Antichrist

by James McNally on November 3, 2009 · 2 comments

in Theatrical Release

Antichrist

Antichrist (Director: Lars von Trier): I’m grateful that I waited to see this. By fol­lowing the steady stream of reviews, first from Cannes, then from TIFF, I’ve been able to steel myself for what I anti­cip­ated would be a har­rowing exper­i­ence. Because I knew in advance some of the more grue­some images to which I would be exposed, it affected the way I watched the film. I closely observed the beha­viour of each of the char­ac­ters early in the film to try to determine what would set off such a chain of events.

Some very brief plot sum­mary for those who may not have heard already. Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg are an unnamed mar­ried couple (iden­ti­fied in the credits only as He and She) with a young child. In the black and white pro­logue to the film, they are making love unaware that their young son is crawling toward an open window. As Handel plays over the slow-motion images, the child plunges to his death. The rest of the film deals with the after­math to this tragedy. She is almost swal­lowed up by her grief, and spends a month in hos­pital on med­ic­a­tion. He’s a ther­apist, and resents the fact that someone else is treating his wife. With a curious detach­ment, he takes over his wife’s therapy, con­vin­cing her that she needs to throw away the med­ic­a­tion and face her grief head-on. As she slyly points out, he has never paid so much atten­tion to her as when she becomes his patient. She also accuses him of indif­fer­ence to the death of their child.

As she passes through the stages of grief, she enters a phase of tre­mendous fear and anxiety. She suf­fers panic attacks, and in an effort to treat her, he asks her to tell him where she feels most afraid. She tells him that the woods ter­rify her, refer­ring to the forest around their rural cabin, omin­ously named “Eden.” She and their son had spent the pre­vious summer there, while she tried to finish her thesis, on gyn­o­cide (viol­ence against women.) They pack their things and head to the cabin, where things gradu­ally unravel and acts of hor­rific viol­ence take place.

The film is divided into chapters, with a pro­logue and epi­logue framing four chapters entitled Grief, Pain, Despair, and The Three Beggars. The last refers to a col­lec­tion of fig­ur­ines glimpsed early in the film, each named for one of the other chapters. Grief, Pain and Despair also come to be asso­ci­ated with three dif­ferent animals the couple encounter in the woods. Grief is a fox, Pain is a crow, while Despair is a deer. The Three Beggars also refers to a con­stel­la­tion men­tioned in Gainsbourg’s thesis, although Dafoe declares late in the film that no such con­stel­la­tion exists. If this gives you the idea that the film is crammed with sym­bolism, you’d be right. The violent con­front­a­tion between He and She is not so much between two people as it is between two ways of thinking. Dafoe is rational and con­trolling, and he’s totally unaware of his own arrog­ance. His wife rep­res­ents the chaos of emo­tion, both fear and rage, and the dark­ness of nature. Nature as rep­res­ented by the forest set­ting refers both to the nat­ural phys­ical world as well as to the mys­teries of human nature. As a lit­er­ature stu­dent, I remember being intro­duced to the concept of the forest as the wild, uncon­trol­lable uncon­scious mind and our animal nature.

What becomes obvious in the woods is that these two (or pos­sibly more) ways of thinking cannot co-exist. One will have to con­quer the other and that means that someone will die. From my very basic under­standing of He and She, the pos­sib­il­ities are that the clash of sys­tems might represent:

  • Male vs. Female (very basic)
  • Science vs. Intuition
  • Rationality vs. Morality

Director von Trier has said that he made the film in the midst of a very ser­ious depres­sion and it’s clear that it is the work of someone who is strug­gling with what it means to be a sup­posedly rational being in a world that often seems far from rational. It’s muddled but auda­cious, and I can think of no one else cur­rently making films that give us so much to think about as well as so much to feel. Though the last twenty minutes or so will make a repeat viewing a bit of a chal­lenge, there is a lot I want to figure out. I think that most of all, it’s a beautifully-constructed film, with stun­ning cine­ma­to­graphy and a thought-provoking script. Charlotte Gainsbourg in par­tic­ular shows tre­mendous range in a very dif­fi­cult role. The irony is that in a film where a fox sol­emnly intones that “Chaos reigns,” that a man has crafted the mes­sage so carefully.

Antichrist opens in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver on November 13, 2009.

Official site of the film

9/10(9/10)

{ 2 comments }

1 Jay Kerr November 5, 2009 at 12:15 am

Wow! Glad you liked the film. This one is hit or miss for most people.

A couple of things. When I saw this at TIFF the audience didn’t know what to make of the talking fox. When he said “chaos reigns” in the film, the audience burst into laughter.

Dafoe watched the film with the audience and afterward he did a Q&A where he said that the forest and nature in general, is inherently evil. Traditionally we think of nature, creation and God (or maybe not). In von Trier’s case he sees the forest as something dark, evil and violent.

If anything, the film is an amazing piece of art that will create endless discussion on symbols and meaning.

2 James McNally November 12, 2009 at 1:06 pm

Just wanted to point out that the film opens here in Toronto tomorrow at the Cumberland. Both alt-weeklies (Eye and NOW) have given the film four-star reviews. Hopefully that translates into some decent box-office numbers.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: