David Thomson’s The New Biographical Dictionary of Film - Fourth Edition opens on Lars von Trier with the following:
“There is one excuse for having to go through, and force others to go through, the hell that is the creative process of film,” wrote Lars von Trier in what, in 1991, was his third manifesto. “The carnal pleasure of that split second in the cinemas, when the projector and the loudspeakers, in unison, allow the illusion of sound and motion to burst forth, like an electron abandoning its orbit to generate light, and create the ultimate: a miraculous surge of life.”
We could note several things from this – that one man’s carnal ecstasy may be another’s imagination; that sometimes there are no excuses; and that the language of self-inducing cinematic exultation is oddly akin to the rhetoric of fascism.
To an extent I agree with Thomson that von Trier knows no reality – only film, though I wouldn’t put it so harshly.
Watching
Antichrist, it seems to me the vocations of He (a psychiatrist) and She (a writer) is highly symbolic. While this thread is looking at the facts and not the symbolism, I’d like to touch on this, if I may.
Lars von Trier has never been a straightforward storyteller and this is no exception. Much of it is impenetrable and aggrandized with von Trier’s trademark vagaries but I do believe on some levels, von Trier is attempting to deconstruct himself with
Antichrist.
I know
Antichrist was not written or made as an autobiographical work but I think von Trier might be playing with us in the characters of He and She. She’s plunge into depression and madness, indirectly reflects a great deal upon von Trier’s anguished episodes of his life, and He’s misplaced conviction and autocracy in acting as She’s “healer” mirrors von Trier’s conceits. The more I watch the film, the more I find myself wondering if He and She are purposefully representative of two-halves of von Trier’s alter ego. This is how I’m beginning to interpret parts of the film.
Lars von Trier is a prolific writer and makes no secret of the fact his life has been filled with prolonged bouts of depression and the subject matter of
Antichrist is surely as depressing as it gets. Parents are not supposed to outlive their children – is there anything on earth (from a parent’s point of view) that could crush you more? I don’t know if von Trier is a parent but he’s clearly cognisant of the incendiary repercussions surrounding this matter.
Being a von Trier film, it would be facile to imagine him tackling this subject in a conventional manner. As an aside, the relationships of parents that lose their children in ‘freak’ accidents rarely survive.
The facts of
Antichrist from a simplified viewpoint, focus on She’s actions, and He’s reactions, and I wonder how much of the film’s prologue is constructed to influence us in determining the possible motivation and rationale of their demise.
The prologue poses questions that will always remain open to debate, unless von Trier tells us otherwise. For instance, the mute setting on the child’s sound monitor; some have posited it was premeditated on She’s part. On the other hand, He could have switched it to mute to avoid intrusion during their lovemaking.
One of the questions that continues cropping up and has a strong bearing on how we interpret She’s actions, concerns the flashbacks in which the audience is given the impression that She saw her child on the chair climbing towards the table. I think She’s two flashbacks – which like the prologue, are also shot in black and white – are worth looking at closer.
The following runtimes are from the R2 UK DVD.
Flashback 1 – at 88m 7s running 7 seconds in total. The first 4 seconds picture She during sex with He. She’s eyes widen appearing to focus on something but I am unable to discern any specific impressions of emotion from her face. The scene cuts to the child and for the next 3 seconds we see him on a chair, clambering up to a table. On the table there are three figurines mounted on plinths lined-up in the direct path of the child.
Flashback 2 – at 88m 30s running 11 seconds in total. The first 6 seconds picture the child’s head and right arm flailing in the air clutching his toy bear in his right hand as he falls. Taken at face value, it isn’t clear if this is an interior or exterior shot but as savvy viewers, we know it’s actually an interior shot for two reasons. Firstly; the flashback is She’s point of view so it’s obvious we’re looking through her eyes from the inside the apartment. Secondly; we already know the child fell from the window ledge from the prologue but in this flashback, he falls
backwards from the ledge, confirming this
must be an interior shot. In this shot, the child falls from the ledge but is facing the inside of the apartment. The remaining few seconds cuts to She, still in the throes of sex with He. She falls back gently into the pillow with a facial expression resembling contentment, particularly in her eyes.
These flashbacks are inter-cut into the scene immediately preceding She cutting off her clitoris. After severing her clitoris, She screams and the shot cuts to a deer. I think this part is important and I agree with others that have commented about their uncertainty whether She truly saw the boy climbing the chair to the table prior to him falling from the window ledge when the accident actually happened. The appearance of a deer at this specific point underpins this line of thought. At this late stage of the film, She has reached a complete nadir of grief, despair, fear and at this point, she is also feeling guilt.
Jonschaper made a pertinent comment about the three beggars on a separate thread here.
www.imdb.com/title/tt0870984/board/flat/147620122?p=2&d=157895279# 157895279
It is the deer that interests me specifically concerning She’s flashbacks, her subsequent clitorectomy and I hope Jonschaper doesn’t mind me quoting the part I find relevant to the point I’m haphazardly trying to tackle:
The first of these, the deer (grief), appears in the chapter Grief. The deer is portrayed as having a stillbirth, something which is associated with grief. There is no indication that the deer killed ANYTHING. That's a stretch.
