by Sam Juliano
One of opera’s most beautiful arias, Handel’s mournful “Lascia Ch’io pianga” from Act II of Rinaldo, provides the aural accompaniment to one of the most ravishing opening sequences in the history of cinema. Yet it’s a sequence that ends in unconscionable tragedy, after the infant son of a young couple “doing it” climbs up to a window and drops to his death during a snowfall. It’s a shocking event that will hover over the remainder of the film, and dictate the level of depravity and despair that unleashes the worst behavioral possibilities can that possibly be engineered by man. Of course the grief experienced is so intense that the mental state of the characters is fragile at best. The man and woman, referred to as “He” and “She” (the young son Nicholas is the only character in the film with a name) retreat to a cabin in the woods, as the suggestion of the male, who is a psychotherapist. The forest surrounding the shanty is known as Eden, and its clear that Von Trier isn’t masking some pretty standard Biblical imagery. But this Eden is closer to the garden of Satan, and when the wife screams out “the cry of all the things that are to die” are one with the real sounds of nature, it’s clear that there’s a proclamation here that everything must die. As acorns rain down on the roof of the cabin, “She” completely breaks down mentally and the film decends into such revolting barbarism, that’s it’s clear that there’s a pervading sense of hopelessness and crushing despair in the existence of these characters, indeed of all mankind. It’s an uncompromising view of a dream-turned nightmare and it’s execution is both carnal and surreal.
Von Trier neatly outlines his film with on-screen and ornate chapter stops that in addition to applying some compelling visual metaphors, clearly deliniate the stages of mental breakdown that leads to the aforementioned collison course. After the monochrome and highly lyrical proloque (which the director almost seems to have devised as an answer to charges of visual ugliness in his films) we have a ‘Chapter One’ sequence entitled “Grief” which unsurprisingly chronicles She’s funeral collapse, hospitalization with alternating consciousness, and inability to process time. After various tactics fail, “He” decides to use “exposure therapy” learning that his wife’s greatest fear is on the cabin, a place she spent time with her young son the summer before.
The second chapter, titled “Pain” is bracketed with “Chaos Reigns” and it concerns the intensifying of grief, manic depression and seeming paranoia, that greets “He’s” attempys at psychotherapy. meanwhile, outside there are metaphoric acorn showers and the fox warning that ‘chaos reigns.’ The third chapter, “Despair” (Genocide) begins with “He” coming upon scrapbooks compiled by his wife for an upcoming thesis featuring pictures of witch hunts and various misogynist topics. At this point “She” comes to believe that women are inherently evil – and this ‘revelation’ has led to cries of mysogony against Von Trier himself – and without warning she viciously attacks her husband by stabbing him below the stomach and stripping him down while declaring that “He” was planning to leave her. After smashing his testicles with a heavy piece of wood, she masturbates him to orgasm, which causes him to ejaculate blood onto her face, in one of the film’s most revolting passages. “She” then drills a hole through one of his legs, and bolts a heavy circular grindstone through the wound, and then runs out into the woods disposing of a wrench that she used to complete the dasterdly deed. “He” finally awakens and drags himself outside, finding refuge in a fox-hole, while “She” angrily screams over and over “Where are you?” She eventually is aided by the shrill of a crow (one of the Three Beggars) but she then reverses herself, apologizing and helping to pull her hasband back to the cabin.
The Fourth Chapter, “The Three Beggars” “She” relates to her husband that somehow it was not meant for him to die, but that this would be reversed upon the arrival of the Three Beggars, which of course has already happened with the appearance after chapter one of the deer with the dead fawn, the self-disembowling fox who warns of the prevailing chaos, and the section in the fox hole where “He” is unable to kill the black crow after repeatedly beating it, even after it was buried alive. In one of the film’s most notorious scenes “She” them multilates her clitoris with a scissor as a result of her belief (visualized in flashback) that she failed to act to prevent the tragic death of Nic. No doubt Von Trier was influenced here by the scene in his Scandinavian compatriot Ingmar Bergman’s Cries and Whispers, when Ingrid Thulin cuts her own vagina with a shard of glass and smears the blood on her face. During the night the couple are again visited by the crow, deer and fox, and after “She” again gets violent by stabbing “He” with the scissors, he removes the heavy millstone and then strangles “She” to death, and then takes her body outside to burned at the pyre, recalling all kinds of witchcraft movies, but because of nationality, Dreyer’s The Passion of Joan of Arc and Day of Wrath are immediately envisioned.
In the surrealistic Epilogue, “He” departs the cabin gathering berries on the way up a hill. With the beggars in attendance again “He” sees hundreds of faceless women walk past him, again recalling Bergman, as the Three Beggars watch. If Von trier provides some measure of relieve from the oppressive and dire proceedings, he offers no respite from the torture that will certainly destroy the film’s lone “survivor,” but even a more hopeful prognosis can’t be backed up with any interpretation.
Willem Dafoe delivers his most intense performance in a number of years as “He” and Charlotte Gainsbourg, who won Best Actress honors at Cannes gives a raw-boned, chilling and ultimately shattering performance as the haunted “She” who resorts to the most depraved actions to avange herself, when in fact she later concludes that she was mostly to blame. Gainsbourg’s physical performance is astounding here. The film’s cinematographer, Anthony Tod Mantle, who won an Oscar for Slumdog Millionaire last year, is responsible for that extraordinary Epilogue with its glistening monochrome lyricism, but also for the forbidden blackness and claustrophia of the scenes in the woods, which thematically inform the work’s essence. Mantle’s grainy and expressionistic saturated noctural hues convey unremittingly lifelessness, seemingly chartered by none other than the Grim Reaper himself. It’s the camerawork of our worst nightmares, and it’s successful navigation is no small feat.
There’s little question that Von Trier could not have been on any kind of a spiritual upswing when he conceived this film. But unlike author Stephen King, who stashed away his horrifying Pet Cemetary (which also featured the violent death of a young boy) in a drawer, refusing to publish it for several years, the Danish director, bold and fearless, and with an ego to boot, pulled no punches in this bleakest of visions. It’s a terrible place to go, but it’s thematically rich, and impossible to forget. Antichrist joins Dancer in the Dark, Dogville and Breaking The Waves as one of the controversial auteur’s greatest films.
Final Rating: * * * * 1/2
Note: I saw ‘Antichrist’ five weeks ago at the IFC in Manhattan with Lucille and Broadway Bob after the worst week I ever had to endure in my life. Instead of lifting me the film took me further down into the depths, and unavoidably I’ll always make this corrolation. Yet, in answer to the obvious question “How could one “like” such a film” I can point to it’s complex metaphorical underpinning and it’s consumate artistry. In this instance it overrides the horrific premise. One is reminded of the artist Edvard Much, another Nordic Von Trier colleague, whose work riveted and disturbed simultaneously.
Sam…wow…I am speechless…and still can’t believe your were able to sit through this at the time that you did.
Is it possible…Von Trier is evil? I know that sounds juvenile…but really…really…he is quite mad. An artist, yes…but vile and rotten to the core? You can’t tell me he doesn’t despise humanity. From his first film (The Element of Crime) to this…just nothing but disdain for the human condition. Yet he has occasionally shown brilliant psychological insight (Europa) or a hint of compassion (Breaking the Waves) and he certainly knows how to provoke (Dogville). But deep down…it does seem like it comes to THIS, for him, doesn’t it?
That being said…this is one I will dread watching when Netflix delivers it…but it does seem essential.
