ANTICHRIST

ARTIFICIAL EYE 

RELEASED 24 July 2009

‘Antichrist’ starts with a prologue of some of the most beautiful cinematography you’ve ever seen. With Handel’s music soaring, Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg lose themselves in each other as their young son Nic is lost, crashing to earth from an appartment window, a woollen rabbit pathetically broken beside him. With each shot composed like a painting, it’s draining, economical storytelling.

The first chapter moves us to present day. The couple (we never find out their names) are shattered by grief, and slowly begin the process of trying to establish what kind of life they can have in the absence of their son. Dafoe begins to take charge of the rehabilitation, through sole focus on Gainsbourg, as his self-belief overrides his ability to accept that anyone else can ‘fix’ what has happened. The controlling arrogance of his therapist training is stereotypical, but any expectations you may have are mis-leading. As therapists often do (in films at least), Dafoe looks for the most cathartic environment to continue his work, and persuades Gainsbourg that their cabin in the woods will be the place where this will have the greatest effect.

We’ve been here (cinematically-speaking) before. Thrillers from ‘Don’t Look Now’ to ‘Dead Calm’ have explored the grief and struggle to come to terms with the loss of a child using an isolating environment. ‘Antichrist’ differs in that there is no specific external cipher - the dwarf in the red coat, Billy Zane’s psychotic sailor - to facilitate the process to redemption, desolation or death. The film appears to move into eco-horror territory, but the environment which initially seems to attack the couple evolves into a supportive role in resolving the drama. Where it goes with this, and some of the portrayal of the animal participants, is the source of much of the film’s controversy.

Is it that shocking? There is no doubt that the sexual nature of the film, as well as the graphic violence (and lets not be coy here, by the finale the two combine to an effect which makes anyone watching wince), puts it in the league of arthouse ‘nasty’ that would have had it considered for a ban until quite recently. The film is more than that though, and the mythological aspects, combined with some quite baffling developments, mean you will be running bits of the film through your head for weeks afterwards trying to figure out what the puzzle means. That’s unless, as one audience member put it after walking out at the end, ’I’d rather mutilate myself with a pair of rusty scissors than watch that again’. The film wil certainly engender strong opinion.

Is ‘Antichrist’ misogynistic? I can see why a lot of people might think so, but that would imply a deliberate direction which I don’t think is there. As for the title, who the ‘antichrist’ is remains ambivalent. One reading could be that it’s an antithesis to the Christ story - in this case three beggars witness the death of an infant and the failure of the parents to resolve their issues, flipping the three wise men visiting the perfect family story around. I think one thing’s for sure, this will be a film that is seen more in film studies and sociology degree curriculum than in DVD rental charts and box office returns. I’d see it again just for the visual impact of the prologue and epilogue, but there’s a lot more besides (and some of it does seem a bit silly). Is it good? A yes vote from me.

Chris Giles

FOUR OUT OF FIVE