Anatomy of Hell

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 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.

Some of us are more nimble than others at being so and some of us hide it well, but it is the human condition to be stupid. We all are and that's that. The best we can hope for is to find those that do it gracefully.

Make no mistake, Breillat is stupid. She would bring any gathering down and to have her as a friend would be a burden. And yet she has given me images that I carry around (with other gems) to serve as touchstones into the world of women.

Her films are poorly composed but there really are some cinematically perfect moments in every one.

So what you want to do is watch this (or any of them) and avoid at all costs any of her own interviews. I know what she intends. Its uninteresting, not worth the effort. The dialog is similarly a waste of life, but you cannot get to the images without it, so drudge through, please.

The reason is that she knows the power of vision and she moves the imagination of image with grace. All the droll theorizing I can forgive, even credit as bravery because she knows how the eye and mind work as tractors to the soul

There's a truly disturbing act of cowardice though at the very beginning, before the credits. We are told that the more "disgusting" things weren't actually done by the actress, but by a body double. Now why?

You might want to see this before "Loss of Sexual Innocence" which is equally banal in the same way, and as powerful.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

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 ... ?

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.