Published at 5:00 PM on October 23, 2009

By Steve Dollar

Catching Up With... Antichrist's Lars von Trier

In mid-September, Danish director Lars Von Trier appeared-via a Skype video chat-at a press conference for the New York Film Festival, which screens his controversial new shocker Antichrist. The film, which Von Trier has said was born out of a terrible depression, is the story of an unnamed married couple (Charlotte Gainsbourg, Willem Dafoe) who take refuge at a cabin in the wilds after their toddler son has died in a fall.

Proposing that “nature is Satan’s church,” Von Trier takes the couple on a spiraling descent into hell, as psyhiatrist Dafoe’s efforts to treat his grief-crippled wife lead to a grisly sequence of events that prompted jeering and walkouts at the movie’s Cannes premiere. No spoilers here, just trust that the film’s graphic extremes may induce squirming and nausea. As such, Antichrist could be taken as a masochistic joke on the audience. But during the press conference, Von Trier seemed quite sincere that it was far from a joke-even if the melancholy Dane was quick with the deadpan one-liners.

At one point, the typical NYFF press conference twit asked a barely audible queston three times in a row, making pains to cite Nietzsche so everyone would know how profound he was. Moderator Dennis Lim then asked Von Trier if he had finally got the queston.

“No … but I don’t need to.”

Rim shot.

What follows is a reconstruction of the Q&A (the sound quality of the internet transmission muddily amplified in Walter Reade Theater left much to be desired):

Q: Where did you get the idea for the film?
Lars von Trier: The idea was to make a horror film, which I know it was not really. But I think I started with that. Normally I know what to say but I can’t tell you.

Q: As a provocateur, are you upset if people don’t walk out of your movie? Which I think was the case today.
Von Trier: Then I have failed. [laughter]

Q: What about the casting of Willem Dafoe?
Von Trier: I was trying to cast this film. And he sent me an email asking if I had anything for him. I said, “Yes. Thank God.” That was a miracle.

Q: The sound design of Antichrist reminded me a lot of David Lynch’s films. I wonder if you took any inspiration from him.
Von Trier: I was very, very taken by Twin Peaks. I thought that was fantastic. I’m a big David Lynch fan. A big fan. [Von Trier also acknowledged that Antichrist shares a geographical focus with Lynch’s films.] When we shoot in Europe, it can only look like the Pacific Northwest.”

Q: Could you talk about the Biblical references in the film, to Satan, the Antichrist and Eden?
Von Trier: The title was there very early on and if it [means anything], it is that there is no God. The cabin is called “Eden,” I know. I’m sorry for that. I usually go back through the script and take that shit out.”

Q: Charlotte Gainsbourg’s character’s conflict seems to be that she’s a woman of pleasure and not a mother. Would you agree?
Von Trier: You say she’s not really a mother? You should have seen my mother. This is nothing compared to that.

Q: Since you consider Antichrist a kind of horror film, can you tell us which horror films had the most influence on you?
Von Trier: I’ve seen the old stuff, but at the same time, in my confusion I saw a lot of Japanese horror films. I saw The Ring and Dark Water. I liked them very much, but maybe I liked them not so much as horror, but for the cultural differences. It’s interesting to see images that are definitely not from the West. I like them very much, but I’m not sure if I’m as influenced by them as much as The Shining. Or Rosemary’s Baby. And Carrie was actually a very good film when I saw it.

Q: What makes a horror film stick in your mind?
Von Trier: I think that Psycho is a classic, but not because it was scary. In horror films, the scary things are not what I remember. I remember a style or a mood. The good thing about horror films is that they have a lot of room for strange pictures or whatever. I didn’t find The Shining very scary, I must say. But today, I’m rather involved with it. I think that, as with all other films, it has to do with a personality that you feel in it as you watch what happens in it.

Q: When will you complete the American Trilogy [which began with Dogville and Manderlay?
Von Trier: That’s the problem about trilogies, that there has to be three of them.

Q: Why did you dedicate the movie to Andrei Tarkovsky?
Von Trier: “When I saw The Mirror, it took me days to get over it. I have stolen so much from Tarkovsky over the years; in order not to get arrested, I had to dedicate the film to him. I should have done it a long time ago.”

Q: The film has an unusual credit for a “misogyny researcher.” What exactly does a misongyny researcher do?
Von Trier: It has mostly to do with the things the female character in the film is going through in her thesis. She did a very good job; I didn’t do very much of it. I’m in a situation where I can only get the fundamental stuff out of it. I don’t know if I learned anything or if I hated women more than I did before. [pause] I like to be with women.

Features

Spam E-Mail or Bob Pollard Song?

Features

Catching Up With... The Swell Season's Glen Hansard

4 Comments

Click to leave a comment.

By PJB on October 23, 2009

I saw this at the Chicago Film Festival and it's torture porn misogyny. Critics not calling out LVT for it are complicit. I don't say this lightly. I have seen and appreciated such films as 'The Audition', 'Irreversible' & the German language 'Funny Games'. I have also defended LVT's previous films as not being misogynistic. The female characters of his previous films were abused in those films, but in a greater context not for it's own sake. They were all graphic and challenging, but not gratuitous celebrations of (self)hated towards half of humanity.

LVT has the right to make this kind of movie. I don't believe it should be banned or any nonsense like that, but if he were to make a beautiful snuff flick and filled it with Lynch-like imagery it would still be a snuff flick. This is where the critics and this interviewer fall down. Hiding behind "spoiler alerts" to avoid telling potential viewers that they will be exposed to on-camera self genital mutilation is disingenuous.

The shame of this film is that it's positively exquisite in its cinematography and the acting is world class. LVT has an incredible talent. It's too bad he didn't use it to tell a story instead of spewing his psychosis on the world.

If anyone wants to see a challenging LVT film, watch 'Breaking the Waves'. Another good one is 'The Five Obstructions'. Avoid this one if you respect yourself or women.

By Steve Dollar on October 23, 2009

@PJB ... Party pooper.

By Steve Dollar on October 25, 2009

Further discussion among myself and other critics at the GreenCine Daily.

By Chris C on November 20, 2009

Yesterday, something happened to me that's never happened to me before. I tripped out, became sickened and dizzy, the sky turned yellow and then black ... I'd just eaten and hadn't had much to smoke, but, I was introduced to the psyche of this filmmaker called Lars von Trier for the first time. I'd walked outside just at the right moment to hear a description of a typically gory genital mutilation scene from his latest production, Antichrist. Having in mind the thought of gory masterpieces like Sin City (I say one of the best films of any kind in these past ten years), or intensely (porno)graphic masterpieces like Jean Genet's novel Funeral Rites, my curiosity took hold and I naïvely asked, "So what's this movie about?"

I was expecting an answer typical of an artful shock film - that the plot would be shocking, fantastic, strange ... just what fits the adrenaline rush of being subjected to watching things happen to the human body that go far beyond any standard idea of horror and pain. The answer I got, though, entered my head and refused to leave it until I blacked out about a minute later. The plot is a real plot, with real and earthly human emotions, a real dysfunctional and painful relationship ... in short a real (but ultimately cheap - and I've now found the plots of all his films which I will enjoy trashing in a moment) tragedy.

Before saying more, I have to correct my above mistake of calling Lars' plot a "tragedy", which would give it an association with Tragedy with a capital T (Greek tragedies, Shakespeare & Jean Racine, Lorca, so on ...). Never before have I found a need to give a capital T to Tragedy, but now that I've learned that von Trier exists, it's stripped me of an innocence I previously had about Art, a kind of innocence Plato would have shared too (but we're both completely wrong) - I did not think it was possible that a gift as significant and profound as artistic ability, let alone extraordinary artistic ability, could reside in and give expression to a psyche as weak, backward, pathetic, disfigured and incapable as Lars von Trier's.

It's difficult to separate insult from praise when I talk about this man, and I know for sure that he'd take my disgust as a compliment and a stroke to his ego. That is mainly on account of the fact that he's not able to read into it to see what I'm actually saying about him - the furthest he could see into me is "another horrified viewer" who he successfully jabbed his ugliness into in the form of film. I, to him, am a great credit to his work and a good customer. He's been successful enough that his success keeps him well-protected, but what has he succeeded at, exactly? And is there anything beautiful, meaningful, or valuable about such a 'success'? Lars has never asked, and can't afford to because the right answer would result in him (doing as he should do in the real logical order of things and) committing suicide.