“You can’t tell me he doesn’t despise humanity.” I couldn’t disagree more, he may or may not despise humanity but it’s a (somewhat) moot point. What he most certainly is is an honest artist that has an opinion of the world that is unique and (IMHO) correct. You may find him ‘Evil’ but someone who has experience a harsher life would see him as perfectly accurate. In other words, we shouldn’t dismiss others who have different worldviews (not saying you are David, just in general as so many of the reviews I’ve read for this don’t think about it for a second, rather lob claims of perversion or anti-feminism towards it–two things it isn’t btw).
I think watching his joint feature ‘The Five Obstructions’ is essential here in understanding where he comes from. Sometimes he may come off as aggressive or raw to make a point; sometimes cinema is larger then life–distorted; heightened if you will. In this light, ‘The Five Obstructions’ may be the most important film of his to watch when getting started in his oeuvre.
Sam, I will reread this truly fantastic submission and return tomorrow fresh with my thoughts. I promise because like you I really adored this film and I hope negative opinions don’t become the majority here.
Jamie, I must say…any director who can provoke such extremes in me (Europa is one of my all-time favorite films while I found his Manderlay to be a steaming pile of s**t) is essential to contemporary cinema as far as I’m concerned — even if he is “evil” which I used the term in my original comment somewhat jokingly.
But I do seriously question his motives, which seem so perversely driven by his own ego and desire to disturb others and torture his characters and his audience. In the sense that his visions are so twisted by his own perversions, I would actually argue that his films are very “compromised” in that he will often sacrifice content and deeper meaning for stylistic eccentricities and shock value.
Keep in mind…I’m a fan of his…Europa and Breaking the Waves were among my top ten for the 1990’s and Dogville could easly place in my future list for the 2000’s.
David, I liked MANDERLAY too, but I can see why it can be seen as a kind of weak retread of DOGVILLE.
But I do seriously question his motives, which seem so perversely driven by his own ego and desire to disturb others and torture his characters and his audience. In the sense that his visions are so twisted by his own perversions, I would actually argue that his films are very “compromised” in that he will often sacrifice content and deeper meaning for stylistic eccentricities and shock value.
Well, this is an interesting point, especially since we all know of his extreme hatred for America, and his refusal to set foot on it’s shores. But this is a bit too easy, as his major works are rife with profundity. (again you do acknowledge this too).
Sam:
Does Von Trier really “hate” America? I mean, films like Dogville and Manderlay are obviously criticisms of America–or at least of American mythology–but has he ever expressed anything like “hate” in his own words? I thought Von Trier’s refusal to travel had to do with his phobia of flying. He doesn’t visit any countries he can’t drive to.
Sam’s the same, Andrew.
In responding to both David and Jamie simultaneously, I can say with out reservation that YES, he does rather despise humanity, as his work has seemingly indicated time and time again. Yet as both of you acknowledge he’s an essential artist for so many reasons, and this film is a major achievement, whether or not one can muster up the courage to see it more than once.
I just made some major additions to the review and the final note, and will let the essay stand as is. I look forward to further discussion tomorrow, after I attend to those wonderful MMD submissions by Troy, Dee Dee and Jamie among others. Thanks very much.
Andrew, I once read and interview where Von Trier was extremely critical of the US, but hey I agree there is no proof it’s definitive, though as you note he is afraid to fly. Many accounts of his sentimesnts no doubt are sensationalized too.
Sam:
You know we disagree on this one, but that’s really irrelevant when we’re dealing with such a wonderfully penned defense of the film. I find von Trier’s misanthropy tired, immature, and downright grating on my nerves; however, this is the one film where I can easily say that certain segments — especially that beautiful black and white opening — are actually filmed well…I never thought I would find myself saying that about von Trier. Obviously I’m not coming at this film the same way you are, nor do I pretend that I can put myself in your shoes, but I just find this film (and most of von Trier’s) to be laughable. That opening is beautiful, yes, but all I kept thinking was…”seriously, Lars, you want me to buy this?”
It’s the same problems I had with the melodrama in Million Dollar Baby…sometimes melodrama can be done well, and it really doesn’t bother me all that much, but in films like Antichrist and the aforementioned Eastwood film it just gets hard to tolerate the MELOdrama because there’s nothing subtle about it all…they remove all subtext and bludgeon you over the head with the despair.
Anyway…now that I’ve pissed you and Jamie off I’ll retreat to my books, hehe. Great review, Sam.
Ah Kevin, I’ve known your position for a long time, especially after you penned your own superlative review here at Hugo Stiglitz:
http://kolson-kevinsblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/antichrist-dragging-me-to-hell.html
I respect where you are coming from and it has not escaped my attention that at RT (hardly a place for intellectuals to convene, but still a place to gather some statistics) it has a splattered tomato grade of “49%.” with many as disgusted with the film as much as you are. This is fair enough as everyone has different sensibilities and levels of tolerance, not to mention a simple word know as taste. I am with you on MILLION DOLLAR BABY though. that one is as shamelessly manipulative as they come. What a fantastic response here Kevin! Much appreciated!
I don’t know why I used the word ‘subtext’ above…I meant ‘subtleties’.
Von Trier has a bad case of self-loathing. He needs help and urgently.
Ha Tony! You’d be surprised at how many people both in the critical ranks and among film buffs who completely agree with you. Sometimes I question my own sanity on his work.
Tony, I saw you had commented on this thread a while back but was not reading it at the time as I’d neither seen the movie nor written my review yet. This comment makes me chuckle. I don’t know if “self-loathing” is the exact word I’d use, but he’s undoubtedly a sado-masochist. I can see why some hate his work but I find the perversity fascinating and kind of thrilling, if at times exhausting.
“You may find him ‘Evil’ but someone who has experience a harsher life would see him as perfectly accurate. In other words, we shouldn’t dismiss others who have different worldviews”
“I can say with out reservation that YES, he does rather despise humanity, as his work has seemingly indicated time and time again”
“I find von Trier’s misanthropy tired, immature, and downright grating on my nerves”
An artist’s work does not add up to a world view.
Von Trier may or may not be evil and he may or may not hate women but I find it hard to believe that one can fully understand the artist through his art. I could be a fascist and write communist propaganda. Antichrist is a fictional world. The character believes women are evil but so what? She’s a character.
Maybe Von Trier simply likes exploring stories involving abused women. It doesn’t mean the abusers’ hands are an extension of his.
To be sure this is a brilliant film. I had a review up too if anyone is interested:
http://checkingonmysausages.blogspot.com/2009/11/antichrist-2009-lars-von-trier-couples.html
Stephen — good point. It’s interesting though that the women in his later films…after being abused or going through some horrific trauma…become the abusers themselves (witness Dogville and Manderlay…and this film based on what Sam wrote here, though it seems yet another turn occurs in this one and she is murdered).
I’m not sure…but does that also mirror the arc of his career output AND audience reaction to his films? In other words…did he become the abuser and now that we (the audience) have been abused…we have begun to abuse him (through scathing reviews or simply hating and dismissing his later work)?
I don’t know…maybe it’s my degree in psychology…and I’m looking into this too much…you say you can’t judge an artist by his work alone…but there does seem to be a pattern here…that points to something deeply disturbed in him.
Stephen, as David states you have made some very good points here, and I just read your own excellent review at your place – which I will add to the blogroll here at Wonders – and commented there. You are basically arguing as I am for dramatic license, and for freedom of speech. Someone else today mentioned ‘Wagner’ and I think that’s the best example of a man who was personally despicable -an avid racist and anri semite – who wrote some of the most gorgeous music of all-time. True Von Trier’s M.O. is as disturbing as has ever been seen on a movie screen, and yes sometimes we do question his pyschology and motives, but there’s something deep and lasting here, even if many rightfully don’t want to hear it.
This is one of the greatest reviews posted at this blogsite. You should be proud Sam. Your description of Mantle’s cinematography is exceptional. Von Trier is a director some seem to genuinely dislike, and I bet it’s also reflected in the divided reviews, some of which are downright scathing. Cinematic brilliance can be expressed even in the most abhorant mode.
