Antichrist
Year: 2009
Directed by: Lars von Trier
Starring: Willem Dafoe & Charlotte Gainsbourg
Runtime: 108 mins
BBFC: 18
Published: 02/04/21
Directed by: Lars von Trier
Starring: Willem Dafoe & Charlotte Gainsbourg
Runtime: 108 mins
BBFC: 18
Published: 02/04/21
Warning: This review contains spoilers for the entire story
I’m going to get the ball rolling on this review by clarifying that I do not fully understand what Antichrist is about. I think that’s a key point to make because how can I review a film I do not understand? How can I effectively critique what it does and doesn't do well? The answer to that is I can simply give you my opinion, and you as the recipient of that information will need to make your own decision as to what to think of it, and whether to venture into such territory to try and make heads or tails of it yourself. But despite all of the controversy and calls for bans, I really do feel like Antichrist is a film you need to watch if you’re going to even try to form an opinion on it (I mean you should with every film, but Antichrist isn’t like most films, so it applies even more). There’s a lot to unpack, and I’m not really sure where I’m going to head with this so let’s just jump right in.
Antichrist opens with a nameless couple (Willem Dafoe & Charlotte Gainsbourg) having sexual intercourse, whilst they perform this act around the house (starting in the shower and eventually moving to the bed) their toddler son, Nick, climbs up to an open window and falls to his death.
Gainsbourg’s character is so wracked with grief that she is checked into a psychiatric hospital, which Dafoe soon removes her from as he believes that he can give her better treatment at home considering he is a qualified psychiatrist. Dafoe determines that fear is the primary driver of Gainsbourg’s grief, and pinpoints nature as her second strongest fear. Together they journey to ‘Eden’, a woodland retreat that Gainsbourg visited the previous summer to write her thesis which she never finished. Gainsbourg resents Dafoe for not coming with her and Nick to Eden, so much so that she believes he doesn’t love her and doesn’t care about their son’s death. The two have frequent, often forceful sex to calm Gainsbourg down.
During their stay at Eden, Dafoe encounters physical manifestations of Grief (A doe with a stillborn fawn partially birthed), Pain (A fox that has begun to eat itself), and Despair (A crow that does not die). During this time Dafoe also finds evidence of Gainsbourg having persistently put Nick’s shoes on the wrong way round during the previous summer, this would have caused skeletal deformities which are reflected in the post-mortem report. Dafoe reasons that her greatest fear is herself, which also correlates to her unfinished thesis he finds in the cabin, detailing the killing and torture of women believed to be witches.
Believing Dafoe will leave her, Gainsbourg attacks him, mutilates his genitals and attaches a grindstone to his ankle to prevent him from getting away. Claiming she does not want him dead yet, Gainsbourg mutilates her own genitals once she realises that she knew Nick was in danger whilst she and Dafoe had sex.
Dafoe manages to remove the grindstone and strangles Gainsbourg to death whilst Grief, Pain, and Despair watch on. The following morning he burns her body outside the cabin, and then encounters dozens of faceless women who wear old clothing.
Antichrist opens with a nameless couple (Willem Dafoe & Charlotte Gainsbourg) having sexual intercourse, whilst they perform this act around the house (starting in the shower and eventually moving to the bed) their toddler son, Nick, climbs up to an open window and falls to his death.
Gainsbourg’s character is so wracked with grief that she is checked into a psychiatric hospital, which Dafoe soon removes her from as he believes that he can give her better treatment at home considering he is a qualified psychiatrist. Dafoe determines that fear is the primary driver of Gainsbourg’s grief, and pinpoints nature as her second strongest fear. Together they journey to ‘Eden’, a woodland retreat that Gainsbourg visited the previous summer to write her thesis which she never finished. Gainsbourg resents Dafoe for not coming with her and Nick to Eden, so much so that she believes he doesn’t love her and doesn’t care about their son’s death. The two have frequent, often forceful sex to calm Gainsbourg down.
