Antichrist (2009) - Lars von Trier

The Dogme 95 manifesto brought out the best in von Trier. His ability to understand the darkest depths of the human psyche, coupled with the shaky, nervous, traumatized cinematography that the manifesto deemed to be 'true cinema', has lead to works such as Breaking the Waves (1996) and The Idiots (1998) being widely regarded as some of the finest examples of psychological realism that exist in cinema today. Antichrist (2009) represents von Trier's attempt to disown a brainchild that was starting to misbehave, and whilst some will watch with intrigue at what von Trier is capable of, free of the prescriptive shackles of Dogme 95, and with the latest and greatest cinema gadgets at his disposal; others will be wondering if the once famously outspoken champion of the avant-garde has sold his soul to Hollywood.

Briefly placing the intriguing notion of von Trier's giant leap into the mainstream on hold, Antichrist is a film about a couple who attempt to work through the trauma of losing their child. Known only as 'He' (Willem Dafoe) and 'She' (Charlotte Gainsbourg), the couple retreat to the woods in order to overcome the cataclysmic sense of loss and hopelessness that the death has created. Whilst 'He', being a therapist, can rationalise the grief, 'She' is battered by every destructive emotion it is possible to feel, and the intolerable burden of guilt quickly transforms into blame for a partner who remains (to her at least) absurdly unaffected. Suffice to say that the therapeutic trip to God's back garden quickly becomes a bloody descent into hell...Imagine Fatal Attraction (1987) having tearful, angry sex with Hostel (2005). Not nice, is it?

And indeed it is the asphyxiating, sometimes shocking nature of Antichrist that constitutes much of its immediate appeal. The term 'torture-porn' has been used to describe the new generation of horror films such as Saw (2003), Hostel (2005) and most recently A Serbian Film (2010); it is unflinching and highly graphic horror that satisfies an audience's sadomasochistic desires, Antichrist sits firmly within this canon of horror. Despite the fact that this controversial and visceral brand of  horror translates well into the unflinching and aggressive mantras of the Dogme manifesto, the horror elements of this film are a curious failure. 

Anyone who has seen The Idiots will know that von Trier is no stranger to controversy, but whereas in The Idiots the real shock is the subversive political and philosophical theory it simulates, in Antichrist the shocking elements are almost entirely gratuitous. And therein lies Antichrist's greatest weakness, it lacks any meaningful direction. von Trier lamely attempts to create a political commentary by naming his protagonists 'He' and 'She', presumably to suggest that they represent a universal archetype in western society, but such attempts are swiftly undone by the fact that neither of the characters are engaging, or, for that matter, likeable. The protagonists themselves do us the favour of picking out the flaws of their partner 'She' frequently calls 'He' "arrogant", and 'He' accuses 'She', well, her numerous flaws will be made apparent in the end. But the net effect is that you don't really care about their trauma, or if they ever get over it, which is disappointing because the visual intensity of the film really makes you want to care. Maybe apathy was what von Trier was going for, though I sincerely doubt it.

To make this already faltering film worse, von Trier injects a bit of art-house wankery, again totally gratuitous. Approximately 10 minutes of the film is spent with the lens gawping at either 'He' standing by a tree, 'She' walking over a bridge or random (but don’t get me wrong beautiful) shots of the forest. It's all very nice but you find yourself asking on more than one occasion 'what's the point?' One suspects that von Trier was eager to give this film a strong visual dimension, making the most of the fact that the camcorder has been ditched in favour of a technically superiour lense, but these visually exquisite montages actually reduce, not enhance the viewing experience, sapping both momentum and meaning from the film. von Trier has never apologised for the more experimental facets of his work, I think on this occasion we are at least owed an explanation, because there seems absolutely no motive for the lengthy and bizarre still shots.

This review has perhaps been overly harsh. Antichrist is not a terrible film, and is in fact a highly unconventional horror film, but compared to its forceful, vibrant, polemic predecessors it is a distinctly tepid and listless work of cinema. I might be missing the point entirely, and the very meaning behind Antichrist is its meaninglessness, but if this is the case one can only ever 'appreciate' the film never 'like', 'love', 'disagree', 'dislike' or 'hate' it, which, as his previous works would suggest, has always been von Trier's ultimate goal as a director.

Verdict: Not a bad punt at horror, and actually pretty original in this respect. But any von Trier fan will be left feeling disappointed if they expect Antichrist to deliver the same proverbial kick to the nuts that films such as Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark did. If bigger budgets and better lenses will produce similar results, let us hope that von Trier's relationship with mainstream cinema is more of a one night stand than an unhappy marriage 5/10.