Antichrist

I feel compelled to say a few words about Lars Von Trier’s latest film having seen it yesterday. I’m not giving much away but it’s probably better not to read this if you haven’t seen it.

The first thing I will say is that the controversy surrounding this film, though understandable is misplaced. The level of graphic violence is no worse than say, for example the opening scene of “Goodfellas” but because it is directed towards their procreative organs, many will instantly find it more disturbing.  For me, the sight of a person repeatedly smashing their own head against a toilet bowl is equally, if not more disturbing to view. If you want something truly horrific why not try “Irreversible“? As for the other accusation – to dismiss Von Trier as a misogynist on the strength of this film would be trite and disingenuous.

The reason I chose to make a rare visit to the cinema was not because of these controversial aspects but largely because of the accusations of “pretension” which have been levelled at “Antichrist”. There is no greater crime to the ill-informed, blinkered critic than pretension and you can usually guarantee this as an endorsement. Von Trier is an artist which is why people like Baz Bamigboye will never be able to understand his motivation and feel that they have the right to demand that he “justifies” his work. He is an artist in the same way as Tarkovsky and Bergman were but his work has evolved their vision to a new level of emotional connection. “Mirror” and “Persona” were the two reference points that sprang to me whilst watching “Antichrist” but it was a strange though not altogether surprising shock to see the onscreen dedication to Andrei Tarkovsky just before the rolling of the credits. Apparently this caused much outrage and derision at Cannes – I have no idea why. Tarkovsky was a visual poet and Von Trier imitates this style successfully,  whether in the enigmatic quality of the bleak location or the cinematography of the heavily stylised monochrome epilogue and prologue that bookend the main body of the film. The epilogue in particular, contains scenes of such stark beauty that it is almost overdone – “gilding the lily” would be an apt phrase perhaps. In retrospect, this is a necessity to better illustrate the harrowing degradation of the next four chapters.

As with “Mirror” you can try hard to understand the messages or try to make sense of the narrative but you won’t. Von Trier is on record at Cannes as saying this film is a “dark dream” not to be unravelled. There are certain themes and clues such as the concept of gynocide which sprang from the idea that women are fundamentally evil and the “she” character’s role (or not) in the death of their son. There is also the concept of Adam and Eve in Eden (the only characters in the film are named as “He” and “She” in the credits), the invented constellation and even the bizarre talking fox scene but they do not add up to a clear picture. If anything, the epilogue puts an even more oblique seal on the whole premise.  Ultimately, as with Tarkovsky one should sit back and appreciate the visual alchemy whilst not dwelling too deeply on explanations as these are deeply personal works.

“Antichrist” is not a horror film as a lot of  reviewers have described it,  it’s no more a horror movie than “Repulsion” is.  The term “horror film” brings with it a whole host of genre-specific traits and “Antichrist” only ticks a few of these boxes. Yes, it is scary and there is even an element of the supernatural about it but it borrows from the genre more than being a part of it. Maybe it’s a knee-jerk to the (admittedly baffling) title.

“Antichrist” did upset me and it did shock me because it upset me. I’m not talking about the graphic scenes, what I am referring to is a strange and profound sense of loss that I experienced at two distinct points. If you have experienced any real trauma in your life you will re-live it through this film and as far as I’m concerned, as a work of art that makes it a triumph.