Antichrist is a horror drama film directed by Lars von Trier, in which a couple retreat to a remote woodland cabin after their young child dies. The film was submitted to the BBFC for classification in 2009, and the distributors made no category request.
Classification issues
The BBFC classified Antichrist 18 for strong images of real sex, bloody violence, and a scene of self-mutilation.
Sex
The strong real sex includes images of genital contact and unsimulated penetration shown in close up. At the 18 category, the BBFC's Guidelines at the time stated that the more explicit images of sexual activity are unlikely to be permitted unless they can be exceptionally justified by context and the work is not a 'sex work', i.e. its primary purpose is not sexual arousal or stimulation.
Examiners at the time felt that Antichrist was clearly not a 'sex work', but rather a serious drama exploring issues such as grief, loss, guilt and fear. The brief images of explicit real sex were felt to be exceptionally justified as illustrations of the central characters’ relationship, which is depicted throughout in a graphic and unflinching fashion, both psychologically and physically.
It was also noted that the BBFC had permitted comparable explicit images in a number of previous features at the 18 level. Examples include L’Empire Des Sens, 9 Songs, Shortbus and Lars von Trier's earlier film, The Idiots where it is clear that the purpose of the work and the individual images in question are not there simply to arouse viewers but to illustrate characters, relationships and themes.
Violence
Antichrist features several strong and gory horror images. These include a sequence in which a character’s ankle is drilled and where his genitals are beaten and ejaculate blood. Most notably, perhaps, the film also includes sight of a character mutilating her own genitals with a pair of scissors.
This act of self-mutilation is shown in close up, although the image is only on screen for a few seconds. Though it clearly exceeded the BBFC's Guidelines at 15, where 'the strongest gory images are unlikely to be acceptable' and where 'violence may be strong but may not dwell on the infliction of pain or injury', Examiners at the time also had to consider whether it would be appropriately placed uncut at 18.
Even at 18 the BBFC recognised that the scene might be shocking and offensive to some viewers, but this had to be considered alongside the BBFC’s commitment to allowing adults to make a free choice about what they watch as long as it is within the law and not harmful to either individuals or to society. The genital mutilation is not presented in an eroticised or attractive manner and is not likely to encourage emulation or arousal in a way that would make it unsuitable for classification. Accordingly, the scene was considered acceptable at 18.
The BBFC’s Director at the time, David Cooke, said: “Antichrist deals with what happens to a couple after the death of their child, focusing on the psychological impact on them both. The film does not contain material which breaches the law or poses a significant harm risk to adults. The sexual imagery, while strong, is relatively brief, and the Board has since 1990 passed a number of works containing such images. This reflects the principle, strongly endorsed in a number of public consultations, that adults should be free to decide for themselves what to watch or what not to watch, provided it is neither illegal nor harmful.
“There is no doubt that some viewers will find the images disturbing and offensive, but the BBFC [content advice] provides a clear warning to enable individuals to make an informed viewing choice.”
Audience feedback
Antichrist was released in cinemas in the UK in June 2009. Some media commentators called for it to be banned and/or accused the BBFC of failing in its duty in allowing such strong images to be passed uncut. Others defended the decision to pass an arthouse horror film with relatively limited ‘mainstream’ appeal at the high end of the adult category and criticised those commentators who called for the work to be banned without having seen it.
A similar spread of opinions was found in the feedback emails received by the BBFC from the public. Some quoted newspaper articles and publicity around the film's release, calling for it to be banned whilst others praised the decision and the robust BBFC content advice which warned the public of the strength of the material.
