Back to IndieWire

Willem Dafoe Says ” ‘Antichrist’ Is A More Dangerous, Risky Movie Than ‘Nymphomaniac’ “

Willem Dafoe Says " 'Antichrist' Is A More Dangerous, Risky Movie Than 'Nymphomaniac' "

Having worked with Lars von Trier on four movies to date (including the two-volume “Nymphomaniac“), Willem Dafoe is more than familiar with director’s boundary-pushing narratives. After all, his character did get his balls crushed and was jerked off while unconscious until he ejaculated blood in “Antichrist.” And probably for that reason alone, Dafoe believes that film mashes more controversy buttons than von Trier’s newest provocation.

Speaking recently with Total Film, the actor said risky movies can still be made in today’s cinematic environment that tends to favor sure things, and blockbusters. “I think there’s room. Though I would say ‘Antichrist’ is a more dangerous, risky movie than ‘Nymphomaniac,’ ” Dafoe said. “I like Lars [von Trier] a great deal. He has a good instinct to ask the unaskable.”

We’ll leave it for you to decide which of these von Trier films deserves the title of most dangerous. The one where Charlotte Gainsbourg masturbates and cuts off her clitoris? Or the one where students are graphically taught how to perform an abortion? Or maybe another movie entirely more risqué than either of them? Let us know below. [via Xposé]

This Article is related to: News and tagged ,



Wow, what a difficult question! I think that one first have to decide in what way these dangers manifest. I think that 'Antichrist' is more dangerous in a psychological way, changing the way we see parenthood, gender, grief and tragedy, and relationships. 'Nymphomaniac' on the other hand is dangerous in the way that it challenges the way we view our own sexuality, and the sexuality of the opposite sex- whether we ourselves are male or female. Considering that both these films are part of the depression trilogy, they (to me) resonate quite dangerously on a depressive level. What I mean by this is that these film portray two very dangerous, and different, sides of the 'depression' coin. In that aspect, yes, these are both two dangerous films.


who cares they are both trash movies made by a trash no talent hack film maker who never felt college .Lars von trier is a sick individual who likes too smear his shit on the walls and has the nerve to call every other than what it really is .Its films like this that make me glad that blockbusters are still dominate and win out over these little insignifcant indie films.that think they are smarter than there audience that they r teaching them something.I'm surprised someone like willem dafoe would do a von trier movie being the respected actor he is.You figure he was better than that


While I can't say with certainty which film is more "risky," I will admit that Von Trier is an important filmmaker making important films.


I don't know how a movie can be dangerous. Maybe if it makes people do dangerous things, like jump off a cliff. But anyway Antichrist is the better movie of those two, imo.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *