Anatomy of Hell

This is an extremely difficult film to watch, Certainly, I appreciated seeing it alone. It is not and experience I would wish to share in a theater.

Daniel Day-Lewis may "drink your milkshake," but I doubt very much if he would partake of the woman's (Amira Casar) tea made with a used tampon, and offered to the man (Rocco Siffredi) as a means of bonding. It gives "drinking the blood of my enemies" a whole new meaning.

Catherine Breillat has certainly pushed the envelope with this film about men and women and men's hatred and fears of women. There is really nothing erotic about this film; it is provocation meant to shock and awe.

That may be what is needed in the discussion, but it certainly takes a strong person to observe and think.

The Woman hires The Man, who happens to be gay, and can therefore be more objective (?) to observe her over four nights and comment on what he finds objectionable about women. The love/hate/fear between men and women is discussed and played out in a way I have not seen before, but in such a way that it really made me think. I believe that is Breillat's objective, and she certainly achieved it.

It is not meant to be erotic, and it is not pornographic, although is ostensibly has real sex included, but is, shall we say, meant to provoke discussion.

This was the first movie I saw from writer/director Catherine Breillat. I liked it so much that I also saw Romance, and A real young Girl. I'm looking forward to Fat girl, and 36 Filette which I've heard good reviews on. The DVD for Anatomy of Hell has an interview with Catherine Breillat that I thought was very interesting and I highly recommend watching it right after the movie. Anatomy of Hell focuses on a women {Amira Casar} paying a homosexual man {Rocco Siffredi} to watch her in her home during her most private moments. It contains graphic sexual material but in a learning context. The woman's character seems to want to take the shame out of being a women by showing a man {who is disgusted by women} her most feminine self. By doing so they connect on a very raw level. I enjoyed the movie. If you like Catherine Breillat's particular form of artistry you may like some of her other movies as well.

I have seen this movie yesterday.Well,those who are fans of Amira Casar may like to see this film.. Otherwise it is a boring one. The dialog between Rocco Siffredi (porn Star) and Amira Casar(well known actress) is not realistic. Amira Casar plays mostly naked but just like a model for an artist. She is lying on the bed without any movement. There are some explicit scenes one of which was female close-up genitals.But it is obvious that those close-up genitals are not belong to Amira Casar. Probably another porno star has played on these scenes on behalf of her . She is a good actress for sure but in this film she was just like a sculpture . May be she was uneasy due to play role in the sexual scenes with a porn star with his erect penis . There are some unbelievable obnoxious scenes also such as licking and drinking menstruation blood.

Anatomy Of Hell, is one of those films where the vision of its creator is so specific, that all characters and situations exist purely to illustrate the auteur's theory. You may argue that this is true of any film, but in this case, if you're not either fascinated by the filmmakers perspective or find some truth in what they are saying, you will doubtlessly dismiss this film as an obscure, academic exercise given the lack of dimension beyond Catherine Breillat's singular focus.

It's focus, specifically is the attraction/revulsion men share for the nuances of the vagina. I would say 'and female sexuality in general', but that's not really case. Over the course of four consecutive evenings a man repulsed by all things vaginal, is paid to observe a series of vaginal revelations in great detail, by woman he meets in a nightclub. His gradual acceptance of her physical dimensions causes a new 'awakening' of intimacy, that he is unable to admit to or ignore.

Interesting, but I found Catherine Breillat's perspective for want of nuance, though both sexes are presented, but I found her vision more provocative than insightful. Her decision to portray the man, for all intents-and-purposes, as a homosexual who's preference was determined not by his attraction to men, but revulsion of women, dubious and needlessly self-persecuting.

I am a great fan of Catherine Breillat. I have seen many of her films now and have enjoyed each and every one. She is an interesting film maker, always provocative, always prepared to push the boundaries of cinema. 'Anatomy of Hell' tho left me somewhat bored. It seems to me that with each new film, Breillat is becoming ever more compartmentalized. Here, her mission is to specifically explore the female sex organ and the affect this may (or may not have) on the male sexual and emotional psyche. The problem is, since she's chosen such a narrow subject (no pun intended) to examine, there really isn't enough material here to sustain an entire film ... even one with a brief running time as this (approx 80 mins).

Another downside also is that the film is totally reliant on the 2 leads, and frankly, Siffredi is just not up to the task. On the other hand, as always, Breillat casts an interesting female lead. Amira Casar, with her porcelain white skin, her voluptuous curves and her pitch black hair certainly holds ones interest. I get the feeling Breillat, when making the female casting choice, looks for younger and more glamorous versions of herself -- you'll rarely see a blonde.

There are the trademark 'pluses' of Breillat in this film tho. Her thoughtfully conceived set design for example ... her minimal editing .. sparse use of lighting. These all add up to good story telling techniques in my book. But alas, there is just not enough substance to the narrative to make this a good film.

I really do wonder where she is going to go from here ... ?