Frank: You always issue ‘praise to the hilt’ and I appreciate the incredible support, but I’m so sure this is the greatest of anything. I am proud of much at this site by Allan and the others, and the comments are what really make it.
But THIS is terrific:
Cinematic brilliance can be expressed even in the most abhorant mode.
Indeed!
You know I would never be able to sit through a film like this. That opening would have me in a catatonic state. But what you talk about coming after that is out of my sphere of tolerance. Still, it’s a gorgeous review, one you should be proud of. I always say you missed your calling.
If I recommended this film to some of our more ‘conservative’ colleagues Maria, I’d be remanded to a menatl institution. So I know when to remain silent! Thanks for the kind words, even if I’m happy to be where I am.
…..I hated Dogville, and wasn’t the fan you are of Dancer in the Dark. This film seems to have left the box, and not in a good sense………
Frank, if you hated those (which I am long known) let’s just call it a day with this one. There’s even less of a chance! Thanks as always for the input.
I enjoyed the insights in the essay, which is not to say I agree with all of them!
In regard to some Comments, it makes little sense to brand von Trier as a misogynist because he presents his female characters in situations of great suffering. Mizoguchi did the same (in Sancho the Bailiff and numerous other films), and his intent seems to have been to show how unfairly women were treated in his time. In Mizoguchi’s case, he was traumatized as a child by how brutally his father treated his mother and sister; and that one of his young sisters was sold as a geisha. His art bears witness to women’s wrongs.
I don’t know what von Trier’s “wound” is, but I think we could agree that although his female characters frequently suffer horrible fates, he usually presents this as an injustice. In Breaking The Waves he develops Emily Watson’s childlike, pure nature with tenderness, understanding and even love. It’s the harsh male elders of her church whom he presents as hateful. In Dogtown, Nicole Kidman is a trusting young woman who is victimized by predatory men and their judgmental women.
Von Trier seems to believe that in rare cases innocent, loving souls do exist, but that their unworldiness can and will draw inhuman punishments on themselves. Now, does he take glee in grinding down these innocents in his stories? Or does he see it as a grim duty and homage to truth, to the way things are?
In AntiChrist, he has presented both the man and woman (mother and father) in a situation so extreme that although we shoiuldn’t suspend judgment, we should keep in mind that Von Trier has subjected them to the greatest loss and shock that humans can endure. Has it simply shaken loose their veneers and shown their violent true selves? Or has it thrown them into a vat of acid which destroyed their true selves?
In my opinion all we can say for sure about von Trier’s work is that he is every bit as talented as he is troubled.
Margaret, thanks for those insights into Mizoguchi, who is one of my favorite directors and the direct reference to SANSHO THE BAILIFF, which may well be my favorite film of all-time. And yes, i was aware of those facts from Mizoguchi’s life that informed his characterizations. The treatment of women in in fact one that’s regularly explored in classic Japanese cinema, but admittedly Mizoguchi is the prime figure.
As far as the cries of ‘mysogony’ from many in critical circles, I can’t say I blame them (you yourself point out other instances in this work that may bring this protestations to the fore) though Ilike you I don’t feel this is what he was expressing, at least not consciously.
I must say I like this:
“Von Trier seems to believe that in rare cases innocent, loving souls do exist, but that their unworldiness can and will draw inhuman punishments on themselves.”
But the questions you subsequently raise (as excellent as they are) really have no answers, and I’m inclined to give this renowned artist the benefit of the doubt.
And yep, the final staement thathe’s both “troubled” and “talented” could hardly be denied, though I’ve NEVER as some others have, taken what he says personally.
As always Margaret, you are consumate scholar. Thank You.
To Sam or Margaret…did you ever see Von Trier’s MEDEA (from a screenplay by Dreyer)?
Now, maybe it is the MEDEA source story…or maybe it was Dreyer (not likely)…but in that one…there was no innocence on display. Von Trier’s Medea was evil to the core, and she even manipulated her own child into an evil deed.
I found it no surprise that Von Trier was attracted to this myth and the overal idea of the “evil woman”.
I would love to watch someone pyschoanalyze him.
I think his other films are various explorations on this this theme (even in Europa to an extent when Barabara Sukuwa is revealed to be a Werewolf and she is the ultimate femme fatal for Leopold Kessler) where Von Trier “wondered” — what if SHE was innocent — what if there were outside influences — what if SHE was mad — blind — naive — ? It’s all variations on the same theme in my book. And it’s fascinating.
Great points Margaret about Mizoguchi and the unique mental state of parents grieving for their child – in this case parents who in some way feel responsible too.
“Has it simply shaken loose their veneers and shown their violent true selves? Or has it thrown them into a vat of acid which destroyed their true selves?”
Beautifully put. This is an important question.
Yep, Stephen, an answer there will basically reveal one’s judgement here.
A glowing summary and assessment of this film’s merits, Sam.
I’ve never really understood the hate that Von Trier engenders in some writers. Granted, I’ve only seen three of his previous films–Breaking the Waves, Manderlay, and The Boss of It All–and my reaction has ranged from modest appreciation to modest indifference. Antichrist is his first film that reached out and grabbed me by the lapels. I don’t consider it any kind cinematic achievement, but it’s the sort of film that has provoked me to think carefully about its content and message, and whose sensory chills have stuck with me. You zeroed in on it succinctly with this: “It’s a terrible place to go, but it’s thematically rich, and impossible to forget.”
My review:
http://gatewaycinephiles.com/2009/11/06/damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont/
Thanks so much for that Andrew! Coming from you it is high praise indeed!
Oh I remember your superlative review well, and I particularly loved these two lines from it:
“The film is suffused with unforgettable images, seemingly plucked out of a bad dream and given a rotten, mythic life on the screen. Von Trier has achieved a fresh alchemy, blending his essential cynicism with intellectually engrossing themes and a new-found instinct for terror. ”
I’d be curious to know what you’d think of DANCER and DOGVILLE, but you’ve already seen a good cross-section of his canon.
The question I am left with here is this: “Is Antichrist a horror film in either concept or in the strictest traditional sense?’ Horror films generally don’t get much respect, at least the contemporary ones, but this film has obviously gone beyond that with many to embrace a broader artistic and nihilist framework. What does seem clear is that you have a very angry man at work here.
Dave:
I think it’s a horror film, but one that takes the particular fears it it addressing (andro/gynophobia) and moves them front-and-center, rather than leaving them in the realms of subtext, metaphor, or allegory. I’m not sure if this directness means that Antichrist breaks the rules of the genre–bury your themes under ghouls and gore–but I certainly prefer the grave treatment in Antichrist to films like Teeth or even the admittedly fun Ginger Snaps, which in my mind suffer from trying to have it both ways. (Both a forthright critique of gender Othering *and* just a bloody, scary romp.)
Thanks for that formidable answer Andrew. I’m inclined to agree, as Von Trier seems to be shooting for much more than what traditional horror strives to get, and there’s far more meaning to his madness.
Your argument is sound Andrew. Many are calling it as out-and-out horror film, though we know it transcends these conventions to the rhealm of art.
I too think if it need to be stocked at Blockbuster it would go in the horror section. I think the most similar film to it is Polanski’s ‘Repulsion’ which most would have no trouble labeling ‘Horror’.
I was also reminded of Hanke’s ‘The Piano Teacher’ when watching it for some reason (that’s probably my favorite Haneke btw). Heck even Tarkovsky’s ‘Mirror’ seems applicable here for comparison. I also read Von Trier had the ‘She’ character watch ‘The Night Porter’ a few times to ‘feel’ the character. That adds even more to the equation.
