With such notoriety prior to Antichrist’s theatrical release, I wonder if it will help or hinder the film? Certainly any publicity is good publicity, but anyone going in for a typical movie experience, or to gaze at the much-talked about sex and gore, will be completely disappointed. This isn’t that type of film, and you need to know that immediately. Lars Von Trier’s Antichrist is causing rapid, heated discussions, splitting audiences and critics down the middle. I think that’s the success of what Von Trier set out to do in the film, is to get people talking.

Antichrist is like a massive painting in an art museum, where a crowd of people will come up and stare, followed by discussing what they’ve seen. Art in film? Or an art film? The basic notion of art is the creation of something for personal or public reasons, and the very fact that film making is a medium, automatically makes it an art form. But people get pissy, if you will, if a film presents itself in this easily thrown about term of art. People just want entertainment. Again, even that’s a word with a very loose definition. But in viewing Antichrist, I doubt you’ll get any entertainment out of it, in the broad sense of why we go to the movies, but don’t scoff at a film that wants to say something, even if you don’t want to subscribe to what it is saying.

After viewing Antichrist, I was quickly reminded of Pier Paolo Pasolini’s Salo: or the 120 Days of Sodom, a film that has been equally slammed with adjectives like shocking, depraved, sicking, pornographic, but it also has been considered a masterpiece. I’m just a little hesitant to call Antichrist masterpiece, if only because I personally want to view it a handful more times. While the emotionally raw performances from Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg, the absolutely stunning cinematography, and the music, are things on a surface level we can appreciate, even that much can be said about Salo. But Von Trier and Pasolini just did not want to create a pretty film, although they’re craftsmen in the highest of orders in the film world, there was something to say. In Salo, Pasolini took Marquis de Sade’s 1700’s story of degradation and pain to his country of Italy in 1944, as a framework and critique of what was going on at that time, in his opinion. Von Trier with Antichrist is exploring gender issues and the basic nature of the role humans have in themes of good and evil.

As with both films, some people have been outright disgusted at what the filmmakers have shown within their films. In Salo, Pasolini shows plenty of scenes on rape, torture, and even a banquet of feces eating. Antichrist has its share of cringe-inducing moments, with the much talked about genital mutilation and very graphic, frank sex, but since when should everything be safe? For both films, these are the scenes discussed more often than what the filmmakers may have wanted, and to me, that’s surface level inquires, because while outrageous and sickening, failure to understand the role that these scenes have within the films, is a failure of understanding the film as a whole.

Antichrist is an ambiguous film at times, but this is certain: the film follows a couple and the aftermath of the death of their son. That’s the simple explanation of Antichrist, but Von Trier explores a lot here, and within the ambiguity, making a first time assessment of what you saw useless to a degree. It demands repeated viewings, if you really want to know what Von Trier is saying with Antichrist, and that requires work on your part as a audience member. My own feelings and assessment on the film, will be different to a degree than yours, much like two people staring at a piece in an art museum. If anything, that’s the true power of Antichrist. It will raise talk, passionate debates for or against, and in the end, when a film does that, doesn’t that mean the artist, I mean director, did something…interesting?

I cannot think of another film recently that has made me so animated in my passion to talk about it, what it means (even though some people claim it’s not saying anything at all), let alone gluing me the screen as I soak it in. I don’t know where to place Antichrist in the career of Von Trier, but as a singular film, it’s an incredibly tough watch, but also a watch that is a beautifully rewarding experience.

Chaos Reigns.

Rating:

Tags: Antichrist, Lars Von Trier, Salo: or the 120 Days of Sodom