Motherhood, Sex, and a Woman's Deepest Fears

There just aren't many really good roles for women in the movies, are there? Especially when they are over 30. It's a common, irrefutable complaint, and one that implies an institutional, even cultural bias. So it's slightly weird that the one film director who nearly always opts to have a woman as his central character is so regularly labeled a misogynist.

Charlotte Gainsbourg is not complaining that Lars von Trier is a misogynist though. On the contrary, she refutes the claim. The star of von Trier's latest film, Antichrist, she was happy enough to receive the best actress award at Cannes for her undoubted artistic pains.

Antichrist's première at Cannes has been greeted, as von Trier's films so often are, by feuding among the critics. That's always a good sign. Von Trier himself revels in being a controversial figure, in a way that infuriates even his most enthusiastic supporters. The guy is probably a jerk. But since I don't have breakfast with him every morning, I don't care.

Antichrist certainly sounds like strong stuff, even from a film-maker whose stock-in-trade is doling out strong stuff. Few people have seen it, and the prediction is that even if it gets a British release, it will be censored, to protect our little sensibilities.

Billed as a gothic horror film, Antichrist is the story of a couple, played by Gainsbourg and Willem Dafoe, who retreat to a secluded log cabin in order to recover from the grief of their son's accidental death. They are unable to do so, and descend instead into violent recrimination, involving Gainsbourg's mutilation of her partner's genitals and her own. Repulsive, horrible – movie scenes I'd most definitely avert my wussy eyes from anyway.

Some critics say that the film is misogynist because the mother takes on to herself all the guilt and blame for the loss of her child, while the father seems almost completely untouched by it. I'd say that sounds rather more like misandry, but what do I know?

It is suggested that the woman is portrayed as liking sex rather more than she likes her baby. She sees him falling from a window to his death, as she and her partner are copulating. The sight does not stop her orgasm – which is an involuntary spasm anyway.

But I think that might be construed as an obvious and too-little-aired point about the sexuality of mothers. Our girded vaginas, valued sexually for their tightness, used to the enjoyment of penetration, widen without the bidding of our minds to expel our babies in a physical experience that is a reversal of sexual intercourse.

Our erogenous breasts become nurturing mammaries when we feed our babies, and the dual function can feel deeply confusing. Male genitals, whether fertilizing or not, perform the same sexual functions, relay the same physical sensations, whether they create children or they don't. It's pointless to suggest that women's deepest notions of the division between sex and procreation are not far less tidy than men's.

Ah, though, it is argued: In this film the woman is portrayed as culpable. We see her thrusting her son's shoes on the wrong feet and at the post-mortem, those feet are revealed as deformed. Maybe that is a salient fact in this film. Or maybe it is a manifestation of a maternal horror the character always carried. You could put your child's shoes on the wrong feet just once, and trigger the idea that they died because you failed them.

As I say, I haven't yet seen Antichrist. But I do know that it is billed as "a dark dream" and that mothers, even of healthy, happy children, commonly have recurring dark dreams of guilt about their offspring's imagined deformation or death.