Pornocrazia

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.

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.

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.

One may not 'enjoy' the 'Anatomy of Hell' while seeing it in the cinema. It is a very tense experience and most scenes are surprisingly confronting. Go alone and see it anonymously as it may well be a part of human nature to deny such a deep cut- to-the-bone depict of the 'naked' human relations.

'Romance' is about how men treat women and 'Anatomy of Hell' is about how men 'view' and treat women. However, from 'Romance' to 'Anatomy of Hell', while men stay at same, SHE is liberated! She is no longer longing for the impossible of men recognition and driven to despair as in 'Romance', in 'Anatomy of Hell', she lies there and knows TOO WELL that all the sins in the world are caused by the view of her body (AS IF!).

From the high class sex scandals to the street gang rapes, the essence is the same. The very abstract notions of Catherine Breillat's view on misogyny only can be illustrated via the extreme excessive sex scenes. If the extreme sex scenes are taken out form both the 'Romance' and the 'Anatomy of Hell' (as they both have caused censorship controversial in Australia), would the same points be made? The answer is definitely NO.

'Romance' and 'Anatomy of Hell' are the only two films of Catherine Breillat's I have seen. I definitely will try to see the other films she ever made.