Lars von Trier's new film will not leave me alone. A day after many members of the audience recoiled at its first Cannes showing, "Antichrist" is brewing a scandal here; I am reminded of the tumult following the 1976 premiere of Oshima's "In the Realm of the Senses" and its castration scene. I said I was looking forward to von Trier's overnight reviews, and I haven't been disappointed. Those who thought it was good thought it was very very good ("Something completely bizarre, massively uncommercial and strangely perfect"--Damon Wise, Empire) and those who thought it was bad found it horrid ("Lars von Trier cuts a big fat art-film fart with "Antichrist"--Todd McCarthy, Variety).
I rarely find a serious film by a major director to be this disturbing. Its images are a fork in the eye. Its cruelty is unrelenting. Its despair is profound. Von Trier has a way of affecting his viewers like that. After his "Breaking the Waves" premiered at Cannes in 1996, Georgia Brown of the Village Voice fled to the rest room in emotional turmoil and Janet Maslin of the New York Times followed to comfort her. After this one, Richard and Mary Corliss blogged at Time.com that "Antichrist" presented the spectacle of a director going mad.
Enough time has passed since I saw the film for me to process my visceral reaction, and take a few steps back. I can understand why this confrontational film has so sharply divided its early critics. It is fascinating to me that there's a sharp divide between American, Canadian and British critics monitored by the Tomatometer, and a cross-section of French critics monitored by Le Film Francais, a French equivalent to Variety, which is published daily at the festival. Reflect that French critics are often noted for more intellectual, theoretical reviews, and American critics are more often populist. Which group hated or approved of the movie more?Think again. A surprising 44% of the early Tomatometer critics gave positive reviews. Le Film Francais asks its national panel to vote on every film in the Official Selection and the Un Certain Regard section. They can vote as follows: (1) Must win the Palme d'Or; (2) Three stars ("Passionately"); (3) Two stars ("Good"); (4) One star ("One likes it a little"); (5) "Pas de tout"--"not at all"). The French critical consensus for "Antichrist" is... pas de tout. I can't recall when another Official Selection by an important director has been disliked so strongly.
Charlotte Gainsborgh and Willem Dafoe as She and He in "Antichrist." (Click on all art to enlarge)
A reader signing himself Scott D posted this comment after my first entry on the film: "If it is in fact the most despairing film you've ever seen, shouldn't it be considered a monumental achievement? Despair is such a significant aspect of the human condition (particularly in the modern western world) so how can this not be a staggeringly important film, given your statement?" There is truth to what Scott D says. In the first place, it's important to note that "Antichrist" is not a bad film. It is a powerfully-made film that contains material many audiences will find repulsive or unbearable. The performances by Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg are heroic and fearless. Von Trier's visual command is striking. The use of music is evocative; no score, but operatic and liturgical arias. And if you can think beyond what he shows to what he implies, its depth are frightening.
I cannot dismiss this film. It is a real film. It will remain in my mind. Von Trier has reached me and shaken me. It is up to me to decide what that means. I think the film has something to do with religious feeling. It is obvious to anyone who saw "Breaking the Waves" that von Trier's sense of spirituality is intense, and that he can envision the supernatural as literally present in the world. His reference is Catholicism. Raised by a communist mother and a socialist father in a restrictive environment, he was told as an adult that his father was not his natural parent, and renounced that man's Judaism to convert, at the age of 30, to the Catholic church. It was at about the same age that von Trier founded the Dogma movement, with its monkish asceticism.
If you have to ask what a film symbolizes, it doesn't. With this one, I didn't have to ask. It told me. I believe "Antichrist" may be an exercise in alternative theology: von Trier's version of those passages in Genesis where Man is cast from Eden and Satan assumes a role in the world.
The Prologue, a masterful sequence lovely b&w slow motion, shows a couple, He and She, making love while their innocent baby becomes fascinated by the sight of snow falling outside an open window, climbs up on the sill, and falls to his death. This is Man's Fall from Grace. Consequently, She (Charlotte Gainsbourg) falls into guilt and depression so deep she is hospitalized. That is one half of Original Sin. The character named He (Willem Dafoe) insists she cut off her medication. He will cure her himself. That is the other half. Her sin is Despair. His is Pride. These are the two greatest sins against God.
He and She go to their country home, named Eden. He subjects her to merciless talk therapy, relentlessly chipping away at her rationalizations and defenses, explaining to her why she is wrong to feel the way she does. I suspect many of the reviews will focus on the physical violence She inflicts upon He in the next act of the film. It is important to note that the earlier psychological violence He inflicts is equally brutal. He talks and talks, boring away at her defenses, tearing at her psyche, exposing her. Listen to Dafoe's voice in the trailer linked below. It could be used for Satan's temptation of Christ in the desert.
There is little sense at Eden of real lives together; He and She they are locked in combat that seems their inescapable destiny after the loss of their child. The violence in the film is explicit, but is it intended to be realistic? I don't believe you can have a hole drilled clean through your leg, an iron bar pushed through it, and a grindstone bolted to it, and do much other than be in agony. That He can even speak, let alone crawl into the woods, contend with her and defend himself, is remarkable. I think the violence illustrates the depth of her venom and that She, like He, will stop at nothing.
Images suggesting Bosch are evoked toward the end of the film. Human limbs rise up to grasp He and She as they have sex. There is a talking dog, bluebirds, a deer, inhabiting the world of Man. At the end He stands atop a hill while a legion of unnatural humans ascends toward him, evoking "Night of the Living Dead." The suggestion is Biblical, but not from the Bible we know. The human figures are not naked, climbing toward birth, but clothed, climbing toward death. After their fall in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve learned shame, and covered their nakedness. In this evil world, they are created covered, and by their sins are cast out into nakedness.
Von Trier's original intention, it's said, was to reveal at the end that the world was created by Satan, not God: That evil, not goodness, reigns ascendant. His finished film reflects the same idea, but not as explicitly. The title "Antichrist" is the key. This is a mirror world. It is a sin to lose Knowledge rather than to eat of its fruit and gain it. She and He are behaving with such cruelty toward each other not as actual people, but as creatures inhabiting a moral mirror world. As much as they might comfort and love each other in our world after losing a child, so to the same degree in the mirror world they inflame each other's pain and act out hatred. This would be the world created by Satan.
If I am right, then von Trier has proceeded with perfect logic. Just as a good world could not contain too much beauty and charity, an evil world could not have too much cruelty and hatred. He is making a moral statement. I'm not sure if he's telling us how things are, or warning us of what could come. But I am sure he has not compromised his vision. He has been brave and strong, and made a film that fully reflects the pain of his own feelings. And his actors have been remarkably courageous in going all the way with him.
In his own defense here at Cannes, von Trier has described himself "the greatest director in the world." Well, if Le Film Francais says he is merde, what can he be expected to say? He is certainly one of the most heroic directors in the world, uncompromising, resolute. He goes all the way and takes no prisoners. Do I believe his film "works?" Would I "recommend" it? Is it a "good" film? I believe von Trier doesn't care how I or anyone else would reply to those questions. He had the ideas and feelings, he saw into the pit, he made the film, and here it is.
¶¶
¶Von Trier discusses his upcoming comedy (!)
¶
Von Trier's mentor, Jørgen Leth, made a 12-minute film in 1967 that von Trier admired so much he saw it 20 times in a year. In 2002, he summoned the 67-year-old Leth from retirement in Haiti and commissioned him to remake the film in five different ways, despite obstructions which von Trier would supply. My review of "The Five Obstructions" is here.
¶
If a mark of great art is that our perceptions of it change and evolve rather than sit static as they were when we first took in the event, then your second take seems to argue a level of art for this.
Too bad we've become so passive that we can't mark the event with a good public riot as the French were want to do at one time. It's such a good way to mark a seminal, divisive moment in art.
I still can't watch "Misery" so may never be able to see this, but bet, based on your reaction, that it finds it's way into the "most controversial films made" canon.
I promised myself to not read anything about its reception in Cannes, before I wrote my own review. Good thinking, as I now find myself even more confused. I really loved it up until the dramatic shift to torture-pornography. Most of all, I despised all those idiots who can't keep their mouth shut during the screenings; who insists on expressing superiority with pompous laughter!
I find it facinating that William Defoe has, besides other works, played Jesus, and a version of Adam in this film. I have to wonder if the director thought of this as he made the choice of casting.
Makes me marvel at the possible onion of a film this is!
I just wonder if anybody in the audience was eating popcorn for this one. After witnessing such a thing in PASSION OF THE CHRIST I can believe anything.
Not that I have any idea if popcorn is sold at the Cannes Film Festival showings. the only images I've really seen from the festival are the way it was shown on FEMME FATALE and MR. BEAN'S HOLIDAY and everybody seemed to busy on those movies to buy any snacks.
Lars Von Trier's "Antichrist" is perhaps the most devisive film in the history of Cannes and his response is that he is the "greatest director in the world." Some nerve. :)
I remain as excited as ever to see this, and I appreciate that you have essentially written a full-length official review of it from Cannes instead of a simple description as you did the other day. You seem to admire the hell out of it, even if you might never want to see it again - is it too painful, too difficult, too harsh to watch more than once? Or, in the right state of mind, is it compulsively watchable?
Sounds fascinating. Just a quick correction from Quebec - it would be "pas du tout", not "pas de tout". Wish I could be in Cannes!
For what it is worth, Todd McCarthy HATES everything Von Trier does.
Showing Von Trier movies is one of my perks for running an arthouse. I know the films will die, this one especially, but they are all worth seeing just for the way he aknowleges all of the rules of filmmaking as he breaks them.
I understand why you would think that the book of Exodus describes where Adam and Eve get cast out of the Garden of Eden, but Exodus refers to the Israelites leaving Egypt instead.
You've written a fascinating analysis, and I'm now willing to reconsider the film's worth even after McCarthy's scathing description. The violence you've described does sound merely symbolic, and the images you posted are powerful. I would like to learn more about what you discern from the title--if/how is the personality of Christ and His sacrifice brought up and confronted? I'm asking because your article mainly refers back to Old Testament references about God's judgment. I do hope that the film doesn't repeat the rather stupid theological blunder which states that God was judging Adam and Eve for having sex, calling it the forbidden fruit of original sin. The scene of the baby dying while the couple makes love causes me to wonder. Based on what you've seen, do you believe Von Trier is a Catholic in name only, or is he attempting to change the world with his powerful film, showing what a world without Christ's atonement looks like?
Ebert: Duh! Of course I met Genesis. I am operating long hours here, and publishing all the blogs myself, and lack a copy editor, and when my fingers type teh wrong word my mind doesn't pay attention.
For a person who fell for Poe early in life and was fascinated by Bosch, Seventh Seal, Macbeth and Roshomon later on your article puts the captioned film in the unmissable category. Hell is not a fable and scriptures emphasise its reality. Its an everpresent potential of life as close at hand as each of the Ten Worlds. For a person who has his own clarity of perspective on values in life such a film if authentic conjecturally speaking could further awaken one on the awesome dimensions and reaches of human spirit. But children? Censorship? After all, good and evil are two sides of a coin.
There are two things gnawing at me and making me interested to know more about this film.
First, the fact that the child dies during its parents' sex, a nominally procreative act; the fact that sex is present in a later scene in a more horrific way; the fact that sexual organs are mutilated; I'm not sure, I can't put my finger on it, and having not seen the film myself, I can't say exactly how all these things are related by the screen play; but there's something gnawing at the back of my mind about this relationship between sexual procreation, sexual hedonism, the inevitability of humans as sexual creatures, the creation of life, and these types of themes. Sorry for having such a hard time articulating this, but I can't help thinking there's something there.
Another thought I had was not that the film is showing that the earth is Satan's, but that the film is actually showing the Bible backward, beginning with a death that mirrors Christ's death, and ending with Eden. Again, having not seen the movie directly I can't put my finger on this thought more concisely, but it just seems like there's an argument to be made that the Bible is being read to us backward. In Catholicism, Christ redeems us from Original Sin; in Antichrist -- what? -- an execution condemns us to imprisonment? Returns us to blissful stupidity? The animals are not named by Adam, but rather name him? (I'm using "name" here in the sense of the word "accuse"). Again, I'm not sure if any of this is warranted, but this is the way the descriptions of the film are making me think.
The Buddha and the devil are like body and shadow. Devadutta the Buddhas archenemy and a personification of evil is said to have been the Buddhas teacher in a previous life. Since the ten life conditions invariably and unexceptionably coexist in mutual posession even the buddha(note the b is small)retains the potential of hell and even the most depraved of persons does not lose the highest potential. Practically it boils down to universal respect and training in compassion.
How would you compare the violence in his film to Chaos, the film you hated for its useless indulgence of nonstop torture? I have seen neither film, but would like to know how one film's use of graphic violence can be received so differently than another.
Ebert: Content is not neutral, but always has a context, purpose and style.
This reminds me of your original reviews of both "The Rapture" and "Halloween." They both succeed in what they are trying to do, but what they are trying to do (taking the account in Revelation literally and scaring the pants off the audience, respectively) isn't what the audience necessarily wants or expects. I am so seeing this movie.
I have to disagree with the notion that everything is brilliant, you only have to find a category for it. If something fills you with great dread, you don't have to honor it for that, any more than you have to honor 'Freddie Got Fingered' because it make you feel like punching those that made it.
My art teacher once told me that great art is anything that creates a discussion, interest, or debate. You place a pile of cow manure in an art museum it would meet that crieria. Art need not be pretty and films need not be happy to 'be', but for the love of Christ does everyone have to try to disturb their audiences just to make a goddam point?
So little in film today is what films 'can be' and is so much more 'what films have come to'.
Bring me 'Up'.
I'm wondering, are we really discussing a movie or just a spectacle by a director? Most of what has been said about this movie has been more about Lars von Trier and what he did than about the movie itself. Does it stand by itself at all? I mean, it seems more like von Trier said to himself "hey, I'll make a really screwed up movie to be very controversial so people will talk and talk about it and really make me famous".