Great reference there Jamie to REPULSION, and of course Hanecke’s FUNNY GAMES would also be place din that section, though maybe that’s a given. Many are saying THE ROAD is a horror film now.
This is quite a statement here Sam:
….Mantle’s grainy and expressionistic saturated noctural hues convey unremittingly lifelessness, seemingly chartered by none other than the Grim Reaper himself. It’s the camerawork of our worst nightmares, and it’s successful navigation is no small feat…
I think we can conclude that filmic artistry is more important that what one thinks of someone’s philosophy of life. You can hate the artist but venerate his/her work. A little Wagner anyone?
Thanks Fred for the fantastic comment, the kind words and the Wagner reference.
Indeed!!!
“The question I am left with here is this: “Is Antichrist a horror film in either concept or in the strictest traditional sense?’”
I’m not one for genre pigeon-holing but it didn’t strike me as a ‘horror film’ at all. A ‘psychological drama’ maybe? (another poor description)
“What does seem clear is that you have a very angry man at work here”
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Is Martin Scorsese a vicious man because his films’ characters revel in rock-soundtracked brutality?
Stephen, there are times when I also feel that this is NOT a horror film, and much for the reasons you pose here. It can be argued either way most convincingly.
I don’t know if I could bear something like this if the director was anyone less than Lars Von Trier. His mastery with narrative, camera, metaphor and performance are so expert that he can turn the repulsive to profound. Rarely, particularly in these times of “more of the same”, are we introduced to an artist with such vision and voice. I’ve found all of his films disturbing, yet all of them draw me back again and again. Like the late, great Stanley Kubrick, Von Trier forces us to see ourselves within the framework of our films andN like it or not, forces us further to examine our own personal journey and the world these journeys take place. This is a poewerful essay Sam. The only film this year I really WANT to see.
“repulsive to profound”
Yep Dennis, that’s what we are arguing here! Nice comment all the way through.
I’m almost tempted to question Mr. Von Trier’s “maturity” when he makes a film like this. What is he trying to tell us? Yeah, we got much of the same (albeit in a more civilized vein) with Charlie Kaufman’s ‘Synecdoche, New York” and the same issues arise. What is being told to us here that we don’t already know, and why must be submit to this kind of hopeless despair?
Sam, from out of the depths you’ve written of your great pieces of film criticism, but the subject here is a tough sell.
I like that Peter: ……rising from the depths to triumph on the printed page……who’s listening out there?………Interesting comparison there with the Kaufman, which was also ‘hopelessness incarnate…..” You live a bit, then you die, and that’s that.
But Von Trier’s vision is far more vitriloic, at least in his uncompromising imagery.
“What is being told to us here that we don’t already know, and why must be submit to this kind of hopeless despair?”
Maybe Von Trier is as depressed and self-loathing as he claims. Doesn’t he have a right to express himself? Shouldn’t we watch and try to sympathize with him, help him through his pain? Millions of people suffer these afflictions and I think if people were more accepting, more sympathetic to offer these people something real, rather then a slight of the hand ‘why must we submit to this…’ it would do wonders. Many are depressed because no one cares about them (or they have a feeling this is true), or cares to hear their opinions on anything. I hate to say Peter this is you, but your comment here more or less states this. If you don’t want to see this then don’t, I just think the added contempt for it (while it remains unseen) or for Von Trier himself is perhaps a reason why he’s is so depressed.
At the root of all this is the people just don’t care about other peoples pain and struggles. It’s as simple as that.
Jamie, I know you feel deeply on the issue of depression, and as someone who is reliant on anti-depressants, I know where you are coming from.
But Jamie you are on very dangerous ground when you to try to justify this film. To my mind Von Trier is border-line psychotic. In a sense he is no different from the disturbed person who actually commits horrific violence. A psychotic transfers inner hatred onto others as THEIR punishment for HIS pain. This film may be of some academic value to shrinks, but it should be abhorred and condemned as both entertainment and as art. Moreover, it does nothing to engender an understanding of depressive illness. Indeed, great art can and has been produced by depressives who embrace their “black dog”, but nothing good can come from those who goad and unleash a savage beast.
For most the sad reality is different, depressives internalise their pain and direct punishment on themselves. As Saul Bellow explored in one of his last novels, “More Die of Heartbreak”.
Tony, I appreciate the response.
Thinking about our discussions more, (and others I’ve had with friends) I feel the breaking off I have with most depressives is I feel it is incurable, or perhaps should be dealt with personally however means necessary. I’ve fought becoming medicated feeling the intent is to alter who I really am and how I view the world (almost like changing me from left to right handed–in other words this is just who I am). Drawing inward is the best way I feel comfortable (even if it is at the expense of my self-esteem or personal relationships). Perhaps Von Trier feels the same– I don’t know if he is medicated himself, perhaps making films is his only release. I also realize everything I say is pretty text-book depressive pre-medication 101.
As for this film not providing anything positive to the world, I may again agree with you, (for example when you say) “Moreover, it does nothing to engender an understanding of depressive illness.” I just cherish the fact that Von Trier is fighting, and producing something (even if it is a ‘beast’ as you call it). It articulated something to me that I feel. I can’t really say it more clearly then that. If you are a negative person it’s hard to deal with anything but negatives or negation. Creating and loving art takes all kinds.
Saying all this I do heed what you say as you are older then I, and I think more worldly-side to show for it.
I feel the breaking off I have with most depressives is I feel it is incurable, or perhaps should be dealt with personally however means necessary.
Very resonant perspective, Jamie. As someone who is currently on medication but not finding it very useful (I have less violent mood swings but have smoothed out into a crotchety, generally anhedonic state of self-pity) I do agree that “fixing” one’s self can be as unnatural as switching from right-hand dominance to left. Interestingly, I first tried (I continue to try) psychotherapy and then attempted medication concurrently on my wife’s request, and the most powerful thing I’ve learned thus far from the experience is that awareness isn’t everything (and I think Von Trier would agree).
Certain branches of psychology urge you to make connections between behavior and specific memories in order to view mental illness as a collection of habits with a (hopefully reversable) root–either genetic or nurtured or both. But a connection, and an acknowledgment, isn’t a solution, or a cure. I feel part of that frustration in “Antichrist,” where both main characters are perfectly aware of what’s causing their angst and yet they remain powerless (especially “She”). So they do the next best thing to bettering themselves: They torture each other, feverishly imagining all the while that the universe is a muddy, antagonistic playground. There are other elements here, of course — most piquantly the “gynocide” thread, wherein “She” internalizes her material failure as an anti-gynecological philosophy–but that these brutal observations about anxiety/depression are limned with such honesty and (in my view) self-effacing humor makes the film a personal triumph, and one with which I feel a deep affinity.
Also, it must not be overlooked that yonic fear (misinterpreted as misogyny) can be a significant part of male depression, particularly at the age where one is expected to be sexually active and comfortable. Thus we have the end of “Antichrist,” wherein the females of the earth walk about “He” like ghosts, suggesting that for all his earlier virulence he had no clue what was going on between the legs, or the ears, of a woman. No man does, really, and for young heterosexual males this is a sizable source of frustration and self-doubt.
Jamie, I respect your position. I have tried the non-medication path, and it didn’t work.
Jon, medication, if it is helping, takes about 6 months to be fully effective.
To you both, I know the ‘this is how am’ rationale. But this is not what you CAN be. Medication is not a cure, and you will have bad days, but when you have a good day, you KNOW this is where you WANT to be.
Tony and Jon, thanks for the thoughtful responses.
I feel one day perhaps I will seek help, but right now at 28 I have just crossed the ‘I actually tell people how I feel’ now. My confession as a depressive was unheard of from me for more then 10 years, I kept everything personal. Since I am not quite 29 this is more then a third of my life… so we’ll see. Like the central character in Dazai’s ‘No Longer Human’ I preferred offering others a likable guy at my personal expense. It works for most situations.
