Anatomie de l'enfer (2004) Reviews

• A masterpiece of French cinema

  Chris_Docker2004-08-29

  This is not a film that everyone will enjoy - it is intellectually taxing, fairly low on plot, and deliberately contains sexual scenes that many people will find offensive or upsetting. In Britain and America, we assume films are made for entertainment, but tolerantly accept those that are patently art for art's sake, for the dissemination of ideas, or the questioning of commonly held views. I imagined being at the same premiere in France or Latin America - the heated debates that would follow over the gender politics, the validity of the symbolism, whether the underlying concepts were valid. In Britain, even at a film festival, we had the same old stuff about the genesis of the film, working with the actors etc (all valid enough) then a sharp split between people who obviously had a brain in their head and the men - and women - who just felt it was pretentious to waffle on when you could be making comments about the erect penis of porn star Rocco Siffredi. But before dealing with the knobs question, a brief synopsis . .. A woman walks through a gay nightclub. She is obviously alienated - it is not clear from what - she goes to the toilets and tries to slit her wrists. A man rescues her. After a short interlude she arranges to pay this (gay) man, for four nights, to watch her, to tell her what it is that disgusts him about women. The nights and acts that fill them are accompanied by soliloquies by both the man and the woman as each states their primal sexual understanding of the other. The dialogue is fairly heavy - it could be put alongside works of philosopher Jacques Derrida (it follows on quite nicely from his deconstructionist theories) or the more extreme ideas of Shere Hite. Much of it has great poetic beauty - aided by the fact that the two characters are purely symbolic (this according to Breillat herself) - they represent a primal man and woman, not in the context of any religious genesis, but the two first adults dealing with their sexual reactions to each other. Breillat describes herself as a 'purist' (and also heterosexual) and says she finds many of the images disturbing and that is exactly why she wished to portray them - to ask why we find images (such as a used tampon) so disgusting when they are everyday things and have no inherent 'awfulness' or reason why they should be considered shameful. But she does not just ask the question or try to shock - she counters the emotion that has been evoked, explains it (the explanation may not be to everyone's liking but it is internally consistent and academically arguable) and uses the example as one of the stepping-stones to communicate some of her ideas about sexuality. One of Breillat's main ideas she seeks to get across in this film is that although a person 'has' an undeniable physical sex, their actual sexuality - their bodies and everything that makes them sexually attractive, is heavily involved with the meanings, ideas, fantasies or other things we attach to that body. We find a person 'sexy' because of what we think about them, what they mean to us, our understanding of them, how they make us feel, and this is projected onto the 'nice bum' aspect. Breillat says this is what distinguishes us from animals - our ability to attach meaning to sex (I hope I have quoted her accurately - not easy when working through a translator and writing the notes up some hours afterwards). We do this by means of desire, which means we project outwards what is inside. It is not automatic 'sex for reproduction and continuation of the species' - human beings have sex to satisfy our desires. The woman's body is seen in the film in ways that are normally 'unsexy' - it is the context and meaning subsequently applied which make it sexy - this is highlighted by the gay man's attitude (and meanings) that he attaches to all women. The sex between the man and the woman in the film is not tender or loving in any usual sense of the word. The gay man has great problems coming to terms with the idea of having sex in any form with the woman, especially penetrating her (a blow job didn't seem to upset him quite so much). His ideas of disgust for the female sex are well-developed and well-articulated. She, on the other hand, can see many of the male attitudes that he displays in an extreme form in all men, and can reduce male sex drive into fairly simplistic psychological forces. It could be argued that it is not productive to do this, that the perceived male desire to dominate, to take possession, to control, to glory in his penetrative power, are pretty base instincts that are better sublimated or reinvented. This, in fact, is what we do - but seeing them in such a raw form, not animalistically but portrayed by an articulate, self-examining man, gives us a power of knowledge, we can also argue. The theory also explains a lot of female psychology (with which Breillat says she is mostly concerned) and probably most of women's hang-ups about men. Anatomy of Hell has also been described as a companion to her earlier film, Romance, which follows a woman's quest for sexual self-knowledge and 'liberation'. But where Romance just asked questions, the woman in Anatomy of Hell has answers - and most of the things she believes are oppressive to women (the cause of women's problems) are about ill-considered, illogical, but near universal male attitudes to sex. The film is not 'anti-male' - it struck me as more about coming to terms with fundamental drives and then deciding how to handle them. In the case of the gay man, his choice is to switch off completely, not concern himself with a sex that controls him by means of its fragility, or alternately tempt him to violence and anger. There is considerable discussion in the film about male and female psychodynamics - the male desire for 'dominance and control' for instance. It is expressed in fairly extreme form, as it might be in classical drama. (To get a handle on it, try reading Shere Hite's analysis of male-orientated definitions of sexuality.) The whole movie is underscored with vivid photography and images. (minor spoilers follow.) When the woman is in the nightclub, she is seen against a background that totally isolates and distinguishes her from everyone else there. When she explains the female nature of the sea, how it seems so strong and masculine but is really a feminine symbol, we see the waves crashing at close quarters. Later on, when the man strolls confidently along the cliff top, we see the waves crashing far below him - something he cannot reach, and which is vaguely threatening if he looked too closely. The woman explains the symbolism of menstrual blood to him - the only blood that is spilled without the need for a wound, how it is 'purer' therefore than any blood that a man could spill. She delights in his appearance, covered in her blood, after she has had sex with him, and when he returns to the empty room where she once lay, he lifts the blood-stained sheets as if lifting on object of holiness, and his manner is devout (and the sheets also look like a shroud). Breillat, in this cinematic illustration from her novel, has provided us with a deconstruction of the feminine mystique. She has confronted us with our prejudices, the inbuilt forces inherent in the 'battles between the sexes', she has given us two examples of human beings liberating themselves from their own disgust with their own bodies. Most of all, to cinephiles, she has made a classic that redefines French cinema at the forefront of art, justifiable breaking false boundaries set by years of censorship, (self-loathing?) and the effective ban on art to explore our deepest psyche. She has asked age-old questions but, remarkably, she has also provided her answers. Behold the work of a cinematic genius in our lifetime, treasure her integrity and devotion to her work, use this example of art to be inspired, to self-examine - or join the milling throngs calling for mind-deadening Americanised cinematic art-substitutes. (p.s. this is the first non-mainstream film I have given a 10/10 rating to - it is simply a superlative accomplishment in its genre, accessible to anyone who applies sufficient intelligence - which rules out most critics, and a lasting contribution to the study of male-female psychology, gender politics and sexual awareness.)

