Directed by: Lar von Trier
Starring: Willem DeFoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg
Plot: A wife and husband in a cabin in a woods go on a magical violence-filled journey up Lars von Trier's ass.
You know what I hate about arty films? Most of them don't make sense, they're so wrapped up in symbolism (some of which makes no sense no matter how you look at it) and random bits that are inserted just for the purpose of looking arty. Then when the director is questioned on why his coming-of-age comedy features a scene with a CGI scorpion throwing a trashcan full of a hot dogs at a naked and bound five-year-old girl he can simply go "I'm an artist! It's not my fault you can't interpret such high art!" and I'm expected to get "emperor's new clothes syndrome" where I start pretending I understand the symbolism.
But what's worse than random bullshit that's supposed to mean something that clearly doesn't (*cough*Eraserhead*cough*) is a very straight-forward movie so stuck up its own ass that everybody who sees it misses the point entirely.
This brings us to "Antichrist" a film that's been labeled as a romanticism of misogny, a representation of the director's fear of vaginae, and a feminist victory anthem (whoever holds this opinion should seek help soon.) The thing is the plot, the symbolism, and the meaning behind the title are rather clear cut and self-explanatory and peoples' interpretations have really served less as an idea of the intentions of the movie and more as a Rorschach test showing how most of these people think.
Why does that guy's mask have a picture of a vagina shooting fire on it?So the characters are He (Willem Defoe) and She (Charlotte Gainsbourg) a married couple who come under friction when their son stage dives out their fourth story window whilst they're busy having over-passionate indie-film sex.
She gets really fucked in the head so He takes her out to a cabin in the woods in an area called Eden (I smell allegory!) where She and their son had stayed for a long time before he become intimately acquainted with a sidewalk.
She's very troubled, but fortunately He is a psychiatrist and does what he can to fix her mentally. She slowly begins to be making progress and then is suddenly better, naturally he's skeptic as she went from fucking crazy to suddenly okay.
She regresses and begins raving how she and all women are evil and that all the horrible atrocities visted upon women throughout history were done by men that knew that women were evil. Then when she's confronted with an autopsy report showing that their son's feet were deformed and several pictures of him with his shoes on backwards she goes nuts and does things I won't refer to by name. They also hatefuck each other a whole bunch of times.
Now here's the clear cut part and there's some slight spoilers here but you'll live. The movie nowhere says that all women are evil, only that She is evil. She clearly suffers from a terrible case of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, a cry for attention that often involves hurting others, particularly children, for the person's benefit.
Early in the movie She says He hasn't been spending enough time with her and if you watch closely the baby gate is unlocked, the window is unlatched, and the baby moniter is turned to mute. Of course later on we also find out she was watching as the baby swan dove out the window (for reasons I simply don't understand.)
She is not the literal Antichrist, but this is how She sees herself and by proxy, other women. This too is a cry for attention, seeing how she's getting nothing more from Him, she decides that to be reviled is better than nothing. Then of course her horrible "Misery" moment toward the end is the last step in keeping him around in much the same way deforming her son's feet was..
Now of course where shit gets complicated is the appearance of 3 animals that represent 3 parts of dealing with death. A fox, a bird, and a deer. He sees all 3 of these, and the fox famously says "Chaos Reigns" at the end of Act 2. Many interpreted this and the weird as fuck epilogue as supernatural but I took it as Him going crazy. He watched his son die too and it wasn't just Her who was under severe mental strain (one would argue that she wasn't under any as she was crazy to begin with.)
He even sees these animals represented as star constellations at the end of the movie and says "There are no such constellations." As such, there are no animals, they're extensions of His mind helping him to figure things out and understand how messed up She really is. Some may see the ending as misogniystic but honestly She really leaves Him no choice. But ultimately this is a self-contained story having to do with one woman and one man, not all men and all women.
She is evil, She is the "Antichrist" in her eyes and she wants Him who She sees as good to kill what is evil. Of course all the extra artsy crap is what muddles this message and it seems to be what everybody is getting hung up on. They can't seem to see the forest for all the trees.
"Antichrist's" pretentiousness is really its own worst enemy but I kind of think that's what von Trier was going for. The infamous is almost always vastly more popular than the famous and to be reviled gets a lot more attention.
Now don't get me wrong, this is a beautifully shot, well acted movie. But between the violence, the nudity, the explicit sex, and everything else at its heart "Antichrist" is just a 70s exploitation movie with delusions of grandeur.
I myself can't deny that it's not a "bad" movie but there's really nothing special about it other than the shocking and grotesque, and that makes it more of a novelty than a film.
It seems deep but it's really just a disguise for how shallow it is and once the shock of what you've just seen wears off it's just like any other violent "people in the woods" movie. I don't dislike it but ultimately I have no desire to ever see it again.
I give "Antichirst" a 3 out of 5. Worst kung fu move EVER!
No comments:
Post a Comment