I agree. Moreover, there is substantial evidence for me to conclude She’s flashbacks are heavily influenced and consequently embellished by her chronic feelings of grief and despair – why else would the shot cut to the deer immediately after She performs a clitorectomy on herself?
OK. I’m aware my thoughts are focused too heavily on the film’s symbolism for this thread, but I’d like to back this up with von Trier’s reaction to the flashbacks. In the audio commentary over the aforementioned scenes and the scenes that immediately follow She’s self-mutilation, Professor Murray Smith refers to the “flashback imagery” and asks von Trier of these scenes,
“How do you conceive of that… do you think of those as false memories… of guilt-induced false memories? There is some discussion as to whether we are being invited to rethink the action of the prologue when we see those shots of her witnessing [Murray’s emphasis]
the boy fall from the window. I guess on balance that’s not the way I see it, but is it meant to be ambiguous, or… . Von Trier interjects simply replying
“Yes” with affirmative inflection. Von Trier clearly confirms the flashback scenes are ambiguous and his following remarks suggest that She is overcome with feelings of guilt over the death of her child and that she feels responsible for his death.
The combination of what I see in She’s flashbacks and von Trier’s answer to the above question, is more than enough to confirm my personal viewpoint that the flashbacks
are false memories. In fact, I’d go as far as to say, I’m convinced of this.
My conviction is affirmed with further proof that comes from a third black and white shot at 90m 17s, which is not a flashback for two obvious reasons. At the point when we see the third black and white shot, the film is focused on He immediately after he sees the four constellations, but more telling is this shot contradicts She’s second flashback where the child is clearly seen falling
backwards from the window ledge. In the third shot, the child falls
forwards from the window ledge. This reinforces my interpretation that this shot of the falling child represents He’s re-imagining of how it really happened at the exact moment when the child fell from the window ledge.
For me, there is no question the child fell from the window ledge as depicted in the prologue. I believe the prologue is the most straightforward part of the film in terms of showing us what happened. The prologue shows the child falling
forwards from the window ledge. She’s flashback surely must be a guilt-induced false memory?
The third black and white shot following She’s flashbacks is placed here to show the audience that He imagining the moment of the child’s fall from the window ledge is accurate – it’s the way it
really happened. That, or von Trier has included it as a simple insert to re-establish the accuracy of the prologue. Perhaps both?
I wouldn’t normally give this much effort to analyse such short moments of a film. In the hands of lesser filmmakers, we could justifiably attribute these “inconsistencies” to lackadaisical continuity. Going on von Trier’s previous films and his precise approach and intricacy in filmmaking, I believe these are deliberate clues showing the fragmentation of She’s mind.
In retrospect, She’s black and white flashbacks look very ambiguous.
There are many more aspects I want to go into and so far I've managed only to touch on a very small part of the film, and as such this is Part 1 of my contribution to this thread but I’ll be back with the rest of my thoughts (the grieving process; the relationship of She and He; their cabin in Eden; the witches; the violence; the forest).
EDIT: I’ll post my thoughts on these points of the film some time in the future.
What we see as spectacle is in fact a ceremony
reply
share
jonschaper
14 years ago
Thanks for your interesting post (and of course you may quote me). One thing to add about the fox eating its own entrails and pain: that sort of self-punishment (well, it is exaggerated here) is often associated with grief. In some cultures, you often see women hitting themselves or doing other acts that externalise their expression of pain and grief. It could be seen as both a desire to display their pain to others or something to distract themselves from the emotional pain by experiencing physical pain instead -- they can at least control the latter. The act of cutting has similar motivations. It's also why some autistics rythmically bang their own heads. Of course self-inflicted harm is also associated with guilt (self-flagellation, etc).
Memory is a very tricky thing. Eyewitness testimony in trials in notoriously unreliable. Classic study: Show a video of a car crash to a sample of the population. Divide them in two. Ask one group "How fast was the red car going when it smashed into the blue car" and they'll tell you one speed. Ask the other group "How fast was the red car going when it bumped into the blue car" and they will give you a significantly slower speed. People have a misconception that shocking tragedies will be etched in a person's mind like stone. But shock, trauma, etc, actually inhibit memory. I once found a cat of mine dead in the basement after she had apparently bled internally. When I kept trying to replay my memories of interactions with the cat earlier in the day, trying to remember if I should have seen any signs or trying to absolve myself from the feeling that I should have done something, I could never recall the rest of that morning the same way twice, and the more I tried playing the day's events through. I'd ask myself: Did I remember it that way because I'm unfairly blaming myself, or did I remember it that way because I'm trying to avoid blaming myself? Anyways, the more variations there were, the more untrustworthy my memory obviously was, and the less I could recall how things played out the first time I ran through it in my mind (which was probably my most accurate memory of the day).
