For those confused by the meaning of the movie I found one person's analysis that makes pretty good sense:
"So I later found out that not only did Lars von Trier set out to specifically make a movie about misogyny, or rather, based on the historical, philosophical ideas of misogyny - he hired a journalist to research misogyny and write an article for a Danish paper, making a case for the idea that women are inherently evil. Knowing that, this all made a lot more sense, and it's actually quite interesting. Anyway, it's very very graphic and disturbing.] Most critics dismissed the story told and the artsy touches in Antichrist as excuses for von Trier to make a gratuitous torture thriller. I just watched it, and the reality is much more disturbing than that. Actually, Antichrist is very well constructed and thought out. Not one image, line or symbol is random or incoherent. Few are subtle - we have castration, the "Garden of Eden", Antichrist written with the venus symbol, bleeding aborting animals, dead baby birds pushed out of the nest, witch burning, female genital mutilation, etc. Together with the excellent acting and the story line, it conveys the director's vision perfectly. The result is by far the most misogynist film I've ever seen. In it, women, unlike men, are ruled by "nature". Nature which is devoid of logic, reason and self control; powerful, sexual, deceiptful, selfish and at times the epitomy of evil - the Antichrist. A child dies in an accident - or is the mother's sexual indulgence to blame? Take her out of civilization and off her pills for a few days, and you'll see what she really is. Exorcise her dirty body like a witch in the Dark Ages. Mutilate her like some repressive cultures still mutilate girls to keep that nasty, sexual Nature under control. What is not clear about the message?"
This is the darkest, saddest movie I've ever watched. It doesn't change the fact that it was very beautiful, the cinematography was perfectly executed and every aspect of every scene supported the main theme: misogyny and the ridiculous place that religions, societies and cultures of all sorts put women into. Don't know if I'm prepared to watch it again in order to understand everything... Very demanding.
I'm not going to pretend for a second that I fully understand it, but I don't think it was rubbish. I thought the atmosphere of the film was very well created and the two central performances are outstanding.
There are moments of genius, but it's mostly just a little too lacking in direction to be worthwhile.
I knew there was some controversy surrounding this film but I had read nothing about it so had no idea what it was going to be about. Now that ive seen i'm not much the wiser.
the reading of this movie as "misogynist" is a choice but trying to assert it as "the message of the film" is where the problem starts.
art can take the shape of what you want it to be, it is a mold that changes according to your beliefs, instincts, goals. in this movie, i see a grief-stricken mother's gradually losing touch with reality, nothing more.
if you want to see it as a misogynist attempt, fine. but do not try to shove it down people's throats like "you found the real message." that "holier-than-thou" behaviour is much more pathetic.
In this relatively quiet creep show, Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg are a couple who through negligence lose their child - he fell to his death while they were having sex. Dafoe's character is a therapist and decides to treat his wife's trauma by making her face her fears, which she associates with nature. So off they go to a cabin in the woods, and if you know anything about horror films, nothing ever good can ever happen there. She goes crazy, attacks him, and so on. On first approach, the film presents a puzzle. The chapter titles, their associations with symbolic animals, and dark painterly tableaux force the audience to think in terms other than literal. And what they heck is the Antichrist in this movie? My first thought - and it's still legitimate, I think, if not a complete analysis - is that a child (let's call him the Antichrist) heralds a personal end of days for the couple. The three animals, called the three beggars in the film, are opposites of the three wise men, and so on. But I read up afterwards, and apparently, the director (he of the recent "I'm a Nazi" bad joke controversy) wanted to make a film about misogyny through history, which is why the word Antichrist is written with the Venus symbol as the "t". What the film then shows us is a woman (and Nature, which is a female principle) both representative of the misogynistic beliefs about women (a hysteric conniver who needs a man to "reason" her out of her emotions) and a victim of the various atrocities committed against women through history and still today (whether witches, adulterers, or just part of cultural taboos or mutilations). This is meant to make you squirm, clearly. The film definitely lives in the sexual realm, certainly, with moments that may shock in their pornographic (but disturbing rather than arousing) content. When it comes to horror, I'm not much interested in jump scares and the like, but films like this one and the previous four, which are rather thought-provoking and disturbing instead, have much more value to me.
The Prologue of Antichrist was way too awesome and the entire film is quite disturbing at times but otherwise, it's just too dull and pointless. And the "Andrei Tarkovsky" tribute in the end makes it more lame...