Like many, I haven't even seen the movie yet but I know more about the director now and the making of the movie than the movie itself. The hype/controversy seems bigger than the movie. Doesn't seem a tad weird that the director even went back and changed the movie a little when it was leaked that part of the theme was that Satan had created the world? It's like "damn you, I wanted to use that shock tactic and now you've ruined it...so I have to think up some other shocking thing". Really?
This guy isn't really "breaking the rules of film-making" it seems. He's just trying to stir-up controversy. Controversy sells. If it doesn't sell it at least creates a buzz and this is a perfect example. "Look at me!" is the mantra of Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh and Lars von Trier. And we all look.
Based on your reception of this, I'm struck by some of the apparent similarities between the brutality of Antichrist and of Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian. As difficult as it may be to experience, there's certainly something admirable about an artist willing to so unflinchingly portray some of the more gruesome and brutal aspects of humanity.
So what did the average Canadian reviewer think? I guess it might depend on whether the reviewer is English- or French-Canadian.
I met her, too; wasn't she the tall blond (?) stripper at Crazy Horse Too?
Jes' funnin' ya, Rog!
Ebert: Genesis Delite. 58-24-36, but I suspect she had plastic surgery.
This sounds like quite a worthwhile film. I suppose that a year from now, give or take, when this skips through the limited release and finally falls on dvd I'll chew over it very deeply. Thematically it seems to be similar to "No Country for Old Men", yet different in substance and more graphic... Violence at the heart of our experience is an important theme right now. ...
p.s. I was surprised that I actually did like Ten (though 10 on Ten was insufferable), he actually used his only freedom given him (editing) to produce something that cared about individual lives, rather than going for some bare nothingness like in his other stuff.
I share your affinity for Poe, Bosch and Macbeth, but to date am unacquainted with either Seventh Seal or Rashomon, eliciting cries of "philistine, philistine" from many of the cineastes here, no doubt. So you can pretty much consider anything I write "a tale told by an idiot...signifying nothing." :p
How does entertainment fall into this debate whether portrayels of violence are worthy or not? After all, people watch movies to be entertained. So, for one to say that such a movie failed, means essentially that it failed to entertain. Meaning, that we must admit that we are entertained by themes involving violence. Meaning, perhaps, we are entertained also by violence, provided it is presented in an entertaining way. Ebert, do you mean to suggest (i think not) that whilst you were sitting through this movie you were making the connections you present in this blog? Does this mean that for violence to be entertaining for you you must be able to attach it to some sort of wider context, something you couldnt do with the previous entry you panned? If not, are we suggesting that, within the human inner animal that we all contain, there is not some hunger for violence period, for some image of violence, some depiction? We deny it socially, but on film it is so safe, its a natural fit - film and extreme violence.
I saw another interestingly divisive, but incredibly brutal film called "Martyrs," which utilizes a watch-and-endure type climax that seems to be "in service" of the film's overall theme, but also, upon consideration, fits directly into the torture-porn model of a woman being bound to a chair and savaged for twenty minutes.
The film aspired to a message, as I'm sure "AntiChrist" does, but at what point does a director get away with saying that the violence is in aid of a greater meaning, versus the filmmaker being taken-to-task about some sick preoccupations?
Gerry said:
"I just wonder if anybody in the audience was eating popcorn for this one. After witnessing such a thing in PASSION OF THE CHRIST I can believe anything."
I can do you one better, Gerry...the whole audience was munching on popcorn as the towers fell in WORLD TRADE CENTER at the screening I attended!
As for Antichrist, I've heard nothing about this movie that makes me think I'll enjoy it, and nothing about it that will keep me from seeing it.
Oh, those Catholics! Your analysis put me in mind of Flannery O'Connor's hard-to-find good man ("'No pleasure but meanness,' he said and his voice had become almost a snarl.") and Anthony Burgess's horrowshow orange, "cured, all right" for Kubrick but still waiting to be more than a "malenky toy." And let's not even get into Scorsese ("I'm-the-boss-I'm-the-boss-I'm-the-boss-I'm-the-boss ...").
Like you said, Roger: content with context, purpose and style.
The challenge for moviemakers is to do the undone-before, or do the done-before better; that's Ernest Hemingway rudimentary. (Also rudimentary: a lot of the undone-before is that way for a reason. TONYA HARDENED, CEMENT GIRL? No thanks.)
The challenge for ticket-buying movieGOERS is to get their money's worth. Critics help. Thanks to criticism, we potential ANTICHRIST viewers now know that, depending on the lens we choose, ANTICHRIST may be a supplement to the school of Bosch, or a sex comedy for darksiders, or WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF with power tools, or a profound and sustained gaze into the gazing-back Abyss. Or [your line here].
Some of us will feel an obligation, as connoisseur wannabes, to see it. As a Willem Dafoe, Franz Kafka, and Hieronymus Bosch fan, I want to see it; as someone who walked out on AND JUSTICE FOR ALL . . ., GRINDHOUSE:, and HOSTEL, I don't want to see it. Most likely I will buy my ticket with trepidation, not having eaten anything solid beforehand.
This sounds like an intense movie, which is what movies should be going for. It should be a kind of wake-up call to other filmmakers.
I'm a big Lars von Trier fan for about a good 7-8 years ever since I discovered the power of cinema.
I've nearly everything except his TV film version of "Medea" and the two-part TV mini-series of "The Kingdom".
When I heard he was going to do this film, I knew he was going to pull something. Yet, to hear it described as Bergman meets "Saw" through I think one of the reviews or something. I realized that he made a film that lived up to its name.
I think what you said about this film is truly profound and well told. I know von Trier doesn't make films for everyone. Yet, you were right in your previous blog post for the fact that he has never a boring film. When I saw "Epidemic" on DVD a few years back, it was this slow, turgid film with a lot of style but then comes this final moment and it completely lifted up the film for me. Seeing it again made me realize how much of a prankster he is.
I know you don't like some of his films and I can respect that. I like them all. "Breaking the Waves" is in my top 5 favorite films of all-time at #3. (#2 is "Secretary" and #1 is "Lost in Translation"). The way he used spirituality in such a powerful way shows his brilliance as an auteur. He can be downright disgusting or confrontational. Yet, he is probably the most fearless director out there despite his own phobias.
After reading all that had happened at the screening. I think I want to see this film more than anything that's going to come out. I'm sure that because of the controversy, he's got people that will definitely go to an art house theater just to see this. He's made me very excited to go see something. There hasn't been a lot of films lately that got me excited. I could care less if it's going to be good or downright awful. All I know is that when it's going to play at a theater somewhere in Atlanta. It's going to be one hell of a time.
Thank you Roger, you rock!
Trier's film is not fundamentally anti-Christian; instead, it's proto-Christian. The concept of Satan creating the world is pure Gnosticism. Interesting that it still has the power to disturb, two thousand years later.
This is pretty much a must see at this point isn't it? It certainly is for me, especially after your contemplative considerations Mr. Ebert. How often can any of us get into that kind of mindspace leaving a theatre anymore? I'm not eager to be assaulted but I can't simply allow others to get all the punishment and label it as nothing but. Kind of self righteous of them I think.
Anything that gets this many people's shorts in knots is certainly worth a look in my book. Even if Von Trier knowingly plays the cards of a provocateur (a simplistic reading based on your observations I think) he's proven before that he knows more tricks than that. He might say no but that's the rub isn't it?
Fascinating. I am a huge fan of Von Trier's work. Does the film have a distributor or a North American release date as of yet? I imagine there will be something of a struggle with the MPAA...
After failing to accrue much in the way of controversy with his recent anti-American films (ask the average person what they thought of Dogville-Dogwho?), Von Trier like a good hack moves from taunts to gross outs. Having yet to see the film I'll try and remain impartial (even if Von Trier never actually visited the country he lambasted in two works of utter mediocrity.)
Though I suppose his anti-artworks serve a purpose, a sort of artistic nadir providing the world of cinema with warning signs- "Pay attention to composition dear you don't want to end up like Lars Von Trier!" Placed alongside a Dreyer or Bergman, Von Trier's films look like feces scrabbled on a mental patient's wall.
Just reading about this film fills me with despair. Am I wrong for wanting to see it so desperately?
Why is it that wild animals indoors is such a strange and disturbing sight? Almost frightening. The picture posted in your article reminded instantly of the deer walking through the abandoned school in "Children of Men". Always surreal.
Mr. Ebert,
is the hostility toward Von Trier the person unusual for Cannes?
It seems a bit personal to me.
Ebert: A lot of people dislike his contrary and confrontational nature.
I first saw "Raging Bull" at 17, on DVD with my father. At the end, the 50 year old man said, "I can't think of a movie that I've disliked more." As a cinephile, I responded to the craft; he responded to the content. I loved it and he hated it. That was the turning point in my life as a filmgoer. The strength of his response alone, for good or ill, identifies it as a great film. "Like" or "dislike" is useless. What did the experience mean to you?
Thanks for sharing what "Antichrist" meant to you.
This would be the world created by Satan. If I am right, then von Trier has proceeded with perfect logic.
Conventional culture is created by satan, Roger, if Girard is right. Human culture is the concretization of the founding murder.
The acquisitive gesture (I want that desirable object, fruit, sexual mate, etc.) is mimetically imitated causing Hobbes' "war of all against all." At the height of the social and psychological tumult, someone makes the accusatory gesture (Gr. ha satan) - "It's HIS fault" - which is replicated with even more speed than the acquisitive gesture. Suddenly, in mimetic theory's understanding of hominization, there is the lowest common denominator, our agreement on who is to blame. It is "unanimity minus one," in Girard quip.
The scapegoat is expelled or more usually murdered. From this originary violence come the three "legs" that hold conventional culture together: (1)ritual, (2) myth, and (3) prohibitions.
All from the accusatory - "satanic", literally in the Greek - gesture. Thus, the human cosmos is founded by Satan. Cheers
Do you have any idea what the distribution timetable is for this? I hope it's not another Dogville situation where a LvT film doesn't get released stateside until a year after its polarizing Cannes debut. If I have to hear for an entire year about how shocking it is before I actually see it I doubt it will live up to its infamous reputation. The circumstances under which the 2009 Cannes crowd saw it, with no advance knowledge of the story particulars, can never be replicated for future audiences.
This reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask... about the movie "Wit".
You said you were considering it as a Great Movie and then... you couldn't watch it. Too painful now that you had been through the experience of cancer/ also baring in mind that no movie can begin to do the real thing justice. Does that make the movie not a great film in your mind? Or just unbearable for you personally and a film that others should see?
***
And...
"I believe von Trier doesn't care how I or anyone else would reply to those questions. He had the ideas and feelings, he saw into the pit, he made the film, and here it is."
Now that's something I never heard in my screenwriting class.
I am looking forward to seeing this film. But I'm not sure whether I should bring my best friend or my worst enemy. This might be the perfect date movie for a love-hate relationship.
I do enjoy Lars Von Trier films quite a bit. He's a great filmmaker. Antichrist seems interesting and I doubt I'll be offended with it's over the top gore or sexual violence. I am a fan of Takeshi Miike who has done some very very disturbing films (Visitor Q, Ichi the Killer). But It's hard for me to jump on board this trend to make films that are only about the negative or downside of man. To be honest it's been done to death and has been around for decades and decades. Perhaps if Von Trier attempted a film about happiness, love, deep spiritual perception etc.. I could classify him as one of the true greats. But I believe he is caught in a rut. He has not evolved much as a story teller, though he is exquisite at what he does. I don't believe that filmmakers should make saccharin but there is plenty in life to be thankful for. Von Trier should be thankful that he had the $11million dollars to make his film. He's a well respected artist but his arrogance holds him down. He is not the best filmmaker in the world he is one of thousands of great filmmakers in the world. More like hundreds of thousands. And I'm positive that if any of those unfunded exquisite storytellers had the chance to make an $11million dollar film (with no fear of commercial retribution) then they would do something more original, heart felt, spiritual and truly profound that would only add to the cannon of great cinema on this planet.
We all know life is difficult, cruel and violent. But it's also more than the parts we exploit. Life is about meaning, the meaning we apply to it and if we want to evolve as great artists (as a race) then we need to grow up and work tirelessly to help the other great artist's be seen, heard and read.
--
That review was a tour-de-force and shows your frequent ability to grab the hidden core of a film with both hands and reveal it plainly to others. I know that there will be different critical interpretations, but this one seems pretty on target. That said, I now have to seek out the Variety review to enjoy what seems like one of the great "I hated this film" quotes in full context.
I would very much like to see more reviews from you on von Trier films, as his films usually leave me with the exact same feeling; I can not stop thinking about them. Von Trier more than any other director has this affect. I once heard that the three most traumatic experiences in life are the death of a close family member, divorce and losing your job. Fourth spot on this list should be: Watching a von Trier film. I have found out later that this is not enough for many critics as they criticize von Trier for being manipulative and brand his films emotion-porn. I have seen visually horrible things on screen in movies such as the Saw series and Hostel and they had no effect on me at all except for laughing at how many creative ways writers can think of murdering people. In fact not many movies put me in such turmoil as von Trier movies do so that has to count for something but perhaps I am just easily manipulated. I have seen Breaking the waves, The Idiots, Dancer in the dark and Dogville and The Idiots is my favorite, I laughed and cringed in equal measure and I could not get it out of my head for some time.
I saw The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael at the Edinburgh Festival a couple of years back and similarly couldn't get it out of my head; it ends with an unspeakably horrible rape scene that the audience was only prepared for by the fact that when it played at Cannes it's what everyone was talking about. People left during the scene, and they did not leave quietly. I was deeply troubled by the movie; its images kept coming back to haunt me. I was reviewing movies at the time and was determined not just to dismiss it, and to deal with my feelings. I eventually came to the conclusions that a) the director's defence of the rape scene - that it's a parable about the Iraq war or something (which went over my head) - was not a good enough justification, and cheapened the movie by using the characters to illustrate a point, b) the cinematography was beautiful and stylistically the movie wove a spell on the viewer which also accounts for my mixed feelings, and c) the fact that the camera is static during the rape scene is one reason it's so horrible; the director doesn't allow the camera to reflect the feelings of the audience.