Good to know there are caring, articulate people out there.
It’s strange, when a depressed and anxious Frank Capra and Jimmy Stewart came back from the war, they made ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’, a film which has pulled many back from the brink. I wonder what some poor soul without a support system will make of this in future years.
As for depression: here are the cures from my knowledge…
1/ Accept Where You Are Right Now- and allow change to occur. People change and they are changing everyday, it’s just that the change is inperceptiable, until a tipping point is arrived at. At that point, a crisis of the soul/mind occurs: panic attacks, phobias, nervous breakdown, ect. It’s understandble to adapt to depression and can thence be scary to go back to ‘normality’. Fear and anxiety are the culprits, often. For more, read the best-selling book ‘Self-Help for your nerves’ by Dr Claire Weeks.
2/ Keep a journal and write down the good that happens – in there every day, write down the small moments of bliss that occur during your day. The brain grows what it is fed on. If your day is full of the heavy clouds of darkness – a small moment occurs where that rises, a beautiful movie moment, a kindness by a stranger, a song, the elation of some temporary good news, the smell of ice cream on a sunny day bringing back memories. Write down each postive moment in a pocket journal – and then write as much about that memory at the close of the day, bring as much detail, emotion and the thoughts that arose. Do this just before going to sleep. Do the same for the following day, but also reviewing the presvious days. Each and every day, we all have nourishing and caustic thoughts and prespectives running our systems. For a depressed person, the dark and negative have taken up the neural pathways (memories). Leaving bleakness all around.
This idea was contributed by the book ‘That Road Less Travelled’ – where a woman entered the psychiatrist’s practice and had the darkest possible interpretations on a painting presented to her.
3/ Stop watching the News – People watching the news are 14s more likely to be depressed. Mainly because the news is a listing of the traumatic tragedies of the day and that sinks into the subconscious. There is nothing wrong about some detailed breakdowns of worldly events, analysis such as current affairs and movie documentaries.
4/ Affirm the positive – write down your negative thoughts and then rewrite them into positive sentences and say them from the ‘I’ prespective and the postive (not, ‘I can’t’ but ‘I find it easy and natural…’), every night before sleeping and every morning upon waking. This is when the mind is at it’s most suggestible. For more on this read, ‘How to be your own best friend’ and ‘What to say to yourself when you talk to yourself’.
4/ Eat Healthy – I’m talking about being far more healthier than the rest of the population. Museli (with a scoop of protein powder, a couple of table spoons of ricotta cheese, frozen blueberries, a spoon of flaxseed and boling water) as breakfast. Drink two litres of water, get a table spoon of Cod Liver Oil for the healing qualities of the Omega 3 it contains, get mulit-vitimens and plenty of fruit, vegatbles and fish/chicken. Don’t eat white bread or rice and replace them with brown low-GI bread and wholegrain rice. Start to think in terms of what’s the nutritional value of this rather than how tasty is it. You can increase the taste later by dabbling.
5/ Start some kind of training – exercise releases endomorphins and dopamine – the feeling good and reward chemicals. Run, jog, do dance classes, pick weights twice a week. Regular exercises stabilse the chemicals in your body.
6/ Get Acupuncture and a massage – once a month for an extended period of time of your choosing. The acupuncure will reactivate nerve endings that realse chemicals and start to flush your system into gear. Massages will relive the build-up of tension.
7/ Saint John’s Wort – a scientifically tested herb with very little side effects, that is supposed to relieve mild depression. Do your research. Major depression of prolonged duration and intensity will require usually require temporary medication from Drs. A small sliver of the population may reuire long-term use. Seek a medical consultation before adding this.
8/ Medidate – Do it for half and an hour at least and you will start to see the resullts. Meditation is not, “not thinking”, but allowing the spark of a thought to just pass on through without grabbing it and creating a chain, linking up feelings and taking action. This allows you (or the aware ego) to pick and choose those thoughts that nourish you in your eberyday life. But, all thought chains are stopped by you and you go back to the focus of the meditation (a chant or your breathing).
9/ Timeline Thearapy – depressed persons can see their WHOLE life in terms of failure, guilt, unworthiness, shame, ect. Because that’s where they are. Get some photos, try to get one for each year of your life, up to the present moment. This is partly a bhuddist exercise, partly something I once read in a book on hypnotism and also something that Tad James discovered. Put those pictures in chronlogical order and then try to feel the feeling of unconditional love for someone in your life, or even two or three people. Really get that feeling from an incident or the thinking of that person. Then transfer that feeling to the earliest picture of you, really feel it for the baby you, the child you, the teenager, right through to the present moment. The energy will run out at times and then go back, to those that you love and do it again, use your imagination and see each of yourselves from each year of your life holding hands to the person they were the following year – all the way back to your birth, do it. At times, a voice may be say, ‘this is stupid’, or some other negative comment and realise that this is just the negative remanant of previous thinking, embrace that voice and understand that’s just your comfort zone talking, they same way it does when your pushing your limits in a marathon. As you give yourself this positive, unconditional love- as if you were your own mother and a father, allow your self to give postive reagrd to the mistakes (in other words, the learnings) your’ve made, recoginse the that your past negative thinking was like a mind virus picked up from parents, teachers, friends, society and culture and reclaim yourself. This technique works for all those that want to fill that “hole” that is the human condition, unless a person is supremely healthily brought up by exceoptional parenting and society. This one also cure bulima and anorexia. For more on this read ‘Timeline’ by Tad James and ‘Life and how to Survive it’ by John Cleese (yes that one) and Dr. Robin Skinner.
10/ Hyponosis – a powerful established technique that allows for regression to a happier memories and for those memories and that state to be brought to the present. Easy to learn, if only for its sheer fascination.
11/ EMDR – the hardest thinking to cure in life is truama. Big (war, shell-shock, rape, molestation, natural disaster, terriotist attack, physical violence) or small (divorce, romantic break-up, cruel remarks at a suggestible age). Whatever the cause, if it’s painful enough the mind has a way of suppresing it for survival. If it’s too big to deal with, like the lose of a child in this film, it can lead to Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD). All through history, it had to be lived with and caused all kinds of dysfunctional behaviour. Until about 20 years ago, when Helen Shapiro discovered a technique call Eye-Movement-Desensitisation and Reprocessing. In which the person recalls the most powerful memory haunting them (or even something that seems completely unrelated to the original cause) and with the thearapist asking some questions whilst moving their fingers in front of the subject, side to side, literally processes the hidden or unhidden cause of the truama so that it’s gone. It’s more than years of thearapy in minutes. The memory is there but all the pain has been lanced and healthy lessons leant by the person when they think about it casually. It’s the only known, tested cure. It’s as close to miraculous as life allows.
Didn’t mean to write so much, hopefully it may help someone.
PS: 12/ Watch good movies, tv, and read great books – the top 5%. They will create a ‘flow’ state where you forget time. That’s happiness.
This was an incredible series of marathon comments here, and Bobby J., be rest assured I will copy and paste your point by point tips, though I’m not in this category. (at least not yet!).
thanks Sam, I’m a Life Coach…and if it even helps one person, it would have been worth while.
Bobby, that’s quite a wonderful thing to be. Kudos to you Sir.
The conversation took a really interesting turn here. And it’s made me see the film in a somewhat different light and reconsider some of the things I just finished writing. Still, I’m kind of glad I approached it as a “first take” on the film – my honest reaction after stepping out of the theater and mulling it over for a while.
Good grief. Thanks for outlining the graphic details of this, Sam, because I would much rather read them than see them. Fortunately my imagination does not provide images as disturbing as what I’m sure are on the screen. Ugh.
