'Antichrist' film review

Grade: A- In order to adequately realize 'Antichrist' in full, one must hold on to that individual experience subjected upon them - once one wades through the nauseating surplus of imagery, metaphors, and various degrees of tone (yes - tone), all intended for the sake of invoking a quality of arbitrary, subjective anxiety and horror, there is a simple notion that surfaces in the end: man – as in mankind - is composed of a not so precise nature. One that is severe, irrational, hostile, and simple - therefore, God must be an obvious afterthought. And for the sake of all involved in the natural world being spared “grief, pain, and sorrow” (such are the titles of the Chapters dividing the film) our species’ closest associate to God (women) must be done away with. Ultimately, this is Lars Von Trier’s verdict – an exact judgment dispatched in celluloid – there is no misogyny involved – just a practical, theoretical suggestion designed in the interest of salvation. A notion that seems pretty reasonable...wouldn’t you like to be saved? In the Middle Ages this was referred to as gynocide, or gendercide: “the deliberate extermination of persons of a particular sex.” Von Trier concludes – We are all born of people’s so-called desires – our existence is streamlined after the fact. If one were to remove such futile efforts, such as the ability to perceive sexual stimulation, we would no longer be at the mercy of nature. Charlotte Gainsbourg plays a parallel, more progressive form of the "mother of humanity": Eve (considering most of the action is set in a fictional forested region of the Pacific Northwest named Eden). The title’s Antichrist does not refer to any satanic nonsense; rather, just the reversal of what is known to be “Christ like.” If the origin and conception of man is natural (and God like), therefore, an elimination of such species is the antitheses…as nature intended. If only the fittest organisms prevail – then chaos certainly reigns. Plot - Immediately following Charlotte Gainsbourg’s son’s death, her persistent pain is offset by her engagement in constant sex; considering her short-lived dependency on medication (which leaves her lethargic and indifferent) is immediately halted by her husband’s insistence to not take any drug that suppresses trauma. He advises her to confront the pain head-on, and realizing all her fears. It is revealed towards the film’s closing that Charlotte Gainsbourg’s character is ultimately responsible for the death of her infant son - thought she is not motivated by cunning, but adoration. We come to realize that this was a subconscious decision conditioned into her psyche gradually, and painlessly. Her method was to dress each of her son’s foot with the opposite boot – causing him to slowly cripple his feet. We glimpse her watching her son waddling toward the open window in which he falls from while she in rapture – she states earlier that she was aware her son left his crib to saunter about the house. As for the much talked about maiming - Charlotte Gainsbourg, a retrograde mother goddess, comes to realize that such a silly exercise like sex only causes a steady payout of grief - mutilation of genitalia ensues. Written and directed by Lars von Trier; director of photography, Anthony Dod Mantle; edited by Anders Refn; music by Handel; production designer, Karl Juliusson; produced by Meta Louise Foldager; released by IFC Films. Running time: 1 hour 49 minutes. This film is not rated. WITH: Willem Dafoe (He), Charlotte Gainsbourg (She) and Storm Acheche Sahlstrom (Nic).