Antichrist

[Lazy Boy]

http://www.jigsawlounge.co.uk/film/images/stories/antichristposterart.jpg

Written and directed by Lars von Trier

Genre: Horror

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_mh7w-4HS2fI/Sflz7IALQPI/AAAAAAAAELw/tppRsKN60vg/s400/antichrist001.jpg

Plot: A grieving couple retreats to their cabin in the woods, hoping to repair their broken hearts and troubled marriage. But nature takes its course and things go from bad to worse.

Starring: Willem Dafoe, Charlotte Gainsbourg

Rating: Unrated

Runtime: 109 minutes

Finally comes to my neck of the woods next Friday. Most anticipated film of the year. I've been avoiding the Antichrist thread in the General Movie thread just so I can see this fresh, but with all the hype on both sides of the spectrum, it'll be a little difficult to be objective.

[ilovemovies]

I'll probably finally get around to seeing it this weekend, I'm rather apprehensive about it though.

[LordSimen]

The film is absolutely brilliant. Phenomenal acting, surreal cinematography and excellent use of sound to create atmosphere. It's the kind of film that leaves you battered, bruised and beaten by the time it ends but still manages to give you tons of food for thought. I would liken it to another masterpiece released earlier this year, Martyrs. 10/10

[Jig Saw 123]

The film is absolutely brilliant. Phenomenal acting, surreal cinematography and excellent use of sound to create atmosphere. It's the kind of film that leaves you battered, bruised and beaten by the time it ends but still manages to give you tons of food for thought. I would liken it to another masterpiece released earlier this year, Martyrs. 10/10

Yes!

[Bourne101]

Here's my review from back a while ago when I saw it at the Atlantic Film Festival...

Antichrist - 7/10

Good film. I don't think it's great, and that's not because I cannot make up my mind or that I need to re-watch it several times to appreciate it, I just think it was a good, but not great film. The first half was really quite something. The opening was absolutely fantastic. Easily one of the best scenes in any film this year. The second half though was a bit disappointing considering how much hype and controversy surrounded the scenes within it. The pacing and focus was really solid throughout the first half, but the second half lost that pacing and focus and kind of dragged the film down a bit. And I think hearing all the hype about how disturbing it was kind of ruined it for me. The violence certainly was graphic, brutal and disturbing, but it really wasn't THAT bad. The fire hydrant scene from Irreversible was far worse than anything in this film IMO. But at the end of the day, violence is not what makes a film great, but the second half was still lacking in focus anyway. The performances are both brilliant, and the cinematography is top-notch and Oscar worthy. Now for the most important point I want to make... I don't think this film is quite as deep and meaningful as some people are making it out to be. Sure, there is plenty of symbolism, etc. but it was a bit more simplistic than I was expecting. No, that doesn't mean it's an easy film to understand, but this is not Eraserhead where 32 years later no one has been able to discover David Lynch's intentions. And this is my problem with Lars von Trier, he just likes to fuck with people. While Mark Kermode enjoyed this film much more than I did, his initial review summed it up quite well. Lars von Trier often fools people into making more out of his films than is necessary. He initially claimed he made it based on his feelings of depression (which is very evident, but not necessarily the sole basis), and has since made other statements. For all we know von Trier may have just taken a basic idea and expanded on it with random shit that popped into his brain. Or on the contrary, maybe this is his deepest film yet. No one can really know for sure except Lars von Trier. And while this is my problem with von Trier, it is also what makes him so spectacular. He just fucks with your head and pulls some reverse psychology shit on you. He makes you think that there's a deeper meaning, when really there isn't, but then maybe there actually is but he wants you to think that there isn't by thinking he is pulling some reverse psychology. I apologize if this review has been confusing, but I have just spent two hours watching a Lars von Trier film, what do you expect?



My thoughts really haven't changed since. I still do not think it is even close to being a masterpiece. The second half was pretty "meh", and was a complete buzz-kill after such a riveting, focused and brilliant first half.

[Lazy Boy]

Lars von Trier often fools people into making more out of his films than is necessary.

