Antichrist:
Nature is terrifying
Readers, I’m quite often decisive regarding film. With most movies, I know right away whether I will love them or hate them. Lars von Trier’s Antichrist is a rare breed of film in which I genuinely cannot say for certain if I like it or not, as there’s an even distribution of pros and cons. The story of a couple’s retreat to help a grieving wife come to terms with the death of their son is a bizarre experience and one that I still feel conflicted about. What I can say for certain is that this horror film, heavily psychological in nature, certainly made me loudly proclaim an assortment of four-letter words.
Antichrist is one of those films that seems as though it should involve a pregnancy resulting in an antichrist, supernatural shenanigans ensue, blah, blah, blah. No, this story is one of a nameless couple taking a retreat into the woods. The husband, a therapist played by Willem Dafoe, attempts to help the wife grieve by confronting her fears and acting towards her with a professional manner. However, the woods of Eden as well as the couple are in a darker state then they first appear. The plot of this story is strange, jumping around quite a bit in a manner that can be difficult to follow. Motivations are not always that clear and certain reveals are not properly built. However, this is not to say that the film is bad. The characters are fleshed out well and never really feel as though they are on the extremes of “right” and “wrong.” Instead, the pair fluctuate between these states in order to change the audience’s sympathies from minute to minute.
Normally, plot would be followed by sound, look, and perhaps re-watch value. This is going to be a special brand of review, however, as I’m still not sure what to make of this film. Instead, we’ll take a look at the pros and cons of the film while we try to figure out if this is a film that would appeal to you. My job as a critic is, after all, to help you select the best films to watch. I give you my thoughts and feelings in the hopes that you will heed my praise and warnings as well as my reasoning. This time, however, I have quite a bit of both. Ultimately, this review is more to direct you to or steer you away from this film. I genuinely can’t say for certain what I would recommend.
When we look at this film, it’s easy to find quite a bit to like. The atmosphere is lonely, a feeling that can benefit horror films in their scale. It is, after all, human nature to crave companionship. I would dare compare the loneliness of this film, its destitute surroundings and its drearily natural atmosphere, to that of The Shining. The entire film, we are introduced to three true characters, one of which is only in perhaps eight minutes total. We see a few brief human faces within the first fifteen minutes, making them nearly forgotten by the end of the first hour. Ultimately, this film unsettles you in making you feel isolated and in danger. The imagery evoking nature is rarely peaceful, often drained of color and sometimes very scarring. By the end of Chapter Two (The film is kind enough to offer such organization), there are several moments that will make you squirm in your seat. Where many films would accentuate the beauty of nature, this film forces you to look at the dark side of nature.
Another giant check in the pro column is that of the shooting and editing style, utilizing these to truly make the world feel off-balance and terrifying. The camera is hand-held, often moving and zooming in while never staying still. This restless camera allows the audience ease of access into the world, making them feel as though they are observers of the world and all the fear it has to offer. I’ve seen this film called “experimental” and, in that regard, I can certainly agree. I’ve only ever seen movies use this style in passing, getting the audience ready for some large twist or reveal before moving back to tripods and still shots. Antichrist tosses this aside in favor of constant feelings of unease and fear. Likewise, we can see this same constant movement in the editing style. One thing that makes this film stand out in its cutting is the use of jump-cuts. For those of you who may be unfamiliar with the term, a jump-cut is what occurs when two shots are put together with something clearly changing between the shots. It’s similar to if you saw me from the front drinking from a glass but then saw me from the side and the glass was no longer even in my hand. It makes the world feel unnatural and wrong, breaking the flow of physics. And yet Antichrist thrives thanks to what is normally an editing mistake. These sudden jumps occur at the same angle, the cut clear and making everything about the sequence just feel wrong. It fits the tone of the work, relishing in the discomfort it causes. In terms of mood, Antichrist is a work of art.
For the cons, I want to start with the one I feel worst about criticizing. You see, the amount of gore and sex in Antichrist was shocking to a degree of harming the film. I’m not some moralist, screaming for my soapbox that the films of today are too violent and sexualized. Sex scenes can be beautiful, as in the ice scene in Do the Right Thing, as well as comedic, which you can see in spades in Deadpool. And yet… The sex in this film is constant and oftentimes feels out of nowhere. There is no earning these scenes through building the characters desires. Suddenly, they’re just pulling away at one another’s clothes. Despite the urgency in the actions of the characters, I never believe that they truly need one another. Likewise, violence can be amazing in a film. To this day, several scenes from Seven make me pause the film before I’m able to keep going. Several scenes from Alien have stuck with me as well, that chest-bursting scene engrained in my head to my gleeful excitement. Yet the shock value does not feel earned in this film. They linger on these shocking scenes of violence, sometimes taking them to extremes, and yet they never go beyond the idea of “look at this image.” Good violence is paced slowly, making you realize something is coming while still being able to knock you flat on the floor with shock once it hits. In this regard, I can’t say Antichrist succeeds.
Another con of Antichrist is the sudden turns that it takes. For the sake of spoilers, I won’t go in-depth on these elements. However, I feel similarly to the violence and sex of the film as I do to the twists. I assume every living creature, even goldfish, knows the end of The Sixth Sense. If you are somehow the one carbon-based lifeform that has avoided it, however, first let me congratulate you as you are officially rarer than unicorns, Bigfoot, or a good Michael Bay movie. Now, to preserve the purity of your knowledge of this ending, skip this paragraph as it will rely on the example. Are you gone? Great. Now that they’re gone, everyone is aware that at Bruce Willis was dead during the entirety of The Sixth Sense. Watching the film back again, the clues are all there. We have the wife’s reactions, the way no one interacts with Willis’ character, and the missing time period. However, these clues are missing from Antichrist. The reveals do not feel even close to foreshadowed and twists feel out of left field. Ultimately, this is a huge shortcoming on behalf of Antichrist.
If you’re trying to decide on watching Antichrist or not, I suppose the decision rests in what you want to watch it for. Do you want unique stylistic approaches? Perhaps a lasting feeling of dread? Not bothered by senseless violence and twists? Watch it. Looking for a strong story with great twists and turns? Look elsewhere, my friends. But this film is not a bad one. It’s just not a great one either. Regardless, you can plan on some good scares and some lasting impressions. Regardless of whether this is the film for you or if you’ll be tuning in to something else, my message remains the same: Happy viewing.