Lars Von Trier has never been one to shy away from controversy. Some would (probably rightfully) call him a provocateur. Antichrist is no exception. As always with Von Trier there is no easy answer, and his latest film is certainly going to split audiences. The film has also received negative media (well in the UK) based around it's closing scenes amid claims of the films misogyny, this review will look at the film, and I'll attempt to answer those claims with what I made of the film.

So where to start. Well, first a little background. Von Trier claimed he wrote Antichrist and made it during a bout of depression. This is an important factor to consider when looking at the film as a whole so bear that in mind.

In terms of plot, the film is very simplistic. He and She (played by Willem DeFoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg) are grieving following the death of their son. She fails to deal with the grief, and they embark on a journey into the woods (called Eden) where increasingly strange and disturbing things begin to happen. There is a little more to this, but I'll mark it as spoilers although I'd imagine you are aware of the films content.

The theme lying on the surface of the film is one of psychology. The way the couple deal with their grief specifically. She embraces it, and is strangled by it. He on the other hand looks at it from a psychologists point of view and distances himself from the situation at hand. Both are unhealthy ways of dealing with the loss of their son. These roles continue throughout the film. DeFoes constant psychoanalytical readings of his wife become infuriating after a while, and the most obvious way of looking at the film is perhaps Von Trier lashing out at psychiatrists like ones he saw to deal with his own depression. DeFoe's character is very heavy handed and arrogant in knowing what is best for his wife, and often forces her to confront her fears, whilst he too is seeing some very strange things occur in the woods too. As if Von Trier is saying psychiatrists have a way of looking at their problems, and distancing themselves, but they still have problems and you can't escape them forever, so helping others is absolute arrogance.

That is an obvious reading of the film that I think anyone could pick up on. Here is what I took from the film. I thought Antichrist was a meditation on grief, guilt and depression. Of course there were the ideas of grief on the surface, and the guilt that comes with it, all of which lead to depression. Gainsbourg's character is perhaps Von Trier. She goes through an exaggerated version of what he perhaps went through. All of the factors of depression are here, a desire to die (which I thought sparked off the final scenes), the destruction of relationships with others, the destruction of self, frustration, fear and anger. All of those aspects are in her character. Her acts often metaphors for those things. I can't really explain this angle without spoilers so our first tag is about to be used :

SPOILER TAGS DO NOT WORK : SPOILERS BEGIN

She's depression stems from her guilt. She effectivelly allows her son to die, and also begins to believe that as she is a woman she is evil, as all women are evil. Obviously she only believes this because of her own overwhelming guilt, she has to find a reason to hate herself, and she does. She follows this reasoning through. In the final scenes when she mutilates her own genitalia she is perhaps attempting to rid herself of her evil. This works as a metaphor for some of the reasons for self harm as a whole. Also the destruction of her relationship with her husband, on which she is dependent for most of the film shows a desire for independence. A want to distance herself from him. In the same way someone who was planning to kill themselves would perhaps distance themselves from others to lessen the impact, she says early on in the film that "She wants to die" hinting at this possible reading. This is effectively the beginning of the end for their relationship. You could even say (major spoiler begins) that she ruins that relationship so violently so that He will carry out the act that she cannot (major spoiler ends)

SPOILERS END

Of course with Von Trier it is easy to doubt his sincerity, and a reading of the film like that would make the film sincere. Honestly, I believe it is his most personal and sincere film. But his sincerity is masked by his insincerity. This is where the claims of misogny come into play. Von Trier has been accused of misogyny before, and I think this film clearly satirises that. The scenes in question include a character coming to believe that all women are evil by nature. This is so over the top it is clearly a joke to answer previous claims of mysogny. Von Trier is almost certainly laughing at the fools who have failed to understand that. This is the mask of insincerity. I personally think this was included to cover up the trully personal nature of the film, which whether or not was supposed to be so truthful, I couldn't say.

After that, I must congratulate Willem DeFoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg on performances that really do help carry the film. Willem DeFoe is cold and distant, as his character is. His voice is sometimes emotionless, although once his distance is denied in the final act he brings all his emotion into the performance. Immersing himself fully into the role. Charlotte Gainsbourg however gives a performance of such emotional intensity, it is incredible. The best performance by any actor or actress I've seen in some time. Even in the final chapter when she has gone insane she is fully believable, frightening, and at the same time, seems logical in committing the most illogical acts. That is a performance of incredible conviction, that nobody else could pull off. If any other person wins best actress at the Oscars they do not deserve it. A career defining role to be sure. She is also fearless in fully taking part in everything the story throws at her. And in a role that seems so alien, it also seems so human, and it connected with me and a strange level that I don't fully understand.

As for the direction. I think is, stylistically, Von Trier's best film. From the opening black and white super slow motion sequence of He and She having sex while their son falls from a window, with hardcore porn shot that seems of little relevance until

SPOILERS BEGIN

She sticks her finger in a hole in He's leg in order to show the reversal of power in their relationship

SPOILERS END

to the brilliant Eden sequences. Cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle is, put simply, a genius. He also did Slumdog Millionaire, but his eye for the forest is just perfect here. Really amazing. Nature appears twisted really adding to the feel of an evil nature. One perhaps not created by God, but by Satan. Also the colour drain throughout the film is a brilliant idea. With each chapter of the film (there are 4) the colour is drained, and the lighting becomes increasingly darker symbolising the way the plot is going, and the increasingly dark and claustrophobic state of mind that comes with depression. It is also important to note that as the chapters go on, Eden seems increasingly smaller. This is done through some very clever cutting that makes everything seem closer to the cabin around which eden lies. You may have heard the film has a talking fox. Yes it does, and it works brilliantly in the films context. Out of context it seems silly, but in the film it just works. As do the other disturbing natural images of a deer with it's miscarriage hanging from it, and a crow beaten with a stone. These also add to the films atmosphere tenfold. The atmosphere the film creates is also perfect. Very similar to Zulawski's Possession, in more ways than just atmosphere, but that is what the film feels closest to. Also Von Trier's constant switching between his Dogme $tyle and a very wide stylistic palette works incredibly well. The film is also laden with subtle satanic imagery, and I mean very subtle, also Exorcist like subliminals, also adding to the films atmosphere of doom. All culminating to make the film a visual treat.

The soundtrack is built up of loud, overbearing, cacophonous sounds. Which are in themselves frightening. Further adding to the films feel. Making it a scarily immersing experience.

Overall, I'm not going to recommend the film per say. Mainly because the film was designed to be polarising. It is difficult to watch, it is challenging, and I can almost guarantee will make different people have different reactions and thoughts regarding its content and intent. Personally I thought the film was brilliant, other people may not. The film spoke to me in a strange way, and seemed to be more than meets the eye. I'll certainly rewatch the film to take it all in fully, to properly understand what it is trying to say. What we have here is either something very special, or something very pretentious. Something either very sincere, or something very insincere. I can't put my finger on it. But I thought it was a film with a real staying power, built up of strong images and ideas. Lead by two incredible performances that deserve the highest recognition, and it is because of that I'm going to award the film a

10/10

I guess "Choas Regins".