Saturday 11 July 2009

Antichrist Review

Bruno/Antichrist. 

Perhaps the strangest double-bill you could ever expect to see at a cinema, and not one I would recommend for the faint-hearted or the easily offended. But this unusual combination of movies is how I spent my Friday night. Both films will make you squirm whilst watching through your fingers, and both feature scenes where the protagonists stare up at the stars.

"Look at all the stars up there. It makes you think of all the hot guys out there doesn't it?"

Bruno to three hunting rednecks.

"Those constellations aren't even real"

Willem Dafoe. Fuck knows what he's going on about.

I'll not say much about Bruno because chances are by the time you read this you'll have already seen it, or at least will be planning to. I'll just say that I was massively disappointed with Bruno in comparison to Borat, it was too contrived, too sleight, and they pretty much ruined it by putting all the best bits in the trailers. Don't get me wrong, it's funny, I was just expecting another gut-buster like Borat, when in fact it was just an uncomfortable watch 80% of the time.

The real reason for writing my first blog in months, however, is the film Antichrist which I saw at a midnight premiere last night in soho. 

antichrist poster movie lars von trier

When Lars Von Trier's Antichrist was premiered at the Cannes Film Festival back in May it was greeted with boos and jeers along with a smattering of applause and quickly became the most controversial film of programme. Variety called it a "big fat art-film fart" and film critic Jeff Wells said it was "easily one of the biggest debacles in Cannes Film Festival history and the complete meltdown of a major film artist". With explicit sexual scenes, instances of extreme violence and lashings of gore, it seemed the film was polarising its audience into those who hated in, and those who thought it was an exhilarating ride. Empire's Kim Newman said "Antichrist delivers enough beauty, terror and wonder to qualify as the strangest and most original horror movie of the year."

With all this in mind, when I was offered the chance to see the film for myself I naturally jumped at the chance. Upon leaving the cinema I was literally dumbstruck, unable to put into words exactly how or what I thought about the film, but with a nights sleep between me and the movie, I feel about ready to talk about one of the most traumatic visits to the cinema i've ever had.

In hindsight i've decided that I like the movie, but I didn't enjoy it, and I certainly wouldn't recommend it anyone. But how can that be? I liked it, but don't go see it? I think i'd say go see it but put in a clause to say if it seriously disturbs you, then it's not my fault!

antichrist willem dafoe movie
The film opens with a prologue shot in stunning slow motion black and white. It shows a couple (Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg) who lose their baby when it falls from the bedroom window whilst the couple are getting jiggy in bed. Its a beautifully shot sequence, set to a soaring orchestral piece and sets the film up concisely. The mother suffers unbearable grief and is hospitalised for a month. The husband, a therapist, decides to care for his partner, and takes the couple to their woodland retreat named "Eden" a place the mother has confessed as being the location of her greatest fears.

The early scenes at Eden are where the film is at its best. The isolated woodland, creeping nature and dense shifting greenery evoking a creepiness similar to The Shining, but unfortunately the scenes of the bickering couple tend to drag the pace of the film in this vital middle section. A rotting fox announces "Chaos Reigns" and so begins the final and most gruelling part of the film. 

Up to this point of the film, we have seen explicit intercourse, dying babies and talking foxes, but nothing can prepare you for where the film goes next. In an extended period of explicit violence and abuse you are shown things you wish you hadn't, including Dafoe ejaculating blood, an innovative goring method performed on Dafoe's shin, a bird having its brain bashed in and then the final piece de resistance; DIY surgery performed on Gainsbourg's lady regions with a pair of rusty scissors. It's all sickening stuff, and comes completely out of leftfield. 

Not quite an art film, far too gruesome. Not quite a gorno, too arty. Not quite a religious allegory, too wishy washy. So what it is about?

antichrist charlotte gainsbourg
It's about grief, pain, relationships, sex and violence. It seems, at times, misogynistic with Gainsbourg's character taking the brunt of the blame for pretty much everything that happens in the picture, but coming from Von Trier, this could have been expected.

Most of all, this film is about pushing boundaries. Exploring the darkest reaches of the psyche, and if Von Trier had exercised a bit more restraint, we could have been looking at a spiritual successor to The Shining. However, in its current state, Antichrist should be regarded as a curio. A film you should see, but not one that i'll recommend you see.

The cinematography and sound design are truly beautiful throughout, and there are parts of the film which are just stunning and you think it might just work out, but then there are vast swathes of the middle section which are just simply boring. Dafoe puts in a stoic performance, and Gainsbourg does her best with her underwritten part, but it is the violence and imagery that will stay with you, rather than the actor's turns.

The script was written by Lars Von Trier following a two-year depression, and you can tell. It's an exhausting watch, but in my opinion, an exhilarating one too. Though I don't think i'll go see it again.

Verdict ?/5

One of the most memorable and thrilling cinema-going experiences in a long time, but mentally-scarring and shocking all the same. Go see it, or don't, i'm still not sure.