Nietzsche, Lars von Trier, and Antichrist

It fascinates me that a person can have so much influence. On one hand his ideas are awful, terrible, rejected, despised by the established western world. On the other hand there is something fascinating by him, something that draws you towards him, something new and original, something which you cannot refuse to give attention. It is even more fascinating that this man saw it coming so far in advance that almost no-one understood it when he proclaimed it. He was like a prophet, not in the traditional sense of being divinely inspired, but in the sense of being an oracle of what is to come through an analysis of the season of time. He knew it by intuition, he could feel it, and he gave expression to it. Another feature of his prophetic ministry is the fact that he never saw the impact of his message. He died, but his ideas are flourishing.

Of course the only person I could possibly have in mind in the above is Friedrich Nietzsche.

In popular thinking this is also known as postmodernism even though it is difficult to describe this phenomenon as a unified movement. There are many variances of postmodernism, but I still think it is fair to say that there are common features. One of them is that they can all be traced back to Nietzsche’s philosophy a century (!) ago. It is simply fascinating that a person who lived a century ago can have such an all-encompassing influence on society and popular belief.

I have not seen Lars von Trier’s movie and I don’t think I’ll get the opportunity in the nearby future. I doubt that anyone here in Kenya would understand the movie, even less that they would show it in the cinemas or sell it in the stores. But I can tell from the descriptions, reviews, and interviews what to expect. This is postmodernism in is extreme form.

I was immersed into my own cultural and philosophical milieu. I’m a product of my own time, hence I cannot deny that I’m truly fascinated when I read about the movie. Rejection of relativism and embracement of relativism is a popular trend, but few have been ready to go all the way. At certain points, particularly times of crisis, the popular understanding is inherently unstable because it lacks consistency. Most people display evidence of an absolute foundation when it counts, either Christian, humanistic/atheistic, Muslim, Eastern religious, etc. Denying that an unsupported, presuppositional foundation exists is therefore to live in a state of denial.

Nietzsche – and Lars von Trier - take the postmodern critique of the Cartesian (i.e. from René Descartes) philosophy to its logical and necessary conclusion: nihilism. I can tell from the reactions on the movie that this point has been reached, both through the descriptions of it, but also by the very fact that some people walked out in protest against it. The philosophical conclusion was simply unbearable to them. It was too outspoken. It offended them.

It is not a surprise that von Trier received inspiration for the movie from his own depression. The romantic denial of fear, anger, lust and desire, is replaced with acceptance, indeed fascination and promovation of these elements, for they are essential parts of what it means to be human. His philosophical world is guided by themes about the cosmos, the ur-person, the foundational desires and feelings - the “Antichrist”! In the art of making movies such expressions can be caught by means of extreme slowmotion. By so doing, he is able to create a sense of static sorrow, static anxiety, static paranoia (“statisk sorg, statisk angst, statisk paranoia”, interview with Lars von Trier).

Now, I have lived in a different culture than my own for some years now and as an outsider I can see how people have difficulties in distinguishing between culture and Christianity. They claim (sometimes American) cultural elements to be Christian because their cultural identity is so much mixed up with their Christian identity. This is true of Christianity in every culture. Why would we then claim that it is any different in the West? However, Lars von Trier opposes all religion as evil:

I have always seen Protestatism as the great brute, but religion is some crap altogether, I’m sure about that (Jeg har jo altid set protestantismen som det store udyr, men religion er i det hele taget noget lort, det er jeg sikker på). Interview with Lars von Trier.

I think I understand him quite well (apart from his absolute certainty!). In this he is not any different from Nietzsche, his great inspirator:

I have had Nietzsche’s Antichrist on my table since I was 12. You know, this is his great encounter with Christianity (Jeg har haft Nietzsches Antichrist liggen på mit bord, siden jeg var 12. Det er jo hans store opgør med kristendommen). Interview with Lars von Trier.

I’m have sympathy for his intention, but, as I have written elsewhere on this weblog,  he and Nietzsche fail to distinguish culture from Christianity.

What Descartes was for modernism, Nietzsche wasa for postmodernism. In his famous parable, The Madman, the Madman was not claiming responsibility for killing God, but prophesied the inevitable outcome of what the philosophical establishment had done implicitly and unknowingly. Enlightenment Christianity had erroneously maintained that the infinite God can be comprehended by finite human reasoning. Such a claim, however, is blasphemy and idolatry, because it rejects the qualitative difference between Creator and created humans. What Nietzsche did not realize was that his proclamation was not directed towards Christianity per se, but towards the Cartesian paradigm, two systems which at that time were inextricably bound together (Postmodern Christian Theology).

Lars von Trier’s attack on Christianity is, as is Nietzsche’s, misplaced because it assumes that the culture of modernity is itself Christianity. But that’s a faulty claim. Therefore, I do not as a postmodern Christian feel attacked by him.

I must say that Lars von Trier is fascinating. Whether you like it or not, at least he is closer to being consistent than pop-philosophical, shallow claims that will not last when seriously challenged. I would have loved to watch the movie, not so much because I think I fully agree with him – though I think much of it would resonate within me – but rather because I sense that this is the final test for me to see if I really understand and feel postmodernism.

If you want to explore further on Christian postmodernism, you can see my earlier post on postmodern Christian theology HERE (though dealing mostly with it from a philosohical/epistemological/theological perspective). You can read about the movie HERE (in Danish) and interviews HERE (some in Danish, some in English).