"Antichrist" - REVIEW

During interviews leading up to and following "Antichrist"'s premiere at Cannes, Lars von Trier stated that the film was his way of expressing a dark period of depression in his life. Knowing that, "Antichrist" might just be one of the most disturbing trips into a director's mindset, particularly in its more explicit moments.
After the unsettling opening credits (which consist of von Trier's name and the title written in crayon), we're launched into the prologue: a gorgeously shot slow-motion black and white sequence in which He (Willem Dafoe) and She (Charlotte Gainsbourg) have sex, while their toddler accidentally slips out of a window blown open by the wind. Set to the music of Handel, it's a beautiful, albeit briefly graphic, opening that is a misleading as the title itself. Von Trier's film is not about a physical antichrist; in fact, it's really more about, well...other "things". The mention of the devil is nonexistent. Instead, what we're given is the story of a man and his wife dealing with grief, and their encounters in a forest getaway called "Eden" that hint at some sort of supernatural evil, without making anything completely clear.
She is convinced that the son's death is all her fault, while He disagrees, and tries to talk her out of her depression by stressing rationality. But at the same time, He himself is tested. Over the course of the stay in Eden, He encounters three cryptic animals: a deer with a dead fetus, a hawk that eats its dead young, and most famously/infamously, and a fox that tears at its own flesh and proclaims, "chaos reigns". Yes, it's all pretty insane, but for most of the film, save for tiny flashes, von Trier's film remains interesting and even accessible, despite falling into the almost nonexistent "art house horror" niche. He plays with sound and light to good and often eerie effect without gratuitous gore. Until the end. Whether you can keep your eyes open for two key scenes in the final 25 minutes or not, you will be shaken. And you'll never look at a pair of scissors the same way again.
I probably should have started my review with this bit, but, well, maybe I can tie it in here as well. There are those who claim that certain films aren't meant to be "enjoyed" because they are "art" and are meant to challenge us and be wrenching and unpleasant. This strikes me as total BS. Even if a film is tough to get through (for example, Mr. von Trier's "Dancer in the Dark"), one still enjoys seeing scenes that are well directed/shot/edited/acted. So while I may not be itching to pop "Schindler's List" into my DVD player every other week, to claim that it's not meant to be enjoyed in any sense of the word strikes me as nonsense. But I should have known that if anyone could make me make an exception, it's Lars von Trier. While much of the film could be "enjoyed" in a more conventional sense as a psychological thriller, the final portion is so extreme that is almost defies description. I'm still not exactly sure what I was feeling. For one scene I covered one eye but watching with the other, and in another I close my eyes at the last second. If you had a hard time looking at the "face-sewing" scene in "Pan's Labyrinth", you'll barely survive half a second of what's in store for you here. It's graphic, and not entirely justified (although I'm still trying to wrap my head around the film on a thematic/symbolic level), and certainly a shock to one's system.
That said, it's hard to fault Mr. von trier and crew in many areas. Anthony Dod Mantle's cinematography is potent, though it never soars as high as in the prologue, and the other tech aspects are solid. In terms of pacing, it certainly felt like on of von trier's faster films (it's also shorter: 1 hr 40 min), though I'm sure some will find the conversations between He and She unbearably slow. For me, this wasn't the case, thanks to the strength of the actors. Though so much of the film is built on mystery and ambiance, Dafoe and Gainsbourg turn in very good, though not quite great work. Their characters don't quite grow enough to give us the most well rounded performances, though they are intriguing; this is perhaps the first von Trier film that succumbs to style over substance. It will certainly shake you without resorting to cheap "jump" scares, and the characters are more interesting than anything in most Hollywood horror films, but as a whole it falls short of greatness due to feeling somewhat underwritten. If anything, it is a film made more so for the director, and not for the audience. Instead of leaving me speechless, von Trier has left me babbling, and much like his film, I'm not sure what it all means.

Grade: B/B-/C+