COMM 380: Media Criticism
A review of Lars Von Trier's Antichrist (2009)
By Nicole Hinojosa
Communication, B.A., Political Communication
A film so shocking, divisive, and controversial, it was met with both boos and applause after its premiere at the Cannes film festival. It’s been called offensive and disgusting by some critics, as much as it has been revered as a historical work of art by others. Filmed by notorious and controversial Danish director Lars Von Trier, Antichrist is a shocking yet beautifully and uniquely shot psychological horror film which Von Trier has considered the most important film of his career.
Antichrist is broken up into five sections: Prologue, Chapter 1: Grief, Chapter 2: Pain, Chapter 3: Despair, Chapter 4: The three beggars, and the Epilogue. In the Prologue, two characters, only known throughout the movie as He (Willem Dafoe) and She (Charlotte Gainsbourg), are having sex in their bedroom while their toddler manages to get out of his crib unbeknownst to the couple. The toddler then climbs up to an open window where he falls to his death. The rest of the movie then follows the couples attempt of dealing with the loss of their child. She ends up being terribly grief-stricken and her husband, He, is a therapist who decides to remove her from the hospital she was in and provide treatment to her instead. They end up venturing to their cabin, Eden, in the forest, a place where She is greatly terrified of as a method of treatment. He begins having strange hallucinations and She becomes even more mentally distraught eventually manifesting her frustrations in sadomasochist sex and extremely difficult to watch violence.
Aside from the more obvious theological and psychiatric themes, the film has been criticized for its misogynistic anti-woman sentiments. This view produced several angry condemnations on the film’s misogynistic sentiment from mainly male but also a handful of female critics. At first glance, perhaps this film may not immediately feel like a progressive stride for women in film, or perhaps even generally womanhood.
Yet, Antichrist is very much a feminist film. Would Antichrist pass conventional established tools for analysis of women in film such as the Bechdel test? Perhaps not since there’s not even really more than two real characters to make that judgment, yet a woman does have one, if not the, major role in this film. This only shows that critical evaluation of Antichrist must be made through a more critical and perhaps unconventional feminist lens.
In an in-depth critical examination of the film through a unique feminist lens, one can see that the films symptomatic meaning is one of violent female rebellion against her controlling patriarchal husband, the traditional subservient imposition that comes of the politics of expected reproduction and motherhood, and a radical notion of overlooked empowerment through a woman antichrist.
At the forefront, the most easily distinguishable evidence of this can be seen through
the symbolic nature of the characters. He representing the patriarchy through his
dominant patronizing demeanor. She represented the growingly disgruntled female
typecast as the damsel in distress. He is a therapist whose arrogance leads him to
believe he can provide superior treatment for She even at her reluctance,
pointing out the familial conflict of interest.
Unbothered by that, the film then revolves around He trying to treat her grief, which Film Critic Roger Ebert, points out as erroneous since grief instead should be accepted and lived through. Ebert's own interpretation of He as a controlling, dominant figure “moved by the traumatic death to punish the woman who delivered his child into the world” aids in reinforcing this inherently patriarchal nature of He’s character.
Growing tired of the patronization, She’s consistent angry outbursts of backlash at He throughout the film can be seen as her building dismay with his character and the controlling patriarchy it represents. This is perfectly summed up in her dialogue in one of the central scenes when she tells him she feels better and he negates that, she states “You think your so much smarter…you're so damned arrogant ... you're so clever. You can't just be happy for me, can you?”
The traditional tales of damsels in distress consistently needing rescue by a male savior have inspired that patriarchal male savior complex. Encouraging the idea that the male knows what a female needs in order to be saved negating the relevance of the females own needs or desires, this is very well exemplified in the film during one of the many therapy session where He says, “I see” and She points out, “No you don’t see.” Later when He finds She’s thesis writings on the inherent evil nature of the female, tucked away in their cabin, he scolds her. This really reinforcing his patronizing and disconnected role, lecturing her like a parent to a child on why she’s wrong instead of trying to understand her state of mind regarding the matter.
The culmination of all these patronizing aggressions felt by She is manifested in the subsequent ghastly attack on him in the latter part of the film. Symbolically, a radical violent feminist revolt against the controlling and dominant patriarchy. Even in the following scenes after the attack, She’s sudden moments of hysterical crying showing apparent regret perhaps confusing the viewer on her intentions are negated when she looks at He and cryptically says, “a crying woman is a scheming woman.”
The very gender of the child is also extremely significant given there are only three real characters present. The fact that their child, Nic, is a male reinforces the idea of a feminist rejection of the patriarchy. He finds out in the coroner’s autopsy on the child’s body and through old photographs of the child that She was knowingly deforming his feet. Critic Siri Erika Gullestad points to as She’s intention to cripple the child. This simultaneously showing She rejecting the ingrained belief of a women’s sole purpose as a medium for reproduction followed by the subservient politics of conventional motherhood and symbolically crippling the gender that oppresses her.
Though doesn’t this sadism and violence She exerts reinforce the film’s negative and controversial depiction of female nature as inherently evil? Yes, it does. Think about it, it is practically inherent to think of God manifested as a male figure and Satan or antichrist as one as well. Even if perhaps we may not wish to assign mortal genders to these theological figures, somehow inherently we have, and we do. The idea of the antichrist as female is more radically progressive than that of God as a female given that female is held traditionally closer to the standard of good than evil.
The significance of sex of pleasure as a connotation of evil reinforces the shame and guilt Christianity and similar theological religions and beliefs have historically put on sex and sexuality. Though perhaps sexual desire is more liberated now, women are still strictly judged and condemned for a sexual nature as liberal as her male counterpart. The idea of a woman who strays from the strict ethical or moralistic standards that a patriarchal society has imposed on her is far more difficult to bear, causing harsher criticism on sexually liberated women.
She’s consistent desire for sex throughout the film contrasted by her husband’s withdrawal of it or reluctance in it, reinforces this evil vs perceived good each character displays. She is projected as an inherently evil character in the film, even alluding to her as the antichrist itself is a radical rebellion of all the ethical and moral standards and limitations imposed on women by religion, history, and male-dominated patriarchal society.
While it may be instinctual to ruminate on the more obvious themes of theology, Christianity, or human nature when viewing the film one ought to be encouraged to exercise a more unconventional critical analysis. Antichrist serves as a feminist horror film of radically evil empowerment through a philosophically symbolic story of violent female rebellion against her patriarchal oppressor, rejection of the ethical typecast of motherhood and its subservience, and a radical statement of absolute empowerment through a female-gendered antichrist. Yet like with the Bible and other theological theories this film takes inspiration from, Antichrist is a piece of philosophical artwork meant to incite the strongest human emotions and exercise an analysis of inherent metaphysical views inviting you to make your own interpretation of this hauntingly heavy and beautifully directed film.
References
Amazon.com: Watch Antichrist | Prime Video. (n.d.). Retrieved July 30, 2020, from https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005900DH6?pf_rd_r=V0RT8YR690F9M9Q7MA70&pf_rd_p=edaba0ee-c2fe-4124-9f5d-b31d6b1bfbee
Brooks, X. (2009, July 16). Antichrist: A work of genius or the sickest film in the history of cinema? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/jul/16/antichrist-lars-von-trier-feminism
Cannes 2009 Reactions: Antichrist. (2009, May 19). FILMdetail. http://www.filmdetail.com/2009/05/19/cannes-2009-reactions-antichrist/
Ebert, R. (n.d.). Antichrist movie review & film summary (2009) | Roger Ebert. Https://Www.Rogerebert.Com/. Retrieved July 30, 2020, from https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/antichrist-2009
Hanson, R. E. (2019). Mass communication: Living in a media world (Seventh ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Lars von Trier film “Antichrist” shocks Cannes. (2009, May 17). Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cannes-antichrist-idUSTRE54G2JF20090517
Lars von Trier welcomes “Antichrist” angst. (n.d.). The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved July 31, 2020, from https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/lars-von-trier-welcomes-antichrist-86685
Longworth, K. (2009, October 23). Why “Antichrist” Is a Feminist Horror Film. Slate Magazine. https://slate.com/human-interest/2009/10/why-antichrist-is-a-feminist-horror-film.html
Raphael, A. (2009, July 17). Is Lars Von Trier’s Antichrist really anti-women? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/jul/18/lars-von-trier-antichrist
Tookey, C. (n.d.). Antichrist: The man who made this horrible, misogynistic film needs to see a shrink. Mail Online. Retrieved July 31, 2020, from
Björkman, S. (2009). Making the Waves. Sight & Sound, 19(8), 16–19.
Boyd, N. (2016). “Nature Is Satan’s Church”: Depression and the Politics of Gender in Lars von Trier’s Antichrist. Offscreen, 20(8), 1–1.
Gullestad, S. E. (2011). Crippled feet: Sadism in Lars von Trier’s Antichrist. The Scandinavian Psychoanalytic Review, 34(2), 79–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/01062301.2011.10592890
Must We Burn Lars von Trier? Simone de Beauvoir’s Body Politics in Antichrist - ProQuest. (n.d.). Retrieved July 28, 2020, from https://search-proquest-com.mutex.gmu.edu/docview/1673958850?accountid=14541&rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo
Thomsen, B. M. S. (2009). Antichrist—Chaos Reigns: The event of violence and the haptic image in Lars von Trier’s film. Journal of Aesthetics & Culture, 1(1), 3668. https://doi.org/10.3402/jac.v1i0.3668
The historical and even theological view of women as pure, ethical yet naïve creatures has typecast femininity into a box. Women are often held to a moralistically higher standard than men, where any female who exhibits anything that should go against that is ostracized and indemnified. The symbolism in the use of witches during the discovery of She’s thesis in the film is a notable subject that exemplifies this. Witches were burned at the stake and associated with evil, though historically and in popular culture even, we don’t often hear much about their male counterparts like warlocks or sorcerers, especially being presented in the same evil sentiment as witches.