I don't know if this is your quote or you're attributing it to Mark Kermode, but I kind of take issue with it. It's the antithesis of the dreadful "you didn't get it/understand it" statement. If people see something great in a work, then they are being fooled by the director, they can't think for themselves or derive meaning?

[someguy]

The cinematography is excellent and deserving of an Oscar nod (which it won't get), Trier does a great job with getting across an unsettling atmosphere, Dafoe/Gainsbourg both do great jobs but the movie never really achieves anything. There's plenty of ideas and concepts thrown around in the movie but there's no real sense of purpose to a lot of it (LVT has even said that the religious elements in Antichrist should be outright ignored). If there was a better handle on the writing the kitchen sink approach might have been better but it just made the plot get more confusing than it already was. I wasn't surprised to find out after seeing it that Trier didn't rewrite much of his screenplay. I'd probably give the movie a 6 or 6.5 out of 10 though.

[ilovemovies]

Eh, I'm in agreement with A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips who think people read more into No Country for Old Men than what is really there.

Totally different movie of course, and while I can't say anything about Antichrist until I've seen it, I certainly see what Bourne is saying.

[Brendan M.]

There is a theater in Salt Lake that won't be playing this until December. Plus they're just screening Thirst now at the end of this month. I should probably start looking into moving to CA or NY after I'm done with school so I can get a little better dibs on screenings for movies like these.

[Bourne101]

I don't know if this is your quote or you're attributing it to Mark Kermode, but I kind of take issue with it. It's the antithesis of the dreadful "you didn't get it/understand it" statement. If people see something great in a work, then they are being fooled by the director, they can't think for themselves or derive meaning?

I certainly see what you are saying, and I wanted to word that a little less bluntly, but just read what someguy said:

There's plenty of ideas and concepts thrown around in the movie but there's no real sense of purpose to a lot of it (LVT has even said that the religious elements in Antichrist should be outright ignored).

The elements of the film that people are analyzing are mostly the religious aspects, yet von Trier says that the religious elements should be ignored. That's the problem with von Trier, you cannot take anything he does or says completely seriously. For all we know the religious elements could be what von Trier focused on the most when writing the screenplay and he may be just saying that to make you think that the religion aspect doesn't mean anything. Or maybe the religious aspects really should be ignored and therefore a lot of this analysis is meaningless. I agree that people should be able to think themselves and derive meaning, but if von Trier is constantly changing his mind and toying with those who have seen it, why take him seriously?

[someguy]

I really don't like all this emphasis on whether or not Trier is playing a prank on people. I don't give a shit if he is, I'm just taking the movie as I saw it. I had those same feelings about him just throwing random stuff on the screen before he came out and said the religious elements are bullshit. Trier saying that only strenghtens what I thought beforehand.

Kermode and other critics are just annoying when they get all paranoid and try to pick apart everything LVT says to the press as true or false. The dude just has a dry sense of humour, and his jokes seem pretty obvious (he says he didn't use Willem Dafoe's real dick because it was too big and calls himself the greatest director in the world). All of this distracts people from the movie and I'd prefer if those people actually talked about what was in Antichrist instead of the director cracking a few jokes in press conferences.

[Bourne101]

I really don't like all this emphasis on whether or not Trier is playing a prank on people. I don't give a shit if he is, I'm just taking the movie as I saw it. I had those same feelings about him just throwing random stuff on the screen before he came out and said the religious elements are bullshit. Trier saying that only strenghtens what I thought beforehand.

Kermode and other critics are just annoying when they get all paranoid and try to pick apart everything LVT says to the press as true or false. The dude just has a dry sense of humour, and his jokes seem pretty obvious (he says he didn't use Willem Dafoe's real dick because it was too big and calls himself the greatest director in the world). All of this distracts people from the movie and I'd prefer if those people actually talked about what was in Antichrist instead of the director cracking a few jokes in press conferences.

Fair enough, and I agree with most of what you have said about the film. All I'm saying is that you can never take anything Lars von Trier says seriously.

[bigred760]

I'm not sure when this is coming to Atlanta . . . the sooner the better though; I want to see this flick and see what all the hoopla is about. I've avoided reading reviews (though I've seen ratings) and . . . hell, the title alone is enough to peak my interest.