Here's what's powerful, the main thing that's powerful, about Tragedy (with the T) ... this is an artistic medium whose tradition reached a stage of maturity and refinement already in Ancient Greece, and in essence survives inescapably. A Tragedy is a uniting of human emotion and reason; in as few words as I can, it is a RATIONAL PLOT which leaves a painful mark. When you see a real Tragedy, you can't help but leave with the pain of the plot in your memory - you've become attached to the characters, you've seen them suffer and struggle and (most often) fall to complete destruction in the end. But this darkness in the pit of your stomach is the first step only; you're meant to think about the plot, because in a real Tragedy, the suffering of these beautiful characters is made organically; they are put together in a certain way where their interactions lead inexorably to the suffering they endure. There is no protagonist in a tragedy - everyone is a fully rounded, slightly imbalanced but genuine and believable human being. Even the most insidious, evil villains in Tragedies (say, Iago from Shakespeare's Othello) are real people. You can see how they got the way they are, you can feel what feelings motivate them to act; even if you don't relate, you see it. And you have to figure out, driven by the emotional reaction you've had, how this plot unfolded ... WHY these beautiful characters had to suffer so terribly, what led to what, how their interactions led to their downfall ... this is how a Tragedy enriches your life. And this is what I have always expected of Art, or to say it better ... this is what I have always expected of something done Artfully (whether it's Art of any kind, Science, Math, Cooking, anything..). I expect it to ENRICH LIFE. Sin City might give you nightmares, but it will take you to a twisted universe like no other you'll find in life. It's not a tragedy and not meant to be one, but an adrenaline-driven adventure through fantastic dark realms of the human mind. If you become emotionally invested in Sin City, you'll be physically reacting all throughout, trembling, cringing and jumping in horror ... but at the end you step off the roller coaster and go on through life, perhaps a bit richer because, hell, it's beautiful to have a two-hour adrenaline rush!

If experiencing Sin City is like experiencing a roller-coaster, or a ride in the space shuttle ... the experiencing a film of Lars von Trier is like experiencing a crowd of people in the final stages of grostesgue, disfiguring and infectious diseases surrounding you, grabbing your clothes, touching your face, begging you to give them a home to convalesce in. Let me cheapen three of his important plots that I've since found and read in detail as examples, then let me ask after that what is the value or merit of his artwork, ingeniously crafted as it may be (my film buff friend showed me some clips, I watched some more - in the physical, visual field of film, he is a genius).

Dancer in the Dark: This plot is essentially The Giving Tree, a famous children's book, where the Giving Tree wishes to give plenty to all the children in the neighborhood, but the greedy children strip it clean of its branches, and yet it still wishes to give more. In this case, Bjørk plays the Giving Tree, accompanied by her two equally naïvely beautiful Giving Tree friends, and the greedy children are money-hungry grown ups. And the Giving Tree doesn't just get stripped of all its branches, it gets hanged. Tah-dah. Is this a tragedy? I don't really think so, it's quite obvious that these are not real characters ... this is a good vs. evil story, hence an adventure story, but the result of this one makes you miserable while leaving nothing to think about. "Please, let me give you my infection ... let me touch your face with my leper hands." ... what else does this organism do?

Dogville: This is the best von Trier plot simply because the ending contains the only burst of positive energy ever found in his career - at the end, Lars copies the Bible's ending ... the long-suffering and inherently good Giving Tree character gets to watch the brutal vengeance she orders upon her oppressors carried out. I say this is his only film worth watching because, thanks to the positive jump at the end (spilled blood & guts kind of positive), you leave with the satisfaction of justice being served to the evil characters in this quasi-Christian tale of the good (Nicole Kidman playing "Grace") being tempted, lured in, and then made to suffer by the evil ... but nonetheless maintaining their goodness, just until God arrives at the end to brutally judge the sinners. This is also the greatest display of his cinematic skill; here challenging himself to do without sets (apart from chalk outlines), props, sound effects, screen shifts, any 'artificial' modifications at all. I have to be fair and say I highly recommend this one. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

... and the piéce de resistance ...

Antichrist: Let me first say that this thing has already been put into the world, it's been introduced, there's nothing we can do but let curious people across the world get sick and hopefully heal themselves. However, I say it's simply stupid to watch this movie, it's like drinking water with cholera in it. Either you didn't know there was cholera in there, or you hate life and want to be rid of it, or you're just really thick-headed. Let me say, too, that such an extraordinary disease is almost justifiable in light of its skillful means of transmission ... this is an entirely new way of spreading disease. This is an Ebola sufferer donning the costumes of Shakespeare and giving a breathy monologue to an enthralled audience (thinking they are watching Shakespeare) at the Globe. It's a shape-shifting virus with a two-fold attack: FIRST - make it look as though you are setting up a Tragedy, for real. Invent a relationship grounded in reality (a couple stricken by the tragic death of their son), and begin to move the pieces as though you were heading toward a tragedy. The wife is losing her hold on reason, stricken by grief ... the husband, also a psychiatrist, starts to take steps to help her confront these 'demons' ... they retreat together to isolation ... SECOND - continue this tragedy as though it were Sin City, except an intimate setting of Sin City - Sin City in the bedroom, plus the ongoing realization that we are still in the middle of a story which is a story of REAL human emotion. A few squashed and chopped-off genitals, a few metal-grinding-against-human-bones scenes, and one strangled to death and cremated wife later ... we've been infected by the main line of the plot, which is one simple line: I am Lars, and there is a woman somewhere I hate. Probably my mother. And my spouse. I have no success with these women. Here's my revenge against womankind.