I realised that what I had added up to a bad movie, but a very troubling bad movie. Perhaps a bad movie by a good director (or at the least with a good photographer). It taught me that a movie can stay in your head for a long time still not be a great movie. Violence is like that in movies; if used realistically (and better that, perhaps, than the sort of consequence-less cartoon violence of most modern movies) it is bound to provoke a strong reaction, particularly when sexual violence is shown. After the Robert Carmichael movie I thought for a short while that maybe I had seen a great movie after all, simply cause I couldn't get the damn thing out of my head. It stuck with me longer than some far superior movies I saw at that festival. I doubt I will much enjoy Antichrist, for I feel that Von Trier is too concerned with putting his audience through the wringer (I don't know in what way this is 'heroic') really to say anything interesting; if we're talking explicit violence, give me a David Cronenberg movie any day.
Tangentally, it's not always the French critics that call Von Trier 'merde.' British critic Mark Kermode was kicked out of a screening about 10 years ago when The Idiots was shown. Inflamed by a balcony full of applauding (by his account, French) critics he stood up and shouted 'il est merde!' repeatedly until he was ejected from the cinema, and from the festival that year. Now that is heroic.
A person who pays money and devotes time for watching torture and violance is an already converted soul, a sleeper waiting for a phone call from the Perturbator, a potential torturer, if he knows he can get away with, and if can write, paint or shoot pictures, is a proselytiser of the antireligion. The audience of such a film, whoever created by or however artistically ornamented with, are part of the pandemonium disguised as a film show. Director's declaration of ultimate pride is a tribute and call to his awaited master.
We always see these questions flying like bats around the heads of people exiting a movie theater: Was it good? Was it great? How many stars would you give it? How would you compare it to Such & Such? Is it one of the ten best films of the year? One of the All-Time Classics?
I grew up making top ten lists of things, but some time ago I decided that it only made sense to allow things (like works of art and entertainment) to simply exist, and if they needed to, to change freely, in my mind. I once was exhilarated at "Scent of a Woman"; I would have ranked it as the second or third best film of 1992; now, I'm almost completely underwhelmed by it; it would seem that there are twenty or thirty other films from 1992 that do more for me.
Every once in a while, we encounter films that have an especially hard time being assigned their rank. An example, for me, would be "Dancer in the Dark," von Trier's film from 2000 with the majestic Bjork. After I watched it, I needed a cigarette before I could do anything else. I felt so intensely for this character, as well as AGAINST this character, and for and against every other character in the film. Von Trier had worked up such emotion in me, such loyalty, such criticism. And yet, years later, I feel that the film, though still good, could not touch me. When I torture myself with the thought of ranking the films of 2000, I have no trouble putting "Almost Famous" at the top of my list, "Wonder Boys" second, and "Traffic," "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," and "George Washington" closely behind. But "Dancer in the Dark" made me feel more intensely than any other filmgoing experience I had that year, and I don't think it is as good as those other films. For heaven's sake, why is this? Shouldn't I be loyal to the feelings I had at the time, even if, say, I were to watch the film today and it would not have such a tremulous spell over me?
I thought 2003 was a good year, because there were two films that I thought were perfect cinematic exercises: "Lost in Translation" and "Monster." The former film was so good and so sweet and true; the latter was true enough, and good as can be, but something other than "sweet" would be a suitable third adjective. Each film may be perfect, in my eyes, but perfect for very different reasons. There may in fact be times of the day, or at least times of my life, during which "Lost in Translation" is #1, and other times when it is "Monster."
I was more than a little disappointed that you didn't rank your top ten films of 2009, though I completely understand why you didn't, and I wouldn't have had it any other way. How can we possibly rank these films, other than to put "Revolutionary Road" #1 and "Synecdoche, New York" a close #2? (Perhaps there will be one day when I must reverse that order with the urgency you'd probably like to have exchanged "The Black Stallion" for "Raging Bull.") Lists, lists, lists, stars, stars, stars. Are these tools simply to help us cinematic dummies to know which film to lay down a $10 bill on next weekend? Probably. And don't they also get us talking and thinking about the movies? But they're just tools, and we shouldn't use them when we don't have to, for they become crutches.
I can't wait to see von Trier's new film. Probably partially for the same reason that I couldn't wait to see "Braveheart" and "Showgirls" when I was a sweating teenage boy. That is to say, I wanted to be shocked out of the small-town Midwestern, Anglo-Saxon Baptist complacency that my otherwise splendid little life afforded me, if only for a few hours. But also for the same reason that I recently devoured Bergman's Silence of God trilogy with a delight that few people I know and see regularly would find normal: There is something intense that one is feeling inside, and one hopes to share it in some relevant form with others, perhaps even to show it in them.
I am, nevertheless, also curious to see how many stars you give "Antichrist."
Mr. Ebert, this has been an astounding read. I've been following the debacle that Von Trier's 'Anti-Christ' has caused at Cannes. Yours is the first review that has attempted to put this difficult film in some favorable context between what Von Trier attempted to do with the capacity of his film aesthetic ability and the critics' vocal and shocking reaction. I also read your review of Mendoza's 'Kinatay', which sounds like an utter miserable viewing experience and a failure of aesthetics.
What advice would you give any ambitious filmmaker grappling with the idea of making a film about such difficult subject matter as Von Trier's? I'm in that exact position, having been near obsessed with an idea (uh,oh.. I read your article on Mendoza's film) for a difficult film for a long while. The reactions from this current crop of Cannes films are giving me pause about making my film. Has the time come to, on philosophical and spiritual grounds, to simply stop making such transgressive, difficult films?
If you find a moment, I would be honored to hear your answer, however brief.
Ebert: The fact that they are almost impossible to make is reason to make them.
The youtube video for his not so upcoming comedy is this film in danish, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469754/. I have no idea why the movie "Johhny English" is featured in the video. Maybe it's just me.
Very interesting to read your thoughts about "Antichrist". Never been a fan of Von Trier but I surdenly respect him. I'm glad you have a link to a review of "The Five Obstructions". I really enjoyed that film and I'm a big fan of Jørgen Leth. So I highly recommend this film. Trier is really a devil in that movie.
By the way. Jørgen Leth has on danish tv praised "Antichrist" and called it his best work ever. Far superior to is latest films and even "Dancer in The Dark".
I should refrain from commenting as I haven't seen this movie, but I must reference the hilarious Sady (http://tigerbeatdown.blogspot.com/2009/05/lars-von-trier-director-genital.html) pointing out that pretty much every Von Trier film involves a woman being tortured or mutilated, which explains why my interest in seeing his movies is pretty much zero. Sure, artistic merit, okay, yes. I find the discussions like this interesting, but when it comes down to seeing the film I find my psyche doesn't need that kind of scarring.
Aside from that, I would be interested to know why Antichrist deserves a thoughtful analysis and Kinatay doesn't. Is one just more competently made than the other? Or is the Idea (as you put it) just more interesting?
I have not been a fan of Von Trier's work, as it takes more than simple provocation to seduce me. I thought a film like DANCER IN THE DARK was melodrama disguised as art-film disguised as melodrama, which didn't matter since I wasn't engaged and couldn't get into Von Trier's bitter world view. Plus, it was clear that he had both disdain for and ignorance of "Hollywood Musicals", which is a elating, exalted form far out of his somewhat curdled reach... (I did think BREAKING THE WAVES was worthwhile, and his earlier EUROPA)
But all this "I'm the greatest director in the world" stuff he spouts really makes it hard for me to even try to get into his work. I think it should be a prerequsite of the living Greatest Director that he never admit to this fact, even if he knows it. Kubrick may have smiled to himself at night with a quiet "Heh, heh, I'm the greatest director in the world!", but he never said it out loud and certainly not to the press.
But this is all beside the point, as I'm interested in ANTI-CHRIST (particularly because of the actors involved)... and I'm reminded of a question that's been buzzing around my transom since finally catching up with REVOLUTIONARY ROAD last week. That question being, "What place does a great film that is also an incredibly excoriating, unpleasant film have in our world?"
Remember, this is a culture that contains people who won't watch ANNIE HALL because they say "Why would I want to watch something about regular life when I've got my own problems?"... Yes, a small-minded statement, but one that really points up the fact that a good majority of people - even smart people, I imagine - decide on a movie being "good" or "bad" based entirely on whether what HAPPENS in the movie is "good" or "bad"...
REVOLUTIONARY ROAD was a gut-punch of a movie, one of the darkest and most hopeless relationship pictures I think that has ever been made for the American cinema. I was thoroughly shaken, and I didn't feel very good for half-a-day. On the OTHER hand, I was thrilled to discover another great picture from last year, and the film's artistry lingered in my mind long after the turmoil of the events of the plot had been relegated back to the safe place where we keep our fiction.
But here's my question: Are there simply two kinds of people? Those who appreciate film art regardless of the content, and who can allow a film to (excuse me) really fuck with them? And then those who want only a pleasant, tidy experience at the movies? And of those two types, is one group "saner" than another?
I know which side I'm on. I know which side most of us readers are on. But I wonder if some of what you, Roger, often object to in horror films ("Why would I want to spend 90 minutes watching someone get tortured?") might also apply for other people to a higher-minded picture with even more devious intent?
Are intellectuals and cinephiles just more emotionally sanded away, so that they are more able to take whatever darkness fiction has for them? Or are they MORE developed, beyond jaded and back again, open to thought however dark?
I know smart people who can't imagine why I would watch some of the movies I watch. If I just said I was from Neptune or the bottom of the sea, they might more easily understand why someone would want to "subject" themselves to something like that.
Of course, I recall a friend asking why I would ever watch a picture like JAWS, since it was so morbid and concerned with death and grue. That guy, I couldn't really help. It's fun to flirt with morbidity, isn't it? As long as you can walk in the sunshine afterwards?
But the question remains for me: WHY do we do this? WHY are we drawn to the darkness? To what purpose?
I think that to rank a film is to cheapen it.
Ebert: Moi aussi.
Whether this film is "good or "bad" in the traditional sense is beside the point, but it appears to me (without seeing the film) to be great because it has already gotten people talking. For example, you, Roger, have already written two extensive blogs about it before its theatrical run. I think a film that gets people talking is better than a film that is just acclaimed and nothing else.
Antichrist, whether it receives more negative reviews or not, is already a successful film because Lars has gotten people to think about it and discuss it, and I think that's all he really wants.
I see that someone already referred to your review of "Chaos", but I'd like to dig a little deeper... how can this film's pessimistic message, which states that evil reigns supreme, be acceptable if the message of "Chaos" was not? I have seen neither film, so I am only basing this question on my interpretation of what you've written.
There a lot of very good movies that make us uncomfortable, but they make us think and they stay with us. All of von Triers' movies, Sleepers, American Me, Elephant, Cries and Whispers, Kids, Thirteen, Leaving Las Vegas, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Mystic River and Boys Don't Cry to name a few.
Better to challenge us and try to make us think than to just waste a couple hours of our time. Not everyone's cup of tea, to be sure, but I am looking forward to seeing it.
Your write up on Antichrist is quite interesting. Will you review it(for the Sun Times) and attempt to give it a star rating? From reading your thoughts, this movie the movie seems to be one of those "No stars by default" movies, like your review for Pink Flamingos.
The comment by J.V.:
"(T)he fact that the child dies during its parents' sex, a nominally procreative act; the fact that sex is present in a later scene in a more horrific way; the fact that sexual organs are mutilated... there's something gnawing at the back of my mind about this relationship between sexual procreation, sexual hedonism, the inevitability of humans as sexual creatures, the creation of life, and these types of themes. Sorry for having such a hard time articulating this, but I can't help thinking there's something there."
I haven't seen the film either, but maybe I can help. Roger mentioned that She committed the sin of despair, He committed the sin of pride. In this case the pride is akin to presumption, and here in the real world, between those two sins of presumption and despair lies the Christian virtue of hope.
Hope is tied closely to our existence as physical beings because hope looks to the future, the future is a component of time, and time is a purely physical phenomenon. If we humans did not have physical bodies, then hope would not be relevant to us. And if we did not have physical bodies, sex would not be relevant to us either.
Now, good sex has a spiritual component to it, which is appropriate for us as spiritual beings with physical bodies. Satan wants to deny our spiritual natures, and make us out to be purely physical creatures, made from dirt and worthy of contempt. To accomplish this, hope has to be corrupted into presumption or despair, sex has to be twisted into something physical and empty-- maybe even cruel. In a movie about a world created by Satan, these are things we could expect to see.
How does your reaction to the film compare with elevation?
Ebert: Uh...
You're a very smart man. I've read too many of your blogs and reviews to think otherwise, but I really think that you could rationalize any complex meaning from a film that moves you, because you just so happen to let it move you.
Ebert: I believe you have to find a meaning in a film, not carry a meaning to it.
re:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/05/a_devils_advocate_for_antichri.html#comment-696315
"...there's certainly something admirable about an artist willing to so unflinchingly portray some of the more gruesome and brutal aspects of humanity."
And sometimes it's nothing more than a wound gratuitously inflicted on the viewer. On the one hand you have something like Louis-Ferdinand Céline's "Journey to the End of the Night" -- which for all of its nihilism and vitriol at least came out of something honestly lived-through in the author's life. On the other, you have the aforementioned "Chaos", which just exists to shock and nauseate. And then somewhere in between you have skillful but cynical exercises in audience manipulation, like "Apt Pupil".
I'm not sure which of these poles "Antichrist" fall between, but I plan on seeing it for myself to find out.
Greetings Roger and Fellow Readers!
One is struck by the intensity of feelings this film has generated in a very short time. Here in Canada, David Cronenberg’s films were initially greeted with emotions of severe upset and condemnation, leading to actual calls for the ending of public funding for films. As we all know, Cronenberg is now one of our most beloved personages and artists, known for his courage and integrity.
I have taken to assessing the measure of greatness of a film as being related to its capacity to make me physically squirm (1989’s Last Exit to Brooklyn was such a movie). These experiences always produce in me an initial revulsion, usually followed by an admiration and esteem for its creators.