[DaMovieMan]

All I'm saying is that you can never take anything Lars von Trier says seriously.

Yep, I've been meaning to come in here and post just that. Just because Von Trier says the religious symbolism is bullshit doesn't make it so because the man is notorious for playing with the truth when he's speaking publicly.

Antichrist was phenomenal, I need to see it again. It's definitely up there as one of the best of the year.

[Pentangeli]

http://gickr.com/results2/anim_daaa42ce-59b8-efd4-9129-993cf31c22aa.gif

[Yggdrasil_Mjötv]

I've has this film in my PC for nearly a week I might just see it tonight!, I'll be posting my opinions soon :D

[Lat er al]

My reaction to this movie was literally "wow." It was really refreshing to see a film that makes you think. Whether there is more there than meets the eye or not. I also loved the use of sound and the surreal cinematography. All in all a very unique experience. It actually reminded me a lot of Eraserhead, which I think I'll watch again soon.

8/10

[APzombie]

Kermode and other critics are just annoying when they get all paranoid and try to pick apart everything LVT says to the press as true or false. The dude just has a dry sense of humour, and his jokes seem pretty obvious (he says he didn't use Willem Dafoe's real dick because it was too big and calls himself the greatest director in the world). All of this distracts people from the movie and I'd prefer if those people actually talked about what was in Antichrist instead of the director cracking a few jokes in press conferences.

i agree but i wouldn't put blame on Kermode for picking apart what LVT states in press statements and such. Kermode's review is spot on, he prefaces it by saying "Never trust what anyone says about Lars Van Trier, least of all what Lars Van Trier says about his movies. He's a prankster." and then goes onto the movie. So he really just re idorates your point.

I just saw it and personally i find it to be one of Triers finest and one of the years best. It's a horror film that all Catholics should love, it's imagery is all biblical, it's philosophy is rooted in original sin and it's antagonist is psychiatric medicine instead of religious atonement for one's guilt. There is a lot more going on in this picture than a prankster behind the lens of sensational beautiful imagery.

9/10

[Cop No. 633]

Caught this last night. I'm surprised to say it didn't leave a huge impact on me outside of wincing at the violence. This is a heavy film on guilt and repression of emotions, but I couldn't help but laugh a few times like when She is looking for He in the woods screaming, "Where are you? Why are you running away?!"

I could just imagine an outtake of Dafoe screaming, "You fucking sawed a hole in my leg and attached a millstone!"

The acting was pretty great though, particularly from Charlotte Gainsbourg. She really exposes herself in the role, emotionally and physically. I could imagine her wanting to take a break from acting after doing the film. It felt like every other scene was of her going from one extreme emotion to the next.

As for the symbolism of the supernatural elements, I feel like the symbols were more of a way to express the sexual guilt of the main characters and their terrible marriage. I didn't get the feeling the film was trying to condemn religion or a greater society ill such as the witch burnings. It felt more personal and was really more of an examination of He and She's deteriorating marriage like how the Shining was a ghost story but more about the domestic violence in the family. The animals appear more as warnings to Dafoe that his approach to "cure" his wife will only lead to destruction. I think it could very easily be about the wife's insanity more than an actual supernatural occurrence.

I got the impression that Lars Von Trier used those symbols and ideas to show a more extreme version of a failed marriage turning into a murder. Not the other way around where the couple are the symbols. I don't think he's using the people as a way to comment on society but rather how history/society imposes itself onto people, such as how She comes to believe all the things she has read in the books and it manifests in her actions towards men. She wants to be punished when she goes to the cabin with He. I get the feeling that she actually didn't want to have a child and only did it because she is playing the role of the wife and having kids is an expectation. And this manifests itself more as she researches her subject. Her guilt of not wanting the child makes her start to harm him by putting his shoes on wrong. And the scene where she recalls the baby crying was her way of hiding her actions from herself. The baby crying was of him having to walk with his shoes on wrong but in her head, it's simply a voice she hears in the forest.

