Art-house or outhouse? It's impossible not to have a strong opinion about Antichrist. SINEAD GLEESONgauges reaction after a preview screening
LARS von Trier once said that a film should be “like a rock in the shoe”. The Dane’s latest offering feels more like a blood- splattered boulder in the face, but love him or loathe him, a new work from von Trier always generates debate.
When Antichristpremiered at Cannes this year, critics variously booed, laughed and walked out. We rounded up our own reviewers, warning them that they might want to take a raincheck on the popcorn.
Over to you...
PATRICK CHAPMAN
WRITER, DUBLIN
The first thing that struck me was how absolutely beautiful the film is. The prologue was heartbreaking and could almost have been a self-contained short. Antichristas a whole is probably a masterpiece. It's one of the most hardcore romantic films I've ever seen, in the sense that Don't Look Now, Bad Timingand Dead Ringerswere. I loved that it's true to its own nightmare logic, and it was refreshing that it didn't cop out.
Antichristbegins with a horrific event and descends into another kind of horror. Freud isn't dead; he's just lying in the woods with his entrails hanging out. The film has the courage of its convictions; it's not afraid to be as intense and provocative. It didn't shock me, but it unsettled me, drew me in and beat me up emotionally, which is what I expect from this director.
The violence was no more than what happens in the real world. Gainsbourg’s character goes through hell, but so does Dafoe’s. I think their woundings are symbolic of how the director feels about people, not just women.
If you want to be provoked, enthralled, challenged and made to think about your place in the world, go see it. Also, it’s a perfect date movie: if your relationship survives a viewing of this film, you should probably get married
VERDICT:*****
GAY SWEENEY
NURSE, DUBLIN
I knew it was going to be a bit gory but, working as a nurse, I’m not at all squeamish. Maybe because of my medical background, I had a major problem with Dafoe’s therapist character, who practices the most ridiculous therapy. He’s very controlling and gets nowhere, which causes huge problems for both characters. She needed affection and understanding; she didn’t need sex. Their sex wasn’t affectionate, and after the death of a child, there was a real lack of intimacy and love about it.
I couldn’t get into the internal logic of the film or the symbolism; it was lost on me. I think von Trier thinks he’s the greatest director ever, but there’s nothing new about what he’s done. It’s completely sensationalist, but the cinematography was fabulous.
There were important lessons about the dangers of therapy and the safety of children, but as a film it hasn’t stayed with me. It frustrated, rather than shocked me, and even the genital mutilation scene was poorly done and an anticlimax.
I was hoping for resolution and I didn’t expect the ending, but I’m still going to recommend it to my book group.
VERDICT:***
LAURA O'HERLIHY
UNEMPLOYED, DUBLIN
I'm not a big horror movie fan, and this came off as an arty version of torture porn films like Saw. It has a touch of 1970s horror because of references to nature and paganism, but it feels as though von Trier is hitting his audience over the head and I wondered what the point of it was. I expected it to be shocking, but it wasn't. Even the female genital mutilation scene didn't shock me.
What I didn't expect was that it would be so relentlessly grim. There was no happiness to the film, in the way that Breaking the Waveshas a certain innocence and joy. The sex scenes were just animalistic coupling - there was no expression of love in anything Dafoe and Gainsbourg did. I'm guessing von Trier was trying to tell us that Nature is all powerful and that it's feminine, but that too much of that power is evil. It was all a bit obvious, and if he was cleverer, it wouldn't have come across that way.
On the whole, it wasn’t believable. Dafoe’s performance was laboured and the prologue resembled an early 1990s insurance ad. Art should enlighten and uplift and this doesn’t.
VERDICT:* (and a half)
GARY GRANT
SALES DIRECTOR, DUBLIN
The film starts with a beautifully shot scene, ending in the death of a child. It’s an event over which the parents have no control, and from this point all control is lost. A descent into chaos follows, summed up in one scene by a self-cannibalising fox who says “chaos reigns”, and that’s what von Trier is trying to say. Some of the shooting is fantastic and scenes of nature are particularly beautiful, with many having a dream-like quality that really appealed.
I found the unrelenting nature of the film quite tough to deal with by times. It shocked me in some ways, but then I think it would be an odd person who didn’t find some elements of it shocking: a baby falling from a window, graphic genital mutilation and a complete mental break down.
I’ve seen a number of von Trier’s movies and overall would be a fan. While he clearly has the ability to shock, he also has the talent to make other types of movies, from the comedic to the political to something like this. He’s even made a musical. He’s a real talent if a little odd. I’m glad I saw it but it’s not a film I’d recommend. People who want to see this will know to go and see it.
VERDICT:*** (and a half)
