Allen: “Antichrist” is a psychological melodrama masquerading as a horror film. Lars von Trier, known for films including “Dogville” and “Dancer in the Dark,” directs his latest provocation, an often sensationalist film that would have been more effective had he forgone the horror. This cautionary tale follows a couple losing their young child, and afterward attempting to rebuild their disturbed psyches in a forest called Eden. But “Antichrist” has garnered the most attention for its frank and bloody sexuality and violent conclusion.
The film’s strong suit is the emotional center, and both Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg turn out career-defining performances. Yet, despite its strong performances and crystal-clear cinematography, it is obvious why audiences at the Cannes International Film Festival and New York Film Festival walked out in droves. “Antichrist” has a final third that quickly departs from and contrasts with the emotional realism of the first two parts, and never decisively chooses to be a horror film. Though the film was admittedly written during von Trier’s battle with depression, von Trier and audiences alike know it’s not his best work.
Strauss: Though maybe not von Trier’s very best work, “Antichrist” is nevertheless a truly powerful cinematic experience. Much of this power stems from the third act, which doesn’t so much directly contrast the first two acts as veer from the predicted course.
This story structure is indicative of human nature itself. Though mankind is comforted by the false notion that humanity is a knowable entity, humans have the innate ability to destroy not only their own lives, but others’ as well. The first two thirds of the film, the “emotional center,” construct this fallacy of trust between von Trier and the audience.
But there is a prevalent, almost unbearable sense of dread, as the film creeps towards its destructive third act, due to that repressed voice in the back of the audiences’ heads that tells them—to quote the film’s now infamous line—“chaos reigns.”
Allen: Assessing general human nature, however, is not the point or outcome of the film. It is a very intimate look into the personal demons of two particular people, and von Trier didn’t necessarily mean it as an allegory for humans’ evil capabilities.
The sense of dread in the final third of the film is carefully constructed and well done. Throughout the lengthy climax of “Antichrist,” von Trier is able to pace the physical terror and keep the audience engrossed for an almost excruciating length, and it’s for this reason—if any—that the horror is successful.
The cinematography of Anthony Dod Mantle (“Slumdog Millionaire”) is one of the saving graces of the film. The smoky, fog-filled sequences in the woods of the couple’s cabin are so beautifully eerie that they almost take on a life of their own. It is a stretch to call “Antichrist” a “truly powerful cinematic experience,” but it is one of the year’s most visually innovative films, and certainly the most painful to watch.
Strauss: Spoiling the epilogue would be criminal, but those who have seen the film could hardly say there is anything remotely “intimate” about the final image, which can only be explained within the context of a film exploring human nature.
Allen’s assertion that the film isn’t about human nature implies that there is a specific meaning, and art such as “Antichrist” is more about individual interpretation. As such, von Trier’s intentions, though largely unknowable, are also irrelevant.
Great films demand interpretation—the kind you dwell on months after the credits have rolled. Yes, “Antichrist” is technically masterful, but the true lasting power of the film will be in the undeniable mark left by each and every audience member’s interpretation. For such interpretation to occur, audience members will be required not only to sit through the truly gruesome third act, but also to explore it directly. Though such an experience may be highly challenging, great art such as “Antichrist” requires such exploration to succeed.
Comments
We're looking for comments that are interesting and substantial. If your comments are excessively self-promotional or obnoxious you will be banned from commenting. Consult the comment FAQ and legal terms.