The forest becomes a place where she hides her actions. She's surrounded by the woods and nobody can see what she is doing. That's why I think she's afraid of the woods. It has seen what she has done, it sees her real thoughts and actions. Not the ones she lies about to Dafoe early in the film. To me, the woods in the film reflect who you really are and not the role you have to play. He and She play the part of husband and wife at home, but in the woods they begin to strip themselves of those assigned roles. The symbol of the pyramid is something we see often in the movie. It starts off with a large base until it's whittled into one point. That point being that these two people are doomed before the movie begins because they had a child neither really loved. That's what She is mourning to me, and He tries his best to lie about a burden being lifted from him. He never wanted his wife or the kid, which is why he recovers from it quickly whereas She dwells in misery because she feels more responsible (if one of the later shots of the flashback is supposed to be true -- where she sees the Baby climbing to the open window).

8/10

[Weird_Kitty_Cat]

I so syked to see this, then I almost walked out. If my boyfriend hadn't gotten into the religious overtones we would have. It was not what I thought it was going to be at all. Not to say I have a problem with all the sex, but I was just not prepared for that. By the end of this first time I hated it.
Then the theater I work at got it so I would peek in every so often due to my crush on Dafoe, then I started picking up on the symbolism. It made work a little fun to discuss the symbolism with my coworkers, but none of us could figure out the ending... there again most of us hadn't seen a von Trier film before this.
The more I catch pieces, the more I get the impression that this entire movie was just for shock value. I hate that. It's like making a movie bad so it'll be a cult classic. I'm glad I didn't pay for it.

Does anyone know what the ending was about? If it meant anything at all?

-Endless Meghan

[WresBill]

Antichrist is a fine piece of art, of cinema. A powerfull, deep and personnal film that can be read in a lot of ways. It is not the type of movie that I would like to see everyday, but once in a while, a movie like this make you feel the 7th art like if it was the first time.

8.5/10

[legato]

I so syked to see this, then I almost walked out. If my boyfriend hadn't gotten into the religious overtones we would have. It was not what I thought it was going to be at all. Not to say I have a problem with all the sex, but I was just not prepared for that. By the end of this first time I hated it.
Then the theater I work at got it so I would peek in every so often due to my crush on Dafoe, then I started picking up on the symbolism. It made work a little fun to discuss the symbolism with my coworkers, but none of us could figure out the ending... there again most of us hadn't seen a von Trier film before this.
The more I catch pieces, the more I get the impression that this entire movie was just for shock value. I hate that. It's like making a movie bad so it'll be a cult classic. I'm glad I didn't pay for it.

Does anyone know what the ending was about? If it meant anything at all?

-Endless Meghan

I heavily agree with you, Von Trier may be the most immature film maker working today, even though instead my reaction was to laugh and mostly have a good time. Is there a scene this year more humorous than Gainsbourg yelling while that crow was squawking.
As for the ending, while many interpretations could be had it probably has to do with freeing the souls from the need to gendercide or something along those lines.

[widowsson295]

He is the evil one, not she. She goes to eden with only her son. She was already having mental problems. She studies the persecution of women through the ages. She falls deeper into mental illness. Many schizophrenics are known to begin showing signs of the disease while in college. Through intense studying she lost her mind, not because of the material. However, the material she happened to be studying left deep impressions upon her psyche. When she returned home, she suffered from paranoia. She craved the sexual desires of her husband because it sated her fears of him leaving her. She thought he may leave because he would see her as evil (a result of her now warped mind). When she sees her boy fall, she was more concerned with her orgasm. Then she grieves. She was getting the medications that she desperately needed. She was hospitalized. This was her only chance of getting well, not just from the grief, but of her pre-existing mental deterioration.
Then He steps in and takes control. He decides that He knows best. He refuses to yield to doctor's wishes as well as Her's. He asks what scares her most, and then takes her to the heart of her fears. Her fragile mind breaks. The antichrist is man. For centuries he decides that women who suffer phsychological disorders are evil. It is his own vanity that was the evil in this story. Thats my story, and i'm stickin' to it.

[Brendan M.]

Alright, I finally saw the movie the other night. I can now see why everyone thinks Lars Von Trier is insane. Its one thing to hear about the stuff in this movie, its another to actually watch it. Chaos does indeed reign.