During their stay at Eden, Dafoe encounters physical manifestations of Grief (A doe with a stillborn fawn partially birthed), Pain (A fox that has begun to eat itself), and Despair (A crow that does not die). During this time Dafoe also finds evidence of Gainsbourg having persistently put Nick’s shoes on the wrong way round during the previous summer, this would have caused skeletal deformities which are reflected in the post-mortem report. Dafoe reasons that her greatest fear is herself, which also correlates to her unfinished thesis he finds in the cabin, detailing the killing and torture of women believed to be witches.
Believing Dafoe will leave her, Gainsbourg attacks him, mutilates his genitals and attaches a grindstone to his ankle to prevent him from getting away. Claiming she does not want him dead yet, Gainsbourg mutilates her own genitals once she realises that she knew Nick was in danger whilst she and Dafoe had sex.
Dafoe manages to remove the grindstone and strangles Gainsbourg to death whilst Grief, Pain, and Despair watch on. The following morning he burns her body outside the cabin, and then encounters dozens of faceless women who wear old clothing.
I’m sure you can understand from that synopsis why I don’t really understand Antichrist. The film is, despite being extremely heavy handed with its biblical and misogynistic themes, extremely vague in communicating to viewers what’s actually happening. Why does Dafoe encounter Grief, Pain, and Death? Why does Gainsbourg mutilate both herself and Dafoe? Why did Gainsbourg begin to believe in what she was writing her thesis about? Why did Gainsbourg let her son fall to his death? Why does Dafoe not resist sex with Gainsbourg despite the fact that he is clearly uncomfortable most of the time? I’m sure, like most experimental cinema, these things are being explained in the film's metaphors. But how to decipher such metaphors I simply don’t even know where to begin.
I’m not ashamed to admit that I don’t understand Antichrist because I actually feel like there isn’t much of substance there anyway. Director Lars von Trier is notorious for being a man who simply wishes to provoke people. He’s made problematic claims about mental health & Nazi Germany, as well as being labelled a sexual predator. To me, that’s all Antichrist seeks to do, provoke. For me it never tried to justify its graphic and disturbing imagery, it simply existed to be that. Which is fine, there’s lots of films that do just that, I mean we only have to look at films like Saw to see plenty of disgusting imagery for no other purpose than to be gratuitous; but the difference is that von Trier claims that Antichrist has substance, that it's about something, and perhaps worst of all, is a film to be taken seriously.
The opening sequence sets audience expectations immediately as we watch a several minutes of unsimulated, real sex in slow motion, juxtaposed to a toddler exploring an apartment before climbing up a window ledge and plummeting to its death; we even get to witness the impact of the baby against the pavement at the same moment as Dafoe and Gainsbourg reach an orgasmic climax. From these opening few minutes I knew that I was going to struggle taking Antichrist as seriously as von Trier intends. Playing out in slow motion and set to the operatic ‘Lascia ch’io pianga’, I struggled to keep a straight face as you see an erect penis penetrate a vagina, followed by a camera cut to a toddler escaping his crib with the utmost joy on his face. It was funny because of just how absurdly graphic it was for no reason, whilst also making me slightly uncomfortable as I watched two people have sex intercut with footage of a toddler exploring.
After this prologue, the film is divided up into four chapters and an epilogue. Chapter One: Grief deals with the immediate proceedings of Nicks death. The funeral, the psychiatric hospital, and Dafoe beginning to perform psychiatry on Gainsbourg. Chapter Two: Pain (Chaos Reigns) primarily focuses on Dafoe putting Gainsbourg through tests to confront her grief. Chapter Three: Despair (Gynocide) is where Dafoe begins to piece together Gainsbourg’s fear of herself, her neglectful actions against Nick, and Gainsbourg’s raging hysteria begins. Chapter Four: The Three Beggars doesn’t have a whole lot in it, mainly just Gainsbourg dragging Dafoe back to the cabin from his hiding spot, her own mutilation, and then her death. The Epilogue then shows Dafoe burn her body and encounter the faceless women once again set to ‘Lascia ch’io pianga’. The ending is intentionally very vague and that’s ok, I like that it’s open to interpretation. To me, it’s the women who were wrongly accused of being witches finally being able to move on to whatever awaits after death. Why? I don’t really know, but that’s what I took away from it.