Ha Daniel! I can never be presumtousness when making a prediction as to whether one will like or at least appreciate a particular film, but I dare say I think you will loathe this. It’s really a tough one to sit through. I happen to like the director’s prior work a lot (Both DANCER and DOGVILLE were my #1 films of their release years) and I greatly admire BREAKING THE WAVES, so I am enamored of his style and technique, but if you are trying to promote Von trier to others, this may not be the one. It’s brutal, depraved and mean-spirited, so it’s isn’t easy! LOL. I don’t remember what your prior views on Von Trier are, sorry to say.
No problem – I really don’t have any prior views on Von Trier, as I think I’ve only seen part of Dancer in the Dark. Needless to say, I’m hesitant to delve too much into his filmography if the rest are as disturbing as Antichrist. Though I will look forward to the work of his relative, Joachim Trier, who helmed Reprise last year.
Fair enough Daniel Joaquin’s REPRISE is indeed a solid work, and one that I recall praising. I remember your excellent review too at Getafilm. Here it is folks:
http://getafilm.blogspot.com/2008/06/300-words-about-reprise.html
You’re too kind – that was a great film, though. Too bad he doesn’t have anything on the horizon, at least according to IMDb
Alright I finally had the chance to read this again, and return fresh. I must say this is one of Sam’s best, the beginning and end with the lyrical subtly sandwiching a basic point by point rundown of the narrative was a fantastic idea. Kudos to you.
I find it fantastic (and somewhat disheartening) reading through the comments. I never thought I’d see the day where WitD readers would err on the side of not evening seeing a film after hearing that it is graphic. Von Trier has done something I didn’t think possible in this regard.
I won’t add much else to what Sam has said (we are more or less shared in our opinions), though I find much beauty throughout the film not just the black-silver-and white beginning. Some subtle brilliance of film grammar, brilliant direction throughout and obviously the fearless two lead actors. I procured a DVD copy of this film recently, perhaps if I watch it again and it’s fresh I’ll shake addition thoughts.
I said this earlier and still hold by it:
“I think watching his joint feature ‘The Five Obstructions’ is essential here in understanding where he comes from. Sometimes he may come off as aggressive or raw to make a point; sometimes cinema is larger then life–distorted; heightened if you will. In this light, ‘The Five Obstructions’ may be the most important film of his to watch when getting started in his oeuvre.”
I would also ask anyone who makes assertions to Von Trier being ‘sick’ or ‘depraved’ to tell me what sequences are, or where he is specifically. I think we’ll find in every instance a real life counterpart to prove his point(s). It’s not that Von Trier is sick, it’s that his mirror on the world around him is more in focus then just about every contemporary filmmaker. He’s a man that show’s genital mutilation as it is; we shouldn’t think he’s deranged by doing this. This is an act that happens to most in this world due to the heavy umbrella religion casts over us. Von Trier is the truth, and he’s giving us a film without the usual kid gloves. An art film for adults, I’m glad they still make ’em.
Well Jamie, I am sitting here at the PC smiling and nodding my head. To say that your comment here is about as extraordinary as one could ever hope to receive at a blogsite is to miss the point of appreciation all the goodies you impart throughout (not to mention the flattering compliments that have just made my head three times bigger, and I have a big head as it is, literally! Ha) You may have eclipsed Frank Gallo or Joe in this regard.
I have to agree with you. It’s way too easy to dismiss him based on repulsion. In fact the same people who cry foul have often supported other films or directors who have seemingly displaced the same kind of surface mean-spiritedness…..i.e. the aforementioned FUNNY GAMES and even George Sluitzer’s horrifying THE VANISHING. That film is one of the sickest ever made in concept, yet Sluitzer doesn’t show blood and mutilation so he gets a free pass.
Great reference point with THE FIVE OBSTRUCTIONS, and I absolutely LOVE th e”black-silver and white” clarification of that extraordinary opening sequence. But everything you say here is great!
I never thought I’d see the day where WitD readers would err on the side of not evening seeing a film after hearing that it is graphic.
I freely admit to avoiding films that I think have no redeeming qualities beyond the squirming they induce from gratuitous violence. I’ve never seen any of the Saw or Hostel films, and I don’t intend to.
That said, for any film that isn’t just a punishing, mercenary exercise in getting teenagers to part with their parents’ money, breathless stories about ashen walk-outs at Cannes and whatnot usually have the desired effect: they make me want to see a film even more. It worked for Cronenburg’s Crash and it worked for Antichrist. And whadya know, I liked both of ’em. But the reality is never as bad as the hype. The way folks have been talking up Antichrist, I expected the screen to split open and Beezelbub himself to step out, vomiting flies. It’s graphic and violent in ways that few films are, but it’s nothing beyond the pale. I’ve seen Cannibal Holocaust, for Chrissakes. Inevitably, it’s the emotionally disturbing stuff that really destroys me. (Se7en, Requiem for a Dream, and Synecdoche, New York all come to mind.) This, to my mind, is a far more interesting aspect of Antichrist than its graphic violence. The relationship between He and She is really, really sick, and far more horrifying than than all the clitoris-snipping.
Interesting perspective, Andrew, and I would agree that emotional violence (recently in Precious, for example) bothers me much in the same way. But I have a very visual mind and memory, and the images from films often remain with me more than the emotions I feel while watching a scene. That would explain why the graphic images (the emaciated body in bed) in Se7en bother me more than the emotional tension, and why Requiem for a Dream is, in my mind, illustrated by the final shot of Jared Leto’s arm. It’s just the way my mind works.
So in the context of Antichrist, I would expect the images of genital mutilation to remain with me much longer than any emotional disturbance felt in the moment. We’d both be disturbed but for differing reasons.
Andrew, I agree with everything you say here. This was my point; Von Trier has shown to be an artist so even if early press is highlighting it’s graphic qualities I would hope people would still want to see it. I also shy away from the recent ‘Saw’s and ‘Hostels’ more because I know they are going to be garbage films. It’s the same reason I don’t see the next romantic comedy or ‘Twilight’ film.
The emotional weight of ‘Antichrist’ is what makes it so intense… much like my above recommendation to Haneke’s ‘The Piano Teacher’ to anything else he’s done.
I did tell a friend after I saw this that one of my initial impressions was how Von Trier completely trivialized the entire ‘torture-porn’ aesthetic in recent Horror. Blew it out of the water, ‘Hostel’ and ‘Saw’ don’t mean anything when put alongside this. For that matter neither does something like Gibson’s ‘Passion for the Christ’.
Not seeing an art film for graphic reasons seems so strange to me; imagine if it was a book or a painting (or any other piece of art?). Most would think that is incredibly strange– but I’ve known people who do scoff at Francis Bacon’s ‘Figure with Meat’ (1954). Very strange. At the Chicago Art Museum I always pay particular attention to the reaction the Lucien Freud gets (Chicago has ‘Sunny Morning–Eight Legs, 1997’ on permanent display)– many are horrified, or laugh it off.
According to some estimates, one in four women are sexually molested or raped. There is an epidemic of child abuse, spousal abuse and all kind of horrors. Some of which would turn your stomach. Just because something’s beautifully done, doesn’t mean that it should be. Would you approve of the rape and slaughter of children on film – done to graphic terms. What’s the difference between a “snuff” movie and one made for the cinemas, even if it claims, “No Children were hurt in the making of this movie”.
And do you think it doesn’t have any effect on society, when every available piece of psychological research shows that it does.
There aren’t too many taboos left. I remember having this debate with ultra-liberal friends 15 years ago. They all seem to change their opinions once they have children.
“What’s the difference between a “snuff” movie and one made for the cinemas, even if it claims, “No Children were hurt in the making of this movie”.
