ while resembling him in a deceptive manner. Clearly someone of sin, he or she opposes against anything that is worshipped, claiming divine authority. Most notably, this person also works all kinds of counterfeit miracles and signs. With that in mind, I can’t help but think Dafoe’s character is the antichrist of this movie, for he has taken his wife’s well being into his hands thinking that his experience trumps that of a younger doctor. He rails against that which is medically sound, and he subjects his wife to unnecessary torment despite his seeming intent to help her. If he really thinks exposure therapy is the way to handle things, I wonder how it worked with his other patients that were not family related. I sure as hell would not have him as a doctor of mine after seeing him at work!

Like I said, much of what is seen in “Antichrist” is open to interpretation. Von Trier has not gone out of his way to try and justify what he has shown us. There is a story at work here, but its meanings will be different for the audiences that experience what is truly an art film here. Watching this movie reminded me when I was a student at UC Irvine, and I saw a production of David Mamet’s “Oleanna.” That was a play which focused on a meeting between a male professor and one of his female students whom he gave a bad grade to on a paper. At the end of it, no one could decide who was more at fault than the other. It frustrated many because the play seemed to be devoid of a straight answer, but that was really not the point. One made the play so great was how thought provoking it was. It made you think about what you had just saw, and as a result expanded how you saw certain things and maybe gave you a deeper understanding of the world around you more than ever before.

“Antichrist” gave me that same kind of experience, and I can’t remember the last time I had one like that. Most movies today don’t challenge you out of fear of offending too many paying customers they depend on, so as emotionally draining as this film is, it stills like a victory to me that something this artful in its conception actually got made. It is meant to shake you, and that it did to me. Many will hate the film, but for those filmgoers who are far more adventurous in what they watch, I think there is a lot they can find to appreciate.

Having sad all this, one has to wonder, is there anything audiences can come to agreement on with “Antichrist”? Well, one thing’s sure; you cannot deny the astonishing beauty of the cinematography on display here. The director of photography is Anthony Dod Mantle, the same cinematographer who shot the Best Picture winning “Slumdog Millionaire.” The opening prologue stands out as one of the most beautiful pieces of film I have ever seen. The juxtaposition of He and She making love while their son ends up accidentally falling from his bedroom window is as lovely as it is horrifically tragic. Mantle also gives us some incredible dreamlike shots that capture the beauty of nature while also hinting at its inescapable darkness lingering just beneath the surface. I somehow doubt that I will see more beautiful imagery in any other movie I see for the rest of 2009.

What else can we agree on about “Antichrist”? Ah yes, the performances! Both Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg rise up to the almost unthinkable challenges Von Trier lays at their feet. What they both do here almost seems criminal were they not such willing participants. Both actors are known for taking big risks in other projects they have worked on, so this makes them well suited to take on material that is so emotionally naked like Von Trier’s other cinematic struggles.

Charlotte herself won the Best Actress award at this year’s Cannes Film Festival, and it is hard to argue over how much she deserved it. Ironically enough, she also appeared in a production of David Mamet’s “Oleanna,” and she played the title character in the 1996 version of “Jane Eyre.” Her opening intro from “The Cement Garden” was used in one of my all time favorite Madonna songs, “What It Feels Like For A Girl.” Throughout her career, she has disappeared into her characters with an abandon you don’t find in many actors these days it seems. Her performance in “Antichrist” may show her at the peak of her powers, but I’m sure there is a lot more great work we will see from her in the future.

But let us not by any means leave out the great Willem Dafoe who can add his role here to the many risk taking roles he has played. To say that he has it easy compared to what Charlotte goes through would not be fair, and it would only be dismissive to his performance. Dafoe’s character is a witness to an unspeakable despair, and he does not hide the fact that his character deals with this despair in efforts that are selfish more than anything else. Dafoe’s career has spanned several decades now, and it includes controversial movies such as “Mississippi Burning” and “The Last Temptation of Christ.” Dafoe’s mission and intent as an actor has never been to simply get under your skin, but to explore the darker parts of humanity so that we can better understand them. He is unhindered by the trappings of stardom and glamour, and he continues to take chances with movies like this one.

Lars Von Trier may not be “the greatest director in the world” as he proclaims whenever he is given the opportunity, but he is certainly one of the best directors working today. Watching his movies, you can understand why there is actually a benefit to people booing his material. Were a film like this were not give off strong emotions such as booing among others, this film would have been a failure for him. Art, be it in film or in paintings, serves to challenge the things we believe in, and that is what Von Trier has done here.

Unlike the showing at Cannes, there was no booing at the end of the film where I saw it. If there were any walkouts, it was due to the film being a bore for some. “Antichrist” is a movie that takes its time in getting to where it’s going as opposed to going for a quick payoff like most movies today. If you can keep up with its slow pace, you will be in for a movie that is as mesmerizing as it is psychologically draining. It is a hard movie to give a rating to because it almost becomes a different kind of movie with the genital mutilations among other graphic elements, but there isn’t a shot here that seemed overly gratuitous to me, and that’s even if it had me reeling back in horror.

Many will hate this movie intensely, but I count myself as one of its defenders. For me, this is far and away one of the best movies of 2009. But like both sides, I will warn you that this is not a movie for everybody. If you are easily offended or not in the mood for something deeply disturbing, then don’t see “Antichrist.”

**** out of ****