Antichrist
Antichrist
Regie:
Lars von TrierDrehbuch:
Lars von TrierKamera:
Anthony Dod MantleMusik:
Kristian Eidnes AndersenStreaming (3)
Inhalte(1)
Ein trauerndes Paar zieht sich in ihre einsame Hütte "Eden" in den Wäldern zurück. Sie kämpft nach dem Tod des kleinen Sohnes mit Trauer und Schuldgefühlen, die in ihr eine Depression hervorrufen. Er ist Psychiater und will sie dort im Wald, vor dem sie sich so sehr fürchtet, therapieren. Doch er muss bald erkennen, dass sehr viel mehr hinter dem Verhalten seiner Frau steckt, und beide stürzen in der Abgeschiedenheit der Hütte in eine Spirale aus Sex und Gewalt. (MFA/MFA+)
(mehr)Kritiken (10)
Ein schwieriger Film. Und interessant, mutig, reizvoll und visuell unglaublich überwältigend. Es ist aber eine große Kunst, zu diesem Werk eine emotionale Bindung aufzubauen, sogar eine größere Kunst als der Film selbst. In dem Film wird ellenlang IHRE Stimmung analysiert. Es wäre besser gewesen, sich mehr auf die Beziehung des Paares in der gegebenen Lebensetappe zu konzentrieren, eventuell in die Vergangenheit zu gehen. Also falls das Ziel das Drehen eines Filmes für die Zuschauer*innen war.
()
After all the controversy around Antichrist, the film itself is quite surprising, or rather, its contents are. In terms of filmmaking, I’m truly fascinated, I’ve watched the prologue five times already and I don’t think I will see anything better this year, but the contents of the film bothered me a little. I didn’t like the transition to the last act, some scenes are too gratuitous and there were moments that I thought could have gone deeper. Basically, the effect wasn’t as intense as I wanted or expected. Even ordinary exploitation horror can sometimes make me feel worse psychically.
()
From the moment of the log in the balls, it’s a self-serving extreme, but until then a brilliant acting psycho. Unforgettable, but never again.
()
Dieser Film ist ungefähr so sehr ein Horror, wie Bergmans Die Stunde des Wolfs. Die atemberaubende Metapher eines Verfalls von Mann und Frau verwendet satanische Proprietäten lediglich dafür, um das traditionelle Konzept des Bösen zu unterstreichen, dessen Quelle Lars von Trier provokativ in die Seele der Frau ansiedelt. In einer Zeit der Korrektheit ist seine nahezu inquisitorische Rhetorik wie eine Erscheinung aus der Hölle, jedoch so vergeblich das auch klingen mag, dies wird von einer absolut perfekten Filmform unterstützt. Nach trockenen Theaterinszenierungen kommt abermals Trier-der Ästhet daher, welcher sich in den rohen Gemälden des "Paradieses" regelrecht suhlt, in den rohen Ateliers perfekt authentischer Schauspieler. Ich weiß nicht, was passiert ist, dass Trier eine aufopfernde Frau gegen eine satanische Frau ausgetauscht hat, aber ich stufe den sich hieraus ergebenden Film eindeutig als eines der faszinierendsten intimen Dramen ein. Beleidigt zu sein bedeutet nur eines, dass man es eben nicht verstanden hat. Der Antichrist ist nicht verflacht, denn verflacht ist das Publikum, welches ihn auslacht und verurteilt.
()
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%.
()
(weniger)
(mehr)
Lars’ Antichrist isn’t the type of movie that you can choose to like or not like. The themes of loss and obsession are nothing too unusual, but the approach is. It releases everything evil, low and mistaken and serves as a mirror for people, mirroring the last remaining love and goodness inside them. The effort to shock is spoiled a little by the elegant psychological game that the only two actors play - Willem Defoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg - while it is not there without reason and is meant to stir the viewers from their lethargy. And quite successfully, judging by their reactions. So, no, I wouldn’t say that I liked it, but I can strongly recommend it to all those who love human-interest stories, because this drama is certainly worth seeing.