  More

• academic

  dhtreptow2004-10-27

  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.

  More

• Strikingly familiar

  spydermann_20992005-08-16

  I was fortunate enough to attend the world premiere of this film at the 2004 Rotterdam film festival in The Netherlands. Of all the films shown, this was the one most sought after for viewing. The Director and two stars of the film answered questions after the movie and I got to meet Rocco in person. He is taller than I would expect. Many people brought porn for him to sign. Anyway, film was very interesting. I liked the conflict between the woman and the gay man. Both had strong convictions about life and held to their guns. Rocco did a great job showing his emotions and the sex scenes were memorable, even crude at times. It is frightening how we as an audience could relate to them though. Amira Casar was stunning. I could not keep my eyes of her during the whole movie. And yes, she is just as beautiful in person. Overall the movie was provocative and interesting staying true to form in regards to French Cinema. Many people asked Catherine Breillat why she would cast Rocco Sifreddi (The number one male porn star in the world) for the male lead. Her answer,"Directors look for the most beautiful women to star in their films. I cast the most attractive men!"

  More

• Breillat certainly picked an appropriate title!

  johnnycourageous2004-07-14

  It is fair to say that Catherine Breillat is a serious director, who is serious about exploring aspects of sexuality via the medium of film, and from a female's perspective. This is why I guess many people take an above average interest in what she produces. Perhaps even more so with this work - only those of the 'French New Wave' could produce films like this! Yeah right. It is apparently drawn upon her own writings and her own observations of the supposed rampant misogyny within all men, gay and straight, and the tendency for men to be more or less repulsed by females and/or their genitalia. But there are three words I found particularly apt when describing the plausibility of Breillat's 'message', as proffered here, and as it relates to this apparent misogyny. Those words are: suspension of disbelief. There are some minor spoilers here by the way, and if you were wondering what some of the more explicit elements of this film are, then read on. Picture this if you will. The film immediately opens with a medium close up shot of a man fellating another man out in the open. Oh okay, I get the message. This film obviously depicts explicit sex of a generally non-conventional nature, so I can choose to flee the cinema if I want or need! Thanks Catherine. We shortly cross to a forlorn-looking woman who, for some unknown reason, is hanging out in a gay bar prior to her sauntering upstairs to the bathroom to slash her wrists. Saved by a very 'straight' acting and looking 'gay' man (Siffredi), upon leaving the bar and getting herself patched up, our 'gay' man is fellated by her out in the open. He somehow manages to produce an automatic erection. At this point the film has just lost me. This man is gay, no? The absurdity continued. Our depressed female offers the man money, primarily to invite him to observe her 'femaleness'. She spends most of the time naked prior to the 'gay' man engaging with her sexually. She's out to test her theory, that all men are misogynistic. Is this for real? He seems such a natural heterosexual for a supposedly gay character! He experiences no trouble obtaining an erection with her around. He experiences an orgasm so quickly that I just cannot believe he is not actually attracted to women. He is more than happy to drink half of a reddened glass of water, after our female dips her bloodied and used tampon into it. He cannot control his urge to digitally penetrate her, and then lick her menstrual blood from his finger. The process of inserting a stone dildo inside of her vagina fascinates him, as does the ejection of the same. And he just cannot help but insert the wooden handle of a long, no doubt heavy garden implement inside of her while she sleeps. All the while we are subjected to these tedious, pretentious monologues of men's deep-seated hatred of women. It is surely the fault of the vagina! We endure a flashback of a girl and three boys playing 'doctors and nurses', in order for us to obtain a supposedly greater understanding as to the origins of such repulsion for the female anatomy. There is even a brief shot of the little girl's genitalia, surely likely to draw consternation with censors somewhere in the world. Moreover, we are unfortunately subjected to close up shots of what could possibly rank as the foulest looking adult vagina and anus in celluloid history. But the erect penises look fine; perfect in fact. I suspect any man with a slightly confused sexual preference would surely jump to the gay side of the fence after watching this. Maybe some straight men will find the image of a naked male just a little bit more attractive after enduring these ugly images of female genitalia. I realise that some films can be so far fetched that one is required to suspend their disbelief, for the sake of entertainment at the very least. But when a film as blatant and as occasionally explicit as this is offering forth the sweeping notion that all men are inherent misogynists, it has to be outright plausible. No depiction of sexual activity in this film is plausible. In fact, I found the 'message' downright implausible. This is not entertainment at all. It was made deliberately ugly, almost to the point of disgust. This is one hellish depiction of female anatomy that is for sure! The title is perfectly apt - it was never titillating and could not really be labelled as pornography. I did not like the way this deliberately confronting film tried to portray its message. It was ugly, pretentious, silly, implausible, and utterly sickening in parts.

  More

• Interesting as always ... but not one of Breillat's best.

  snoozer12005-04-11

  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 ... ?

  More