Note: Unfortunately, due to buses running late and just general Murphy’s law-esque events, I arrived late for the screening and missed the first 15 minutes or so of the film.

Lars von Trier is an odd guy. But you probably knew that already. In some ways, Antichrist is the most anti-mainstream of his films – and considering this is the man who made not one, but two 150+ minute films where the only set is a sound stage with chalk written on the floor, that’s quite a feat.

Most followers of film are aware of the story by now – von Trier was being treated for severe depression, and wondered if he would ever make another film. He wrote Antichrist as an exercise to see if he could still write, and then filmed it while still depressed, using, in his own words, “about half of my physical and intellectual capacity”. He then takes it to Cannes, where it attracts incredible controversy and leads to him proclaiming himself the best director in the world in a press conference. Despite the controversy, it still gets picked up uncut by many distributors, including British company Artificial Eye, who showed an advanced screening of the film at London’s Curzon Mayfair, where your intrepid Projectorhead got to watch it.

I’m trying to keep this review as free of any plot points as I can, as I believe it’s the type of film that would be best viewed knowing as little as possible. That being said, I loved Antichrist – it’s an incredible mixture of the beautiful and the hideous (In the same shot, most of the time) that never lets up on the tension. Seriously, it’s probably the most tense film I’ve ever seen.

It’s also one of the best-looking. The director of photography, Anthony Dod Mantle (Who, I should point out, has a fantastic resume – three Dogme films, including Festen and julien donkey-boy, von Trier’s Dogville and sequel Manderlay, and the recent Best Picture winner Slumdog Millionaire, which netted him a cinematography Oscar too) does some amazing things with the shot, and makes it look more ethereal than any other film I’ve ever seen – which, of course, requires both light and dark elements. The visual style alone would be enough for me to want to see it ten more times.

Within the first half or so of the film, we see some of the best examples of psychological dialogue I’ve ever seen. The use of cognitive therapy – which von Trier mentions he was going through at the time – is fairly interesting, and it’s not clear what he’s trying to say about it. Many think it his usual sense of humour and that he’s poking fun at it, or playing a game, but he remains adamant that there is nothing intentionally funny about this film, and he wasn’t in his usual mischievous mood while shooting it. The second half changes dramatically, and if I have to be honest, not for the better – it becomes, in a way, much less deep and less keen to explore the inner sanctions of the mind. The last scene before that change, though, ohhh god. It was one of the biggest shocks of the film.

The performances by the stars, Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg, are nothing short of astounding. Their commitment to the film, and to von Trier and his vision, is clear, and they leap into their roles as fiercely as possible, embodying the characters and making us feel every single moment. Gainsbourg’s Best Actress win at Cannes was well-deserved, and it’s weird to think that at one point the female lead could have been played by Eva Green.

I’d like to give this film 5 stars, simply because of how it looks and feels, but there are a few things that are holding it back for me (Aside from the fact I missed the start), mainly the lack of a clear message. Von Trier has never been afraid of speaking out – in Breaking The Waves, the critique of organised religion is strong and venomous, and the ending credits of Dogville, a photo montage of Americans living in poverty, speak for themselves. Antichrist feels the same, but yet different…it’s like von Trier wants to say something, but he doesn’t know what, or to who. It could just be a straight psychological/horror movie, but it doesn’t feel like it. It could be an insight into von Trier’s warped mind at the time, but it doesn’t feel like that either. It’s like it’s pushing itself to be more, despite not knowing what that might necessarily mean. Von Trier describes it as his most personal film, yet it has the least directoral bias of any of his films that I’ve seen.

That being said, it’s still a hell of an experience. Lars von Trier has always been fearless with his films, and this is no exception. He gets accused of misogyny, of being self-indulgent, and while those may both be true….who cares? The man knows how to make an incredible movie. Beautiful, disturbing, moving, and shocking, Antichrist is, the best film I’ve seen all year, and lived up to my expectations in every way.

Rating:

Note: The screening I attended had a live Q&A webcast with von Trier after the film was shown. I recorded the audio for the entire thing, but it seems that much of it is inaudible. If at all possible, I’ll try and get a transcript up.