If Lars von Trier’s latest creation prompts such extreme reactions, chances are there is integrity and courage at the heart of it. I am very much looking forward to being challenged by this movie.
Chris Alders
Nova Scotia, Canada
Perhaps it tell more of my immaturity than my observance, but the way Dafoe narrated in the beginning of the trailer reminded me startlingly of his narration at the premiere scene in "Mr. Bean's Holiday".
Will AntiChrist open widely here in the U.S, do you think?
Enjoying everyone's comments, which are interesting and thought-provoking. I feel like we all get to participate in the festival via this blog. Perhaps those of us following this blog should wear "Yes, we Cannes" T-shirts!
as a film student, i'm curious as to how context, especially in terms of it's filmmakers, seems to shape public opinion. what i mean is - if Eli Roth had filmed Anti Christ, using the same script and actors; would anyone be dissecting it, talking about it, trying to understand "what it all means"? or would they just write it off as torture porn?
i haven't seen AntiChrist, nor have i seen any Lars Von Trier film in it's entirety (i'm sorry, but his movies just...bore me too much. sounds awful but it's true). but from what i hear of it, it sounds like one of those films that are given special attention primarily because it's by an Important Director. maybe there clearly is more context and subtext in this film than the average Texas Chainsaw type of horror film, but wouldn't people have been even more averse to sticking through and watching the whole film if it was made by the guys who did Hostel? was the fact that it was Lars Von Trier filming this torture make it slightly more endurable or, to go even further, somehow more "important" or "worthy of attention"? it sounds like i'm lambasting this film or von Trier, and that's not my intention at all, since i haven't seen the flick and really want to. i'm just wonderin', is all.
Finally, I found the Screening Guide!! And it was right there before my eyes all along. Aaaargh!! Goodness, there must be over a hundred films competing. Roger, how do you figure out which movies you'd like to see? Surely you aren't able to see all these films in the space of two weeks. Is it all pre-planned?
For those interested in seeing the programmes:
http://www.festival-cannes.com/assets/File/Web/Horaires2009/Horaires%20projections%202.pdf
(opens in .pdf)
I wasn't exposed to von Trier until I went to film school, and the professors here (SIUC) are just as divided on the merits of his work as the Cannes critics seem to be.
My thought on von Trier is this: I've despised some of his films (Dogville) loved some (Dancer in the Dark, Breaking the Waves) and been indifferent toward others (Manderlay, Europa). But the thing is, I remember every single one of them. I remember not only the content, but the emotions, the acting, the stories, the feelings that the films generated. Von Trier is one of the most unique directors working today, and despite some of my misgivings about him as a person and some of the films he makes, I eagerly anticipate them, because they always give me something to think about. "Antichrist" is now my most anticipated film of the year. As you said in your review of Jacob's Ladder, "Not all films have to be enjoyable."
I never quite understood the real meaning behind the Fall of Man, and I've read so many interpretations... I don't agree with the Christian idea of Original sin, and the 'tainted' apple that poisoned humanity into a fallen state of endless pain and sin. To me, the serpent is God, in disguise, offering wisdom in the form of fruit, and the 'sin' of eating from the tree to gain wisdom is exactly what I would do, only I wouldn't feel guilty for eating it afterwards. The alternative to this existence is ignorance, bliss, an infinite existence under the protective rays of 'God's' grace. In other words, sleepwalking through hell.
PS - My friend went to a screening of Antichrist at Cannes and has left a different person. He also said Trier pulled a disappearing act at the end of his film and left the building.. Which I suppose is nothing new.
I have always had a problem with Lars Von Trier's cynical, nihilistic, world view. I am looking forward to this film from an almost academic point of view, and also out of curiosity, to see what all the fuss is about. There are a few directors whose mastery of the language of cinema is palpable, but with whom I always feel a personal disconnect. Von Trier is one of those directors.
I like the point about despair, but tend to disagree with Scott D. Despair is not merely a 'significant aspect of the human condition', rather we find significance in the sorts of things that are despairing; the judgment that a film is despairing carries with it the film's significance.
By Ron Barth, Jr. on May 19, 2009 12:52 PM
"....... eliciting cries of "philistine, philistine" from many of the cineastes here......."
As Jack Lemmon says in the best of comedies " no one's perfect". Its far convenient and wholesome to admit ignorance than to have to know everything. I think what matters is to keep growing and not to hit a plateaue.....better to be a youngster of ninety than an old man at twenty....you certainly wont find me crying anything like philistine.....
By Ron Barth, Jr. on May 19, 2009 12:52 PM
"...... from many of the cineastes here, no doubt...."
Speaking of cineastes, whatever that is( sounds a bit derogatory, if you ask me ), if you thought me one, I have to thank you for the indirect but undeserved compliment.....I am just an occasional movie goer and Mr Ebert has been helpful in often if not always making good choices and I find this column educative and enjoyable......and by the way Roshomon is a haunting and hard to forget film, cinephilia apart.....
Von Trier, quoted in the ANTICHRIST press notes, regarding his stance on religion: "I'm a very bad Catholic. In fact, I'm not religious in any way. I'm becoming more and more of an atheist." That's a striking statement, and one that only makes your theory of the film existing as an "exercise in alternative theology" all the more interesting, I think.
By his own admission, von Trier is not going to be providing any explanation for Antichrist. And that's fine; reviewing it is no different from attempting to interpret a painting by a long-dead artist (although in this case von Trier betrays a touch of arrogance). Therefore, any interpretation of the work we may provide is entirely of our own making; it is what we bring to it.
Thus virtually any evaluation of the film is valid, from the most negative loathing to Mr. Ebert's highly (perhaps even excessive) thoughtful analysis. It also serves to validate anyone's judgment on the merit and worth of the film—which begs the question, does any work of art need to have a point to be valid? Or can it simply exist?
We've been provided some indication that Antichrist served as a cathartic process for von Trier, and thus it's highly personal—and thus perhaps not a suitable subject for much interpretation (particularly, in this case, by more sensitive viewers). It's rather like trying to analyze someone else's dreams; they're meaningful only to the dreamer. And sometimes not even then.
For myself, I'll be skipping this one. Already having enough despair of my own, my life will not be enriched by adding someone else's to it. My personal preference for entertainment is something a bit more uplifting than a prolonged couch session with a profoundly disturbed mind.
"I imagine there will be something of a struggle with the MPAA..."
You bet. It´s highly unlikely the US will see an UNCUT version in the movie theater.
Zentropa has made a statement they will cut various versions to fit each part of the world in order to avoid a scandal or total exclusion. The US for one is too sensitive against explicit scenes.
Better wait for the UNCUT version on DVD or Blu-ray.
Reading your review made me think of how Von Trier would treat the ten commandments in the alternative/anti-christ universe.
Ten was such a great series because it sublimely treated the spritual/moral questions in an ordinary world. At least once a month I remember scenes from Ten. I am wondering if the over the top explicit violence in Antichrist detracts from the spiritual questions that Von Trier wants to adress. Subtlely often times is more memorable then explicity.
Thank you so much for your review of "Terminator: Salvation." This incessant action is so plaguing our American cinema today. It is as though the people who are making movies believe that we must all be entertained like children, with plenty of oohs and ahhs. Little do they apparently know that plenty of studies have shown children to be most entertained and entranced by STORIES and characters with whom they can identify. Or, well, forget that last bit about the characters - identify, schmidentify! - kids will watch anything about anybody so long as it has a STORY they can follow.
Stories are, after all, how we human beings make sense of our lives and our selves and our worlds - and kids aren't the only ones who need a bit of instruction and motivation in making sense of it all. Even grownups with their frenzied faces and their coded language of daily stress and life-puzzlement can be seen to slow down and open parts of themselves up to receive a good story. Isn't that why "Dateline NBC," the Lifetime Channel, and cheap paperback romances still sell and please the masses? And don't we also often see, when we're peering into other people's windows, cheesy forensics dramas playing in the background of their evening rituals? It is the very fortunate condition of human beings that we are addicted, at various degrees, but addicted nevertheless, to stories. If only we were regularly provided with better ones to get our fix!
I'm no student of ancient history, but I'm willing to wager that back in the day they didn't sit around a campfire and screech and holler in each other's faces for entertainment (That was for marital squabbles, I believe.); they told stories and sang stories and acted out stories in the days before print and more sophisticated cavewall communication. If you look at the movies that populated the lists of top ten grossers for the 1940s and 50s and 60s and even 70s, you see movies that, whether they were completely successful or not, contained stories. Choosing randomly, I see that Wikipedia tells us the five top grossers of 1957 are "The Bridge on the River Kwai," "Peyton Place," "Sayonara," "Old Yeller," and "Raintree County." How about 1975? It's "Jaws" followed by "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest," "Dog Day Afternoon," "Shampoo," and "The Return of the Pink Panther."
Okay, enough of ancient history. Perhaps there's a shy glimmer of hope even today: Despite the fact that the top four grossers so far this year are "Monsters vs. Aliens," "Fast & Furious," "Wolverine," and "Star Trek" - four films that I gather are too cute or too action-packed by a substantial fraction - Eastwood has had his biggest success to date with "Gran Torino," which Wikipedia reports has made $246 million. We can't attribute this film's financial success to its bevy of Oscar nominations: Mr. Eastwood was famously snubbed for a Best Actor nomination in favor of Brad Pitt. The film made money because it had a well-told story.
I contend that if these good people in Hollywood focused more on storytelling and left a good bit of the action to the imagination they would not only hold on to their teen boy audience (who will, on a Friday night, out with friends or a hot date, go and see nearly anything the theater has to offer) but they would likely begin to win back a slew of the halfway-sensible adult consumers in our nation who feel neglected, undernourished, and alienated by the wizz-bang-woop-blash-woom-blah visual gibberish of films like, I gather, "Terminator: Salvation."
If, as you write, Roger, that von Trier's intention was to reveal "that the world was created by Satan, not God [and] that evil, not goodness reigns ascendant," it would seem that he has made the first Cathar film, 800 years after more than 10,000 of them, members of an heretical offshoot of Catholicism, were put to the sword in Beziers (France)in the first battle of the Albigensian Crusade. Cathars, like von Trier, were dualists. The world we live in,to them, was evil and was ruled by the devil, while the world of the afterlife was pure and good and was created by God. A heretical idea, and a heretical film, to be sure! I can't wait to see it.
Damn.
It's so hard to comment on a film like "Antichrist" when all you've seen is the trailer for it, along with whatever images your imagination has supplied for you for having read reviews. As what do you react to? The trailers or someone else's reaction to the film? A bit of both, but first - it was off to You Tube!
I've now seen part of the Press conference at Cannes with Lars, Willem Dafoe and Charlote Gainsbourg. So too, some alternate trailers, a bit more explicit; I'm curious to a fault, the devil made me look for them. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j0ecEsHyTs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTzzfFdxaY0&feature=related
Still not content, next was the official site for the film and the director's "confession"...
http://www.antichristthemovie.com/?page_id=34&language=en
I notice most critics have attacked it for being gratuitously violent and sexual, pretentious and misogynistic. And the director has an opinion about that:
"I don't have to justify myself. I make films and I enjoy very much making them. You are all my guests, it's not the other way round. I work for myself and I do this little film that I'm now kind of fond of and I haven't done it for you or the audience so I don't feel I owe anyone an explanation." - Lars von Trier, The Guardian.
Gosh. It must be wonderful to be a man. How I envy you the sheer breath and scope of all that you're afforded in the world - I wish my own sex could walk as freely, unfettered and unapologetic upon the landscape, as does his. Not forever of course, I'd lose all my friends - but rather just for a day or two, just to see how it feels to be shoved that far up my own ass and live to tell the tail. :)
But back the film!
There's a fine line between madness and Art and men aren't the only ones who can peer over it - they just get all the credit for thinking they know where it's drawn. Don't be deceived; they often stop short of the deepest pit for thinking the darkest violence and pain comes in obvious and disgusting forms. Ask Scorsese what he thinks is his most violent film and he'll reply "The Age of Innocence".
To be disgusted and repulsed is to be no more than that. And to think there's more to it imo, pretentious. And so Antichrist strikes me as another hamfisted piece, another Andres Serrano "Piss Christ" ie: in the end, there's more surface to it than depth.
Is "Antichrist" Art..? From what I can tell, yes. But I know first hand that it's possible to make "BAD" art with the best of intentions. At least I don't see Art in B/W terms.
I think he had something to say and was trying to say it. I think he thought this was "how to" go about it. I think he was flying by the seat of his pants and going with the flow but wasn't processing his ideas clearly enough, for being too depressed at the time, and not firing on all cylinders. I can feel it in those trailers, something more than was intended is there. I can feel the pit, and there's no light down there. The film is still born.
He misfired, the same way Andres Serrano sometimes does. And to each his own, but I prefer works that speak for themselves without the aid of controversy. Mind you, I don't need help; I'm curious enough to snoop around and pick up rocks and open boxes all by myself, thank-you very much. Hell, leave a box in the room with a lid on it and there ya go! You get my immediate and rapt attention.
It's a box! There could be chocolate in there! :)
P.S. many years ago and because the box art said Ebert like it, and more importantly I had a freebie coupon, I rolled the dice and rented a foreign film called "Rosetta" with Émilie Dequenne. And recently, Roger reviewed a film I plan to see called "Precious".
There's a way to comment on reality and things unpleasant, sad or bleak. There's a way that doesn't make it worse while asking you to open yourself up to it, so it can touch you. And speaking for myself, I think those are two good examples of it - with or without a freebie coupon.
Everything else is just a hammer approach and I don't need my senses battered by so indelicate a touch - enough already, you know? And if "Antichrist" can get made, why isn't anyone giving ME countless dollars to pee away?! I'm an artist, I can pee them away too, you know! But oh no, you give money to DEPRESSING DANISH GUY so he can make his bummer movie! And how depressing is THAT?!