Symbols are definitely a tricky thing. Even when their use is deliberate, they often represent things that are difficult to express logically or verbally, so who knows if one will ever get the same emotional response and meaning out of them that the director did (even if, as Jungians believe, there is universiality to them). I have to plead guilty to trying to make sense out of every single moment in David Lynch's movies, but according to him, he approaches most of his films like paintings: they are meant to create an emotional response, not necessarily to provide a straight narrative which can be analysed with total logic like a crime procedural. Only, instead of a brush and canvas, he uses actors, sets, films and music. Sometimes it is the reaction, the questions one is forced to ask themselves, the sense of the ineffible that the director might be going for. We expect to meet artists in other mediums on some sort of middle ground, so why not movie directors. Of course, as with talented painters, talented directors must have some sort of deliberate plan (whereas pure nonsense along the lines of Uwe Boll's can be seen as the equivalent of a 5 year old scribbling with crayons). But we have to also allow for some uncertainty.
reply
share
goodshots
14 years ago
Once again, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this film.
Clearly, there are quite a few different [yet in many respects - the same] points of view floating around.
Jonschaper's comments on memory recall are very pertinent to this discussion. Critical_Beatdown, I will await the remainder of your thoughts before responding.
When I have further pondered the last few points of view, I will reply again. Until then, please keep sharing your ideas.
reply
share
submachine
14 years ago
I have to plead guilty to trying to make sense out of every single moment in David Lynch's movies, but according to him, he approaches most of his films like paintings: they are meant to create an emotional response, not necessarily to provide a straight narrative which can be analysed with total logic
Of course that's the message he gives to his
customers like you, but unlike you, those of us who create art, understand artistic creations.
I actually made sense and analyze his films with total logic. It can be done, it just requires more than what you possess:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0166924/board/inline/39598763\\\
http://TheMovieGoer.com ///
///
Twitter.com/TheMovieGoer\\\
reply
share
tntales
14 years ago
My favorite take is that she is already unbalanced (not necessarily stated by the film) take for example her comment about how He has always been distant and He is oblivious to this.
While alone in the woods she went mad while doing her research on the evil done to women. She rationalized that if her husband didn't love her it must be because she is not lovable and the reason is that she is evil. She then starts to mutilate her son (which the father doesn't notice). She lets him die and finally gets his attention.
He takes her to the woods, the place where she had this psychotic break to begin with. She begins to heal but when her husband discovers what she had done to the child, she snaps and comes "full circle." She embraces her "evil" and tries to keep him from leaving while also wanting to be punished.
Her insanity, given physical form in the anxiety attack (the quick cuts of the pulse, the breath, etc) is transferred to him (he has the same flashes when he kills her). He has been tainted by her madness and sees the march of faceless women which he takes to be the awareness at the ever present evil in women.
Essentially he was crazy and then drove him crazy.
I thought the non-labyrinthine view should get a shot in all this discussion of symbolism and such. Granted I've only seen the movie once, but this is my inclination. The other is that the film is a traditional horror film about haunted woods and possessed people. Or it's just a symbolic screed about the need of men to kill women because they are evil. And they're everywhere.
reply
share
14 years ago
[deleted]
goodshots
14 years ago
At the start of this thread, I requested that there be no abuse and I certainly hoped that it implicitly implied that anyone who was carrying on their own abusive discourse would keep it on their own threads and not introduce it here.
I understand that there is a long history between both submachine and Critical_Beatdown, but please refrain from continuing your written stoushes here. If you have any genuine 'on topic' thoughts then by all means please share them.
To submachine: A while ago, I posted a comment on your thread in reference to your theory about the relevance of MBPS. My comment was without disdain and answered your OP [and some following replies] directly. I would appreciate it if you would show my thread the same courtesy.
reply
share
jonschaper
14 years ago
LOL God, you live up your own asss, don't you? I'm not surprised you did not grasp my post or arrived at the conclusion that you know more about the film than it's own creator. BTW, I came to pretty much the same conclusions after the first viewing of the film, but unlike you I did not plagarise it from Salon.
reply
share
submachine
14 years ago
I came to pretty much the same conclusions after the first viewing of the film
The same as me? Impressive!
Once again you're only about claims for attention because you lack the ability to understand higher concepts.
My threads, on the other hand, explains films, that's why they attract so many responses, even the little stalkers like you. Bump my threads, stalker.
\\\
http://TheMovieGoer.com ///
///
Twitter.com/TheMovieGoer\\\
reply
share
jonschaper
14 years ago
Why not bump the thread yourself and address my counterpoints? I note YOU followed me over here. You are welcome to contribute wherever you like. But if you continue to refuse to engage in discussion, instead choosing to praise yourself over ideas you either steal from elsewhere or refuse to defend because the only response you are capable of making when your position is challenged is to resort to insults (in the absence of facts) or outright lie, then you will continue to appear to be nothing but a pathetic little plagarist desperate for attention.
reply
share
triple_swf
14 years ago
"...but unlike you, those of us who create art, understand artistic creations."
Aaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnndddd there went your credibility.
reply
share
corpus_callosum
13 years ago
"with total logic"
those are the words of a not so smart person who highly overestimates himself.
reply
share