Imdbidia
A very confronting feminist French independent movie by the always provocative Catherine Breillat, based on her own book Pornocratie.It tells the story of the meetings that a straight suicidal woman and a guy man (paid by her) have during four nights in an isolated house by the beach. When she hires him, she says, watch me where and the way I'm not be watched, no need to touch, just say what you see. She's just playing a trick on him, as the following nights will prove that she wants him to touch her. The male character will be progressively intrigued and emotionally confused by her conversations and interaction with the woman. The woman not only offers her body to be watched, to be touched and used in any way, but also offers lecturing monologues on female sexuality and anatomy. She tries to understand why guy men reject the female body, and also why patriarchal societies and the male psychology have always reacted to the female body (and to women) by incarcerating it, subjugating it, demonizing it, considering impure and worth of repulsion, but also acceptable as an object of pleasure for men, and, because of it, obscene. The movie, it could be said, is a rejection of religious morality on women and the female body, and patriarchal societies.The movie has some reminiscences of The Last Tango in Paris, although with reverse roles. The story happens in an empty house, in a confined room, one of them marks the rules (in this case the woman), they don't mention their names, and they explore their sexuality outside any social constriction. However, there is no lightness or warmth in this movie, as most of it is set at night-time, and the atmosphere is always uninviting and artificial, with the predominance of greenish lights and run-out colors.As in other Breillat's movies, the dialogs are the core of the movie and not the flesh we see in it. This is one of Breillat's merits, to transcend sexuality and speak of deeper themes while focusing on naked bodies having sex. The dialogs are always so through provoking, so deep and philosophical, that you have to give her credit for that.However, unlike Romance, Breillat does not succeed in mixing the explicitly sexual content with the points she wants to make in an engaging way. I thought that a couple, fully dressed, with enough dramatic expertise, and the same dialogs, would have been able to transmit the same message, even better because the viewer could have focused on the dialogs. Even if you like philosophy and you are interested in unsimulated sex scenes, you still feel that the settings are dull. When the movie is not dull is truly confronting and repulsive, very hard to watch. The sex scenes won't make anybody horny, as they are full of atavistic feelings, even animalistic in a way, and you don't feel that the characters get any pleasure out of it. I found very disturbing the scene with the small injured bird, all the ones involving menstruation, the vaginal hairy shots, and the rake scene, which are all very symbolic but confronting nonetheless.On the other hand, I don't think the viewer can understand why the male character has to be gay and not straight, and why Breillat assumes that gays reject women because they are repulsed by them in any way. Anybody who has gay friends knows that they like women, but they are just sexually attracted to men not to women. Two very different things. I found this slip misleading, simplistic and unnecessary, not proper of Breillat, who is cleaver enough to explore themes with great depth. I would have preferred, as a woman, to have a straight man in the movie.I did like and hate the end, both things. To me, is mostly oniric, like a projection of the thoughts of the male character when he doesn't find the woman in the house. However, other people interpret the scene as real. The problem is that the scene is filmed hurriedly and is badly introduced so it is difficult to catch the meaning of it, if any.Regarding the acting, Amira Casar is OK in her role, with her expressive very sad aura and her almost artistic naked body; however, all what she says, would have needed of more dramatic intensity. Rocco Siffredi gives his best in this role; however, you cannot really pass over the fact that he can barely act. If he did, he would have turned himself into a gay guy. I never believed, not even for a microsecond, that the character he was playing was a gay. However, Breillat stated that he had written the character for him and that she was very impressed with him.Anatomy of Hell offers a noticeable deconstruction of female sex and sexuality and a feminist study of gender roles, but it it is extremely complex and repulsive (even kinky) at times, so it barely reaches and touches the viewer. Breillat included some notes to the movie in the DVD, in which she explains the movie at length. If you read it, you'll find how philosophical the movie is, and the meaning of each scene and the intentions of the film. They are really interesting. However, the viewer did not have those notes when went watching the movie, so he/she only can see what is in the screen and try to make sense of it.One of those films that won't leave you indifferent.
MrMarcus
Most people who criticise this movie are coming from two anglesThey found it offensive, or They didn't 'get it'In contrast, I simply believe that this is a bad movie. As in, the artistic decisions made by writer/director Catherine Brelliat are detrimental to the film.First up, don't believe the hype. It's not that offensive. In fact, I've never seen a movie try so hard to be 'confronting' and 'controverial' and failing so badly. Brelliat clearly wants to shock and upset her audience, with plenty of explicit depictions of oral sex, wrist slashing and the like, but she goes overboard in this respect. The scenes are so explicit, constant and in-your-face that the audience becomes numb to them. This makes scenes like the 'lipstick' and 'hair-gel' moments come across as silly rather than shocking.And the movie is certainly not erotic. It's full of that cold, passionless 'realistic sex' so favoured by the European art-house.Where the movie really fails is in the plot, acting and dialogue. Brelliat casts Italian porn star Rocco Siffredi and actress Amira Cassa in the leads, but bungles this horribly by giving Siffredi all the important scenes and dialogue. We're treated to him mechanically reciting some impossibly pretentious rubbish while the more accomplished actress Cassa does little but lie down with her legs apart for most of the film. Again, this is more likely to trigger some guffaws rather than the philosophical discourse Brelliat was hoping for.And the plot, such as it is. Our hero can overcome his homosexuality by embracing his combined love and fear of the female genitalia. Or something. The idea that homosexuals are actually repressed heterosexuals and can be 'cured' is both ridiculous and offensive. Being a hardcore feminist doesn't give Brelliat the right to spout homophobic garbage. So, stupid plot, woeful dialogue, wooden acting, and explicit scenes so over-the-top you end up sniggering. Anatomy of Hell is a terribly wrong-headed and unintentionally hilarious film that even devotees of hardcore art-house cinema should avoid.
Colette Corr
Although the confrontational images in this film only make it suitable for a select audience, I recommend it for armchair philosophers and those interested in gender politics.Amira Casar plays a young woman who pays a gay man (played by real life hetero porn star Rocco Siffredi) to watch her for four days. Over that time, he confronts his own revulsion at the intimacies of the female body.You will probably have heard of the various extreme images in this film (a garden rake being inserted into the woman's vagina, for example) but surprisingly, the film does not titillate. Every action is designed to develop the characters and reveal a deeper truth.On one level, Anatomy of Hell blasts the misogynistic attitude towards women that can still exist. What is most interesting about this film is the man's journey towards accepting women, and his feminine side, revealed through the use of a female voice-over for his character.By confronting taboos, for example the taboo against menstruation, Breillat's characters become closer to each other, all the more telling because the man is gay and has no basic need for women. Yet, this film is not simply a rant against men, because the male character is the only one that is fully realised. He develops throughout the film, whereas the woman remains static and is more of an archetype of female power rather than a human being.I found Anatomy of Hell fascinating and far less shocking than I anticipated. In Australia, the film was banned until the decision was overturned. I agree with the latter decision, there is a a second of footage featuring a naked young girl in sexual play that should be removed from the film. Some taboos exist for a purpose and that is one of them.
