Antichrist of Lars von Trier can be understood if one is able of leaving all provocation aside, as should be the case with von Trier and dealing only with aesthetics, I will try to give some of my notes about the film.
The film itself has a very clear structure and uses very specific means to express an idea. The main idea of the film is one of most basic conflicts of us humans, the conflict between body and mind, emotion and idealism, animals drives and rationality, culture as a product of history.
The idea is being expressed in a very intellectual Goethean / Nitzschean way. Goethe is his magnus opus Faust (1832), lays out the mind-body dualism in a dichotomic way, von Trier follows.
Do not, I beg you, look for anything beyond phenomena, they are themselves their own lesson.
Goethe
So what did von Trier do ? he looked beyond the phenomena. Following Nietzsche who claimed that every expression of one principle its the extermination of its opposite. We are talking about the expression of phenomena of body and mind, as two opposites in a struggle of expression.
In the opening scene von Trier already gives a big shot of provocation, but to make the film effective, the same principle of the mind body, duality is expressed also in a mix of kitsch and sentimentality, seriousness and humour. What is considered provocative can be also seen as an expression of a certain aesthetics : mind and body, high and low, seriousness and kitsch.
Sex is the Cartesian cause of a child being born, animal instinct brings the ultimate act of creation, the creation of consciousness, also expressed in the biblical story about the garden of eve (Eden). The female character (she) becomes trapped in a tragic loop, the same act of creation brought destruction, in a psychological loop way every expression of her urges which is aimed at creation is also traumatised by guilt and is linked with destruction.
Rationality in the form of the male character (he) can try to break the logical error that she has been trapped in. By dealing the fear rationally layer by layer we are becoming aware that the body cannot leave in peace with the mind, they struggle for absolute control, every expression of one brings the destruction of the other.
Art brought to a hight level of presentation, this is how von Trier sees the human condition, after looking for a solution for the body and mind duality we realised that there is none. This film might be offending due to its anti-pluralist nature, because von Trier is clearly suggesting, that opposite principles can only exist independently to each other, never together.
The woods are a reminder of the times when man was not yet part of culture. Man ascribed nature the characteristic of himself (nature is crying), the fox became a symbol for pain, the crow despair and the deer of grief. Symbolism is the essence of idealism and interpretation of the world. Through psychology we can try to deal with wrong associations, which are result of, one can claim, misinterpretation.
As viewers we are confronted emotionally and rationally with imagery of pornography against classical music, hard violence against spectacular cinematography. This aesthetic method is passively engaging the viewer to actively reflect on the dilemmas that the film displays according to the thesis of von Trier. The film through empathy forces the viewer to reflect and to respond. When we watch a scene of extreme grief or graphic sexual activity we respond automatically emotionally and rationally, but since the film is so extreme we have to distance ourselves from what we see, otherwise we will get hurt by it. In this way we are taking part of the process of the main characters.
Another small reflection in the film is about the significance we give to words and the place they take within our culture, to say within our discourse : pain, suffering, grief , from their meaning through psychotherapy and through religion. Psychotherapy uses rationalisation to try to help and to prevent pain or to conform (however you may call it). You can argue that rationalisation is a way of explaining the world other that in anthropomorphic terms meaning not relating human behavior to nature. To come into terms with rationalisation is to part ways with Anthropomorphism.
The human condition is the one trapped between animal urges and idealist thinking, the nature of suffering comes for this conflict between two opposites. The events that happen to us only get their meaning through both, therefore we are actually trapped in this conflict. The fulfilment of body or mind wishes always results in the destruction of the other, then life becomes a game which cannot be won. The triumph of one is the death of the other, everything in between is just a compromise.