Anatomy of Hell

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.

ANATOMY OF HELL is a brooding and vulgar scrutiny of the base nature of Human Sexuality. Catherine Breillat attempts to blend a thoughtfully philosophical film with the shocking details hardcore pornography, and falls far short of the mark. I did not have as much of a problem with the disturbing sexual images, as I did with the absurd dialogue. Nobody talks like this, and it carried the film beyond pretension and into preposterousness. The plot is straightforward, yet odd. A woman visits a gay nightclub, and attempts to slash her wrists in the toilet, however her motive is never revealed. She is rescued by a man who passed her on a stairway in the club, and later she asks the man if she may buy his time for the next several days while she reveals herself to him during her most private moments. What follows is a series of turgid and sophomoric discussions which attempt to elucidate the various differences between Men and Women. Even if these two individuals were more articulate and believable, the director does not show us why these characters are worth our attention. What enduring truths could this gay man possibly have to say about masculinity, and why should we care about the observations of this obviously troubled young woman? ANATOMY OF HELL demonstrates our animal nature as sexual beings in exacting detail, however the opaque reflections of the two central characters ring false, and deaden the overall impact of the work. Many would welcome a cinematic journey in which honest philosophical insight is injected into the very artificial and contrived genre of pornography, but ANATOMY OF HELL is neither honest nor insightful, but only salacious.

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.

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.