Film Review: ANTICHRIST (2009, Lars Trier)

Stars: 4 of 5.

Running Time: 104 minutes.

Notable Cast or Crew: Willem Dafoe, Charlotte Gainsbourg. Cinematography by Anthony Dod Mantle (FESTEN, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, DOGVILLE, 28 DAYS LATER...).

Tag-line: "When nature turns evil, true terror awaits"

Best one-liner: "Chaos reigns."

When I heard that that cinema's biggest worrywort Lars Trier (despite adoring many of his films, I refuse to indulge the bratty affectation of the ersatz 'von') was remaking BODY OF EVIDENCE, I was like 'Well, if he doesn't get Madonna back, I sure hope he gets the fingering scene right,' and, oh yes, he sure does. The 'Dafoe assthrusting factor' and the ‘all women are evil' vibe are quite undeniably present as well. In all seriousness, though, this is Trier coming to grips with his personal celluloid hero––Andrei Tarkovsky (who, for the sake of brevity, I shall refer to as 'Big T'). Some of Trier's early films (IMAGES OF RELIEF, THE ELEMENT OF CRIME, MEDEA) struggled to emerge from Big T's shadow.

Big T yucks it up, knowing Lars will never TRULY emerge from his shadow. 

By the 90's, it had seemed he'd found his 'own' (lack of?) style when he and a squad of his Dane buddies submitted Dogme 95 for our consideration (THE IDIOTS). Later, for the USA trilogy (DOGVILLE, MANDERLAY), he combined elements of his prior styles with stark, black box staging. But now, with ANTICHRIST, he's taken 30 years of experience, and reapplied it to Big T's universe. The film is even dedicated to Big T's memory.

What follows is a staggering tract (shot by original Dogme lenser Anthony Dod Mantle) which might just be the most beautifully photographed film of the decade (though I'm not sure Big T would’ve approved of CGI acorns). Dafoe and Gainsbourg, as He and She (of course), are terrific. She wonders if her grief is atypical. He wonders if a 'fear pyramid' chart can save her (an exercise which I'm absolutely sure that little bundle of nerves named Trier has done on occasion). But they're both missing that elephant in the room. It looks like a nice vase of flowers. But if we get closer, just a little closer... start to look at the dirty water, start to let it consume us...

That dirty flower water... starts to sully everything.... JESUS GOD, IT'S CONSUMED EVERYTHING!!! And that, I think, is a little window of insight into Mr. Trier's OCD world. Lars Trier is scared. Scared of everything. And he wants you to be scared, too.

And he's gonna sit right here, wearin' his hoodie, until Hot Topic agrees to carry a line of ANTICHRIST action figures. But it’s hard to say exactly how Trier wants us to react. Does he want us to shudder and cry in the flickering darkness, or does he want us to chortle or crack a smile every time there's a shot for shot homage to Big T? Keep your eyes peeled for quotes from SOLARIS, MIRROR, etc...

Big T's MIRROR.

Little T's ANTICHRIST.

Or is he content if we merely have a reaction in general? For example, I don't think I'm going camping for a while.

The fantastic Mr. Fox.

Parts of this film are certainly hilarious––slomo floppy balls n' penetration set to Handel, unexpected nipple biting, Dafoe's endless psychobabble, or his AMAZING exasperated sigh upon the return of some l'il forest buddies (you'll know it when you see it). The script may be a tad ham-fisted (it might have benefited from being a silent film?), but viscerally, we're kept in a state of suffocation (and I don't think a film has succeeded at suffocating the viewer quite so much since Todd Haynes' SAFE): stifling slow-motion, ominous aural frequencies, a choking shroud of fog, and TICKS, TICKS, TICKS!!!– the base, cruel, vile filth of nature. (Where's Herzog?!) Yes! Fuck nature! Fuck it in the ear! Cue The Cramps' "All Women Are Bad," and give this thing four stars.

Side note: And stay for the credits: you'll see the "department of misogyny research," "the department of horror film research," and, while there's no "no animals were harmed in this production" statement, there is an "all animals were handled by professionals" disclaimer. So on a Lars Trier film, animals are only harmed by professionals. Uh, ok. It seems fitting.

Film Review: SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE (2008, Danny Boyle)

Stars: 3 of 5.
Running Time: 120 minutes.
Notable Cast or Crew: Dev Patel, Anil Kapoor
Tag-line: "What does it take to find a lost love? A. Money. B. Luck. C. Smarts. D. Destiny."
Awards: Eight Oscars including Best Picture, Audience Award Austin Film Festival, Best British Independent Film at the British Independent Film Awards, Golden Frog at Camerimage, Audience Award at Chicago International, Nominated for 4 Golden Globes, Best Director from Los Angeles Film Critics, Best Film from the National Board of Review, Nominated for 2 SAG awards, Best Director Southeastern Film Critics Association, People's Choice Award at Toronto International, and it's a frontrunner for many forthcoming awards.

Danny Boyle continues his examination of vast sums of money being bestowed upon unlikely individuals, but unlike some of his previous efforts, like SHALLOW GRAVE or MILLIONS, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE focuses on the process of obtaining it and the backstory that made it possible, rather using the money as a point of departure. Despite an "it is written" framework (with a seriously stacked deck), Dev Patel's Jamal is a Boyle hero that earns his destiny through experience, not chance. SLUMDOG is a very enjoyable and endlessly sincere film, I just find it odd exactly how much award season buzz it seems to be generating. I feel as if people are too afraid to mention that it has more in common with Tony Scott's DOMINO than Boyle's own masterpiece, SHALLOW GRAVE. And it's not that I don't 'get it.' I liked the movie. I understand that Jamal's life has been one long sprint from the start just to survive- to keep his head above water (or feces, in one memorable scene). But is all the shaky cam, whacky frame rate, filters upon filters, pulsating over and underexposure, hovering micro zooms, and vaguely tacky techno really necessary? Boyle's always been a filmmaker with style, but this is over the top.

In the spirit of the film in question, let's play a game. It's called: "which of the following frames come from SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE and which came from Tony Scott movies?" This should be simple for all you SLUMDOG apologists. Shit, I'll even start out with an easy one:

A.


B.


C.


D.


E.


F.


And you know what? Now you've pissed me off. I'm not even gonna tell you now. Alright, fine, SLUMDOG is A., D., and E. And I didn't even have access to the most egregious, over-the-top shots. Scott's MAN ON FIRE was crucified for less. And Enya-esque wailing to accompany slow-motion sequences of emotional import? Hmm. That was kind of okay in LORD OF THE RINGS, but that was seven years ago. In SLUMDOG, its use made my hair curl. It's also pretty fair to say that about everyone is familiar with the rules to WHO WANTS TO BE A MILLIONAIRE. So it's insulting, when, to rachet up tension and stack the deck even further, characters insist that our hero should "just give it up and take the money- he's crazy not to!" when he still has two life-lines left. But on to the good. It's exceptionally well-acted (I especially enjoyed Anil Kapoor as the sleazy host), and its heart is in the right place. That's certainly enough to make me like it, but before you stick it on the end of the year list, ask yourself what, if anything, makes this different than a feel-good Tony Scott flick?

-Sean Gill