()
So ein kleiner psychologischer Film über das Scheitern einer Ehe. Mehr würde ich nicht darin suchen. Eigentlich ist das einzig wirklich Großartige an dem ganzen Projekt die Arie aus Georg Friedrich Händels "Rinaldo", "Lascia ch'io pianga" ("Lass mich mit Tränen"). Diese liebe ich, seit ich sie in einer Interpretation von Farinelli gehört habe.
()
Thought-provoking, cinematically daring, and very depressing, but at its core it’s as cold as a penguin’s butt and its highly irritating execution is not easy to digest. Lars von Tier goes really far, so far that he often breaks reasonable boundaries and his creative excesses are bound to divide the audience into two groups. I tried to come to terms with his style, but despite some truly impressive scenes and an uncomfortable atmosphere, I couldn't overcome the detachment and long-windedness of his narration and I couldn’t even partially enjoy the film. Definitely a disappointment that even the otherwise excellent Willem Dafoe could not reverse. 50%
()
Ich stand vor einem schweren Dilemma, ob ich zur Vorpremiere von Don't Look Back - Schatten der Vergangenheit Sophie Marceau und M. Belucci oder zum Antichrist mit einer einleitenden Note seiner "zerbrechlichen" Hauptdarstellerin Charlotte Gainsbourg gehen sollte. Ich glaubte meinen eigenen Augen nicht, dass eine so schüchterne, ruhige und stille Frau die Rolle einer Frau mit einer fürchterlichen Depression und Schrecken, die einer tierischen sexuellen Gier und aggressiven Anfällen verfällt, spielen kann. Ganz sicher aber verdient sie ihren Preis von Cannes, auch wenn der Antichrist mit Gewalt- und Pornoszenen schockiert. Schon lange habe ich keinen Film mehr besucht, in dem die Zuschauer vorzeitig den Saal verlassen und andere am Ende in den Sitzen eingegraben sitzenbleiben. Der Antichrist wühlt sicher das Wasser auf und lässt keinen Zuschauer gleichgültig zurück, was ihm eigentlich auch geglückt ist. Ich persönlich stelle mich auf die Seite der lobenden Stimmen.
()
By using elements of symbolism, romanticism, realism, and above all naturalism, Lars von Trier has achieved an almost magical atmosphere, which together with the acting of the two protagonists, gave me a truly extraordinary, breathtaking and often pulse-quickening experience, the likes of which I have never seen in a cinema before. During the climactic scenes, when my companions and the other occupants of the cozy cinema room averted their eyes or whispered various words quietly to each other, I was "only" aware of my accelerated pulse and drops of sweat on my forehead, but I watched every second very closely, because I was completely captivated by von Trier's crazy openness... The prologue, with its beautiful musical accompaniment, is interspersed with a character study that explores the psyche of the Woman in considerable detail and chronicles the Man's efforts to identify the demons that torment the Woman's soul and prevent her from moving past that fateful event for both of them. At the moment when the demons and evil in the form of the raging nature completely engulf the Woman, she becomes a deranged and cold-blooded sadist, driven only by her own suffering and the terrible pain inside her heart. Antichrist cannot be described as a shocking and controversial film, for it is an utterly unique lyrical-epic work of art, a ballad with elements of romance, an atypical poem revealing the darkest and most terrifying aspects of human nature, or a desperately accurate and relentless account of the consequences of a human tragedy, in this case the loss of a child. While von Trier's latest effort will have a hard time finding a wider fan base (as all of his films probably do), it will remain a gem for me for a long time, and one that I will treasure immensely even many years later. And as to whether it's self-indulgent, perverse, immoral, or revolting? From an austere and uncomprehending point of view, yes. The likes of Emil Zola or Karel Josef Šlejhar would be delighted. --- NATURE IS SATAN'S CHURCH ---
()