All About Anna

'Tagline: Not since Dogme95 has passion felt this real.' - 'To achieve a realism beyond even Dogme95'. The makers of this film clearly wrote this - if not it must be someone deprived of all his senses. First of all: to even attempt to put this movie in the same league as movies by Von Trier or Thomas Vinterberg is so misguided I do not know whether to laugh or cry. This is nothing more than a porn movie (a bad one at that)trying to create some aura of intellectualism about it - and much like Catherine Breillats Anatomy of Hell it fails miserably. There are hardcore scenes in this film, and it is even sold as porn in Denmark. Two of the actresses have made more than a few porn flicks... Lars Von Triers Idiots had hardcore porn in it too, for at split second - but that does not mean that there is any viable excuse to put it in - there is nothing in the way of motivation or storytelling that suggests that hardcore scenes could have a defining impact on a movie - it's put there as shock value only, which in this day and age is just daft.

There is not a single capable actor in this film, Gry Bay is best known in Denmark for being willing to do most anything in front of a camera (this film more than proves that). The camera movement is as uninspired as the script, there seems to be no greater design to the angles chosen, and the editing seems rather random, and does not lend this movie anything in the way of flow. Generally the post production is shoddy at best and by the looks of it the proposed 'realism' and Dogme familiarity (SIC!)is the excuse for not making a decent product... The fact that Zentropa would have their name associated with this amazes me - even if they have produced porn before it was of a much higher standard... Because... It's just porn, mum

All About Anna aims to be an erotic film for and by women that incorporates unsimulated sex scenes as a natural part of the storyline. This normalization of the pornographic content is further emphasized by the fact that most of the crew and actors had no experience with making pornographic films before All About Anna. Consequently the sex scenes are photographed and performed in a way that you would not expect in a typical hardcore pornographic film. In fact, the sex scenes even play with or against the conventions customary to pornographic films, and are also used to portray the personalities of the characters.

The leading actress, Gry Bay, in particular contributes a sensitivity to the sex scenes that is unlike what you would expect in a film with pornographic content, and gives a good portrayal of the young female single who longs for her one and only great love and tries to cope with her career, room mate and boyfriend. Supporting actress, Eileen Daly, adds both comedy and tragedy to her scenes, while French porn actress Ovidie is passable as a French actress who shows Anna around Paris and has a sexual encounter with her. However, it is Ovidie who contributes one of the trumps of the DVD release. Her audio commentary is very revealing on how different All About Anna is from standard pornographic films.

The storyline is told in episodes, an approach that works very well and obviously could allow for expanding with more episodes in the life of this young female. Unfortunately, the film, and particularly the cinematography, is a bit uneven, and it is obvious from the copious extra material on the DVD release that some of the original intentions had to be scrapped in order to make the final film. E.g. the sex scenes appear to have been originally intended to be longer and somewhat more explicit than in the final edit.

Despite the shortcoming of the production, I think the film successfully integrates the sex scenes into the storyline and character development. The DVD release is impeccable with several audio commentaries on different aspects of the production, a documentary on The Love-Making of All About Anna, trailers, unedited sequences, and even a director's original edit. As an extra bonus the distributor has added a third disc promoting pornographic films which gives further evidence to the stark contrast between All About Anna and the standard, more mechanical pornographic film.

I suppose that this film would appeal to a female audience, aged between say 18 and 38, who are able to identify with Gry Bay's portrayal of Anna, a young female looking for her one and only love. For the successful integration of sex scenes in the storyline, Gry Bay's portrayal of Anna, and the excellent DVD release, I give All About Anna 8 stars.

Awful, awful, awful... what a terrible excuse for a film, pathetic idea, poorly executed, terrible cast, the main guy is a Thor like douchebag of epic proportions! It's films like these that strike fear into my own heart when I think about directing a film, that I too may make something as God-awful and dreadful as this...

If you've ever seen "Sorted" by Alex Jovy, you'll have an idea of how vapid and terrible this film is...

If this is what happens with the "democratization" of filmmaking due to digital video cameras, I say bring back totalitarianism hence forth...

Just burn the master tapes, forget it ever happened...

