If you were a film buff back in 2009, then you probably happened upon such a name as Lars von Trier. At the 2009 Cannes Film Festival, I do not think that anyone expected what would go down when von Trier premiered his newest film. I'm sure that a few of his loyal followers knew of "Antichrist" when it was in production, but I don't think that anyone was quite ready for the horrors that von Trier would release on the day that he screened the film.
So what happened when Von Trier's "Antichrist" was screened? Criticism. Corruption. Applause. Confusion. Many of the American members of the audience hated it. Some enjoyed it. One of those people was the popular critic Roger Ebert. But why did some hate it? Because it was, to many, disgusting and perverted. "Antichrist" not only had an exceedingly dark central theme, but it also contained explicit sexuality, graphic violence, and it was to many, a very uncomfortable experience. Yes, I have seen this film. And you know what: I loved it.I like to see Von Trier as the Vincent van Gogh of filmmaking. Like the legendary artist, Von Trier is able to turn his personal troubles in to dark, intoxicatingly beautiful art. Von Trier, however, is a severe risk taker. But before you happen upon criticizing "Antichrist" or any of his films, allow me to tell you a bit more on Von Trier.
The Depressed Danish Man
Von Trier suffers from one fatal flaw; depression. In 2007, von Trier was in a Hospital for his depression, and said that he might never make another film again, and if he did, "Antichrist" would probably be his last. Von Trier claimed to have cried whenever an actor called him up for auditions, and this was because he felt so helpless. In an interview I saw on the "Antichrist" Criterion Collection DVD, von Trier says that he has lived with such a "curse" since he was six. Maybe this is why he is so fascinated by darkness, as well as why his films are often times emotionally resonant. "Antichrist", like the rest of von Trier's features, was daring and complex. "Antichrist" was indeed fairly depressing, but there was a reason for why it was. I find it amazing that Von Trier was able to write and conceive part of the film while suffering from his depression. And I think that von Trier is a born filmmaker; a man who can summon just about any element of film if he gives it effort. "Antichrist" is one of his best films; beautiful, artistic, explicit, but ultimately rewarding. I love von Trier and I love his latest effort.
Von Trier also suffers from phobias. He claims to be afraid of everything except for filmmaking. One of his major fears is flying, and he drives everywhere to meet stars or shoot his films. He usually stays in Denmark for both. Another thing that somewhat troubled von Trier was when his mother admitted to him on her death bed that Lars von Trier's real father was not who he thought he was. Von Trier's real father was a man who was a skilled painter, since his mother said she wanted her child to inherit the artistic gene. She said that the man who she married was a loving man, but didn't have enough ambitions to father a fantastic child. Von Trier does indeed have the artistic gene that she speeks of, and he puts it to use through graphic but powerful imagery.
Lars von Trier is influential because "Antichrist" has reached me like no other film has. It is one of the most beautifully made films I have ever seen, and while it was shocking, everything in it was done for art. The film seems to draw the fine line between exploitation and art. I, personally, would choose art. While von Trier may be pretentious to some and triumphant to others, I think he is one of the few geniuses of our generation. With "Antichrist", I did not feel disturbed. I felt somewhat uneasy and the imagery was intense, but the film itself was beautiful enough to draw me in. I wouldn't recommend von Trier to just anyone, but I'll know when somebody is ready to appreciate such a man. Sometimes there's a man. Sometimes...there's a man.
His movies sound interesting.
ReplyDelete