Antichrist

Polemics about the controversy of Antichrist passed me by at the time, but the first information about the film reassured me that it goes beyond what interests me, so I decided to avoid it. However, a few days ago I received a DVD of the film as a gift, and as they say, you don't look a gift horse in the mouth. I don't have a problem with Lars von Trier, just like the majority of creators, but at the same time, I have no problem mercilessly sending my favorite director or actor to fiery hell if their film doesn't resonate with me. I became fond of Trier when I watched his cult series, The Kingdom, and I highly appreciated the content of his "theatrical" films. But some time ago, I couldn't help but notice that the fundamental characteristic of Trier's work is the manipulation of the viewer and facts, which he adjusts according to his artistic visions. Furthermore, the problem with him is that since the time he drunkenly devised Dogme 95, he has become a fashionable director in the true sense of the word, satisfying the intellectual snobs' ideas of true art in film and becoming a pampered celebrity of the festival audience. Unfortunately, this has become an integral part of his personality and his filmography. He caters to his snobs with plenty of things, from supposedly encrypted messages through provocative and genre films promising titles to the necessary reference to Tarkovsky in the end credits. The trouble is that there is an absolute antithesis in the ideological foundations between his film Antichrist and Tarkovsky's work, not to mention that Tarkovsky could afford to ignore the viewers because a film industry did not exist in the Soviet Union, and the decisive factor for filming and permission to distribute the film were not the reactions of the audience or the intentions of the producers, but the approval process, where it was necessary to overcome several officials at the relevant ministry. Tarkovsky could therefore subjugate everything to his artistic expression and his artistic ideals. Lars creates his films under real capitalism and calculates both with the controversial content of his films and with the scandals that his outspoken mouth and behavior regularly provoke. He knows very well that one or two failures are enough to tarnish his star status. Antichrist should not be a highly reviewed film on FilmBooster with over five thousand ratings simply because it is not a film that corresponds to the mass taste of film viewers in any way. It is a film that caters to the festival and club audience, so we see a lot of three or four-star reviews and comments like "I didn't know what to make of it, but it's a wonderful piece of work..." rather speak of user conformity than the real qualities of Antichrist. The genre identification with horror is confusing; it is more of a surrealist dramatic-mysterious game on the subject of the decay of a partnership. Unfortunately, it is pretentious, tiresome, and unbridled. Of course, Trier hasn't forgotten his filmmaking skills, and one can revel in the camera or other elements of film language, but they should also form a cohesive film. Antichrist is simply an unengaging film that wants to provoke with its controversial content and violent or pornographic scenes. Typically, I would give such films at least one star for craftsmanship, but in this case, I am happy to make an exception, which can be seen as a counterweight to the many uncritical users. I was startled once and disgusted three times, but the majority of my feelings fell into the category of disinterest, and this film is simply one of those that amuse me with the comments of many fans and how many meanings one can find when you are looking for them. I did not find in this film much of a story, good dialogue, interesting characters, and catharsis because the final third of the film is utterly unnecessary. Yet the prologue seemed so interesting... Overall impression: 5%. (14/06/2011) (less) (more)