The film opens on a tight shot of a shoulder in a shower in high speed slow motion, cut to: an intimate embrace between two lovers, cut to: close ups of various body parts that are difficult to distinguish, cut to: graphic money shot of Willem Dafoe's penis sliding into Charlotte Gainsbourg's vagina.
Somebody read that opening and actually thought, "I'm going to finance this film." Amongst the chaos of the extremely long, ultra slow motion 10 minute opening of Lars von Trier's Antichrist we see an intercutting of the couple's young son exiting his room and leaping to his demise from a second story window while his parents are in the throes of passion. The result of this child neglect leaves us with the child's hospitalized grief-stricken mother (Gainsbourg) and her detached therapist of a husband (Dafoe). The husband decides to take his wife to their cabin in the woods and treat her to deal with the grief in each stage. Along the way, we will see clitorides (that's plural for clitoris, folks) being cut, penises ejaculating blood, talking foxes, and a whole lot of pretentious, self indulgent BS.
Somebody read that opening and actually thought, "I'm going to finance this film." Amongst the chaos of the extremely long, ultra slow motion 10 minute opening of Lars von Trier's Antichrist we see an intercutting of the couple's young son exiting his room and leaping to his demise from a second story window while his parents are in the throes of passion. The result of this child neglect leaves us with the child's hospitalized grief-stricken mother (Gainsbourg) and her detached therapist of a husband (Dafoe). The husband decides to take his wife to their cabin in the woods and treat her to deal with the grief in each stage. Along the way, we will see clitorides (that's plural for clitoris, folks) being cut, penises ejaculating blood, talking foxes, and a whole lot of pretentious, self indulgent BS.
Is the film terrible? I have the hardest time saying yes, despite the previous setence. Gainsbourg and Dafoe turn in some truly incredible performances, and though von Trier has crafted a relatively inept script, it is clear he has a gift for visual direction. The problem lies with the film's structure and plotting. The opening is operatic and almost poignant despite its extremely graphic nature. But were it not for the outstanding performance of Gainsbourg, the film would have lost me somewhere around the 35 minute mark. You see, Gainsbourg spirals into this form of depressed, grief-stricken insanity and just kind of lingers there. Dafoe does his best to treat her and help her through her pain, but she's simply a ticking time bomb of crazy just waiting to go off, and when she goes, oh man does it get crazy.
The final 20 minutes are riveting, edge of your seat horror and will make even the strongest of stomachs turn. But it's getting from point A to point B that takes way too long and is way too uninteresting...not to mention completely nonsensical. Gainsbourg has this debilitating fear of the woods and a bridge that Dafoe helps her overcome, but the why or how is never touched on. Only that she is. Wasn't she freaking out about her son? Why is a fox telling Willem Dafoe that "chaos reigns"? You will walk away with a million questions, and it's not because the film is a meditation on the human condition as much as it is a half-cooked philosophical shock fest with misogynistic overtones.
Antichrist is not a good film, it was a film made by the director for the writer who both happen to be Lars von Trier. He may have achieved some sort of catharsis upon making this film, as it has a storied difficult development, but, beyond that, this film really accomplishes nothing. The film may introduce some good ideas or interesting points of views, but it never explains or expands and never makes a statement on them. It says nothing, and it's mostly just a showcase of good actors in a really bad situation.
PS - I can't wait for the video game adaption that extends the story!
--Greg MacLennan
The final 20 minutes are riveting, edge of your seat horror and will make even the strongest of stomachs turn. But it's getting from point A to point B that takes way too long and is way too uninteresting...not to mention completely nonsensical. Gainsbourg has this debilitating fear of the woods and a bridge that Dafoe helps her overcome, but the why or how is never touched on. Only that she is. Wasn't she freaking out about her son? Why is a fox telling Willem Dafoe that "chaos reigns"? You will walk away with a million questions, and it's not because the film is a meditation on the human condition as much as it is a half-cooked philosophical shock fest with misogynistic overtones.
Antichrist is not a good film, it was a film made by the director for the writer who both happen to be Lars von Trier. He may have achieved some sort of catharsis upon making this film, as it has a storied difficult development, but, beyond that, this film really accomplishes nothing. The film may introduce some good ideas or interesting points of views, but it never explains or expands and never makes a statement on them. It says nothing, and it's mostly just a showcase of good actors in a really bad situation.
PS - I can't wait for the video game adaption that extends the story!
--Greg MacLennan
RSS Feed