Oh, hey... maybe I could pitch that as a movie idea..?? :)
"The Exorcism of Emily Rose" disturbed me, stuck with me. From this review, I am under the impression that "AntiChrist" makes it pale in comparison. So... I won't see it, for no other reason that I do not want to be so disturbed, invite that into my head. Is this ignorant? Yeah, I guess so. Call me ignorant. But probably what makes "AntiChrist" so disturbing is the tinge of (perceived) reality, especially if you were raised Catholic. And I'm not a practicing Catholic mind you. But for me, last year's most disturbing movie was "Waltz for Bashir," a cartoon with the very bitter roots of reality, even more so than most live action films. It stuck with me too. Maybe I'll just go rent "Emily Rose" again.
Art need not be pretty and films need not be happy to 'be', but for the love of Christ does everyone have to try to disturb their audiences just to make a goddam point?
My thought exactly. I have not seen the film, will likely never see it, and it's because Roger's essays about it are so disturbing that I cannot imagine how I would cope with the actual images. I have a huge problem with graphic horrors that are just there to provoke. I am no fan of being emotionally manipulated.
It is important to note that the earlier psychological violence He inflicts is equally brutal.
Isn't the film itself psychological violence inflicted on the audience?
I was just wondering if you found the movie depressing? I know you have said in the past, "only bad movies are depressing." But, I have always disagreed.
Ebert: t wasn't a laff riot. But things were happening. Some of the films this year are slow and turgid.
Listen to Dafoe's voice in the trailer linked below. It could be used for Satan's temptation of Christ in the desert.
It's funny how you mentioned this while I've been studying Jesus's temptation in the desert for the last few days. And after listening to Dafoe's voice in that trailer, I'd have to agree.
I can see that this film provokes thought, not a pleasurable movie-going experience, or even an enlightened one.
It reveals yet another example of the extent a movie can go to affect an audience, whether it disturbs or not. If this movie got you thinking this much, then something has to be said for it doing just that.
Rating or ranking it seems futile. It just is.
And while it may get you thinking of what it is trying to say, it ultimately winds up as a piece of art, with everyone walking away either shaking their heads in disbelief, or irrepressibly moved by the suggestion of a new psychological tack.
If you experience a wound, and it leaves a scar, it's up to you if you want to share it to others, hide it forever beneath your clothes, or use it as a tool of caution for other to stay away (or else.)
Sometimes the square peg can't fit into any of the holes you're given,
and you're left wondering if it's worth it to cut out a new one into the wood, or discard the peg altogether.
I read the review, Roger, saw the trailer, and am trying to grasp what this film is supposed to be.
What does the title Anti-Christ relate to? If this film is to represent a mirror-world of Eden in Genesis, what would the "Anti-Christ" have to do with this world? Is the title meant to be thought-evoking with no relation to the actual film?
I would imagine that the death of the baby is the mechanism which takes the couple to Eden, but in the Genesis story Adam (Adom) and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden, where there was no sin but for Eve's temptation by Satan.
If this is Satan's world, then, why then would there be a need for an Anti-Christ? I could only imagine that Satan would need to create an Anti-Christ if people rid themselves of Sin.
I don't know, it seems like (from the reviews only) that the world is a Black and Tan version of what he wants to make it for the expediency of his art.
I don't think I will see this movie, if it is as disturbing as it sounds. But I am having trouble understanding what about this film moves you to think more about it. In the silly movie, A.I., I was moved not by the film, but by the idea in the film beyond humanity where Earth was an archaeological dig for aliens. I was moved in The Natural when at the end, Hobbs and his son were having a catch. Not because the two characters were having a catch, but about the idea of my father and I in the back yard throwing a ball back and forth.
I guess I just don't know what the idea is, other than the earnestness or depravity of the vision of the director.
Two of my favourite actors in a film by one of my favourite directors? Sold.
As for shock value few films, for me, surpassed "Salo-120 Days of Sodom" by Passolini.
I'll be content if Von Trier's latest effort stays with me as long as "No Country for Old Men." (Coens) His films have never failed to do so.
Beautiful review, Mr. Ebert.
Thanks
b
http://www.indiewire.com/article/lord_have_mercy_von_triers_antichrist_finds_u.s._home/
According to this article, IFC Films will distribute the same version of Antichrist in the US screened at Cannes. Lars has, however, stated that he is willing to make changes to the film to allow it easier distribution. Hopefully the article is right.
"I believe von Trier doesn't care how I or anyone else would reply to those questions. He had the ideas and feelings, he saw into the pit, he made the film, and here it is."
I expect Dick Cheney would say much the same thing. This attitude does not inspire me with confidence that the subject's ideas are well thought out after having considered all the pro and con evidence and arguments carefully.
I love that Dafoe played Christ in "The Last Temptation Of" and now this. He's come full circle.
The Gnostic perspective:
Dafoe = The Foe
Satan = The Adversary
According to early Christian lore Satan is not a single being but rather a position (a job description) occupied by varying angels. The chosen angel acts to tempt man into believing he is something he is not, something greater and lesser than he really is, thus either embracing the illusion of Maya (the material world), or in reaction to an encounter with Satan looking more deeply into themselves and in the process learning more about who they truly are, how they fit into the illusion, and ultimately finding their relationship to universal truth.
In the case of "Antichrist" we have an actor, Defoe, playing a part which presents us with universal truths through the illusion of cinema. Those wise enough to examine the illusion (the film) within the greater illusion (the material world) may learn something about themselves and the universal truth contained therein.
Of course, Christ represents The Logos, which properly translated is "logic" which is the path to Truth. The Antichrist therefore represents the illogical belief in illusion. Where the Logos represents communion/union with God (universal truth), the Antichrist represents division from the spiritual aspect of Creation in order to create a false sense of self-importance within it. The Antichrist represents our refusal to accept our rightful place within universal truth. Psychologically the Antichrist is Ego which prevents us from accepting our faults and our real status within Creation. It is the source of both Pride and Despair.
Thus the objective of employing an angel to act as Satan is to break mankind free of the illusion which is the world of Satan, the material world of decay, death and want. It is a noble occupation when understood within the big picture, and a possible key to Truth.
"The law of cause and effect governs life at each moment, and the karma created by all deeds up to the present is the total accumulation of the past; it defines the present which is manifested in a single moment. The workings of life in that moment form a cause for the future effect....... The major difference between the Buddhism of the True Cause and that of the True Effect hinges upon the interpretation of the true nature of the moment, which, endlessly succeeding itself, is the manifestation of what we call life. Buddhism of the True Effect refers to the past-oriented attitude which defines the present only as the result of the past, adhering to the results, whereas Buddhism of the True Cause is the belief that the present changes into a cause for the future"....Daisaku Ikeda
This film may be thought as portraying the not unfamiliar reality of hell, as a confluence of environmental events( in the present case the accidental death of a child) and subjective factors( the inability of the protagonists to cope with the accident). The same situation could have many different sequels. The classic example is the variety of behaviours of the victims of the Titanic disaster.
As such the movie may be understood as a description of spiritual impoverishment, the gulf between what life is and where we stand.
As the above quote tries to explain, the point is where do we live, on the edge of a precipice looking back at the unerasable past or Vikings at the unwritten eternity of the future....even as we die we start afresh.
KZ,
You said was it getting special attention because it's Lars Von Triers, and not the people who made Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Hostel? From me, definitely. Have you seen the Texas Chainsaw Massacre films? I've seen all of them, and having seen part 3 again recently, something about the whole thing made me want to throw up. Even when there was apparently nothing, going on: shot of the forest--and I felt like puking. Something was just awful. Then I watched it, (well fast-forwarded through it). There was a girl that was captured and the grandma is thinking of letting Leatherface have his way with her, and Viggo Mortensen was in the movie and says: "he makes some sweet-fucking babies" and the grandma says: "Junior loves them lady parts." Feel like throwing up? Now, what Roger wrote, does that make you want to throw up? I can't be nearly as bad as the films you mentioned.
To lizvelrene: Thanks for that link--you're right--hilarious!! Worth repeating: http://tigerbeatdown.blogspot.com/2009/05/lars-von-trier-director-genital.html
The "Misogyny Consultant" bit alone is worth the trip--and the rest is pure wild-eyed magic!
great post, mr. Ebert ;) one question: is it true that the film has some affinities with "Possession" by Zulawski? i loved that movie.
I am reminded of your review of Ulysses' Gaze (1997), directed by Theo Angelopoulos.
Your concluding paragraph read as follows:
"It is an old fact about the cinema--[.....]--that a film does not exist unless there is an audience between the projector and the screen. A director, having chosen to work in a mass medium, has a certain duty to that audience. I do not ask that he make it laugh or cry, or even that he entertain it, but he must at least not insult its good will by giving it so little to repay its patience. What arrogance and self-importance this film reveals."
I saw Von Trier's "Dogville" and "Manderlay," and would give them (and Von Trier) the same criticism you gave "Ulysses' Gaze."
Your penultimate paragraph of that review describes "Dogville" and "Manderlay" for me as well: ""What's left after ``Ulysses' Gaze'' is the impression of a film made by a director so impressed with the gravity and importance of his theme that he wants to weed out any moviegoers seeking interest, grace, humor or involvement. One cannot easily imagine anyone else speaking up at a dinner table where he presides.""
Have you considered any of von Trier's films, including the current one (even in some small way) to be worthy of your "Ulyssses' Gaze" criticism? I have not seen "Antichrist," and given its director, I (understandably?) cannot make up my mind as to whether I should.
"If you have to ask what a film symbolizes, it doesn't." Here I must strongly disagree. Sometimes the symbols escape you because you don't have to context to recognize them. If the symbols are borrowed, for example, from a passage in the Bible that you have not read, they will elude you.
And while there is value to your re-evaluation, I disagree with the criticism that inspired it. It was your case against the film Chaos that exemplified a rule: a critic's rating reflects not only how well a film achieved its goal, but how worth the achievement that goal was in the first place. The reader's comment just seems contrarian to me.
"[Dafoe's voice] could be used for Satan's temptation of Christ in the desert." Except they already cast him as Christ. Am I right?
Breaking the Waves was my intro to von Trier's work, also, and I fell in love with Emily Watson when I saw it. Heartbreaking performance, I thought. As for Secretary...(jealous much?)! :D I spoke with the lovely and intelligent Ms. Gyllenhaal (now Mrs. Sarsgaard?) on location for The Dark Knight, also.
Non "je aussi?" After all, "moi" is the first person object pronoun, right?
Maybe some of you would enjoy some info on LVT from a recent interview with him, to put the craziness in a bit of context:
- He used to sit at a bus stop on the way home from school to do his homework, since his mother would mock him, if she thought he was 'obeying authority´.
- In his recent (and probably current, lets face it) depression, he would lie on the couch staring at the wall all day and having to pee, but without the energy to go the bathroom. When he finally made it to the toilet, he would sit there for hours reading 'Guide to small film'.
- When he sought out his real father, after his mother died, he told LVT: "I wasnt aware of you, she was supposed to use protection. If there´s anything else, we can speak through our attorneys." Charming.
- He has four children with two different women, and fell in love with one of the actresses during ´The Idiots´, then wrote about it in a diary (including thoughts of her, he would have in his 'special alone-time') and then published the diary.
Why not, I say!
I gotta hand it to him, he´s done it again. In five years, noone will remember who won the Palme D´or, but everyone will remember Antichrist and Lars. He doesnt get out of the bathrobe for a year, then turns up at Cannes with the most controversial movie of the year. I personally love him, just cause he´s a true original, and the world would be so boring without these people. He might even be a genius. I really hate some of his movies, though, but you cant have it all. This one sounds like a bloody masterpiece, though.
If you want to watch some of the best, LVT has ever done, seek out 'The Kingdom', the danish version (Riget). Its absolutely hilarious and very, very scary. And no genital mutilation!
Ghosts, voodoo, retarded dish-washing psychics, dildos and liver transplants, yes. Genital mutilation, no...
Joe E. Brown, ya mean?
Hardly derogatory, S M., and one day soon, very soon, I'll have to see both Seventh Seal and Rashomon.
I've read several reviews that refer to the film as Torture Porn or "entering Torture Porn territory" and while I can't judge the quality of the picture yet, I can't help but think that the term is incorrect, though easy. Easy because Antichrist deals directly with sex (thus the "porn" element). But the word "porn" in the term "torture porn" doesn't refer to sex as much as the hedonistic pleasure meant to be taken by watching movies like Saw and Hostel as part of a fun date night. Of course those movies have a troubling tenuous connection to sexuality as well (it's always nubile naked girls being massacred) yet their sexuality is played for the further enjoyment of the (male) audience. Something tells me that neither the sex nor the torture in Antichrist is played for thrills. Still wouldn't it be interesting if the typical "torture porn" demographic stumbled into Antichrist and were faced to confront an intersection of sex and violence not played for the excitement that they're used to.
Is it a coincidence that Von Trier cast Defoe in his movie, seeing as he was Scorsese's tempted Christ? Or, am I reading too much into your suggestion that Defoe sounds like the devil tempting Christ in the desert?
Antichrist gets US distributor: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/20/lars-von-triers-sex-and-g_n_205953.html.
My hat is off to those here that have provided a deconstruction of a deconstruction. I would not have the courage to pursue such a pointless task.
Hey Roger - can you check your spam folder? Thank-you. : )
Ebert: Found, posted.
The human body can be pulverized in a thousand different ways. I figured this out, and was done with the idea, before I was five years old. It's hard to understand how Mr. Van Trier, Mr. Roth, or those wacky new French directors of violent movies, bring anything new to this concept.
If I prefer to contemplate the work of Fred Astaire rather than that of Lars Van Trier, am I a weak-minded escapist, unable to handle deep artistic truths?
Some precious, irreplaceable evening of my far-too-short life, a few months from now, I could 1) read a book by the Dalai Lama, or 2) go to the bandshell by the lake for a symphony concert, or 3) walk through a rose garden, or 4) pay ten bucks to see "Antichrist". What choice will do me the most good?
Ebert: Doing all four would make for one great day.
This little review from a Karina Longworth added to Ebert's excellent analysis in an interesting way:
"As of this writing, no film at Cannes has yet managed to surpass Lars Von Trier’s Antichrist, which premiered three days ago, as the hot topic of conversation. In fact, the chatter began before the movie screened: there was a palpable level of excitement days ago about a main Competition title, in English, from a name-brand auteur, with elements of genre that could potentially up its market value. In fact, for awhile there was talk that Antichrist could be the most accessible film Lars Von Trier has ever made. And then people saw it.
