Lars von Trier does not run away from extremes, he is actually looking for them all over his cinematographic career. Even his more ‘moderate’ films, like the TV series ‘The Kingdom‘ or his first great successes ‘Europa‘ and ‘Breaking the Waves‘ included innovative television or cinematographic elements. Later he went toward extremes in almost every film that he directed. ‘Dogville‘ is a dry and theoretic example of where the Dogma school can reach, ‘Melancholia‘ is the most beautiful end of the world ever filmed, while ‘Nymphomaniac‘ explores the borders of sexuality. ‘Antichrist‘ belongs to the later phase of his career, one in which each of his film must come with disclaimers and warnings, requiring viewers to follow him in unexplored territories which in most cases are dark and frightening.
Up to a certain point the story in ‘Antichrist‘ can be told. He (Willem Dafoe) and She (Charlotte Gainsbourg) are faced with the nightmare of any couple of parents – their young boy falls from the window and dies. She feels grief and remorse (the accident took place while they were making love). He is a psychiatrist and tries to cure her grief renouncing medication and confronting her with the roots of her fears, which may reside in a trip taken together with their son one year earlier, in the woods. The couple will go together to that place in order to complete the cure, but this will open the Pandora box of the worsening of the relations between them, under the threat of Nature which far from being friendly or neutral seems to become more of a Satanic threat. This is approximately the point until the story may be the topic of many films in a range from the romantic thriller to horror. From now on however Lars von Trier takes the viewers to unexplored territory, to dark zones for which ‘horror’ or even ‘sadism’ are two words that can be considered euphemisms. Man to Woman become cruel predators, nature amplifies the terror, and no graphical detail of the mutual destruction is spared from viewers. I can guess that all public viewings of this film witnessed people leaving the cinema theater because they were not capable of seeing more of the cruelty on the screen.
What’s the point? I will not claim to have the key. It seems to be the work of a tormented soul, belonging to the category of dark and macabre products which some will consider art maybe at its extreme, and other will believe it’s trash or even pornography. I personally incline to side the extreme art opinion. It is a very dark and pessimistic story that hits viewers in their stomachs, but its aesthetic value especially in cinematography, sound and music cannot be denied. The story also holds a message – too much rationality can give birth to monsters, same as the sleep of ration, especially when it comes to curing grief after an irreparable loss. Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg assumed the risk of acting in a film which must have been very demanding from a physical but also psychological point of view. They did well, but something was missing. If there ever was love between their two characters, this never came up on screen. Is the amount of violence, sexuality and gore on screen justified? This is a question to ask Lars von Trier.