Anatomia do Inferno

I am a great fan of Catherine Breillat. I have seen many of her films now and have enjoyed each and every one. She is an interesting film maker, always provocative, always prepared to push the boundaries of cinema. 'Anatomy of Hell' tho left me somewhat bored. It seems to me that with each new film, Breillat is becoming ever more compartmentalized. Here, her mission is to specifically explore the female sex organ and the affect this may (or may not have) on the male sexual and emotional psyche. The problem is, since she's chosen such a narrow subject (no pun intended) to examine, there really isn't enough material here to sustain an entire film ... even one with a brief running time as this (approx 80 mins).

Another downside also is that the film is totally reliant on the 2 leads, and frankly, Siffredi is just not up to the task. On the other hand, as always, Breillat casts an interesting female lead. Amira Casar, with her porcelain white skin, her voluptuous curves and her pitch black hair certainly holds ones interest. I get the feeling Breillat, when making the female casting choice, looks for younger and more glamorous versions of herself -- you'll rarely see a blonde.

There are the trademark 'pluses' of Breillat in this film tho. Her thoughtfully conceived set design for example ... her minimal editing .. sparse use of lighting. These all add up to good story telling techniques in my book. But alas, there is just not enough substance to the narrative to make this a good film.

I really do wonder where she is going to go from here ... ?

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.

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.

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.