As you may have heard by now, the film stars Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg as a married couple (they’re never named) who lose their only child in a freak accident, which they were present for but failed to stop because they were distracted having operatic sex. After she spends some time in a psychiatric ward dealing with her grief, Dafoe, a therapist, convinces Gainsbourg they should retreat to their house deep in secluded woods (they call it “Eden”) so that he can teach her how to face her fears. The house happened to be where the wife used to go to work on an academic thesis on Gynocide — ie: archaic and semi-mythic violence against women, witch hunting and like practices through which, as Gainsbourg’s character puts it, “nature causes people to do evil things to women” — before her husband dismissed her subject and thereby discouraged her ambition. Feeling as though her own sexuality is responsible for the death of her son, the woman essentially internalizes the texts she’s studied and becomes an embodiment of the “evil” she once dedicated her life to critiquing, manifested mainly through total sexual hysteria. And it’s funny!
Antichrist’s first image is of Von Trier’s name, billed in giant letters in front of the film’s title — as if he’s the star or, better yet, as if “Antichrist” is his professional title. This should be the first clue that the auteur is mocking the fact that his reputation — as a contrarian force amongst modern cinema icons, as a sadist who puts actresses through hell — will precede whatever he actually puts on screen. If that wasn’t enough, the next clue soon follows. In the black-and-white opening sequence, composed with the aesthetics (and subtlety) of a DeBeers commercial, Gainsbourg and Dafoe’s husband and wife make earth-shaking love whilst opera drowns out the soundtrack and snow streams in through the open window like silver confetti. While the couple are distracted on the road to orgasm, their toddler son crawls out of bed and tumbles out the window to his death — arms spread like wings, an angel before he hits the ground. It’s a gorgeous sequence, if ostentatiously so, and right in the middle there’s a single, rather lengthy cutaway to a giant hard-on penetrating a vagina. It’s one of two shots that many agree will need to be cut for the film to be released by an MPAA signatory; if Von Trier were to allow its excision — and I can’t imagine he would, because even if it’s unreleasable with it, it wouldn’t be Antichrist without it — he might as well replace it with a shot of himself, winking at the viewer. That would be its G-rated equivalent.
In a way, that wink already exists in more literal form than the Plunging Cock Shot (heretofore referred to as the PCS). In a full color handout given to press and potential buyers at some Cannes screenings, opposite a few uniquely blank excerpts from a Danish Film Institute interview with the director there’s a photo of him (see above) that seems to directly reference, down to the three-quarter profile with the smug facial expression, the famous publicity shot of Alfred Hitchcock, turned to face a live crow perched on his shoulder, that was distributed to promote the film of his that most directly drew lines between female sexuality and the unpredictable horrors of nature, The Birds. Von Trier alters the image a little bit: in his shot, the crow lies at his feet, dead. In other words, this time, nature’s not going to get away with it.
Even without that publicity image, Hitchcock is a natural reference for Antichrist, insomuch as it’s a psychological thriller that looks like art but satisfies as a work of genre. It’s essentially a revenge of the witch/bitch movie, one which stacks together a few basic horror movie themes: ancient burial grounds, mythology come to life, sex as a precursor to death, and female sexuality in particular as potentially equivalent to a supernatural force of nature. Antichrist does flip the script of the modern gore fest by putting a relatively chaste man at the mercy of a female whose sexuality is in crisis, thus turning Carol Clover’s “final girl” theory on its head. This may be bait enough for those quick to cry misogyny, but what I think is more remarkable is how far Von Trier goes to justify the woman’s eventual physical torture of her husband. Dafoe’s character deliberatly defies the advice of his wife’s doctor, takes her off mood-stabilizing medication and insists on giving her thereapy himself. He’s condescending to her about her creative work, her mothering skills and her grief. Even after its demonstrated that sex helps calm her anxiety, her rejects her, joking, “Don’t screw your therapist.” This is Von Trier’s biggest nod to the basic building blocks of horror: after all, desire repressed always comes back around as violence…
You can put me on the “pro” side on Antichrist, although I’m not without my reservations. I’m certainly not offended by it, nor do I think other members of my gender necessarily should be. (Before I saw the film, a male journalist told me, in a way that suggested it was beyond opinion, that “no woman” could possible feel positively about it; this statement of “fact” strikes me as more sexist than anything Von Trier actually put on screen.) My main misgiving is that its second “chapter”, the first after they enter the woods, is kind of plodding and boring, which is a problem for a film that rides a very thin line between legitimate horror and total ridiculousness. Still, I can’t imagine it would have stirred up even a fraction of the fervor if anything shown thus far in competition could match its artistry. Gorgeous to look at and made with a confidence that towers over anything else I’ve seen at Cannes this year, Antichrist frustrates attempts to dismiss Von Trier for somehow not knowing what he’s doing.
Of course, he knows exactly what he’s doing, and instigating that frustration is a big part of it. There’s a great documentary playing in the market, which I’ll get to in my next Diary post, called Disco and Atomic War, which details the conflict between hard power, meaning the use of guns and bribes and such as a method of coersion, and soft power, which has more to do with the dissemination of images and ideas that have no real power on their own, but become extremely powerful by virtue of the fact that they make the people of a closed state want something outside of it, making heads of state fear the disruption of their ideological control. The doc uses the notion of soft power in talking about how the infiltration of Western pop and, particularly, the broadcasting of things like Emmanuelle and Dallas on Finnish TV, helped to erode the USSR, but it offers one way to understand what has happened this week between Lars Von Trier and the Cannes press corps. With Antichrist, Von Trier is mocking the idea that moving images have the power to hurt the viewer. By stacking up so many concepts and actions almost guaranteed to offend prevailing highbrow taste, he’s essentially insuring that the offended will imbue his work with a power he himself knows it doesn’t intrinsically have. He may or may not be the best filmmaker in the world, but so far he’s the only one who really came to Cannes ready to fight a war."
Ebert: That is an excellent review.
Lar's tendency to delve into misogyny has always bothered me but at least he is making people feel something. In some ways, it is far better for the audience to revile or be shaken by a film than to just shrug and forget they saw it an hour later.
By Ron Barth, Jr. on May 20, 2009 2:38 PM
Joe E. Brown, ya mean?
Of course,Joe E Brown it was, the utterer of these immortal words!
I remember seeing "Devil's Rejects" when it first came out. I thought it was well made, but would never want to see it again because it was so sick and deranged. I'm strangly wanting to see this one, though, as your blog post certainly makes me think it is a must see. It's sad though that a movie like this may end up On Demand on Comcast, or a very limited theater run at most.
If I may be so privileged, I'd like to join with you and Jodie in the conversation about depressing films. A dear friend of mine told me that Lars von Trier's "Dancer in the Dark" was the most depressing film she'd ever seen. My response to her was that I felt entertained during the film, at times exhilarated and at other times nearly horrified, and all the while I felt that I was receiving some sort of instruction from the artist. Therefore, I told her, it couldn't possibly be depressing for me, because it was a cinematic experience that lifted me and, at the most torturous moments and even at the very tough ending of the movie, did not plunge me to a lower spiritual plane than that which I existed on before. "Schindler's List" would be another film that may possibly be described by some as "depressing," but I do not think that the film has the effect of bringing its audience down to a spiritual or emotional low; therefore, I don't think it can be accurately described as depressing. I confess to feeling something very close to depressed after I watch "Apocalypse Now" and "Aguirre, the Wrath of God" and even "The Exorcist" - but not quite - for these films simply take me to a different place, a place that feels ugly and dangerous and completely foreign to me, and when I realize I'm back to my comfort zone, and that perhaps the boundaries of that comfort zone have expanded a bit, I feel a sense of awe and gratitude for the artists' ability to transport me and perhaps change me. And there is nothing depressing in that.
Thanks for your reply, Mr. Ebert!
Although "Antichrist" is Serious Stuff, the following joke popped unbidden into my head (groaner alert).
A guy walks into a bar. "Gimme a drink, I lost my job," he says.
"What happened?" says the bartender.
"A couple weeks ago I got a job at the pickle factory. Well, it didn't take long until I became obsessed with the idea of putting my unit into the pickle slicer. Finally, yesterday, I did what I wanted."
"Then what happened?
"They fired me, and her too."
The theological view described reminds one of Gnosticism.
The Cathars (based in southern France, appropriately enough) had a similar theology. The Catholic church called for the Albigensian Crusade to wipe them from the face of the Earth and gave their considerable wealth to the northern French nobility.
So it goes.
I see a lot comments here that suggest that this film need not be rated/starred/evaluated/whatever. That it just 'is'. That art can just 'be'. I think that I have to disagree. I read Ebert's reviews and expect a rating. Like many, I enjoy his insight based on his vast experience - one that for practical purposes few people can have. I expect a film to be summarized, criticized, and quantified on the 0 to 4 scale. I know that two films with an equal rating are not the same...that a 4 star film can make me laugh till I cry or it can be something horrific to watch. I could also not enjoy it at all. I know that my opinions are not the same as his. Why should this film be treated any different?
I just woke up after a long night at work. Watched antichrist last night before I went to work, and it hasn't left my body.
Before i go on, i have to admit that i am not objective since i am both a Trier fan and a dane but I simply had to write in anyway.
This film is amazing, but you have to be prepared before you watch it. Its weird, Trier has no limits and doesn't give a flying F about PG ratings or the possible weak stomach of his viewers...
Everytime I watch a trier film, I always get a moment where I say "Why was this resasary?" "Is he just trying to be weird or is there a purpose?" but every time, I find that there is a purpose behind the madness.....And there is a LOT of madness so there has to be a lot of purpose.
When I watched Dogville, i found the whole theater/no walls thing very odd and didn't know what the point was, but the scene where Kidman gets raped and begs for help, and the suddenly the camera moves out and you can see the entire town not being aware, doing normal things had a deep effect on me.
There are things in this film that I don't understand and where I maybe have a question to whether it was necesary of not(Why a speaking fox all of a sudden?) but Triers movies does what movies is meant to do.....GIVE EMOTIONS....
If you want feel good movies, or if you are planning a evening of fun when don't go and watch this movie. If will leave you with a bad taste in your mouth and a weird feeling in your stomach but like Roger says: "Lars von Trier's new film will not leave me alone"
I forgot one thing
To "Jay Faulconer" - I feel bad for calling you out but I just have one comment to your post...
You write that "If something fills you with great dread, you don't have to honor it for that" but I completely disagree....The most important part of movies is that they create feelings inside you. If the feeling is the need to throw up and there is nothing else, then I think your right but movies doesn't have to give you good feelings...If a movie makes you sad or feel dread but does it in a powerful way that leaves a mark inside you then thats just as much valuable as the happiness that some movies deliver.
Maybe even more.......Trier portrayed the bad things in life...There is nothing wrong with that
You've described this film as the most "despairing" you've seen.
You've also said that no great film is "depressing."
I believe that you are clearly ascribing, based on reviews in which you've used each term, a meaning to "despairing" (regardless of whether you think "Antichrist" is a great film) that differs from "depressing."
I'm still not sure, though, what you mean by "depressing" when you say that no great film is depressing. By "depressing," do you mean depressing as in causing what psychologists and psychiatrists call "clinical depression?" (or causing "clinical depressive behaviors," even if the behaviors are impermanent and fleeting?)
I would find that compelling because to me, depression (I have clinical depression) can, perhaps in a perverse sense - in either the medical definition or colloquial definition of the term - produce an exhilaration that great movies produce. To me, a great movie can be depressing, but that is because I do not equate "depression" with "quality." What do you mean by "depressing?" (when you say that great movies are not depressing?) I've wanted to know for a while.
"Perhaps the world began with man evil instead of good, guilty instead of innocent. That the Garden of Eden was visited by the Antichrist, not the Lord. That man's Original Sin was not eating from the Tree of Knowledge, but not vomiting forth knowledge and purging himself."
"I believe "Antichrist" may be an exercise in alternative theology: von Trier's version of those passages in Genesis where Man is cast from Eden and Satan assumes a role in the world."
One of your readers, Minghao Huang on May 18, 2009 4:59 AM, makes reference to Blood Meridian, by Cormac McCarthy.
I would like second his comment.
After finishing Blood Meridian I watched a 90 minute Yale University english lecture concerning Blood Meridian posted on youtube.
The professor makes the argument that in writing Blood Meridian, McCarthy has re-written the Bible.
He gives us a new Bible which tells us that there is no redemption from Evil.
Indeed, Evil is all there is, all that has ever been, and all that ever will be.
As M. Huang notes, The Judge, McCarthy's personification of Evil, claims at the end of the novel: I will never die.
The two comments by you, included in my post, mirror the Yale professor's insights about McCarthy almost verbatim.
Because of that remarkable similarity, I am intrigued and look forward to seeing ANTI-CHRIST.
Thank you.
Sorry about the length of this post. I don't usually comment but I felt compelled to do so in this case. I'm also not trying to offend anyone, just state things as I see them. I have not seen Antichrist.
The question as to whether a film like Antichrist is "great" is challenging because it is such an intense film it demands that you examine the depths of your own convictions upon which you will base such a definitive assertion. Anytime you or anyone else designate something as "great" or "good" we take upon ourselves an authority to establish a standard. Though we would not begrudge the right of others to their opinion and do not deliberately make claims of any kind of omniscience, the paradox of opinion is that it does represent a judgment on our part to the effect that whoever disagrees is wrong. This doesn't imply animosity, necessarily, it's simply the nature of an opinion, however modestly we maintain them. My point is that there are times when the insufficiency or relevance of our own opinions become more apparent as far as our ability or right to call something "great."
Like Triumph of the Will, we may be unwilling to condone the films motive or bestow our blessing upon it but ignoring it may be cowardly. Refusing to face it, is refusing to face ourselves. The more intense the film the more personal the verdict we come to. Often times we use material excuses as a substitute for a lack of conviction. If we object to something because it violates our vague principles it's easier to look for material flaws to justify our position, than to stand on conviction, which can be harder to defend. But what if we can't find any flaws, in technique, style etc? Can a well made film be bad? Technically speaking, no. Morally speaking, yes.
