Lars Von Trier’s ANTICHRIST: A Trip to Hell

Lars von Trier is on record saying ‘a film should be like a stone in the shoe.’  Well if that is the only reason he makes movies, he’s succeeded with his latest ANTICHRIST.  Trier is a Danish filmmaker of the wildest and most successful proportions.  He’s responsible for making the ‘soft-core’ porn movement in Europe of the last decade, having produced dozens of women-friendly porns.  He directed DOGVILLE as well as about a dozen others.  It’s also no mistake that his name appears on the poster as large as his actors, for his personality is as big as any character in the film.  He’s called himself the greatest filmmaker alive.

Let me say right off the bat that while this is a strikingly profound visual feast I wouldn’t wish a viewing of it onto my greatest enemy.  I’ve developed a unique way of conversing about this film, and I suggest if you see it, you investigate thusly:  first, do NOT say the name of the film, that way no one could reference to it and watch it.  Instead, ask your friend or colleague if they like Willam DaFoe.  If it’s a yes, then ask if he’s seen any of his current films.  That’s all you have to do.

If you intend to watch this film, make sure that you are able to handle damn-near pornographic images, horrific amounts of violence and blood, and also that you are able to endure long bouts of boredom and confusion.

Now I’m the first to admit that for the most part profundity goes right over my head.  I am horrible at recognizing genius, especially in the form of story-telling and film.  While there is no doubt a serious question of humanities reasoning at play in this film, I have a difficult time connecting the more serious questions of life to the actions of our characters.  Only two adults are featured, nameless.  Willam DaFoe, easily one of our greatest American actors and Charlotte Gainsbourg, a Paris pop singer (it doesn’t matter).

It seems prevalent in many foreign films that their attempt at modernization often falls into cliche; in this case that Trier sets out in this film to make a ‘modern horror’ film.  However, almost all of the concepts and rules of horror films are gone in ANTICHRIST; instead we’re subjected to two people’s whims and desires of dealing with grief.  I can say this breaks the rules of horror because too much time is invested in caring for our victims; ultimately this is a success of the film, but I could not call it horror.  An exercise in trying the viewers nerves to the point of nausea, I would say.

Exploring the thin plot of the film is irrelevant; suffice it to say a couple loses a child and must retreat to the woods to grieve.   He is a psychoanalyst and thinks he can help Her get better and grieve faster naturally.  This is all well and good until they reach ‘the woods,’ a perceivably fearful place for Her.   There seems to be too many symbols on the table as Trier reaches into mythology, fear, psycho-babble and pathos to explain why these people are thinking and feeling the way they do.  Books of study in the attic, talking animals representing celestial bodies, human bodies strewn along the woods; there is so much symbolism in the film that the thread of explanation is lost.

Trier in this film displays a need to explore sexual violence to the point of non-understanding.   The weak plot hinge-pin is ultimately that woman (Her) is obsessed with sexual pleasure to the point that even her own child dying will not stop her from getting that gratification.  She turns to her husband for sex as a last chance at fighting grief; he tries to keep up admirably, but ultimately comes up short in the end.   There is a lot of nudity (Trier was raised by nudists) both male and female, and there’s a lot of rough play going on between them.  She is basically a version of a nightmare for men; fiercely beautiful, physically strong and vulnerable, needing, angry.  Even her long black hair, big eyes and cute bumpy  nose all seem to reach out and slap the viewer; Gainsbourg’s performance basically cannot be ignored as a complete commitment  in every single way possible.  Her thin, naked and somewhat unattractive body is the real subject here; and what should have been a natural healing process becomes an unexplainable pain and rage.

The films final act is the end of the stultifying long-windedness of the middle section; when the violence comes it’s heavy and thick.  In her frustration at the thought of him leaving her, their sexual encounter, violent from the outset, goes very wrong when she crushes his genitalia with a block of wood.  He’s knocked out and she, somehow still sexually fanatical, takes advantage of his remaining erection, causing blood to come out of his penis as he ‘comes.’  Serious stuff?  True horror?  A genius exploring the endless hunger of woman’s desire?  Gross, over the top visual violence with very little plot design to justify it?  Probably that.

So after she drives the rod of a stone wheel into his leg and bolts it to him (so he can’t run), a sequence of cat and mouse in the woods goes on, beginning to show its horror film leanings.  The film ends in a horrific scene where He gains ground after she’s shorn her clitoris with a scissors (yes), presumably to allay her guilt and prove to the audience that the real villain of the film is somehow the woman’s genitals.

Almost as an afterthought, He crushes her larynx and then strangles her to death.  Gainsbourg’s performance  is completely fantastic and though the subject matter is dark, she lights up the screen as a horrifying vision of life, anger, violence and death.

So this film’s darkness and heavy-handedness outdoes its desire to tell a story.  There’s an air of pomposity and artistic corniness about the whole dreary affair, as well.  Trier obviously missed the memo from Hitchcock that inference and suggestion can oftentimes be more horrific than an extra cutting off a rubber clitoris and pumping blood out of it.  It seems when He chokes Her to death he also kills any hope of finding a positive glint in us, Trier, or his characters.  If He loved Her so much, would he kill her like that?  Just look her in the eyes and take her life?  It’s not believable, it’s not right.

But Trier is the genius, not his poor audience.  I watched ANTICHRIST and all I got was a stone in my shoe.  Big deal, I’ll just take it out and toss it back into the stream.

c2010 P DeCirce