Antichrist: A Review

A review, for those who might be interested, of the controversial film Antichrist. Be warned, there are spoilers ahead, and for those of you who might still want to go and see this picture, then I would advise you read this article after you have done so. 

On the surface, Antichrist is a very simple film. It deals with a couple trying to cope with the tragic death of their baby son. The husband - "He" - is a psychotherapist. And "He" decides that he will treat his wife - "She". This includes facing her fears - which is in part a remote log cabin in a place called Eden. She does face her fears, and as the Three Beggars approach, there is a disintegration into viciously violent psychosis. 

The film is very well made; at times it comes across like a misanthropic David Lynch picture. It is positively poetic in places, despite the way it ends. Yet this film is the latest target of the censorship brigade. They abhor it because of the sex and the violence. And they want to see it banned.

Of course, I don't think it should be banned. I believe that adults should be able to make up their own mind about which films they choose to see and which they don't. But it is more than that. As challenging as this film is, there is actually nothing in it that warrants the draconian and illiberal response of banning it. 

I'll break it down into the two objections and explain why I don't think it should be banned. 

Sex

There is a bit of sex in this film. And it does also show an erect phallus. Now, this shouldn't be a news flash to many of my readers, but sex between a man and a woman often does involve a phallus. And adults do fuck. Why is there this prudish reaction to a film showing what adults do?

It isn't done for the purposes of titillation - there is nothing erotic about the screwing in the film. The fact that the main characters are played by Willem Dafoe - who looks like he is all teeth and highly pronounced wrinkles - and Charlotte Gainsbourg - a women who some people see as beautiful but who I think looks like a horse who has undergone major reconstructive surgery after a road traffic accident - helps to prevent the sex from being erotic. I am aware that ugly people have sex. That's how the Royals spawn new generations, and how the estates fill up with chavs, but I don't find ugly people fucking in any way erotic. 

Plus, the sex in the film isn't generally shown to be fun. The only time when "He" and "She" are shown to enjoy humping is in the Prologue, during a scene that is filmed in black and white and resembles one of those pretentious old Guinness commercials. And that scene leads to the death of their child, and the start of the descent into madness. After that, the sex becomes angrier and less loving. Almost desperate in places. And it is an attempt to fuck that brings on the horrific violence of the final reel. 

Compare this film - which contains joyless, if detailed, depictions of intercourse - with Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen - a film that goes to great lengths to show Megan Fox in simultaneously skin tight and revealing clothes. Which one is using sexuality for titillation? And which is using sex to sell the film?

Violence

Now, I'm a fan of horror movies, and have a strong stomach when it comes to cinema violence. Nonetheless, I found certain scenes in the film very difficult to watch. I'm not going to detail what happens to the main characters, but make no mistake about it: it is brutal. And the violence is shown in graphic detail. 

Graphic violence is a part of modern cinema, and a hallmark of the "torture porn" genre. Perhaps the difference with this film is that the violence is shown - explicitly - to be against the protagonists' genitals. I certainly haven't seen some of the images in this film depicted before, and they do linger in the mind somewhat after the end credits have rolled. 

Yet this isn't a reason to ban the film. Rather than breaking down society's morals, this film simply challenges the viewer by breaking down another (albeit fairly unspeakable) taboo. And - crucially - the implications of the violence are just as graphically shown as the violence itself. This isn't the clean-cut (pardon the pun) violence of the slasher movie. And it isn't the titillating violence of a torture porn flick. This is gruesome, painful violence that forces the viewer to watch not just the violent acts, but also the consequences.

Now, I personally found the level and intensity of the violence distracting. I struggled to reach any conclusions* after watching the film because I found both the violence and the aftermath of the violence deeply troubling. But part of me thinks that is how violence should be portrayed if we want to people to understand what effect it has. Violence here isn't fun, and it has serious consequences.

Ultimately this is a horror movie, and it will horrify all bar the stoniest of hearts and the strongest of stomachs. It isn't a film for everyone; in fact, I'd imagine only a small minority of people will want to see this film. However, there is nothing contained within it that warrants a ban. There is no case to be made here for censorship. Particularly by those who haven't even seen the film. 

*I've reached them now - the film is the story of Adam and Eve in reverse. By the end of the film "He" - Adam - is returned to innocence through being effectively emasculated. And "He" is alone - "She", or Eve, is dead. It's why the woods where the "action" takes place is called Eden. See?