What is a great film? By what standard do we make such a judgment? With a film like Antichrist the filmmaker has chosen to make an unflinching statement. If you dare to judge it you must be equally confident. To make a film such as this is a choice, a choice to create something that does not offer the comforts and assurance we might expect. To consider this film is more an exercise in self examination.
Every one of us has the choice to do terrible things. Any one of us has a certain power to inflict pain or even death on others. The fact that most of us refuse to does not change the fact that we have such choices ever available, at any given time. Technically it is within our power to do great "evil" if we choose. One of the most frightening things in this world is the power of choice because it is an abyss. The choice is ours. This is the privilege of human beings and if we so choose, there is no limit to how far we can go in terms of what we choose to believe, imagine or envision. Choice itself offers no judgment. It is simply available.
To embrace the raw, extreme extent of this capacity is completely possible. The ultimate reason we don't is what defines us. Do we refrain from stealing because we believe it's wrong, a sin, or are we only afraid of being caught and facing the consequences. Certainly there's a difference between making a philosophical statement and destroying someone else life or property but they are both choices based on what we allow ourselves to except and my point is that just because something is possible doesn't make it necessary or right. Is the determining factor whether or not you have legally caused harm to another person? What a trite, materialistic sense of morality that would be.
There is a tendency to think that just because something is audacious, provocative or even disturbing it's act is in some ways great simply because the artist was "brave" enough to defy convention. However doing something for the sake of doing it is not a justification in and of itself is it? Just because something has a profound effect upon us doesn't mean it's a worthwhile experience. Terror and disgust are profound human experiences, certainly, but this does not qualify a work that deliberately evokes them within us as "good" or "great" does it? Is the filmmaker braver than us? Are we weak because we are afraid to go that far? If so, then a film depicting horrific acts committed against people senselessly would be the greatest of all since it is without any limitation, any "fear." If you would require such a film to have a point, in doing so you'd be imposing a kind of limit based on a personal (or collective) standard right? Are you afraid to see the abyss for what it is?
Artists are explorers who have always had the benefit of the generally excepted moral standards of society to challenge. All you have to do is cross the line and you've explored something new. You don't need to go any further but are we cowards for not going all the way? We have the luxury of not having to. If artists are explorers than art without limits is as far as you can go. Like it or not our own moral compass is a kind of limit. The comfortable standards of morality and decency we maintain and insulate ourselves with are a limit. Do we hide behind them? Are we cowards? Not all limits are bad and not all freedoms are good.
We don't for any number of reasons; we don't want to ruin our own lives or compromise our consciences (The fact that we may very well base our decisions primarily on self oriented factors is a little frightening in itself) but regardless of the reasons we don't make a certain choice to do evil, we have the choice none the less. If I am afraid to do something I perceive as wrong is this kind of trepidation unhealthy? Does it make me weak? If I embrace the limitless liberty of choice even just ideologically and peer into the abyss would that make me brave? If I can imagine and depict the most nihilistic scenario imaginable, would such audacity constitute greatness simply because I'm unafraid to do so? If you think so than essentially you can not dispute anything based on moral preferences and ultimately you yourself can't really possess any without being a hypocrite.
Grief, depression, disgust, horror etc. are all very profound experiences but are they ones we should seek? Would an experience that deliberately effects them within us be "great" because it dares to do so? If you think so than would you be offended if someone made such a film fictitiously depicting you or those you love in such a situation? Are you afraid to gaze unflinchingly into the abyss? What if it was your child being knocked out the window? Would that disturb you? How come?
Gary in Phoenix, Arizona wrote on May 20, 2009 1:29 PM - "The "Misogyny Consultant" bit alone is worth the trip..."
I wonder what the pay is like? ;)
As for Antichrist, I suspect it'll turn out to be one of those films people either see because others refused to and they want to find out what all the fuss it about (or score the bragging rights of having done so) or a group of teenage friends watch it on a dare to see who can tough it out to the end. Then of course, there's always catching it late one night on special cable and channel hopping through most of it.
Ie: the fact the film got made ends up being more important than the work itself. The reaction to it, ultimately the reason for its lasting fame. And why I think it's destined to be one of those "infamous" art house movies nobody really likes, and only supports in theory.
"Art should have no boundaries, freedom of expression" and all that.
I agree, in theory. Until Jack the Ripper makes a movie, eh? For at what point is it no longer Art and something else? That's what disquiets me the most; the ratcheting-up of what was done before. What I can see in my minds eye as I gaze 30 years into the future. When images such as those recounted from the film no longer have the power to shock?
What will shock us then, when we're all but numb, eh?
The thing about staring into the pit, is that it wants you to fall into it. The very desire to explore the dark in part the effect of its undertow - how it catches you; it lures, seduces and lies. If Lars want to stare into the abyss for thinking he can come and go as he pleases, whom I am to argue. But me?
I know better than to go down that far - as beyond a certain point lies madness.
And as an artist, I'm aiming for eccentric not crazy. :)
Excellent take on a film beyond good and bad. But should the three beggars mentioned in the text not be The Fox, The Raven and The Deer? And you might like to know that the Danish critics who all disliked The Boss Of It All, were unified in praising this movie with five out of six almost all over and full six stars by the critic from Politiken. How does that fit into your observations about Tomatometer and Le Film Franc,ais.
I thought I'd never see another von Triers movie after the loathsomeness of 'Breaking the Waves', 'Dancer in the Dark' and 'Dogville', but I may, even with the Mirror of Venus symbol as the last 'T' in 'AntiChrist'.
Thanks for giving some of his history; perhaps it explains some of his 'Lars Hates Women/Lars Needs Women/Lars Hates Men/Lars Hates Himself', but I hope this film doesn't just add, 'Lars Hates Everything'.
Intellectually, the idea that a film can explore issues like this suggests that viewing it will be a worthwhile experience.
It's not the first time I've been lured to a film like this. The experiences of actually sitting and watching those films, as opposed to thinking about the themes, have most often been uniformly unpleasant. The feelings provoked dead-ended and led nowhere.
That's an idiosyncratic response, no doubt. Some people enjoy being horrified. I only enjoy it if it furthers some other end.
In law, we sometimes talk about a piece of evidence's "prejudicial" as opposed to "probitive" value. A picture of the dead murdered kid can be true and accurate, and still be withheld from the jury - because it triggers an emotional response which overwhelms the intellectual value it adds. When that happens in film-making, I think a) bad film or b) this director is just messing with me.
Thanks for the thoughts on this, RE. I'll be giving it a wide berth. There's lot of other films out there that I think I'd get a lot more out of.
Mr Ebert: This comment is not necessarily for publication. I just wanted to thank you sincerely for (a) watching a movie, sight-unseen, that very few people would have been able to view at all, let alone stomach, without detailed advance warning of all the specific things that happen in it; (b) reviewing it so thoughtfully, and then, returning to write an even more thoughtful update with further observations and feelings, which is so extremely rare among journalists; and (c) engendering a highly fascinating and informative debate online about it, among a smart class of readership. I've been interacting with people online for 20 years, and it's very rare for me to write a sloppy mash note like this, but this discussion has been just wonderful.
Lars von Trier is doing something brave here, or perhaps foolish, or maybe both. In any case, there is only so much further directors can go before they reach the point of making snuff films or torture porn. Couching all of this stuff in religious or mystical terms doesn't make it any less desensitizing or render it more noble. These are largely ugly, degrading and disturbing experiences for both creators and audience.
I believe there's a place for movies like 'Antichrist', but can't we have more serious filmmakers working the other side of the spectrum and giving us equally compelling visions that life isn't merely some perverse nightmare?
I saw a great film (TV version) once about how couples torture each other. It was called "Scenes From A Marriage", and was great (for me) because it gave me a way to stand back and see my own relationship with more compassion and possibly even some objectivity. Based on my previous experience of von Trier's work, I will hazard that "Antichrist" would add nothing to whatever I was able to learn from Bergman. Von Trier is no Bergman, he is merely a sadist with style.
Mr. Ebert, thank you for very interesting perspectives on Antichrist. Having seen the film just 2 days ago, it is still very much present in me - as of now more and more in my head and my thoughts whereas yesterday it solely haunted my guts and stomach, and a cognitive approach therefore seemed somewhat premature...
I am deeply fascinated by Trier's latest, intriqued even, and I believe that this is perhaps his finest achievement in terms of mere image and aeshtetics; the film is simply beautiful.
Also, this is a somewhat different Trier than the mocking, ironic director who in his previous work, fx "Breaking the Waves", portrays transcendance (or "God") in the shape and form of a tolling bell which, in the end, appears in the sky and casts a bit of explanatory light on the fate of Bess as a sort of pendant to the Deus ex Machina in a Greek tragedy.
Transcendance in Antichrist are all but ironic; the core and the workings of the world are dead serious, real and very, very powerful! And I think this is perhaps something new in a Trier-narrative; a genuine, outspoken view on the world that doesn't disable itself in the end.
Speaking of narrative, this is perhaps the one point where I think Antichrist falls a bit short of brilliant; in some passages I found myself, not bored in the cinema but... contemplating and reflecting, in lack of a better term, hence not as much IN the film as in other parts.
In my view, Trier has perhaps sacrificed some of the structural progression for the will to symbolism and expression of sentiment and ideas.
Your top page analysis does not explicitely relate to the workings of the narrative of Antichrist - but do you have an opinion on the matter - or is the narrative in your opinion less important an aspect of Antichrist?
Regards, Jesper
I simply have to comment on "Anonymous on May 22, 2009 9:42 AM"s comments...
Its fair play if you don't like this movie or if you don't like another of Triers movies.
But are you serious when you say that you hated Breaking the Waves, Dogville AND dancer in the dark? Really?
Some of those are consided masterpieces...Dancer in the dark won at cannes and Breaking the Waves might be one of the best movies I have ever seen
Well, now I have an impression of what I might be in for if I see this film. Isn't it funny how personal values, beliefs, upbringing, and memories, play such an important part in our response to the cinema? No man is an island, and if there is someone who cared enough to make something, then there is an appreciative audience for it somewhere in this world. I knew a couple of guys who watched "Dancer in the Dark" and told me that it's the kind of movie that makes you want to commit suicide. I saw it, disagreed, and liked it so much that I watched it again with my (then) 60 year old conservative mother. She admired it, too. It wasn't a film writhing with joy, but it was honest, artistic, compelling, and loving toward its characters.
I have seen many films that might be considered graphic or ugly, but there is only one director who I can think of right now, who I am ashamed to say I gave any moments of my life to. It would not mean a thing to her to say that I find her work vile, wicked, and shameless. Mentioning her name gives me the creeps. Catherine Breillat has a gift for cinema. She can tell a story. She is daring. I am ashamed that my curiosity to know more about her, to see what other sicknesses seep from her directing pores, led me to view a second or third of her films. You have said that cinema is an art form which teaches empathy more than any other. I would rather walk into a gutter and hold a decaying, old, vomiting, schizophrenic, naked, raped, homeless person in my arms, than watch a film of hers depicting one, in which I can only witness, and provide no counter action. Maybe that is what is so despairing about certain films. Sick stuff happens in real life, but we can help ourselves, or help someone else. In the cinema, we are strapped to our seats, victims of obscenity and violence, which sometimes end in pitch blackness and show us the exit door. Our only consolation is that we can go outside and breathe fresh air. Is it worth it? Is any art worth that feeling?
I am reminded of a Bible verse that goes something like, "Whatever is beautiful, whatever is lovely, whatever is noble and good... think on these things."
I'd much rather.
Marie Haws,
"Art should have no boundaries, freedom of expression" and all that.
Actually, art does need boundaries, or it loses direction and relevance (like what happened during the 20th century onward). It needs boundaries so it may push against them, challenge them. Trouble is, now there are no boundaries, art must try very hard to be more than mere aesthetics, and even then the range is severely limited. Modernity has a delicate balance, one that is easily lost.
Why couldnt Jack the Ripper or Adolph Hitler make art? Does art depend on who makes it, and how, and why? Art is a social phenomenon, because it is recognized as such, not because it is hatched in a studio. Now bureaucrats and technocrats decide on what is art, what is worthy of society's 'attention'.
It is always a very interesting conversation where the "line" is in art between art and obscenity.
I have read so many thoughtful posts here.
A film that wonderfully validates theologian Francis Schaeffer in "Escape from Reason." To wit: Once the spiritual (God) and the physical (Creation) are intellectually disconnected, man is inclined to reassemble them in any fashion he likes. Like Heidegger and Malraux and Picasso and Bernstein and Pollock, the only way art (and artist) can escape the black pit of meaningless is by charging full on into the absurd, the pornographic, the jarringly violent, while a pernicious God becomes a scapegoat.
Roger, you captured Trier's descent into hell quite capably. That so many find this journey more admirable than pitiable wounds my soul.
Can you imagine how far the next film will go?
I haven't seen the movie yet, but the reviews have been exceptional in Denmark, so i'm really excited about it. Of course it could have something to do with patriotism, but it is really peculiar that the DK critics and audences are completely blown away by this movie unlike a large part of the foreign press. I understand why some would choose not to see this film, but judging is so harshly before hand is a real shame in my mind.
Theres an interesting interview here with Lars Von Trier, for those who haven't seen it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8TE_X8bYo
Roger,
Just wanted to let you know that the YouTube clip you have up for Lars Von Trier's upcoming comedy is somewhat misleading. It contains clips from the shooting of the 2003 movie Johnny English starring Rowan Atkinson and Natalie Imbruglia, a film that Lars Von Trier had nothing to do with. The Boss Of It All is a 2006 office comedy written and directed by Von Trier and I'm certain that it is a better film than Johnny English!
I'm not sure who it was that produced that clip, but it is definitely false.
Don I agree with you. Do we really need another movie that underlines, magnifies the misery of the human condition? I don't need more things to scare me about this life. And a window into the madness of a grieving couple is not art - no matter how you dress it up. I only have to pick up the newspaper to see similar tales of tragedy dressed up as cheap entertainment. Give me a film that is uplifing and inspiring please. My soul desperately needs it.
