Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Empire Magazine and iPad
Follow Me on Pinterest YouTube Tumblr Viber
Trending On Empire
The Big 2015 Movie Preview
The 50 Best Films Of 2014
Review Of The Year 2014
Roar Power
Jurassic World unleashed on iTunes
Halo 5 Guardians
The Master Chief returns

Cannes 2009
Daily Movie News, Photos And Exclusive Video From The 2009 Cannes Film Festival

Back to the Cannes 2009 blog homepage

Cannes Day Five: Antichrist!
Posted on Monday May 18, 2009, 03:51 by Damon Wise

It's incredibly late at night, or rather, it's early in the morning, but I feel I have to write about Antichrist, the new film by Lars Von Trier. I avoided everyone who went to the earlier screening and I saw the film cold (well, lukewarm by anyone else's standards, since I knew that Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg were in it, and that their only co-stars were a fox, a deer and a bird). Anyhow, I was blown away by it. You will have read by now that it is terrible, an embarrassment and a career low, and I can't argue with any of that, since I can't figure out how to give it an Empire rating myself. So it's not a film I can recommend. But it's definitely something I can say is worth seeing if you want to see where film history has been, is at, and can go (if that makes sense). To be honest, I thought that Lars, sensing his career as an ageing enfant terrible was about to go tits up, would deliver a gruesome, gruelling genre movie to re-establish himself as a provocateur. He's delivered a genre movie all right, but this is a film that drives at the arthouse canon head-on. It is dedicated to Andrei Tarkovsky, and if that name means nothing to you, please stay away.

And I'm not being patronising. Antichrist is to cinema what Lou Reed's Berlin was to rock music. It is a film that exists only in a continuum, and that continuum consists of films that Lars has either made or likes. So, in the words of American Psycho: this is not an exit. It's not escapist. It challenges you to believe in the power of cinema on its own terms. It is wilfully difficult. Not only is the sexuality bold, its imagery is positively hardcore. It invites you to revisit a specific time in film history when a director's vision was something for critics to keep up with, not just review. It is often laughable, mostly slow, sometimes theatrical and almost always artificial. But what Lars is driving at is something completely bizarre, massively uncommercial and strangely perfect.

When I read the synopsis – basically, a couple go to the woods to recover from the death of their son... with supernatural results – I thought that Lars was going back to The Kingdom territory to pay the rent. But what he's delivered is something entirely different: calculating (as I thought) but never cynical. Antichrist is a fascinating, flawed but ultimately galvanising piece of work. It's provocative and daring (in ways I won't reveal) but wholly, wholly energising (in ways I just never expected). I described it to someone earlier as being like performance art – and I hate performance art. But what I think I meant by that (the uncertainty is deliberate) is that Lars is here trying to re-engage us with ideas of art, and what is art, and though the film doesn't quite compare with David Lynch's recent output in its depiction of the uncanny, it fantastically achieves a sense of the absurd and unsettling.

I'm a tough crowd, but this film completely unnerved me in a way that I've never experienced before. It's about men and women, and woman and men, and seeing it so soon after Taking Woodstock makes me immediately think of that film with its pretentious theatre troupe and their gonzo staging of Chekhov's Three Sisters. But Antichrist is more than a prog-rock triple album in film form, and Lars is so far ahead of the game here that it beggars belief. Who knows whether it's good or bad (although some of the ever-literal US critics have already armed their battlements); Lars Von Trier is daring to engage with film form on a level that few of his peers could even attempt. It's like hearing Little Richard's first album again after anything by Coldplay, and that can only be a good thing.

Login or register to comment.



1 stevos
Posted on Monday May 18, 2009, 10:06
Wow- love the 'review' Damon. So was it good or bad? :-)

No matter, I love Lars Von Trier, so I'm excited about anything he does- although The Boss Of It All was truly terrible and unwatchable!

2 kpenga
Posted on Monday May 18, 2009, 18:16
Love or hate his movies, daring moviemakers like Trier are something cinema cant survive without

Its provocative. Its what keeps people going
Glen Michael Michaels

3 Acho
Posted on Tuesday May 19, 2009, 02:10
That's stirring stuff indeed. I've read a bunch of the 'reviews' that are up today and they really do vary. Some are more articulate than others though; "Antichrist = fartbomb" does not a convincing argument make! While the film does sound like somewhat uncomfortable viewing, I still really want to see it.

Between Taking Woodstock and Antichrist, that's two films in less than a week that you've been moved to write about in the early hours. Bodes well for our future viewing, even if you're flying in the face of popular opinion!

4 paganprincess
Posted on Sunday May 24, 2009, 09:44
I do wish to see this film but out of curiosity. Tell me, why is it necessary for the female character to mutilate her genitals? It is always the woman whose genitals are violated or mutilated. It makes one wonder just what these film makers really think about women and female sexuality. I find it very disturbing indeed.

5 Swan05
Posted on Sunday May 24, 2009, 21:13
Sorry paganprincess, going to have to disagree there. I can only think of one other film (The Exorcist) that features female genital violence yet lots where men suffer trouser trauma (Pulp Fiction, Sin City, Hard Candy not that I'm writing a novel on the subject or anything, although.....). Bit of a knee jerk reaction perhaps?

Log in below, or register to post comments
Remember Me:


Cannes: The End
By Damon Wise

Cannes Day Ten: The White Ribbon
By Damon Wise

Photo Special: Inglourious Basterds Photocall
By Amar Vijay

Cannes Day Eight: Basterds!
By Damon Wise

Cannes Photo Roundup
By Amar Vijay


Cannes Video Blog #4
"1 - wtf was Kingsley on about?, hell, just what was he on?! Need his weedman contact details  livinlaj
Read comment

Cannes Memories
"Zing! Nice summary alright. Empire seems pretty united on being positive about Ta"  Acho
Read comment

Cannes Memories
"Thanks for the concise, relatively brief review - this is most appreciated when some critics seem to"  Manfrendshensindshen
Read comment

Cannes Video Blog #11
"Taken is one of those 'Ronseal' movies, in that it does exactly what it says on the tin ... in it's "  indytim
Read comment

Cannes Video Blog #11
"God, I love Taken so damn much, and yet hate it, too. Though you can't really take a film like that"  MovieMogul
Read comment


Cannes Day Eight: Basterds!

Cannes Day Five: Antichrist!

Cannes Day Two: Tetro

Cannes Day Three: Part Two

Cannes Day Four: Thelma and not Louise*

Back | Print This Page | Email This Page | Back To Top

Subscribe now and save up to 63%
Print, Digital & Package options available Subscribe today!
Empire's Film Studies 101 Series
Everything you ever wanted to know about filmmaking but were afraid to ask...
The Empire Digital Edition
With exclusive extras, interactive features, trailers and much more! Download now
Home  |  News  |  Blogs  |  Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Interviews  |  Images  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Digital Edition  |  Podcast  |  Magazine Contact Us  |  Empire FAQ  |  Subscribe To Empire  |  Register
© Bauer Consumer Media Ltd  |  Legal Info  |  Editorial Complaints  |  Privacy Policy  |  Bauer Entertainment Network
Bauer Consumer Media Ltd (company number 01176085 and registered address 1 Lincoln Court, Lincoln Road, Peterborough, England PE1 2RF)