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.

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.

One may not 'enjoy' the 'Anatomy of Hell' while seeing it in the cinema. It is a very tense experience and most scenes are surprisingly confronting. Go alone and see it anonymously as it may well be a part of human nature to deny such a deep cut- to-the-bone depict of the 'naked' human relations.

'Romance' is about how men treat women and 'Anatomy of Hell' is about how men 'view' and treat women. However, from 'Romance' to 'Anatomy of Hell', while men stay at same, SHE is liberated! She is no longer longing for the impossible of men recognition and driven to despair as in 'Romance', in 'Anatomy of Hell', she lies there and knows TOO WELL that all the sins in the world are caused by the view of her body (AS IF!).

From the high class sex scandals to the street gang rapes, the essence is the same. The very abstract notions of Catherine Breillat's view on misogyny only can be illustrated via the extreme excessive sex scenes. If the extreme sex scenes are taken out form both the 'Romance' and the 'Anatomy of Hell' (as they both have caused censorship controversial in Australia), would the same points be made? The answer is definitely NO.

'Romance' and 'Anatomy of Hell' are the only two films of Catherine Breillat's I have seen. I definitely will try to see the other films she ever made.

I haven't bothered to review a film for a while as it's essentially a pointless task, but I am forced to action (as a person of action might say).

WHY!?!?!? do people have a problem with sex in films. There are rumours that this film is being appealed against in Australia with the intention to ban it!! I do not find breasts offensive, not pubic hair. I certainly don't find a penis offensive, or I would be forced to slice mine off... (I'm quietly admiring of Rocco's, wish mine looked more like his)... so I don't have a problem with those things being portrayed in Anatomie de L'Enfer. There are a few challenging images in the film, but what is wrong with being challenged. Indeed, how could you go into this film and be shocked, the poster let's on what you are in store for, the films rating lets you know!

Why do adults have a problem with two adult characters discussing sex in a film? I thank Einstein that we have films other than the 'lets switch off our brains' U.S films (which there is a time and place for) to sometimes get our teeth into.

Lets cherish Catherine Breillat and look forward to her next production; I for one would love to meet her.

Cheers.