movies November 13, 2009

I loved Lars von Trier's "Antichrist"

Charlotte Gainsburg stars in Lars von Trier's Antichrist with Willem Dafoe

Charlotte Gainsburg stars in Lars von Trier's Antichrist with Willem Dafoe

A lot of people are choosing to be hostile towards Lars von Trier’s “Antichrist“, especially the ones who’ve made it a point that they have no intention of watching it. Don’t listen to them. If you care an ounce about film-making or the art of storytelling, go see it as soon as you can. The first part of the movie alone, The Prologue, accompanied by this heart-wrenching song, is worth the $12.50 I paid. The monotone sequence is gorgeous, and it perfectly crystallizes an array of emotions without a single word spoken.

Lars von Trier is, of course, mostly dismissed by his haters on the basis of pretension, but I find that dismissal even more pretentious—oh von Trier, you are so provocative and predictable, and I’m too above you to be fooled by your “art”. Maybe you can say that about David Lynch, but I personally find von Trier’s movies quite accessible; you don’t have to be an alternative/indie nerd to be totally moved by “Dancer in the Dark”—it’s not like he’s creating psychedelic collages of provocative images that have no logic or story to them. In fact, “Antichrist” is stunning from all viewpoints: cinematic and aesthetic, production, story-telling, and superb acting (I was terrified of seeing Charlotte Gainsbourg naked, but her performance is incredible, especially since she has an understated way of doing things, and she’s managed to put just the right amount of disturbance to her character’s madness). As for the gloom and doom, it’s to your benefit that von Trier takes you on a ride this deep into the dark; not everyone has access to these dark places, you know.

The boundaries of what’s real and what’s imagined are certainly blurred in the film. Inspired by Andrei Tarkovsky, there are plenty of dream-like, fairy-tale-like facades to it. Needless to say, people on all sides are quick to take issue with religious symbolism. I just think it’s too much of an easy target, and like everything else, it can be used poorly or masterfully. Why shy away, though: there’s so much buried in religious symbols, they can evoke profound and broad emotions without saying anything, they have the advantage of being primitive in a way and appealing straight to your senses. As such, they can bring an amazing quality to fairy tales, and fairy tales happen to be plain awesome. I mean, have you even read Oscar Wilde’s “The Young King”? It’s only like the best short story ever.

As you may have heard, the movie comes with plenty of warnings about its graphic violence. Yes the graphic parts are pretty graphic, but it makes up a very small portion of the film.

  • Lucas:

    It was a great piece despite it being occasionally overindulgent. To me, it’s simply a film that explores the mental process of “recuperation” after a grave loss and the insanity that process may unfortunately produce. It’s done through various symbolic cues, including animals and people, so whether they are real or not I think misses the point. Regardless, the film is polarizing, which seems to be von Trier’s primary objective.

Leave a Reply

Comments not adhering to Lifehacker's commenting etiquette, especially the mean-spirited ones and the arguments they generate, will be deleted. But sincere criticism and links to related content are more than welcome, thanks.


  • Aqua: Love TEEN. Man they can sing. Cool. Different.
  • Suraj Joshee: Sarahana, Loved the video. You captured the simple raw essence of the music and band really really...
  • Kevination: I love infectious songs.
  • Jipes: Another great post, I love the voice of this artist. Every time I come here I’m surprised which is...
  • Jipes: Not at all, I’m really sorry if my comment seems odd but compare to people like Tallest Man on Earth,...