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 15 of 43
guffaa88
For those confused by the meaning of the movie I found one person's analysis that makes pretty good sense:"So I later found out that not only did Lars von Trier set out to specifically make a movie about misogyny, or rather, based on the historical, philosophical ideas of misogyny - he hired a journalist to research misogyny and write an article for a Danish paper, making a case for the idea that women are inherently evil. Knowing that, this all made a lot more sense, and it's actually quite interesting. Anyway, it's very very graphic and disturbing.] Most critics dismissed the story told and the artsy touches in Antichrist as excuses for von Trier to make a gratuitous torture thriller. I just watched it, and the reality is much more disturbing than that. Actually, Antichrist is very well constructed and thought out. Not one image, line or symbol is random or incoherent. Few are subtle - we have castration, the "Garden of Eden", Antichrist written with the venus symbol, bleeding aborting animals, dead baby birds pushed out of the nest, witch burning, female genital mutilation, etc. Together with the excellent acting and the story line, it conveys the director's vision perfectly. The result is by far the most misogynist film I've ever seen. In it, women, unlike men, are ruled by "nature". Nature which is devoid of logic, reason and self control; powerful, sexual, deceiptful, selfish and at times the epitomy of evil - the Antichrist. A child dies in an accident - or is the mother's sexual indulgence to blame? Take her out of civilization and off her pills for a few days, and you'll see what she really is. Exorcise her dirty body like a witch in the Dark Ages. Mutilate her like some repressive cultures still mutilate girls to keep that nasty, sexual Nature under control. What is not clear about the message?"
Quinn Thibault
This is the darkest, saddest movie I've ever watched. It doesn't change the fact that it was very beautiful, the cinematography was perfectly executed and every aspect of every scene supported the main theme: misogyny and the ridiculous place that religions, societies and cultures of all sorts put women into. Don't know if I'm prepared to watch it again in order to understand everything... Very demanding.IanWass
If Lars Von Trier had directed STAR WARS, it would've ended in an hour-long scene in the trash compactor where they don't escape. - Patton OswaltBeasleyOnFilm
I'm not going to pretend for a second that I fully understand it, but I don't think it was rubbish. I thought the atmosphere of the film was very well created and the two central performances are outstanding.There are moments of genius, but it's mostly just a little too lacking in direction to be worthwhile.
OlgojHorhoj
The end credit said: "Dedicated to Andrei Tarkovsky." I understand why.jarmel
disturbing!mook
I knew there was some controversy surrounding this film but I had read nothing about it so had no idea what it was going to be about. Now that ive seen i'm not much the wiser.deckard.
the reading of this movie as "misogynist" is a choice but trying to assert it as "the message of the film" is where the problem starts.art can take the shape of what you want it to be, it is a mold that changes according to your beliefs, instincts, goals. in this movie, i see a grief-stricken mother's gradually losing touch with reality, nothing more.
if you want to see it as a misogynist attempt, fine. but do not try to shove it down people's throats like "you found the real message." that "holier-than-thou" behaviour is much more pathetic.
balki
comfortable movie.BarbieLover
God bless Lars Von Trier.God Saves Charlotte Gainsbourg.
God let me suck Willem Dafoe's cock.
monclivie
A couple goes to the woods to work on their grief related relationship issues. Hilarity ensues.Siskoid
In this relatively quiet creep show, Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg are a couple who through negligence lose their child - he fell to his death while they were having sex. Dafoe's character is a therapist and decides to treat his wife's trauma by making her face her fears, which she associates with nature. So off they go to a cabin in the woods, and if you know anything about horror films, nothing ever good can ever happen there. She goes crazy, attacks him, and so on. On first approach, the film presents a puzzle. The chapter titles, their associations with symbolic animals, and dark painterly tableaux force the audience to think in terms other than literal. And what they heck is the Antichrist in this movie? My first thought - and it's still legitimate, I think, if not a complete analysis - is that a child (let's call him the Antichrist) heralds a personal end of days for the couple. The three animals, called the three beggars in the film, are opposites of the three wise men, and so on. But I read up afterwards, and apparently, the director (he of the recent "I'm a Nazi" bad joke controversy) wanted to make a film about misogyny through history, which is why the word Antichrist is written with the Venus symbol as the "t". What the film then shows us is a woman (and Nature, which is a female principle) both representative of the misogynistic beliefs about women (a hysteric conniver who needs a man to "reason" her out of her emotions) and a victim of the various atrocities committed against women through history and still today (whether witches, adulterers, or just part of cultural taboos or mutilations). This is meant to make you squirm, clearly. The film definitely lives in the sexual realm, certainly, with moments that may shock in their pornographic (but disturbing rather than arousing) content. When it comes to horror, I'm not much interested in jump scares and the like, but films like this one and the previous four, which are rather thought-provoking and disturbing instead, have much more value to me.egress63
I didn't understand this movie. And I don't know whether the fault for this lies with me or with von Trier...Larkspire
Loved the cinematography, not sure I can grasp the rest of it.Filmsthemostbeautifulart
The Prologue of Antichrist was way too awesome and the entire film is quite disturbing at times but otherwise, it's just too dull and pointless. And the "Andrei Tarkovsky" tribute in the end makes it more lame...2.5/5
Showing items 1 – 15 of 43