Well, strange. There are porn films with no plot. Just they show what they show - sex. There are erotic films with no real sex but much nudity. There are films with slight erotic overtones and such. This one is a weird combination of serious life drama, sad and sometimes happy events, long shots, deep talks and a bit dull silent scenes. OK, let it be an Art House film. No, it is not, as it contains what is usually not in such films - explicit sex scenes in real porn fashion with everything clear and visible. Did it work? Many say it did and the Anna film is a decent European masterwork of real genius. Others say it is a lame shame of a film, with totally unnecessary sex scenes and vapid plot. I tend to agree with the second view. Apart from several explicit scenes, the film is a real boredom, and it drags, drags, drags miserably all along. What is is about, after all? Hard to say. It is so prosaic, even and flat that leaves you with one hanging concern what was it made and what for? I have no answer, maybe, just to show a lovely lady naked and show some boring sequences. This is all, I guess

First things first: There are only few notable merits regarding this particular "experiment" but it is certainly not completely devoid of them: for one, the director attempted to create a counterbalance to what is universally considered as the problem of the mainstream pornographic motion picture, be it soft core or hardcore: the presentation of a mechanical, emotionless, unengaging, uninspiring and ultimately tiresome repetition of sexual acts aiming solely at the physical arousal of its viewers and probably achieving that in the first few minutes; rendering the rest of it as a distasteful and vicious circle.

The producers misleadingly labelled it as "pornography for women", perhaps acknowledging the fact that the scenes are not explicit enough to present it as the hardcore pornography they would have liked. And a large portion of it probably isn't as it seemingly provides to bridge the gap between hardcore pornography and erotica and create a film that would ultimately excite the senses in both a physical but also an emotional level as well as provide an engaging storyline that would justify the sex scenes as a meaningful entity of the whole. If that was the initial intention, as the producers of AAA claim it to be, it certainly wasn't given justice by the end result - in spite of the fact that that premise and intention was probably there in the offing. This is less evident in the actual producer's cut or even the director's cut of the film but a lot more evident from the outtakes of several of the sex scenes included on the DVD: they are long, varied, passionate, well rehearsed and acted and emotionally engaging; while the camera work is such that makes them appear both sensual and realistic. They're shot in a way as to provide a clue to the fact that most of the sex in the film is unsimulated; but with a more cryptic, more erotic vision, contradictory to the average porn sensibility.

It's not surprising that this film is described as a collaboration of a major mainstream pornographic production company and Lars Von Trier's Zentropa. But this dichotomy ultimately leans towards the side of the porn producers as they seem to win over the intentions of the director and probably some of the actors themselves who probably had a more concrete idea of what they wanted to achieve or rather what they wanted to avoid. As a consequence, although there is the actual "philosophy" of supporting the making of such a film - the existence of a "manifesto" in the like of Dogme95 that states the preferable and the avoidable - it all seems to escalate and ultimately fly in the face of that it was purported to be. Crudely put, there are facial ejaculation scenes; there is "cheap" music that is supposed to "complement" the sex - but in fact it is totally out of place. There is also a sorry excuse of a script and what is supposed to be a storyline but it is all done so poorly that can hardly conceal the fact that there isn't one. And most importantly: there is bad acting - which is quite surprising given the fact that some of the actors are allegedly unfamiliar with the territory and are earning their living from participating in more socially acceptable genres of film-making. However, judging by the actual acting in the film - give and take the sex scenes - either the levels of acting in Denmark are really low at the moment or these particular actors are hardly adequate in their chosen field. All the more so when particular emphasis is given towards presenting a story: the bad acting and lack of a meaningful plot to back things up create an even bigger problematic. Then there's the attempt to dress it all up with the addition of a supporting cast that comes straight from hardcore pornography; acting in more explicit and conventional scenes and overall giving a very uneven feel to the whole endeavour. Why add more characters and more scenes and "embroider" the film with what was supposed to be trying to avoid in the first place? Let alone make things even more complicated and disjointed when the leading characters themselves are so underdeveloped? It's therefore obvious that the initial intention was not shared by all of the people involved and consequently not sustained throughout the project - which is a shame and perhaps a wasted opportunity? The end product ultimately reflects those dichotomies: It's half-baked to such an extent that would equally disappoint both the fans of porn - because of the lack of enough explicit scenes they are accustomed to watching - but also those viewers who, deluded by the producers' promises, were prepared for watching something entirely different. It is different but not different enough to dissociate it from mainstream porn in terms of overall sensibility or production values. Finally some suggestions in case somebody else attempts something similar: give the director more artistic freedom to shoot what they like and present the film the way they like. Give them more time to work on it and have a more concrete picture as to what they aim to achieve. Lose the voice-over, especially when the script is so poor; get a decent scriptwriter to write a meaningful story, not an excuse for bad acting. Or perhaps simply give Lars Von Trier himself the camera and step aside...