After watching the end of the movie again, I must agree. You're right: I don't think there was an interruption in the reverse timeline. So we can assume (especially by your astute observation regarding the bleeding) that she loses the child, but probably survives the attack given the lack of head cover in her emergency transport.
Another friend of mine believes that the quasi-naked man in the first scene is the aged Pierre, post-prison.
Even acknowledging this, my own philosophical outlook about film and art in general exonerates artists from having to possess any kind of social responsibility at all. I believe in the absolute freedom to create and "say" whatever you want. Whether you can get it funded and feed yourself by doing so is another matter.
I am a lover of extremism, and I do believe that Gaspar has pushed the envelope with this picture. In my opinion, naked abject horror delivered in film is a respectable thing to accomplish in today's jaded world. (Although I do believe his overall message to clearly be anti-violence. Strange that movies about a bunch of peaceful people do not have the same effect on me.)
Re: But I must disagree!
Another friend of mine believes that the quasi-naked man in the first scene is the aged Pierre, post-prison.
Even acknowledging this, my own philosophical outlook about film and art in general exonerates artists from having to possess any kind of social responsibility at all. I believe in the absolute freedom to create and "say" whatever you want. Whether you can get it funded and feed yourself by doing so is another matter.
I am a lover of extremism, and I do believe that Gaspar has pushed the envelope with this picture. In my opinion, naked abject horror delivered in film is a respectable thing to accomplish in today's jaded world. (Although I do believe his overall message to clearly be anti-violence. Strange that movies about a bunch of peaceful people do not have the same effect on me.)