Does "Antichrist", as the title, refer to the "Antichrist" mentioned five times in the New Testament in 1 John, or to Nietzsche's book The Antichrist?
Whether it is Nietzsche or the New Testament, they all refer to a noun form, namely der Antichrist (German), the article clearly means a reference to a special individual, and in the title "Antichrist", it is obviously taken In adjective form, that is, to show that it describes a phenomenon. Perhaps a more appropriate title would be "Anti/Antichrist".
In any case, after all this is clear, this is still not a film that can be over-interpreted. Because once it is interpreted, it becomes a clear symbol with causal relationship after another, and the power of art will be dispelled immediately. It is not an anti-religious work, but a hypocritical work that returns to religion in a roundabout way. In the New Testament, the image of the Antichrist is the impostor who hides in the shadows, presenting himself in false enlightenment and false language, causing the people to fall into his calamities without knowing it. In this way, all the images in the film are disintegrated in the face of the interpretation of the "Bible", whether it is the noble "Trinity" corresponding to the number three, or the Eden of men and women, they have become boring and cliché symbols.
Moviegoers certainly don't seek such an explanation, they want an appreciation for the film. Personally, I am more inclined to expound this work as a poetic and historical trap. The mystification in the title and discourse is a mockery of what people think is true, but is actually a false history. When people realize how superficial and real this "Antichrist" is, it should be a kind of shock from the bottom up. Almost tingling the scalp. If the film itself remains faithful to the original unread state without Nietzsche, without all its cloaks, without Nietzsche, or without a loop-like interpretation, then it is indeed a shadow of Christianity, or a shadow of the elusiveness of reality. Because everything that could bind it is gone. All that's left is the horrific scenes, and the irrationality close to people.
What leaves people is more of a crazy ending, the director almost asked: How can science cease to exist? If the ending is translated into its opposite: science and technology are prosperous, and the world is beautiful, then people know how far away this beauty is and how different it is. Because it itself is built on disaster. One can only defend against this disaster with defensive measures. As a result, we ask ourselves, is this what we call heaven? We would rather usher in the end times of the Antichrist than such a heaven.
View more about Antichrist reviews
