Antichrist
In his review of the movie Antichrist (dir. Lars Von Trier), Paul Hurley says that the movie entails “… preposterous, overblown and juvenile stuff that possibly reveals signs of Von Trier as desperately attempting to shock in order to remain relevant.” He (like many other reviewers) notes that Von Trier wrote the screenplay while he was suffering from depression.
Hurley says the opening sequence is beautifully shot by the cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle. He says its “… stunning start and promises much – maybe this is why the disappointment of what happens next is so great.” Hurley is referring to when the couple goes to the cabin, where the film “… becomes unnecessarily boring and wordy, not to mention pretentious as Dafoe’s therapist tries to coax his wife out of her grief.” He says the animal scenes in the movie are bizarre, especially the self inflicted mutilation scenes. Hurley says that it’s “… as if Von Trier is jumping up and down to get attention: but the best thing to do with Antichrist is to ignore it.”
Hurley’s review is in a word less than favorable. But in it he brings up a good point: “It may all mean something to Von Trier, but to the spectator it’s laughable stuff. Arguments of misogyny are unfounded: there’s nothing clever enough here to be taken seriously.” This isn’t a selfish demand to make. If a spectator isn’t well informed about the possible meanings of the film, the story and it’s images give little to be understood beyond the simple story I have already described.
But then again, what does Hurley mean when he says that it may all mean something to Von Trier? And why is it laughable stuff to the spectator? Is it the directors job to give the spectator a blueprint of his thoughts?
When Roger Ebert describes his take on the film in his blog he gives also his interpretation of what he sees. In the case of the child’s death he says it is “… Man’s Fall from Grace. Consequently, She (Charlotte Gainsbourg) falls into guilt and depression so deep she is hospitalized. That is one half of Original Sin. The character named He (Willem Dafoe) insists she cut off her medication. He will cure her himself. That is the other half. Her sin is Despair. His is Pride. These are the two greatest sins against God.”
It is interesting to compare these two views of this film. Where Hurley sees the husband simply being obnoxious, Eberts view looks further and sees that his arrogance is a metaphor, it’s a symbol, it means something.
It is easy to see the basic plot of this film and call it simply a story about a couple that lose a child go up into the woods and go crazy and mutilate each other. But seeing deeper meaning in it isn’t just easy, it’s almost impossible not to do: The title of the film is “Antichrist”, the couple have no names, the place where they go is called “Eden”, the man finds satanic art upstairs where the woman had spent the earlier summer with their son, she had been working on a thesis called “Misogyny” which simply means “the hatred of women” . Hurley’s claim that “… [a]rguments of misogyny are unfounded” is very unclear in his review and seems to be obvious in the film.
A man and a woman in the garden of Eden the sin against god: Despair and Pride. They are locked in struggle where they torture each other: he with psychological arrogance, mind games and seduction of the psyche; she with brute force and violence. Animals are talking, dying and coming to life, very little seems to be normal. What are we to make of the things we see in this film? Are we are to interpret and analyse or are we suppose to see everything as it appears to be: a simple story of madness. To simply look at this film and describe it in the way that Hurley has done, is not seeing what is being shown on the screen.
Ebert says in another discussion of the movie that “If you have to ask what a film symbolizes, it doesn’t.” He says he didn’t need to ask with this film. But what does that say about Hurley’s impressions?
Some movies offer less to think about than others. Antichrist offers a lot of things to think about. It is important that we do not, as Hurley suggests, ignore a film. Even if our strongest gut feeling tells us it is bad, pretentious and obnoxious. To demand a movie makes itself clear and understandable immediately without any help from the viewer is a obnoxious view.
—-
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/entertainment/film/review/films/antichrist/1576
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/05/a_devils_advocate_for_antichri.html
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/09/tiff_2_antichrist_redux.html
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/05/for_even_now_already_is_it_in.html