The difference? No one is dead.
“And do you think it doesn’t have any effect on society, when every available piece of psychological research shows that it does.”
It clearly does, I agree. But all these things existed before cinema did as well. How could we go about policing art and film?
I’m not sure what kind of art you want if certain things are off limits. The careers of painters like Francis Bacon, Jenny Saville, and Lucien Freud might not exist, or if they did they would be radically different. I’m glad they exist personally. That’s all I can say.
The emotional outcome is the same, even if one is a snuff movie and the other plays life one. You might want to see the effects of non-censorship and leaving “ethics” to the free market, corporations and disturbed film-makers – by visiting the effect of “Dexter” on the wikipedia page.
The answer is censorship.
Sam – your most descriptive review yet. How you watched this film considering what you were going through in your life is difficult to fathom. I have not yet seen any of Von Trier’s films but he seems to one of the most divisive filmmakers working today. Artist or charlatan? Deep thinker or melodramatic? Fearless spirit or manipulator?
This has been a great thread! The discussion here is enthralling.
And your appearance John has made it even more enthralling. Yep, those words sum up both sides of the fence on him, and at some point we’ll have to get you to check out a few of his films.
I’ll never live down seeing this on that awful wekend in Manhattan theatre. I really was in a fog then, and the title of anything was basically a diversion. But I’ll never be able to translate in words what I really felt. I hope to never again feel such in my remaining years.
Thanks again as always.
Listen, whether you describe this film, or any other film for that matter, a horror film is beside the point. In a certain sense, I believe all of Von Triers films are horror movies in there own way. Its through REAL horror in the predicament that both his main characters and US find true moral values in life. Just because Kubrick’s THE SHINING is a horror film doesn’t mean that a deep moral, spiitual or, even, personal lesson about life and relationships isn’t rooted deeply in the subtext. I don’t usually go for graphically violent films but, knowing Von Trier and knowing Sam, I’m willing to brace myself in return for something profound.
I quite agree Dennis with your superb contentions here Dennis, but as I said earlier in the thread, I still respect the feelings of others. I was on the other side of the fence (as you were as I recall) with Tarantino’s INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, and I took isssue with some matters that can easily be thrown back in my face now. I’d have an answer, but I’ll wait till I am challenged! Ha!
BREAKING THE WAVES (in my opinion Von Triers BEST film) is about despair, anquish, brutality. However, through all the repulsivness, it reveals itself a life affirming study on faith and the belief in humanity’s inherent goodness. Sometimes, and particularly in the social pantheons we live within this world today, one needs a kick in the groin as a wake up call for respect, compassion and love for the others we share this planet with. Von Trier, I believe, has been driving this point home film after film and always in fresh and refreshing ways. That the victims of his moral plays are innocents taken so we can step in front of a mirror that is social depravity and lack of care for our brothers only, brilliantly, drives the point into us deeper. He is, for lack of a better word, a genius.
Many consider BREAKING THE WAVES his greatest, and yes a good case could be made for the director’s clinging to a more upbeat prognosis. But since then he’s gone fully in the other direction, not that I have an issue that will compromise my assessment and/or judgement.
I fully agree with your assessment, my dear Schmulee. However, INGLORIOUS BASTERDS is a fantasy about something that should never be misrepresented. Tarantino took cold facts, mixed them to his own liking and then fed it to us in a glossy wrapping. Von Trier, on the other hand, creates original stories and characters (never associated with true history) and like God over these people, places them in situations that could, possibly, actually happen to us. He does this in hopes of enlightening us on the inhumanity we regularly pass by every day and today in this world as ity is now. There is no comparison to Tarantino’s innocuous flash and Von Triers siciological brilliance. One is an Ace film-maker, the other is a stylish kid performing flashy masterbatory acts. I’ll rally for the Ace. Thank You.
LOL!!! Great stuff but watch it. Those final words may start a mutiny here.
As a detractor of the film I have to say that I didn’t find the violence or brutality unbearable…I found it silly, and often it left me scratching my head and shaking my fist at von Trier. It’s not that I didn’t get what he was doing, it’s that I didn’t buy it, and when you can’t accept something a filmmaker who goes that far is trying to sell you, then it’s likely the film just isn’t going to work for you. And that’s how I felt throughout Antichrist.
Also, I think the film would have worked (maybe) as some sort of weird Shiningesque horror film once they get to the cabin…but I just couldn’t take the movie too seriously, and I guess that’s my major gripe with the film.
Finally, as someone who doesn’t like the director I also think it’s unfair at times that people simply label him as a misogynist (watch some Italian horror people if you want to see misogyny!)…I think misanthrope is more apt.
I think misanthrope is more apt.
Well Kevin, this is as astute clarification here, and as I have personally rejected the cries of misogyny (as i said in my response to Margaret I believe) I do believe that Von Trier (through interviews and his recent work) has definitely taken a darker road as of late. We can excuse some of this due to that Nordic sensibility (Kevin, you know that leaning, no? LOL!) that often examines the demons and worst fears imaginable (I somehow keep thinking of Bergman’s HOUR OF THE WOLF here for some reason) but with Von Trier there is definitely an accent mark.
Your feeling that he was being silly seems to have a fair amount of support in the critical circles Kevin.
Bergman’s Hour of the Wolf is a good example of what you’re hinting at. Maybe I’m the one who is silly…and really it comes down to an aesthetic thing (something I’ve always been at odds with in regards to von Trier), because Bergman is probably my favorite filmmaker, and Cries and Whispers is one of my favorite movies…so there’s that, hehe.
Isn’t it possible, though, Kevin, that we aren’t supposed to “buy” it? I sadly don’t have the time to pen a treatise, but I consider “AntiChrist” one of the best comedies of the year (it’s a creepy comedy of excess, among other things, which I tend to respond well to). I had a smile on my face the whole time, though behind it was a fidgeting mind.
Interestingly, I saw “A Serious Man” last night — a strong contender for my favorite film of 2009 — and while I laughed at intervals I was surprised to find most critics deeming it a “comedy” without a second thought. There’s lots of “humor of the pathetic” in there, sure, but I felt les freres Coen were essaying a rather sober parable (albeit a delectably elliptical one) beneath their characteristic smarminess. It’s not only a fantastically well-made movie: It might be the most philosophically crucial piece of popular art to come along in years (stand this up next to the comparatively anemic and insular “I Heart Huckabees,” par example).
Then again, as an atheist and self-proclaimed misanthrope I often feel (egotistically) that those out there with “hope” ghastly misinterpret the thrust of “cynical cinema,” so it might just be my meds talking.
(And, of course, I respect your opinion a great deal, Kevin, but I’m sure you already know that.)
Jon:
I thought the same thing as I was watching it…that this was supposed to be some kind of dark comedy in the realm of horror like Kubrick’s The Shining…but something just felt so serious that I couldn’t make that leap. Perhaps I need another viewing of Antichrist to say for sure (maybe my initial displeasure with the absurdity of the opening, despite it being beautifully photographed, fogged my viewing lens for the rest of the film), but I just couldn’t buy what von Trier was selling me.
I also think von Trier has never shown signs of making a film like this if it were indeed intended to be a comedy of excesses. His excess is always meant to be taken SERIOUSLY as in Breaking the Waves and <Dancer in the Dark. Now, perhaps the fact that von Trier made this film amidst a horrible bout of depression is the key to reading it as a comedy: the only thing that could pull him out of despair was to make something so over-the-top brutal and depressing that his depression paled in comparison…then I guess, in its own way, it can be seen as a comedy, because it “cheered him up” for lack of a better phrase.
