Antichrist can't be completely discounted as, admittedly, it is a well made film, one that features two excellent lead performances from Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg. Both actors fully commit to the material here, particularly Gainsbourg, who does some things that other actresses simply wouldn't dream of. And for that I applaud her, even if I can't see what she, or Dafoe, saw in this project beyond the opportunity to show to what extremes they're willing to go. Apart from some extras at the beginning and end of the film, they're the only two to be seen. The film also has beautiful cinematography by Anthony Dod Mantle (who recently won an Oscar for Slumdog Millionaire), but any effect of that is virtually lost when what's taking place on-screen is so vile.
Along with Antichrist feeling like it was made with a feeling of superiority on the part of von Trier, it also feels like it's been made simply to draw attention. And if that was the aim it certainly worked, as it was one of the most discussed movies at Cannes this year and with more chatter coming out of its UK première screening than when fanboys flooded to the theatres for The Dark Knight last summer. But if that aim means we have to endure a barrage of horrid, offensive content, then I say no thank you, Mr. von Trier.
If you look hard enough, von Trier is exploring such ideas as female sexuality and women's ability to be as evil as men (the latter is portrayed more frequently in the movies). But is the latter, in particular, really that interesting to warrant an entire movie about it, especially one that's so explicit? Some would argue it needs to be in order for it to feel real, and I'll give it that – it's certainly realistic. But watching some of the things that happen in this movie (if any of you are anticipating this thing, I'll leave some of those things as surprises) is not my idea of quality, and certainly not entertainment.
Article comments