I’m not ashamed to admit that I don’t understand Antichrist because I actually feel like there isn’t much of substance there anyway. Director Lars von Trier is notorious for being a man who simply wishes to provoke people. He’s made problematic claims about mental health & Nazi Germany, as well as being labelled a sexual predator. To me, that’s all Antichrist seeks to do, provoke. For me it never tried to justify its graphic and disturbing imagery, it simply existed to be that. Which is fine, there’s lots of films that do just that, I mean we only have to look at films like Saw to see plenty of disgusting imagery for no other purpose than to be gratuitous; but the difference is that von Trier claims that Antichrist has substance, that it's about something, and perhaps worst of all, is a film to be taken seriously.
The opening sequence sets audience expectations immediately as we watch a several minutes of unsimulated, real sex in slow motion, juxtaposed to a toddler exploring an apartment before climbing up a window ledge and plummeting to its death; we even get to witness the impact of the baby against the pavement at the same moment as Dafoe and Gainsbourg reach an orgasmic climax. From these opening few minutes I knew that I was going to struggle taking Antichrist as seriously as von Trier intends. Playing out in slow motion and set to the operatic ‘Lascia ch’io pianga’, I struggled to keep a straight face as you see an erect penis penetrate a vagina, followed by a camera cut to a toddler escaping his crib with the utmost joy on his face. It was funny because of just how absurdly graphic it was for no reason, whilst also making me slightly uncomfortable as I watched two people have sex intercut with footage of a toddler exploring.
After this prologue, the film is divided up into four chapters and an epilogue. Chapter One: Grief deals with the immediate proceedings of Nicks death. The funeral, the psychiatric hospital, and Dafoe beginning to perform psychiatry on Gainsbourg. Chapter Two: Pain (Chaos Reigns) primarily focuses on Dafoe putting Gainsbourg through tests to confront her grief. Chapter Three: Despair (Gynocide) is where Dafoe begins to piece together Gainsbourg’s fear of herself, her neglectful actions against Nick, and Gainsbourg’s raging hysteria begins. Chapter Four: The Three Beggars doesn’t have a whole lot in it, mainly just Gainsbourg dragging Dafoe back to the cabin from his hiding spot, her own mutilation, and then her death. The Epilogue then shows Dafoe burn her body and encounter the faceless women once again set to ‘Lascia ch’io pianga’. The ending is intentionally very vague and that’s ok, I like that it’s open to interpretation. To me, it’s the women who were wrongly accused of being witches finally being able to move on to whatever awaits after death. Why? I don’t really know, but that’s what I took away from it.
Let’s get into the real meat of the critique. The film is extremely slow and the way it’s been edited doesn’t help. Conversations are vague and winding, with strange cuts that break the flow of dialogue. I physically could not enjoy the film the way it has been constructed; it feels like wading through tar and once you finally get to the end you question whether it was ever actually worth it.
Dafoe and Gainbourg never feel like they’re particularly convincing in their performances. I feel they’re far too subdued and often emotionless in their delivery that I struggled to connect with either of them. It baffles me even more that Gainsbourg won the best actress award at Cannes for Antichrist, I guess I’m missing something but to me it felt as though she was simply going through the motions rather than truly investing herself in the role.
Another award the film received was for Best Cinematography, which I’m on the fence about. On one hand the film does have some absolutely gorgeous shots and inventive camera work, particularly in the first third of the film. But on the other hand, it was extremely disorientating at times and occasionally even felt sloppy.
