Symbol and Metaphor in Lars von Trier’s Antichrist

Part One: The Title

I have often struggled with the shifting boundaries of metaphor and symbol, puzzling over how the same string of words, or a graphic sign can be sliced up as either one or the other. The distinction has sometimes seemed arbitrary and unhelpful when trying to analyse my own experience of complex artifacts such as movies. Yet I am aware that the distinction between symbol and metaphor has also been ardently defended by artists and critics alike.

Traditionally and simply put: a symbol transfers meaning through a direct association, whereas a metaphor operates on a deeper level of implied analogical transference where meaning may be more fluid and expansive. It is clear, however, that certain signs are instantaneously both symbol and metaphor. The crucifix is an apt example, on the one hand it symbolises Christianity, but on the other, it may be used as a metaphor for wider Christian values such as suffering or redemption. A direct association has been achieved by the symbol standing for the actual cross constructed out of wood, whilst the metaphorical analogy has been achieved through a continuous broadening of Christian beliefs within a far wider socio-historical context. My problem has always been where to draw the line on what I see as a continuum or spectrum where all symbols are potentially metaphors and vice versa. I would argue that, for instance, the symbolic aspect of the crucifix is no longer meaningfully separable from its role as visual metaphor, in Western culture at least. Symbols are Trojan Horses, loaded with metaphors. The swastika is another case in point. If we retreat to the surface level of association then we have the general category of ‘sign’ for the graphic itself, but where on the sign:metaphor continuum do we place symbol? Further abstract discussion of this would lead us into convoluted digressions of semiotics, denotations, connotations, signifieds and the like, losing focus on the central contention that the relationship between symbol and metaphor is simply problematic. I think we can agree that metaphor is the deeper and more complex of the two though.

Immediately, Lars von Trier’s film Antichrist throws us into the heart of these issues. Firstly, both the film logo (above) and the screened title (below) split the word ‘Antichrist’ into two halves:

ANTI
CHRIST

implying a break with the traditional Biblical rendering that assigns The Antichrist to some mythical being, a literal negative analog of Christ. By splitting the word, we are confronted with the possibility that the movie might be setting itself up against Christ, positing no replacement. The title leaves a bloodless void, a revolution without an answer, a war without a post-war plan. This cinematic act deals with something far deeper than a mythico-religious Being, it symbolises a massive, gaping Against. This kind of standing is already metaphorical, operating at a level far deeper than sign or symbol. The disturbance goes further still though when we come to the T of CHRIST which morphs T, cross/tau cross, and the symbol for ‘woman/female/Venus', into something resembling the ankh, Egyptian symbol of life, fertility and lust. Another resonance here being the Alchemical symbol for Copper which also leads us back to Venus via electricity (in combination with Mars/male/iron), but also it is remarkable in being able to heal restlessness and non-acceptance of oneself.

These symbols are already replete with meanings, but visually and semantically we get the sense that the very word Christ has been usurped by Woman, particularly in von Trier’s graffiti scrawled version. Interesting to note in passing that the biological symbol for woman actually derives from a depiction of Venus’s hand-mirror, further complexity in the symbol:metaphor continuum. Returning to the surface of the hybrid symbol, the cross replaced by Woman could easily be inferring that Man is crucified on/by Woman. Alternatively, those who would portray von Trier as a misogynist might argue that it merely reflects the leitmotif of the whole movie, ANTI WOMAN. Personally, I think neither is intended. I witness a sardonic iconoclasm that seeks to undermine all banal associations of signification. It made me smile.

Before we can get beyond the title, there is one further idiosyncrasy evident in the scribbled version. There is a rift between the grouping of the letters of ANT and I. We could read ANT I CHRIST. Given the role of ants in nature as the great reclaimers of death, given their mythical autochthonous origins, we might expect some reprise in the film itself, and indeed it is there. Ants do appear on the corpse of a runt egret gobbled up by its mother, however this may be homage to Buñuel rather than a declaration of the primacy of Ant. The other consequence of this grouping is the typographical separation of ‘I’, and given that this is the first film that von Trier has directed whilst being separated from the camera and even the shooting itself, it is possible that this too is revealed in the title. Evidently, he was only well enough to shoot a couple of short scenes himself.

[In Part Two I’ll be looking at the movie itself]