Is ANTICHRIST Art?

By Ray DeRousse / June 30, 2011

This year's Cannes film festival has been mostly uneventful. A few sales, perhaps one break-out hit, nothing spectacular. Of course, leave it to Lars von Trier to shock the place into action. His newest kick to the groin is ANTICHRIST, which is shaping up to be von Trier's ugliest and most controversial film yet. It features a married couple played by Willem Defoe and Charlotte Gainsburg who, after the accidental death of their child, retreat to their cabin in the woods (named Eden, of course) for healing. Then all sorts of bizarre things happen. Here's the trailer: Reviews have been all over the map. The Bad:

Variety: €œLars von Trier cuts a big fat art-film fart with Antichrist. As if deliberately courting critical abuse.€ Reuters: €œAntichrist elicited derisive laughter, gasps of disbelief, a smattering of applause and loud boos ...€ Hollywood Elsewhere: " ... easily one of the biggest debacles in Cannes Film Festival history and the complete meltdown of a major film artist in a way that invites comparison to the sinking of the Titanic."

The Good:

Movieline: €œbeautiful, violent, and cringe-inducing € Antichrist is the most original and though-provoking work von Trier has done since Breaking the Waves. That said, I might entirely change my mind tomorrow €” yet another reason why this film is remarkable. RATING (out of 10): 9€ The Wrap : €œan utterly strange and deeply perverted take on the horror genre € At first, it€™s an elegant grief drama. Then €” suddenly, shockingly €” it transforms into €œThe Shining€ meets Evil Dead with green politics, torture porn and a fair amount of Lynchian abstractions € Gripped by the calculation of the design, I think I loved it, but might have been blindsighted by the sheer audacity of its twisted conception. Like many audience members from tonight€™s crowd, I need to let it sit for awhile €” in my nightmares, most likely."

Just when you thought movies were becoming too safe, along comes von Trier to fart in the closed elevator and irritate everyone. According to most accounts, this film features graphic sex and even more graphic violence (including genital mutilation) that pushes the farthest edge of the NC-17 rating into a new rating: LVT. That rating describes a Bermuda Triangle-like area of filmmaking that lies between torture porn, sexual porn, and twenty hours of Gitmo waterboarding. My question is this: What is the point of being shocking merely for the sake of shock? Is the shock itself considered art? I could go out and film myself cutting the head off of a cute little bunny rabbit - is that art? What if I then intercut that with shots of Ron Jeremy buttfucking a starlet in a field of spring flowers? Is that art? At what point do shots of graphic sex and violence tip over the line of provocation and become art? Clearly, von Trier believes his film is art; the whole film reeks of it. A man and a woman ... a lost child ... a trip to the woods called Eden ... sex at the base of a tree ... hints of nature and evil everywhere. All that's missing is an apple dropping onto Defoe's wrinkled brow (I haven't seen it yet - that might even be in there). Everything about this film screams BIG IMPORTANT STATEMENT. But is it art simply because it thinks it is? This film and its reaction remind me of Piss Christ, a prize winning photograph by Andres Serrano that depicted a plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of urine. Serrano received $15,000 to support this "work," which then outraged the religious when it won several awards. While I understand Serrano's desire to create a firestorm of controversy, I'm less confident that such methods themselves constitute art. In this instance, what merits artistic consideration - the picture, or the method employed? In ANTICHRIST, von Trier lingers on graphic displays of sex and violence - is that art in and of itself? Is the fact that most Cannes reviewers were repulsed by the film enough to justify it as art? In my mind, art should not merely trigger our basic instincts for revulsion or excitement - it needs to trigger our mind. Did von Trier do that here? Certainly the reviews indicate an audience left shaken, disturbed, and in a thoughtful mood. Perhaps he managed to rise above the horrors in a way that a hack like Eli Roth could never manage in a thousand careers. If nothing else, we should applaud von Trier for being bold and attempting new ideas and film forms. He won't be directing a TRANSFORMERS movie any time soon. In a cinematic world that is seemingly in a post-Apocalyptic wasteland, von Trier continues to be Thunderdome. Art or not, we should be grateful for that.