I eagerly await a viewing of A Serious Man sometime this week or next…and because it’s the Coen’s and because of the title I fully expect to laugh my ass off. This is something the Coen’s have done in the past, hell, even No Country had some funny moments…von Trier, though…well nothing in past oeuvre has suggested that he’s capable of such a cerebral comedy.
But like I said…it may be there and I’m just not seeing it. I will have to take another look at it based on your comments here, Jon.
Hahahaha Jon!!! You are card, but in the best sense of course. God, you saw A SERIOUS MAN??? I can’t wait to see that!!! As you know I am a Julianne Moore groupie, and Mr. Firth is a fine performer. But beyond that I take note at what you say.
ANTI-CHRIST as one of the best comedies of the year??? Well, I’d love to see what others say here (Kevin is apparently giving this some serious throught) but I didn’t feel that, though it’s so over-the-top and outrageous that it’s easy to see this interpretation. But you did add that you mind was ‘fidgeting’ too.
Another tremendous comment here Kevin. I must ultimately side with you, and the fact that you bring out that humor is the least developed aspect of Von Trier’s personality lends compelling evidence that he wasn’t striving for this.
“It might be the most philosophically crucial piece of popular art to come along in years”
I couldn’t agree more, well said.
SENILITY STRIKES AGAIN JON!!!!!
I thought you were taling about the yet-to-open A SINGLE MAN and not the Coens film you were obviously speaking of. I read it wrong. But I agree that the Coens’s film is one of the best of the year, and the question about it’s comedic elements is relevant.
Ethan’s theatre work has been moving into philosophical terrain, and it almost seemed a given that their newest film would reflect this latest interest.
Kevin, I disagree with you here; while I wouldn’t go as far as Jon in calling it the comedy of the year, von Trier always seems to be grinning like a demented jester behind the camera, in all his films. Maybe that’s because that’s how he looks in real life – but the opening sequence was definitely meant to combine the sublime and the ridiculous. Like Godard, von Trier’s too aware of his cinematic trickery to take it all at face-value. This is, I think, why he’s more often accused of misogyny/misanthropy than someone like Mizoguchi; he seems to relish the turning the knife of to openly indict himself in his screeds against cruelty. (I find this type of perspective fascinating; Polanski also shares it.)
SAM-CALL ME ON THE PHONE ASAP!!!!!!!
I’m still at school “teaching” the after-school program. Yeah right, I’m teaching! The kids are at their seats playing games while I blog about Von Trier.
What an extraordinary piece this is! Simply remarkable! I must say that even though I have never been a fan of the director I too have had the sense that this deserves to be experienced on the big screen. I only have to get around to it! Ha!
Thanks very much Kaleem! I won’t soon forget that theatrical viewing both for the content for the film and it’s timing. But I know you are no fan of Von Trier, and this one may impress you the least.
Good Lord! What a monster thread this one turned out to be. Looks like I missed all the action yesterday. I must cast my lot with those who are urging an all-encompassing view of art. It’s not always pretty, but that should not detract for the artistic merit. When I watched Dancer in the Dark I didn’t see any psychotic director behind the camera. This is one instance where Von Trier traveled all the way to the dark side. That’s permissable in art. We can’t allow ourselves to take this personal.
Sam, enjoyed your take on the movie; I just finished my own essay which will go up on Examiner tomorrow and am now free to read others’ perspectives on the film (I don’t usually sequester myself to this extent, but for some reason in this case it seemed necessary in order to digest my own thoughts & feelings about the film, of which I had heard nothing – except the – mistaken – intimation that it involved male castration, and also seen nothing – other than a still of Dafoe in the woods and of that tree surrounded by dead bodies). Looking forward to the rest of the comments which I will scroll through now.
But first I wanted to mention this: “which the director almost seems to have devised as an answer to charges of visual ugliness in his films” Yeah, I kept thinking the same thing! It’s the kind of visuals that take your breath away, and – if you harbor filmmaking ambitions like I do – humble you with recognition of what you’ll have to live up to if you attempt your own work someday. How many movies make you feel that way now? They are instead saturated in pedestrian camerawork, rapid-fire editing…even the admirably-shot or even terrifically-shot films like the Coens’ or Wes Andersons’ don’t quite reach this level of gut-wrenching artistry. And yet…von Trier contemptuously makes the sheen SO glamorous that he’s almost mocking that arty look; like the scene in 5 Obstructions where he forces Lethe to shoot his short film as a commercial, there’s the suggestion that beauty and commodification (all those cutaways of toothbrushes and washing machines) are inseparable. At once beautiful and critiquing its own beauty, like the best work of Godard. In some ways, the look of the rest of the film was a bit of a letdown, especially given the dedication to Tarkovsky at film’s end – Andrei’s films were always stunning from start to finish, not at moments interspersed throughout more functional photography.
But then, this is to rehash what I’ve just written, and I don’t want to say too much lest nobody read the piece!
I’ve never understood the opprobrium in some circles vis a vis the dedication to Tarkovsky. Generally one dedicates something to someone you admire or love. If someone dedicated a piece on the Reformation to their two year old child it wouldn’t mean he was trying to write in their style.
Also, on Misogyny / Misanthropy: I’ve said before that one cannot draw a line back through the work in order to discover what the artist is like or thinks. I could be a fascist and write communist propaganda. Maybe Von Trier enjoys exploring these issues. Maybe he cannot do anything else. Whatever the reasons, it does not mean that the hand of an abuser in his films is an extension of his own. The film is a fictional world and separate. The character believes women are evil but so what? One cannot construct a Von Trier world view from his work.
And Stephen you make quite a bit of sense there. Purportedly Von Trier was in a deep state of personal depression when he made ANTICHRIST. We may not really need to look beyond that.
Stepehn,
Of course the dedication need not entail an adherence the dedicatee’s style – I only use that as a jump-off to make that point that I somewhat regret the fleeting nature of his tributes to Tarkovsky and at times wished the whole movie had been pitched at that key. As for von Trier, charges of misogyny/misanthropy – I agree (though admittedly I’m guilty of doing this as well) that they shouldn’t be applied to him personally as who knows – but it’s fair enough to apply them to the work itself.
I need to ponder the Tarkovsky connection here Joel, but again you have raised the bar with this thought-provoking response. I will DEFINITELY be looking forward to your Examiner essay!!!
Magnificent review Sam! I’m not sure how I missed the review earlier. Apologies. This is top stuff. And it’s really surprising and praiseworthy that you endured the film when you were going through a difficult period. But, as your detached review elucidates, once you get over the film’s overt shock tactics, it does turn out to be a good film…
Top review once again…
JAFB, I am most appreciative for this lovely response here. Yes, I’ll admit it was a very difficult time to be seeing such a film in my life.
I sucumbed to temptation and read through this thread again. Sam, to say that you have outdone yourself with this review is only scratching the surface. It is so powerful and descriptive that I got the shivers while reading it. I am under the assumption this film will make your Top 10 list for 2009.
Peter, what building are you in tomorrow? I have a nice fat envelope for you as we mutually agreed upon, for this latest comment you’ve made and many before.
Thinking about this film a little more (and I was able to procure a personal copy to view it again), then reading MovieMan’s Examiner review I cannot think of anything but the mad qualities of grief. I’ve been thinking about the films parallel qualities to the Dennis Cooper novel ‘God Jr.’. Comparing both is incredibly fruitful to me.
Dennis Cooper’s novels are highly recommended as well. I’ve read and enjoyed, ‘God Jr.’, ‘The Sluts’ (maybe my favorite), and ‘Closer’.
Thanks for those insights Jamie, though I’ll admit I’ve never read Cooper, much as I’d like to.
[…] exhaustive stance. We’ve discussed the film at length at least three times: Sam had the brilliant opening salvo after the film premiered and this is where I feel I made my most personal responses to the film, […]