Michael Phillips’ review of Lars von Trier’s Antichrist fails to give justification to its claims. While the review seems to be overall positive, Phillips allows himself a few irresponsible, unsubstantiated statements that discredit his overall point.
The review begins strongly, eliciting images from the film to bring the reader into the chaotic world of Von Trier. When he’s dealing with thematic content, Phillips is on his game. His summary of Antichrist’s effect is beautifully put, “It dissects a psyche unraveling and a marriage, shrouded by tragic loss, being torn apart.”
The review takes a turn for the worse when he begins to call the film “insane.” He makes this claim without any justification – attributing the artistic effort to insanity. He later reduces Von Trier’s artistic output to “the most sadistic battle-of-the-sexes comedy ever made,” a blurb that never backs itself up. Not once in his review does he point out where the comedy is to be found, and seems to be saying these things in an attempt at humorous reduction.
Claims like this always make me angry. I understand thinking a film has gone too far, and I even understand the interpretation of painfully serious art as comedy. It’s when these claims aren’t justified that I begin to have a problem with them. Rather than analyzing and exploring, the review reduces the film to a blurb about how “insane” or “crazy” it was. The word “insane” doesn’t tell me anything about the film. It just feels like an awkward attempt at describing an uncomfortable reaction to something onscreen. While I agree with some of what Phillips says, his review lacks justification.
The review can be found here.
No comments:
Post a Comment