Culture Blues

The Instant Movie Club: Antichrist

Every week, your friends at Culture Blues get together to watch a movie from their Netflix Instant queue. Then, they sit down over fresh forest picked berries to discuss what they’ve just been through. This is The Instant Movie Club.

This week we'll be discussing Antichrist, a psychological thriller from acclaimed director Lars Von Trier pitting Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg against desire, grief and nature.. If you haven't seen it yet, you'll probably want to turn back now. The below discussion contains heavy spoilers!

Next week: Smiley Face - Anna Faris stars in this stoner comedy from veteran indie filmmaker and New Queer Cinema vanguard Gregg Araki, with appearances by The Office's John Krasinski and Glee's Jane Lynch. Many see Smiley Face as a future cult classic.

Jeremiah: It’s probably impossible to talk about Antichrist without taking its notoriety and my own expectations into consideration. I didn’t know much about it beyond grieving parents hide out in the woods. I expected some disturbing sexuality and a lot of pretension. The Prologue confirmed my worst fears about pretension, and exceeded my expectations in terms of graphic sexuality. It looked great, although the image itself seemed to take precedent over the message. The symbolism couldn’t be much more overt and was already growing tiresome (how many objects did we need to see fall before that baby was going to jump out the window?). My fears about disturbing sexuality would need to wait a while to be confirmed, but we all know it’s coming.

The movie’s excellent, evocative visuals sustain. The woods are lush and foggy; undeniably beautiful yet creepy. Unfortunately, the muddled narrative continues as well. The couple’s dynamic interested me at first. Willem Dafoe as the therapist who only becomes interested in his wife as a case study was an interesting jumping off point. His decision to treat her despite his disagreement with such a practice “in principle” is a bad decision that immediately made me see him as an egotistical moron, but one I might be interested in watching suffer for his mistakes. Once I found out that his idea of “treating” his wife consisted of very standard, detached sessions of analysis, I got bored.

This boredom stayed with me until shit got real crazy at the end, at which point I was mostly grossed out. Charlotte Gainsbourg’s thesis being on gynocide and her conclusion that women are inherently evil certainly gives the movie some thematic weight (I bet Dafoe feels like a real jerk for arguing with her about that one). The simple presence of this thematic weight isn’t really enough to make me interested though.

The climax had me on the edge of my seat and wincing. As a psychological horror film, Antichrist might have been pretty entertaining. Throughout the runtime, however, the scares and foreboding atmosphere always take a back seat to the shocks and stilted, dreary conversations. I’ll say this for Lars Von Trier, he’s created the most artful torture porn I’ve ever seen. That’s not a compliment.

Jeff: First of all, I’d like to apologize to anyone that watched Antichrist because of this column. Seriously, Culture Blues would like to offer one complimentary session of therapy (with Ben Van Iten) to any viewer who feels their life has been irrevocably damaged by watching a rubber vagina chopped up by a pair of shears. That shit was pretty scary, right?

It’s been a couple of days since my first viewing of Lars von Trier’s provocation and I’m still not sure how I feel about it. Whether or not it’s a good film is debatable, just like any other film, except in those cases if a film isn’t good it is bad, whereas von Trier’s 90 minute assault on the senses could be considered straight up evil. And if it isn’t good, or evil, then maybe it’s just boring. Beyond the visuals which, as Jeremiah mentioned, are consistently gorgeous, Antichrist tends to be plodding in spots where it isn’t being laughably disturbing. I say laughable because during the film’s protracted climax, my reaction was to squirm with hysterical laughter while Dafoe’s broken wiener ejaculated blood. Apparently, there were a lot of people like me at Cannes.

The performances of both Dafoe and especially Gainsbourg both need to be pointed out. They give themselves over fully to an experimental piece of film making, becoming active participants in von Trier’s ample madness. They help to elevate Antichrist beyond the level of torture porn, a label I wouldn’t so dismissively slap upon it. Gainsbourg probably should’ve received some recognition at Sunday’s Oscars, but they didn’t give out an award for most giant pair of balls. Or did Kathryn Bigelow win that too?

Overall, I’m glad that Antichrist exists, if only so we can talk about its merits. I’d recommend that everyone, if they think they can handle it, give it a watch. But I never want to see it again.

Jeff: Before we begin your therapy session, I'm going to need you to draw a pyramid. At the top of the pyramid, you should write down what you fear the most. For instance, the top of my pyramid reads: "being stuck in some fucking badger hole with a loud devil bird, while my crazy ass wife stalks me through the woods, oh and I have a weight stabbed through my leg and my balls are smashed."

It's a really big pyramid.

Bill: I'm surprised the words "Chaos Reigns" haven't popped up yet.Along with The White Ribbon, Antichrist was my favorite movie of 2009.  I can't say I fully understand it, or that I really want to.  I lean towards Jason's interpretation, more or less believing that the message is that nature is inherently apathetic at best, evil at worst.  You can see this being built up with the acorns mercilessly falling on the cabin, and those pods (whatever they are) taking over His hand.  As She turns herself over to nature, she becomes apathetic and evil as well.  I am still pretty baffled by the gynocide, the three beggars and the faceless extras in the beginning and end of the film.  But who cares, so what?

Lars Von Trier is a master.  His movies have never been crowd pleasers (or actor pleasers), but you won't find any director working today with a clearer artistic vision.  His films challenge the audience, and this one is a full-on assault.  The first time I saw Antichrist, the dedication to Andrei Tarkovsky made me laugh out loud.  How can you dedicate a testicle smashing, clitoris snipping movie to anyone, let alone Russia's greatest director?  The more I pondered it though, the more it made sense.  Antichrist is clearly inspired by Tarkovsky.  The deliberately slow therapy scenes that make you squirm in your seat are reminiscent of pretty much every Tarkovsky film.  The visuals are definitely influenced by Mirror (which Wikipedia tells me Charlotte Gainsbourg was made to watch in preparation for the film).  The Epilogue, which is one of the most beautiful sequences I've ever seen on film, is straight out of Andrei Rublev.  You will not find this kind of artistry from Jason Reitman.

Jeff is right to point out the amazing dedication of the actors.  I cannot help but wonder what Charlotte Gainsbourg's mother thinks.  I don't think many actors would sign up for masturbating naked at the base of a tree.  In my own fantasy world, Antichrist would've pulled off a Cuckoo's Nest style sweep at the Oscars, but I realize that is just nonsense.  This movie will never have mass praise.  It's destined to be argued about by pretentious film students for all of eternity.

Tagged as: andrei tarkovsky, antichrist, charlotte gainsbourg, gynocide, lars von trier, mirror, nature is evil, three beggars, white ribbon, willem dafoe, women are evil