Anatomy of Hell

Catherine Breillat is a master filmmaker in my opinion. Her films have always challenged me and made me think for months after I've watched them. However, this film challenged me in a whole new way. ANATOMY OF HELL is a film that challenged my stomach. The film tells the tale of a woman who asks a gay man to poke around and look into her labia. Does this sound pleasant? Well, considering that Catherine Breillat directed it, don't expect it to be anything east to watch. In fact, this is probably her hardest film to watch. I sat through FAT GIRL, ROMANCE, and BRIEF CROSSING, but I was unable to sit through ANATOMY OF HELL. The film grossed me right out. Yes, we do get some extreme close ups of the labia and it's uses and it's complexities, but we have our faces shoved into it so much that at some point we do become terrified. It is this part of the human body that is so intricate and unique. It is where all life begins. However, it is such an unpleasant and horrific thing to look at that the audience will grow rather unnerved by the whole thing and most people will not be able to take it and will turn it off or leave the theater. So Catherine Breillat has, in the end, outdone herself. She has now made a film that is too challenging. I don't regret seeing what I saw, but in the end I don't wish anybody else to watch it.

As one of the most controversial (or notorious) contemporary directors, Catherine Breillat seems to push her cinematic expression to further extremity in her every new works. However, it must be noticed she was actually preaching the same theme sexual battle in all these movies, only the stories become more and more simplified, instead of which explicit images play the role of supplements to abstract lecturing. Anatomie de L'enfer is unexceptionally the latest development of her filmic experiment to challenge the traditional ideology both on screen and off screen. The movie was mainly shoot in a room, where the actor and the actress talked about sex (and things related) as well as having sex. Through their conversation and the monologue of the director's voice in the background, again the audiences find the same elements from Catherine Breillat¡¯s previous movies¡ªthe contempt, the hatred, the desire to conquer each other between the two sexes¡ªthough this time she set up a even more extreme scenario to prove her theory, that regardless the chronic anti-woman complex, even his own sense of superiority over women, the man in the movie fell into the fascination of female body (sex)¡on the other hand, overwhelmed by his animal instinct¡ªduring watching the woman exhibiting herself. Moreover the man's self-abasement and self-deceit at the end of the movie emphasized his failure, and more importantly, his sense of failure. Thus Catherine Breillat reveals her perception about the puzzle of sexual relationship¡ªmen are after all capricious children (hinted in the scene of children playing doctor and patient game), who mask their greed to what they are eager for, and turn to hate it if unable to have it. Naturally such desperate view won¡¯t be appreciated by the majority, which makes her a heathen among the believers of ethical love. Then again, her brilliancy lies in her metaphysical research on the topic, even it might be stray or biased. The real stupidity is judging her by the keep-it-simple-stupid rule, as in most occasions how the conservatives treat the pioneers, and the implicit treat the thoughtful.

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.

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 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.