ANTICHRIST

Charlotte Gainsbourg and Willem Dafoe in the prologue to Antichrist.

First off, yes, all of the buzz and hyperboles surrounding Lars Von Trier’s “Antichrist” are absolutely true. That now much talked about third act actually does draw yelps, screams, eye covering, squirming, and mass exodus’ to the door. Yet these reactions to the more envelope-demolishing aspects of the film are overshadowing what could potentially be one of most brilliant and thought-provoking films of the decade.

Whatever reaction the film ends up provoking in its audience, little can argue the technical mastery on display here by Lars Von Trier. The prologue of the film itself, a modern day interpretation of the tragedy of Adam and Eve, is a master class in visual storytelling, a trait sorely missing in most contemporary directors.

Mr. Trier wrote “Antichrist” – which can be overly simplified as being about a couple dealing with the grief, pain, and despair over the death of their son – while deep in the throes of depression. As such, he let his mind run wild and practically wrote everything that came to his mind…

…which is one of the more frightening aspects of the film. Though the film has an indefinite amount of layers, one of the more prominent themes is the power of the human mind. Midway through the film, Willem Dafoe cites Dr. Napolean Hill’s famous quotation, “Whatever the mind can conceive and believe, the mind can achieve.” Though popularly taken as a testament to the limitless potential of mankind, Von Trier aims the quote in the opposite question, examining the possibility of trust in the human mind when it is capable of so much evil. Though brief interpretations of the film can take the characters’ actions as being proof of this evil capability, it may in fact be Von Trier’s writing of such a script that disturbs so much of the audience. Wrapping one’s head around the idea that a man is capable of thinking of such an emotionally devastating (some would say depraved) story is nearly impossible.

Expanding this further, it can be safely assumed that Von Trier isn’t the only person in the world capable of such thoughts. Quite the opposite. Much of the discomfort “Antichrist” inspires is directly due to the fact that somewhere deep within the confines of the audiences’ collective mind, they all know each and every person sitting around them is capable of comparable thoughts. Though repression is the widespread cure to such thinking, Von Trier here is trying to force his audience to confront such thoughts and examine how anyone can trust one another knowing the harm we can, and usually do cause.

None of this thinking would be possible without the third act, which some are calling unnecessary and detrimental to the overall quality of the film. Yet the first two acts’ functions are simply to emotionally set up the audience for the third act, where all of the film’s observations on human nature come to fruition. “Antichrist” wouldn’t be “Anitchrist” without the third act.

Literally, an infinite amount of observations are to be discovered within “Antichrist.” Told mainly through symbolism, and aided by two of the finest performances of the year in Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg, “Antichrist” will be meticulously dissected for years to come.

Now that’s not saying the film is enjoyable. It’s not. At all. In fact, it’s probably the most disturbing theater experience of this writer’s life. But if Von Trier has one dominant message here, it’s that the world is a very disturbing place, but one that needs to be faced.

Recommending “Antichrist” is nearly impossible, but if you’re willing to stomach and handle emotional wreckage in the name of immense intellectual pursuit, then here’s one piece of advice: when you hear “chaos reigns”… hold on for dear life.

“Antichrist” will be disturbing audiences everywhere on October 23.