Looking at the synopsis for Antichrist it’s probably easy to understand why the film sparked such massive controversy. The film's graphic sex and genital mutilation scenes were at the forefront of many of the calls for the film to be banned in several countries. Interestingly, in the UK the film got past censors unscathed as they believed the sex was not intended for arousal, and that no other part of the film breached guidelines for adult entertainment. It also gained attention for being an extremely misogynistic film. Interestingly, von Trier, Dafoe, and Gainsbourg have all said that the film is not misogynistic, but it only takes actually watching the film to see how much females are oppressed. It is quite literally about a man who decides what is best for his wife against her wishes, then proceeds to tell her how to get over the grief that he isn’t experiencing, and then it is revealed that she’s the reason for all of this happening in the first place and that then equates to her believing all women are inherently evil. If that’s not a misogynist view on things then I don’t know what is!
Dafoe and Gainbourg never feel like they’re particularly convincing in their performances. I feel they’re far too subdued and often emotionless in their delivery that I struggled to connect with either of them. It baffles me even more that Gainsbourg won the best actress award at Cannes for Antichrist, I guess I’m missing something but to me it felt as though she was simply going through the motions rather than truly investing herself in the role.
Another award the film received was for Best Cinematography, which I’m on the fence about. On one hand the film does have some absolutely gorgeous shots and inventive camera work, particularly in the first third of the film. But on the other hand, it was extremely disorientating at times and occasionally even felt sloppy.
Looking at the synopsis for Antichrist it’s probably easy to understand why the film sparked such massive controversy. The film's graphic sex and genital mutilation scenes were at the forefront of many of the calls for the film to be banned in several countries. Interestingly, in the UK the film got past censors unscathed as they believed the sex was not intended for arousal, and that no other part of the film breached guidelines for adult entertainment. It also gained attention for being an extremely misogynistic film. Interestingly, von Trier, Dafoe, and Gainsbourg have all said that the film is not misogynistic, but it only takes actually watching the film to see how much females are oppressed. It is quite literally about a man who decides what is best for his wife against her wishes, then proceeds to tell her how to get over the grief that he isn’t experiencing, and then it is revealed that she’s the reason for all of this happening in the first place and that then equates to her believing all women are inherently evil. If that’s not a misogynist view on things then I don’t know what is!
But does it justify its controversial material? That’s the key question. It’s all well and good being edgy and riling people up, but if you don’t have the reasoning behind why you’re doing it then it’s just kind of pointless. To me Antichrist doesn’t justify its controversial material. Could the film have communicated its message without such graphic content? I believe it could, which is why it’s important to remember that I don’t understand the film. I’ve done a whole lot of research into what this film could mean, and analysis into what happened. I even watched the film twice before writing this review which pushed my patience with it even further. If there is meaning behind the film, I don’t see it, and because I don’t see it, for me, it’s just another case of Lars von Trier being controversial because that’s what he does.
I wouldn’t recommend watching Antichrist for enjoyment. There are certainly people that will like it but I feel it’s a very niche group of people, and you really need to be in an artsy film school mindset when watching it. It’s a film that many will find thematically inaccessible, because it’s intentionally difficult to understand; which is fine, but that’s not for everyone. On top of that the extremely graphic nature of the film makes it an uncomfortable watch at the best of times, so the audience for this film is narrowed down to either the curious or the masochistic. Whilst I do like some of von Trier’s work, Antichrist is a film I doubt I will ever be returning to.
I wouldn’t recommend watching Antichrist for enjoyment. There are certainly people that will like it but I feel it’s a very niche group of people, and you really need to be in an artsy film school mindset when watching it. It’s a film that many will find thematically inaccessible, because it’s intentionally difficult to understand; which is fine, but that’s not for everyone. On top of that the extremely graphic nature of the film makes it an uncomfortable watch at the best of times, so the audience for this film is narrowed down to either the curious or the masochistic. Whilst I do like some of von Trier’s work, Antichrist is a film I doubt I will ever be returning to.