In order to claim something is "not art", you have to first define what "is art" - and that's something incredibly difficult and elusive. Art isn't just the sublime, the beautiful and the poetic, it can be the absurd, the ridiculous, the macabre, the cheap, the hollow. It is a multitude of things that spans the whole of human existence ... And I've never bought the "self indulgence" cop-out. All an artist can do is follow their vision, their gut feeling, and express themselves. People will either pick up on it, or completely reel against it, and that's all there is to it.

I don't think there are any claims towards Antichrist 'not being art' more that von Trier is a 'con artist'.

A con artist in the sense that the reviewer feels this film does not meet the criteria for being art, surely? Why else would one think of him as a con artist? He is what he does, he is the films he makes.

If you read the review, the reviewer makes it quite clear he thinks von trier is having a good old laugh at the audience's expense, rather than producing this cerebral film experience that some have described antichrist as. also, he hardly savages the film - he gives it 3 stars! so he must of quite liked it.

I have to wholeheartedly disagree with almost everything stated in this review. Firstly - the unsubstantiated assumption that von Trier is playing a joke/con on us - unless, Mr. de Paula, you have direct information from von Trier himself that this is the case, then your justification for not liking the movie (i.e. if we do like it we are being conned) is based on a completely false premise from the onset. As such, you shouldn't propose that if someone does enjoy the movie that they have been conned. You are trying to lead people into believing that your view is the only valid view when the truth is that your view only pertains to your own perception of the movie (and what you missed in the movie), rather than being a universal for all who see this movie. You shouldn't therefore judge those who enjoyed the movie as not seeing it for what it is, but rather, should perhaps reassess your own views of the movie, rather than concerning yourself in immensities of black/white whether or not the movie constitutes 'art'. To the points raised regarding the movie - primarily, the symbolism. You state that the symbolism is 'cheap', yet you have only mentioned the two most obvious symbolic images (images which even a kid would note as being symbolic - perhaps these symbols were added to amuse those who miss the beautiful/subtle imagery that abounds in this movie), yet you fail to mention any other symbolism, noting nothing of the allusions to, amongst many others: Hesiod, Ovid, Dante, Blake, Milton, Baudelaire, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Dali, Rembrandt, and particular reference to specific pieces of literature such as the Compendium Maleficarum, the Malleum Maleficarum, and the '3 Books of Occult Philosophy' etc etc. RE the fox disemboweling itself, and 'chaos reigns' - the fox is a direct symbol pertaining to one of the authors mentioned above, and the term 'chaos reigns', as well as being a direct reference to the state of affairs in the movie/in the minds of the actors, is used specifically for the precise etymology of said terms, referring to specific cultural/social issues, more particularly, a reference to the influence of religion in the northern European countries in the 12th-13th centuries (an influence that Denmark is still wiping itself clean of, being a predominantly atheist nation). You also failed to mention von Trier's use of idiosyncratic camera work in the manner of Maya Deren, Jan Svankmajer, Brothers Quay, Jaromil Jires, Ingmar Bergman, Elias E. Merhige, etc etc, and how the combination of angle/light in certain scenes directly references to these specific directors/animators. What you see as 'faults' I see as poetic/artistic/symbolic references that you simply failed to note. The 'juxtaposition between beauty and innocence' you mention is a reference to Lacanian psychoanalysis. But i'm sure 'Beauty and the Beast' is easier to comprehend. It grossly offends me when someone who feels qualified to comment on the artistic nature of a creation is rather ill-educated in the field they propose to pass critical judgement on. Then again, i'm sure many, like yourself, will see this movie as sex/violence with no artistic content. I wonder if this tells us more about you than it does about us who were 'conned'?? One final thing - the premise of the psychotherapist is not 'wafer-thin' - it is the very basis for the nature of the exchanges between husband/wife. As a therapist, the husband is not in a position to prescribe medication (he is not a psychiatrist) - this is a big distinction - one which von Trier would be very familiar with, considering what he was going through himself. The husband unjustifiedly assumes a position of control early on in the movie by taking/manipulating control of whether or not the wife takes psychiatric medication or not - which, of course, he would wish for her not to, as the very nature of a 'therapist' is to create a full holistic system of 'treatment' - one that in no way uses medication, as the therapist would lose control were medication to be prescribed, as this is something they would be incapable of doing. The wife states in plain English that she is aware of this when she says 'but you're not a doctor'. The devil was released on the world by the husband, and denying the wife her medication was the bite from the forbidden fruit. This was a very basic premise of the movie. von Trier made this obvious by, in one scene, making the psychiatric pills adopt the symbolic shape of the Serpent. The medication was not the evil, but was only an inverse representation of the temptation of evil, with evil being the denial of the medication, and the greater good being the continued use of the medication. To deny the importance of this plotline is to deny the very nature of the paradigm shift later on in the movie, and is to fail to see the true meaning of the change of control when both husband and wife enter the woods. I fully give this movie 5 stars and will state that von Trier ties together many aspects of Western art/literature/thought together coherently, and at an exemplary pace for the contemplation/understanding of the multitude of symbolic references that abound in this work.

That'll show 'um...lol

Antichristfan, what a fantastic rebuttal! Bravo! You should be the one writing reviews rather than the lazy nethacks who just regurgitate Peter Bradshaw's opinion. It's good to see people not consumed by cynicism and not being part of the herd; all afraid of falling foul of ridicule at the emporers new clothes gag.

I thought the inclusion of almost subliminal, distorted, screaming faces hidden in the movie was one of the scariest parts. Something sinister lurking just beneath what we saw, and you couldn't tell when it would appear again!

Thank you for this review!. I was curious about this movie especially because Dafoe is such a great actor. But I won't see it for sure as I am happy to haven't seen any of his movies so far. And, for the moment, positive, that I will stay this way. Thanks again

Just watched the film. Interesting and disturbing. Far to much going on here to digest upon a single glimpse and what I find a little strange is that I'm somewhat wary of seeing it again. astounding filmwork coupled with oppresive darkness, it left me feeling almost smothered, like chocolate that is far too rich. I can't say that I agree with our critics comments anymore than I can agree with the validity of a critics existence at all. The varied, personal experiences of art in general can not be "contained" through a single opinion. This is not hollywood drivel. Perhaps a masterpiece for some, for others a gruesome, pointless journey. I for one enjoyed it.