The movie is structured in four parts: Grief, Pain (Chaos Reigns), Despair (Gynocide), and The Three Beggars, plus a Prologue and an Epilogue.
The Prologue in black and white is a short masterpiece, classy image quality and tones, wonderful music and mood, perfect tempo. It really sets the mood of the rest of the film, and offers a lyricism that gets lost afterwards.
Once the first chapter starts, the movie, its colours, its lighting, the atmosphere, and the acting start to dig in and unsettle the viewer with an unidentifiable menace that you feel even before the couple moves to the woods. That menacing feeling grows at the same pace as the tempo of the movie, being suffocating when the tragic events unfold. There are amazing oniric, premonitory and surreal images blended with the real facts, but these are progressively intermixed, and the boundaries between reality and unreality, sanity and insanity, get faded out.
The epilogue is very surreal, quite easy and light, more fairytale-ish in a way, and I thought that it did not glue well to the rest of the movie in story or mood.
The movie has only two actors, William Dafoe as He and Charlotte Gainsbourg as She, who carry out the heavy weight of the whole movie. Their physiques really suit the gloomy characters they play. In both cases, the roles are very demanding physically and emotionally, so their work has to be praised. I found, however, that their personal chemistry was somewhat lacking.
Cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle produces superb bucolic images, but also eerie oniric images and tones, that are not complacent or decorative, but the third character in the movie.
Antichrist is a psycho-thriller, and it is barely gory or explicitly violent until the last 20 minutes of the film, which are horrific. The violence and horror in the movie mainly come from the atmosphere and the dark places of the human soul where the story takes the viewer to. The fact that Von Trier was quite depressed when he filmed this movie, helps the movie to portray sadness, depression, mania, mental alienation and therapy with great accuracy. The movie has that profound eeriness that Japanese horror movies have, too, but explores other themes, and is not as entertaining, to be honest.
The surrealism of the movie is more Buñuel-Dali's in "Le Chien Andalu" than Tarkosky's, although some of the forest scenes and images would remind the viewer of the Russian Master, especially in The Mirror.
***
A few tags have been attached to the film by a few critics and, more often, by those people who have not watched the movie or follow what other people say without any further questioning. Critique given no. 1 - The movie is "offensively misogynistic" Really? I did not feel the hate towards women anywhere. The female character is a troubled spirit with a shocking behaviour, but if you consider that a proof of Trier's misogyny, you should categorise most Japanese horror film directors the same, as they have this sort of nasty women, too. To me, there is more misogyny in most Hollywood movies (in the way women are usually portrayed with regards to men and women) or in any bunch of randomly selected video-clips (where you will see women presented as trash and as pieces of meat) than in this movie. However, I don't see critics vehemently denouncing that.
The only misogyny in the film comes from the fact that the female character shifts the intellectual approach to her Ph. D. thesis called "Gynocide" (about the genocide of women through History) from a feminist one to a misogynist one. However, that is the direct result of her progressive mental and emotional alienation, in which she convinces herself that female nature is evil, as also her own nature, which explains the final horrific events. Von Trier offered an interview to Rotten Tomatoes, quite interesting, light and frank, that you might want to check if you want to see the movie or if you've already watched it
On the other hand, the male character is patronising, intellectually patronising, and his approach to his wife's problem, despite the love he has for her, is too clinical and emotionally detached - aseptically empathic if you want. So is not misogynist either.
Critique given no. 2: "The viewer cannot relate to the characters and their circumstances". Of course not. The movie deals with maniac depression, even schizophrenia at times, grieving, pain, and alienation. They are not sane characters. You do not need to relate to them at all.
Critique given no. 3: "The film is depressing". That's for sure, but, again, is a film about grieving and sadness, and the viewer knew that before watching the movie.
Critique given no. 4: "I do not know the point of the film", or "What is the movie about?". I think that, if the film had been more entertaining, you would not be asking that question. That is the director's fault. Still, the film has many different readings and interpretations. Some of the surreal and oniric images have no explanation, or as many explanations as you want. That is so, because our subconscious world is never straightforward or easily explainable: A fox eating itself alive, a gazelle with a dead foetus coming out, the sex scene under the tree, the dreams of the female character, some elements of European folklore and wizardry to mention just a few eerie (horrific to me) images. The mix of visual and narrative elements is overwhelming, and very complex.
***
Antichrist is an excellent movie, confusing a times, not entertaining enough, not easy to watch at all, with good performances. It contains horrific impacting images and moments that will upset you, especially if you are not into horror films. The film is still fascinating, but you are not going to recommend it to anybody to pass the time or have a nice relaxing Sunday afternoon.
Just a warning. If you are interested in watching explicit sex images, you better chose another movie, because you will be disappointed with the ones here, as the number of them is limited, of short length, and anti-erotic. Nothing that will turn you on - Guaranteed.
