There comes a film that once in a while completely baffles me in terms of where to place it. In the whole time I reviewed films, I've rarely come across those films. Lars Von Trier's ANTICHRIST is definitely one of those rare and exceptional films. Without giving out too many spoilers this film was clearly written in a state of depression or in a time of pure grief. Von Trier has transported me to a world where you just feel the pain, blood, sweat, and tears present in every single frame of this beautifully shot film. However, I while I did enjoy the film to an extent, I can't quite defend it. It is a divisive film. There are a number of conflicting opinions on the film. Some call it an artistic achievement. Some call it just an offensive and terrible film and that the director is just "masturbating" on-screen. I called it a visceral experience and definitely not for the faint of heart.
On the positive side, this film has two great performances. Willem Dafoe is great in the role as "HE." His character is very sympathetic and you feel as if he is a character that is conflicted between choices of the intellect and choices of the heart. He is a well rounded character and I thought Defoe did a great job portraying that. The main thing that stood out for me was Charlotte Gainsbourg. She was fantastic in her role. She communicated that grief aspect to her character. I thought that she had a lot to say with simply her eyes and you do feel she has changed by the end of the picture. Both Her and Defoe did a great and believable performance, but Gainsbourg pulled a career defining performance. It takes a lot of bravery for Gainsbourg to pull off the emotions that she portrayed in the film. This is not a easy performance to watch or portray and she did a great job. You can see she is an actress with a lot of potential. The cinematography is just excellent. The film looks amazing and it has all of these nightmarish imagery that will shock you and stay with you for a long time to come.
On to the negatives.
While the visuals and the performances are definitely there, there doesn't really seem to be a rhyme or a reason as to why the extreme things are happening onscreen. There really isn't much to be said or much to connect by the end. Although this film has a lot of thematic material that is reaching out to a higher concept, the film just seems as if it is made more to shock than anything else. The film is just a visceral experience. It is stunningly shot, but it is very much an art house film of a different sort. The symbolism of the picture gives it a conflicting tone. It is called Anti-Christ, but the last act of the film doesn't really connect well to the promise from the first two acts. The last act is an all out endurance test. The two climatic set pieces that guarantee this will get an NC-17 rating, will have you cringe in your seat. It is pretty outlandish. The nudity in the film also becomes very distracting at points. The film after a while just had me question what is the purpose of trying to gross out or offend the audience. It is just buying into it's own ideals a bit too much and you get the sense that the director has completely alienated his audience for the sake of shock value.
Ultimately, I feel that the film was a strong experience in cinema, but not one I'd go back and rewatch again anytime soon. I'd say it's a beautiful looking film and it makes you dive into the nightmarish dreams of the director. It's definitely not a film for everyone. People will be split on the integrity of the film. While I did think it was worthwhile and not boring, I wouldn't recommend all to see it. I would say this film is a MATINEE, only because you owe it to yourself to see it in a cinema and get the full experience of the picture the way it was intended to be seen. This film is unapologetic as is Lars Von Trier's vision of a couple's descent into madness.
8 of 10
No comments:
Post a Comment