Response to: http://eat-my-special-k.blogspot.com/2010/02/antichrist.html

Having not actually seen the film - my squeamishness and tightness with money preventing me from buying it - I can't really comment on its plot with much authority. However, since first hearing about it some time ago, I have done a fair amount of 'research'. i.e. discussing it on message boards and reading reviews...

However, it is my understanding that this is something of an Art-house film, and thus it is perhaps somewhat lacking in a cohesive narrative. I get the impression that this is intended to be uncomfortable viewing. It's not so much that Lars von Trier believes the scenes he put to film are suitable for a mainstream audience, partly because this is not a mainstream film. The only reason I feel that it's garnered such publicity is that it has been described as, "ironic torture-porn and derided as meaningless naval-gazing".

I for one, have never been into the whole 'torture-porn' genre. Hostel and Saw (maybe the first one's pretty good) do nothing for me. Yet, Antichrist is an artistic statement, not a hollywood blockbuster.

It is a window into von Trier's id. One clouded by depression and dark thoughts. From what I have heard, it is simply a showcase of primal human behaviour - humans driven to the point of near insanity. Humans at their lowest. To achieve this - that is, to truly delve into the minds of these characters - we must see their actions as clear as possible. Laid bare. Exposed. Metaphorically and physically.

von Trier is simply unflinching in his portrayal of the two characters. He wants us to be shocked by their actions; to truly acknowledge and appreciate every event. It is only by being as graphic as censors will allow, that von Trier can "accurately" express the depravity, sickness and desperation which humans can sink to.

So essentially, I say, why not make the film graphic? If this is what von Trier wishes to show, then he should show it. There is much art to feature nudity and genitalia, and for good reason - we've all got those parts; why are we afraid to see them on screen?

No, the film is not appropriate for watching by a good majority of people (I think this is one which definitely justifies the '18' rating) but for those who are prepared to watch an act which many of us perform on a regular basis (I feel I should make a joke here, but I won't) it is nothing we haven't seen before.

Sex, that is. Not Willem Defoe's penis.