Little Ottik is a bizarre horror comedy that adapts and reinterprets the folk story of Otesánek (aka Greedy Guts) for the big screen.
This is the story of the struggle of Bozena and Karel to hide and control heir piece-of-wood son Otesánek, a freak of nature with an insatiable hunger, from their neighbours.
The film re-examines the myth of the primeval creation, in which the natural order is subverted and disrespected. The couple succumbs to an act of greedy love that produces, as a result, a greedy gluttonous carnivore woody creature. Svankmajer depicts with great insight the sins of parenthood in our modern world, in which children are spoiled rotten, and anything they do is excused or justified. The movie also depicts with great humour and realism the social dynamics of small groups in blocks of apartments and neighbourhoods, paced not only by a net of support, but also by gossip, the power of appearances, and enmities and tensions.
The role of food in this movie is also very interesting, as most human characters in the movie eat disgusting porridge-like meals, despite them longing for meat, while Otesánek, a wooden creature, is eating meat all the time!
The Actors are all great and charming in their respective roles. Veronika Zilková plays with great conviction barren wife Bozena, while Jan Hartl plays with sweetness her doubtful and confused husband Karel. Also terrific are the actors playing the good-hearted neighbours: Kristina Adamcová as the incisive rebel child Alzbetka -who is also the catalyst of the story-, Jaroslava Kretschmerová as Alzbetka's sensible Mother, Pavel Nový as Alzbetka's working-class male Father, and Dagmar Stríbrná as the building caretaker.
The stop-motion animation of Otesánek is delightfully odd, and the drawn illustrations (by Svankmajer's wife) shown in the book that Alzbetka is reading are colourful and artistic. Also delightful are the episodes involving the interaction between old spectacled neighbour and Alzbetka, which are really really naughty.
On the negative side, the film was shot using ugly-looking 1970-like colours and lighting, which are a bit weird for a 2000 movie; still they somewhat go well with such an odd story. Moreover, the movie is too long and its pace too slow at times, and that is not excusable in this case.
Little Otik is a grotesque mesmerising adult tale with a great story, terrific performances, and very interesting themes. Nothing you've watched before!
Antichrist tells the story of a couple's grief after the death of their child, their progressive alienation from reality, and their descend to a personal hell, especially after they retreat to their cabin in in the forest, which they call Eden. Antichrist also
narrates the trip of the female character "She" to her inner hell, so
she becomes a demon (or the Antichrist) in an Eden inhabited by only a
man and a woman.
The movie is structured in four parts: Grief, Pain (Chaos Reigns), Despair (Gynocide), and The Three Beggars, plus a Prologue and an Epilogue.
The Prologue in black and white is a short masterpiece, classy image quality and tones, wonderful music and mood, perfect tempo. It really sets the mood of the rest of the film, and offers a lyricism that gets lost afterwards.
Once the first chapter starts, the movie, its colours, its lighting, the atmosphere, and the acting start to dig in and unsettle the viewer with an unidentifiable menace that you feel even before the couple moves to the woods. That menacing feeling grows at the same pace as the tempo of the movie, being suffocating when the tragic events unfold. There are amazing oniric, premonitory and surreal images blended with the real facts, but these are progressively intermixed, and the boundaries between reality and unreality, sanity and insanity, get faded out.
The epilogue is very surreal, quite easy and light, more fairytale-ish in a way, and I thought that it did not glue well to the rest of the movie in story or mood.
The movie has only two
actors, William Dafoe as He and Charlotte Gainsbourg as She, who carry out the heavy
weight of the whole movie. Their physiques really suit the gloomy
characters they play. In both cases, the roles are very demanding
physically and emotionally, so their work has to be praised. I found,
however, that their personal chemistry was somewhat lacking. Cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle produces superb bucolic images, but also eerie oniric images and tones, that are not complacent or decorative, but the third character in the movie.
Antichrist is a psycho-thriller, and it is barely gory or explicitly violent until the last 20 minutes of the film, which are horrific. The violence and horror in the movie mainly come from the atmosphere and the dark places of the human soul where the story takes the viewer to. The fact that Von Trier was quite depressed when he filmed this movie, helps the movie to portray sadness, depression, mania, mental alienation and therapy with great accuracy. The movie has that profound eeriness that Japanese horror movies have, too, but explores other themes, and is not as entertaining, to be honest.
The surrealism of the movie is more Buñuel-Dali's in "Le Chien Andalu" than Tarkosky's, although some of the forest scenes and images would remind the viewer of the Russian Master, especially in The Mirror.
***
A few tags have been attached to the film by a few critics and, more often, by those people who have not watched the movie or follow what other people say without any further questioning.
Critique given no. 1 - The movie is "offensively misogynistic" Really? I did not feel the hate towards women anywhere. The female character is a troubled spirit with a shocking behaviour, but if you consider that a proof of Trier's misogyny, you should categorise most Japanese horror film directors the same, as they have this sort of nasty women, too. To me, there is more misogyny in most Hollywood movies (in the way women are usually portrayed with regards to men and women) or in any bunch of randomly selected video-clips (where you will see women presented as trash and as pieces of meat) than in this movie. However, I don't see critics vehemently denouncing that.
The only misogyny in the film comes from the fact that the female character shifts the intellectual approach to her Ph. D. thesis called "Gynocide" (about the genocide of women through History) from a feminist one to a misogynist one. However, that is the direct result of her progressive mental and emotional alienation, in which she convinces herself that female nature is evil, as also her own nature, which explains the final horrific events. Von Trier offered an interview to Rotten Tomatoes, quite interesting, light and frank, that you might want to check if you want to see the movie or if you've already watched it On the other hand, the male character is patronising, intellectually patronising, and his approach to his wife's problem, despite the love he has for her, is too clinical and emotionally detached - aseptically empathic if you want. So is not misogynist either.
Critique given no. 2: "The viewer cannot relate to the characters and their circumstances". Of course not. The movie deals with maniac depression, even schizophrenia at times, grieving, pain, and alienation. They are not sane characters. You do not need to relate to them at all.
Critique given no. 3: "The film is depressing". That's for sure, but, again, is a film about grieving and sadness, and the viewer knew that before watching the movie. Critique given no. 4: "I do not know the point of the film", or "What is the movie about?". I think that, if the film had been more entertaining, you would not be asking that question. That is the director's fault. Still, the film has many different readings and interpretations. Some of the surreal and oniric images have no explanation, or as many explanations as you want. That is so, because our subconscious world is never straightforward or easily explainable: A fox eating itself alive, a gazelle with a dead foetus coming out, the sex scene under the tree, the dreams of the female character, some elements of European folklore and wizardry to mention just a few eerie (horrific to me) images. The mix of visual and narrative elements is overwhelming, and very complex.
***
Antichrist is an excellent movie, confusing a times, not entertaining enough, not easy to watch at all, with good performances. It contains horrific impacting images and moments that will upset you, especially if you are not into horror films. The film is still fascinating, but you are not going to recommend it to anybody to pass the time or have a nice relaxing Sunday afternoon.
Just a warning. If you are interested
in watching explicit sex images, you better chose another movie, because
you will be disappointed with the ones here, as the number of them is
limited, of short length, and anti-erotic. Nothing that will turn you on
- Guaranteed.