Here's what you find out amidst the ball-chopping, bone-drilling joy: The son's death was foreseen by the wife, but she irresponsibly didn't do anything about it because she was busy in the midst of sexual gratification with/from her husband. It's also psychotic mommy who's ball-chopping and bone-drilling and in fact doing all the damage to a by-then passed out daddy, and later sparing no flamboyance punishing herself. Daddy only does a bad thing at the end, ridding the world of this evil witch by strangulation and burning her at a pyre.

Now, go back up to the start of this plot, and then come to the finish again. What we have here is the setup of Tragedy, the setup that 'opens' emotion, that gets one in the mood and thinking of a Tragedy, involved with these characters as though they were you or I ... and the finale of a cheap gore film. Is there anything to think about? I don't see it really ... it's gore/porn, it could easily be entitled She: The Psycho Dominatrix from Hell and be sold as such. Only, this film is crafted to associate this kind of happening with elements of the actual, spiritual human psyche. Lars says to us: "For me, human emotion of the kind that pervades tragedy, and the reality of human relationships, is about the same as the Psycho Dominatrix from Hell."

Where Sin City breaks into your house and drags you through the streets like real man and makes you watch it in all its horror, Antichrist crawls up to you and asks you in an impassioned tone to listen, gets you to breathe deeply, and then coughs on you. I think to myself that what was in those droplets of infection was incubated inside Lars von Trier ... and I think to myself that he is nonetheless an Artist ... and my worldview has to be hugely modified to fit this fact. I've had to invent about ten new social classes to add onto the bottom of my social hierarchy in order to accurately place him in the very lowest one. And yet, his work has power, ingenuity, skill ... for the first time I have ever seen ... this creative energy is not enough to justify it. Art is a tool to communicate ... but that such a diseased man by some universal accident has been given the ability to vomit out his infections into films, or to be more fair to him ... vomit out his infections, then skillfully distill out of this vomit the most virulent, impure constituents, and then brilliantly construct something that appears at a far glance not to be made of vomit, feces, infected skin, pus, so on ...

Antichrist, I like to interpret as fully autobiographical work, von Trier judges women based on his own 'feminine side', which is completely unable to do anything at all other than to let events happen. Everything which is associated with 'feminine' in culture is in Lars completely retarded and almost caricaturishly weak and stupid. Indeed it recurs in his films that a charming but not very strong and imperious woman is completely trashed and destroyed by the stupid, miserable, greedy, cowardly males which I think constitute the masculine side of Lars. In that light, it seems as though Antichrist is the result of some attempt on his part to confront his 'feminine self', or the feminine elements in his mind, and the ensuing chaos that reigned ... BECAUSE Lars von Trier is completely incapable of fighting such a battle. Yet somewhere he finds the strength to create Art. This is a new kind of Artistic hero who is not really a hero at all. This is just a creature that SHOULD NOT EXIST.

Here is the Artist of our Generation, my friends. The weakest of all men, the most useless, the least likely to have the strength to survive anywhere, neither physically nor mentally/spiritually ... but most crafty liar as well, the man who can sneak into and out of anywhere, a man who is essentially all style and no content. But worse, Lars von Trier manages a trifecta: all style, no content, all leprosy. Antichrist especially constitutes the most pure and exact combination of every single virulent infection of human psyche, in particular male human psyche. This is the flagship of the cowardly man, the man who cannot fight off any disease, but can only sit and not move and let them enter and take their course, and then hope and ask for his master (for these men are instinctively slaves) to heal him.

Lars von Trier may have broken a new barrier - he has transcended his slavery and become a creative type. Yet a slave he remains ... he is something like Darth Vader ... very evil-looking, very powerful, very scary, but still when it comes down to it no more than a slave of the disfigured, limping, horrifyingly ugly Emperor. Now that I know of this creature, I am committed to waging Artistic war against this new breed of scum ... something in me tells me Lars may be an inspiration for a generation of slave-men to transcend themselves in the future, to finally release all the pressure inside by crafting out their diseases, introducing more and more infectious microorganisms into the stream of the world's Art. Who's going to invent penicillin if not other Artists who wish to defend this sacred human practice from infiltration by such a low breed of men? Who's going to keep the value of Art where it belongs when it's a vehicle for the transmission of the souls of such filthy slaves? Someone has to ... I for one will give my greatest effort, and I hope at least one other person may agree!