Fake youtube movie on Rogers site !
Why did you use this youtube clip ? its a fake mashup of Trier and a terrible Rowan Atkinson movie-Johnny English
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_English
If you want a clip take this instead- Trier talkes about Antichrist and his depression:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8TE_X8bYo&feature=related
and this is real clips for "The boss of it all"
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2o4nj_the-boss-of-it-all-trailer_creation
great blog by the way:-)
//Silas
Ebert: Good gravy! I've killed it.
Hello Roger,
Just to close the loop on Ron Barth jr`s question:
"Moi aussi" is correct. Je, Me, Moi are all first person singular, as in Me, Myself and I. "Aussi" is both "too" and "also". Therefore "Je aussi" translate to "I also". And using that would be just sooo.. left.
As for Antichrist, If I understand correctly, seeing it is rather like having a cavity drilled by the dentist without anesthetic. Elegant craftsmanship by the dentist, pain for me. I'll give it a miss, but it's good to know that it exists. If all my family dies, I lose my job and everybody hates me, it might be just the ticket!
Regards,
Michel Lamontagne
Otterburn Park, Québec
I was of under the impression that "she" was a picture of von Triers feminine artistic side, and that logic and rational thinking is "he".
I have come to this after seeing the film and read various articles about him.
charlot gainsbourg told in an interview that he was so very close to her role, as it was him playing the role(s).
It would not surprise me if its just Trier's personal battle with himself put on film.
I found the movie to be work of a genius. (Talking fox)
Ebert, you don´t think vT cares about what you or anybody else thinks about Antichrist, he just does it. Well, I don´t agree. I think that vT and his associates in Zentropa are very much aware of the commercial value of their products. This was very clear to me after reading (in Danish) vT:s diary from the making of THE IDIOTS and a very interesting book about the making of DOGVILLE in Trollhättan, written by the films producer Vibeke Windenlöv. So to me there is no question of what it is that makes vT going; making pictures for fun and profit. If he don´t think that a project will be a success, it will not be done! Please note that this doesn´t change my opinion of vT as one of the best (perhaps THE BEST) director in the world.
Excuse my bad English - I read better than write.
Yours truly
Jim
great blogging.
this film is truely a masterpiece, but it might take quite a few years, before some people realize that. von trier is a [mad] genius; a true modern auteur.
I watched this movie and felt initially that it was mediocre, although it left with a sensation that it had to sink in before I could be sure. At first I thought that the movie had little to offer if you removed the shocking scenes but after some time I have changed my position.
I felt that there was a deeper meaning to the whole religious concept of the movie and your review has fílled in some of the blanks that I just could not entirely pinpoint. In addition to your observations I have a few remarks that is still somewhat puzzling me.
1. How are the 3 beggars related to the religious underlying moral. It is obvious to me that they somehow represent the 3 wisemen visiting the barn after Jesus' birth, but again (being an atheist) I cannot pinpoint the exact reference or meaning. Maybe this is supposed to be pre jesus?
2. Why choose a fox, a bírd and a deer with a halfborn calf? The fox tells us chaos reigns, the bird cannot die and the deer cannot give succesful birth. There must be a reason for that imagery.
3. She is cutting her genetals at the end and it is likely some form of imagarey on the punishment for Eve at the garden of Eden. Is removing the possibility of pleasurable reproduction a comment on the apple (temptation?)
4. could the people arriving at the end, somehow symbolize the followers of any religion, no matter how gruesome it is. "She" is burned at the end, not unlike the church burned witches in the middle ages. Is he God? and she Antichrist? Maybe that is streching it?
Are we all followers of Satan and did God in fact lose the initial fight over our souls so that we now follow a pattern and a belief in something which is not what we think it is? I am still mezmerized.
Thanks for your great review. It has definately left me more curious to watch this again.
Best Regards from Denmark
Ebert: Genital mutilation may be a sign of extreme self-hatred, as is is in Bergman's "Cries and Whispers."
The symbolism seems religious in some sense, maybe in a mirror sense.
Is it possible that Mr. Von Triers ever saw Bruno Dumont's "Twentynine Palms" from 2004, a film that bears a tremedously similiar anti-Judeo-Christian parallel, with an Adam and Eve-like couple wildly copulating towards their self-destruction in the desolation of the California desert?
And can ANY artistic provocation, in this You-Tubed, My Spaced-out Twittering world of ours, ever really re-create what happened in that hot late summer of 1988, even with Mr. Dafoe's resurrection?
"He stands atop a hill while a legion of unnatural humans ascends toward him..."
Unnatural how? Aren't they just, you know, women wearing women's clothes?
I've just seen the movie Antichrist this weekend, and it blew me away.
Von Trier's movie escapes (among other things) the usual genre-pidgeonholing, and that leaves me and the rest of the audience with a number of interpretations, comments and emotions.
One of my observations are that I sense an echo of Hitchcock's Vertigo in the structure of the story. The accidental death from a fall in the prologue, and the rest of the movie hinting that our main character(s) are already dead (literally gone back to Eden). The flashback just before the genital mutilation could be a false flashback, again an echo from Vertigo?
Wonderful that the "He" analytical therapist kills his patient, (takes her place) and stands smiling, as he now sees demons and witches/the dead emerge and walk towards and past him, uphill. That's heaven on a rainy day.
And the acting from Dafoe and Gainsbourg is amazing, it's Oscar performances - the project is courageous, no matter what you think of the movie. But I must admit it's difficult to imagine a clip being shown at The Academy Awards 2010, for instance with the Dafoe character banging away with his co-star. Might do wonders for the Oscar ratings, though :-)
Thanks for your great filmreviews and a great blog (- Mr. Ebert, why haven't you posted your Antichrist review on rogerebert.com ?)
Best regards from Jacob in Copenhagen
Mr. Ebert, have you conducted an interview with Lars von Trier yet? I've read some of your interviews with other great directors and actors. I'm curious, what questions do you have for Mr. von Trier if you haven't asked them already?
Ebert: Yes, there's an interview if you search the site.
In his book The Painted Witch, art historian Edwin Mullins describes how, after years of analyzing the composition, coloration, brushstrokes, chiaroscuro, etc. of his favorite paintings, he was suddenly moved by a passage in Simone de Beauvoir to look at what these paintings were pictures of, and realized the pornographic nature of the content of many of the great paintings of western art.
You may like or dislike pornography, but the fact that violence, and sexual violence against women in particular, is one of the most common themes in the arts is often made secondary to the technique, symbolism, and craft of the art in question. I feel that the explicit content of art – what it is a picture of – is the most important thing about it, and actually governs our response to it, notwithstanding its real artistic ingenuity or skill.
From what I can tell, all of Von Trier's films consist largely of pictures of women being tortured. I have never felt so betrayed by a film as I did after watching Breaking the Waves. And it was such an old story, too – just like the old paintings of the martyrdom of St. Catherine. I understand that his films are well-made, but I don't like what he has to say. I don't want to see what he wants to show me. I think being a woman may be one of the reasons.
Ebert: There is something strange about that man.
The title notwithstanding, as someone who hasn't yet seen this film, the imagery and general plot structure described here strike me as Freudian rather than religious: the garden variety problems we normally experience as expressions of a deeper, sublimated consciousness, with the irony that the consequence of removing the sublimation is not therapeutic but horrific, the release of a darker nature whose supression is essential to the bearable, if more mundane, life we lead.
The title notwithstanding, as someone who hasn't yet seen this film, the imagery and general plot structure described here strike me as Freudian rather than religious: the garden variety problems we normally experience as expressions of a deeper, sublimated consciousness, with the irony that the consequence of removing the sublimation is not therapeutic but horrific, the release of a darker nature whose supression is essential to the bearable, if more mundane, life we lead.
Ebert you are a very curious fellow. Your thoughts on antichrist, while it seems you try to remain nuetral in your decision, reflect a certain positive aspect. Even though i have NOT scene this film(my interest was only sparked when a friend told me about this film the other day) the scenes people describe and you describe no dought seem very odious and even repulsive. So my question to you is this; If a film like antichrist doesn't push you away and you can find context and meaning to it will you ever take another look at films like blue velvet and a clockwork orange? Seeing as i see a relation with evil, violence, and sex between them. Also it seems you are very curious about why Antichrist got a "Pas de tout" from french critics and your answer is probably because Lars von Trier is a fake. He is an imposter to film. He pretends he is a good filmmaker and he is making "art" but it really only stems from there original counterparts of other directors. For a lack of better words he is a poser. I think someone can only take the idea of "look at me, look at me" being jammed down their throats with unrelenting vulgarity and hackneyed expression to film he tries to convey before enough is enough. But i am waiting to see it when it comes out.
-Thanks, Andrew
To comment on the ending shot, with everyone climbing the hill... Aren't the ones climbing all women? This is what I understood from it, they all seemed to be dressed that way.
The description of this movie's "meaning" sounds very pretentious and, hence, artistically and intellectually shallow. I can sit thru some of Von Trier's movies, but I must say "Breaking the Waves" was one of the most boring films I have ever seen in my whole life. He's definitely an acquired taste, but I would not say the man is very profound, philosophically or socio-politically speaking, much less theologically.
I just watched this movie a couple of days ago, and Im enthralled by it. It was amazing. It will leave you thinking about it for days...and It's a film you will NEVER forget!! Thats what a movie is all about to me. You can forget all those other ones. But this one will stay with you. It had alot of meaning for me. and it really got to me very deeply! I loved it!!
Sorry, I haven't read all the comments, so I may be repeating, but I've just seen the film and agree with Ebert's theory. Von Trier has always been a very catholic director, albeit an extremely pessimistic one, not just in Breaking the Waves, but how about Dogville, in which a character named "Grace" endures pure evil, then tells her father "forgive them, they don't know what they're doing", after which an apocalyptic blood red moon rises and the father lets them reap what they sow. And then in Manderlay the theology is taken even further, with its musings on free will and the way people try to avoid it. So in that sense Antichrist seems like a logical film for Von Trier to make. One addition to Ebert's theory: the mutilations (which I wish would have been a bit less graphic) seem important to the story because of what they symbolise. The Bible says God's punishment for man's sin is that he will have to work hard and that she will have pain in child-bearing. So he gets attached to a tool (in a Christ-like way), and she cuts her womb.
Wow, more fun to discuss than to watch, this one. :)
I can honestly say your comments have shaken me. I haven't really been able to process what I saw, since I just finished watching it 5 mins ago, but your mirror theory has intrigued me beyond measure. It's like someone gave me a code to see the "real" movie like I'm watching it again but this time only thru it's mirrored relfection. Wow!!
The concept of this powerful film is very intriguing. It's the type of fare that will spark many questions about good vs. evil --despair vs. pride as you put it. But I know my limits. If the imagery is as disturbing as everyone says, I just can't risk dealing with this one. The meanings will be lost on me as I recoil from the horror. But I have found that reviews like yours Mr. Ebert support the courage of vanguard film making that breaks the rules. I have to ask, could such a powerful film be made without the extreme violence? Was the violence gratuitous or properly administered? Was the misogynistic message really necessary? I will never be able to answer this first hand so I thank you for watching this film and giving this thoughtful review.
I just saw this film tonight at the New York Film Festival, then read your review just now. First I want to report that a man (sitting only a few seats away from me) actually went into some kind of seizure during the scene where She bores a hole in He's leg. They actually had to stop the film and escort him out of the theater! I'd like to think he was disturbed by the overall emotional impact of the film, though. In terms of grisly violence "Antichrist" is very tame compared to the sort of torture-porn you see in a lot of mainstream Hollywood horror films today. And there were a lot of cat-calls and laughing at the screening, too. It's too early for me to write what I think about the film but I was gripped by it too. I can understand a lot of arguments about how it is less than perfect or very flawed in this respect or that, but all I know is that I will be thinking about it for days and days.
While you're interpretation is well thought through, I didn't interpret the film through a theological sense. I saw the film as a reference to Nietzsche's work "anti-christ" with nihilistic symbolism. Nietzsche's title "anti-christ" isn't so much a reference to the biblical notions of the antichrist, but an attack on what Nietzsche called the slave morality of Christianity.
Mr. Ebert, what if I told you that I saw this film at Music Box today and that everyone in the audience was laughing throughout most of the gruesome parts of the film?
I pondered this in several ways. One, perhaps the excess of violence truly does render the film...silly. Two, people have to laugh after being exposed to extreme despair or violence because they feel uncomfortable being shaken.
Do you have a thought?
Ebert: They were nervous?
Wow you sure did change your mind on this film.
If you get past the "violence" and see what it really means, you'll find that it's a very good movie. People who laughed at all the violent parts probably didn't understand what the movie was about and they only saw what was happening but not what it symbolized. This movie I believe, is a thinking man's movie and people who can't get past it's violence aren't really thinking.
One thing's for certain: it's impossible for someone to come out of the cinema and loosen a tepid "Eh" after seeing this film. It is unnerving and relentless to the last, bleak beyond all hope and crushing in its brutal intimacy. The images strike a poetic resonance that a film dedicated to the late genius of Andrei Tarkovsky should. The reaction to Von Trier's latest film is bound to be mostly negative and puerile because it is unsettling and unapologetic to the core: precisely the kind of film that shatters the proscenium and defies audience expectation from all quarters. Think of it as a Passion Play for lovers: I promise you'll scream before you swoon.
I saw the film at a half-filled Tuesday screening at the Nuart in LA, and nobody laughed. Thank god. As a non-believer, I take the title "Anti-Christ" to use the word "christ" to mean "civility." This film is about what happens (in the words of MTV's Real World) when people stop being polite, and start being real.
I thought the film was great except for the talking fox; that was a bit over the top! Also, I'm not sure how "he" just happened to break the floor boards where the wrench had been hidden.
I still think that "Zentropa" is a much better film and a much more meaningful portrait of the [awful] human condition. But if one has to make more than one movie, this one was at least worthwhile.
And I would like to see it more than once.
--Gary