Customer Reviews

Anatomy Of Hell

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

The film is very thought provoking and doesn't mind pushing buttons or boundaries to achieve this end. Although I agree with another reviewer's (Dexter Tay) assessment that this film certainly pertains to Sartre's "Hell is the Other" view, I do not believe this film is more arthouse porn then art. I find it very interesting that the reviews are fairly divided between the sexes. Females seem to rave about this movie and males seem to find things wrong. Hmmmm.

This film is basically two characters, one female and one male (names aren't used because they don't matter - they are ourselves) who are complete strangers and come together to discuss the real view they have of the "Other" as well as themselves. The setting is very bare as there is no need for props - it is the inter-relationship that is front and center and no diversions are allowed. So even though there are several graphic scenes, be prepared for much more dialogue and philosophical discussions between man and woman then actual sexual content. Two scenes stand out from all others: (1) when the women opines on the ridiculousness of the sanitary outer covering of a tampon to prevent intimacy. The very act by its nature is intimate. Why are men and women horrified by menstruation? This topic is delved into with such honesty that the viewer automatically shies away; and (2) when the man complains to another about the way the woman let him debase her and with every humiliation, asked for more. All the while he is disgusted by her, he is haunted by his own actions.

The whole movie makes compelling comments about us as men and women. Catherine Breillat (director) presents a piece of work (based on her novel entitled, "Pornocrate") that forces the viewer to confront issues buried by morality or social conventions. I applaud her brilliant effort.

Anyone familiar with maverick French filmmaker Catherine Breillat will pretty much no what to expect when they watch Anatomy of Hell. Those unfamiliar with her work will probably gravitate between a mixture of disgust and wonderment that she can get away with putting such scenes onto film. Reportedly banned in several counties, Anatomy of Hell is a kind of psuedo-feminist, kinky, existential journey that takes the viewer on a journey literally right to the heart of the woman.

Set against a backdrop of artfully dilapidated chateau set atop a cliff, Breillat brings together two completely disparate individuals to share several nights of sordidness. The combatants are a woman played by the French actress Amira Casar, and a gay man played by the abs-of-steel straight Italian adult film star Rocco Siffredi. The two bump into each other on the stairs of a gay disco. The girl is on her way to the restroom to slit her wrists with a razorblade - she's angry that none of the men are paying her any attention.

After the guy helps with her wounds, she performs oral sex on him, then propositions him: in return for money, he will spend four evenings with her. Over the course of their time together, they artfully entwine on a makeshift bed, embark on a solemn round of talking, and, at intervals, partake in some filthy kink. There are lots of graphic close-ups of private parts and various scenes involving lipstick, a garden fork, menstrual blood, and a glass of water.

The scenes are clinical in every respect; they are also dirty, badly edited and shoddily choreographed. And at times, it's almost as if Ms. Breillat's only motivation is the shock value. The dialogue is often awkward, stiff and pretentious, with lots of references to feminine subjugation and male domination. It's actually hard to figure out what the director is trying to say in this film, in any case, there's lots of talk about men and women's essential, bestial, and obscene natures. Maybe the film is trying to answer the question of what women actually want both sexually and spiritually. The woman is obviously after male approval and into celebrating her womanhood; and she probably picked a gay man to do it with because she knows that he will not become emotionally involved with her and remain non-threatening.

I just didn't buy the essential premise of this movie: A gay man would never be able to do some of the things to a woman that this man does, even if she paid him exorbitant sums of money - it just wouldn't happen. Siffredi's character, at his stage in life, would be totally comfortable with who he is; he even admits that he finds women's bodies unappealing, and has no desire to gaze upon what she's got to display.

The acting is passable, although I thought Siffredi was surprisingly good - he has an earthy, brooding quality, which lends itself well to this kind of sexually angst-ridden story. Anatomy of Hell is a hard film to watch and it's filled with images you're not likely to see anywhere else, even in pornography. The more conservative viewer should be well warned to stay away, but I think the more open-minded viewer might admire the film, probably more for its voyeuristic qualities than anything else. Mike Leonard March 05.

This is, to me, Breillat's best movie. The subject matter of the movie has been delved in by others, so I won't waste time on it.
A generic woman finds a gay man, to observe her and explore the perception that men have of women. During the course of four nights, the perception is dissected, and examined. The woman expresses, nude, before this male that is not attracted to her, her deepest concepts of the battle of the sexes. He in turn, although by definition not attracted to women, observes, comments and indulges. In the end, as in most of Breillat's movies, the questions are left for the viewer to answer, and also to ask.
The actress, Amira Casar is a beauty, and we see a lot of her. The acting is tightly done, and if appears stilted, it is because the situation is in itself stilted.
You will need a stong stomach to watch the whole movie, since there is a particularly revolting scene, but even that scene, fits with the story, and with the desire of the woman to be totally exposed, totally vulnerable and totally degraded.
I have watched some of Breillat's work (A real young girl, Romance) and to me, this is the deepest, most thought provoking of her movies. As opposed to the previously mentioned ones, that I watched once and resold, or gave away, I shall keep this one, and will probably watch it again, more than once, to dissect it further.
The DVD has an interview with the director, and there we find out why a body double was used for the close-up shots: She wanted a hairy person

The film opens in a gay club, In those places where people mingle without meeting, where the techno beat controls the bodies' impulses, they dance, sway and blend in the primeval hydra of other men's bodies. In their sudden desire for each other, they are all men together, without the need of others. She is the Girl, breathtakingly beautiful, yet ignored by them. In the toilets, she cuts her wrists with a razor. Two thin, parallel lines that meet only in the blood welling up from them. And this is how they meet.

He doesn't like women; she will pay him to look at her, as she says :
-"From the angle from which she should never be viewed"
- It will cost you," he says
- I'll pay you."

Four nights. In a house in the middle of nowhere, perched on the cliffs and whose front steps are lined by four columns. Four nights to confront each other, her against him. For the obscenity of women arises from the way in which men look at them. Four nights to confront the unspoken, to explore what can't be shown: that which is secret. As in the Hebrew of the Book of Genesis in which "secret" is the same word as "nudity", literally "that which must not be seen".

Anatomie De L'enfer is an intrigueing look at male/female relationships, and poses many interesting and thought provoking questions. Catherine Breillat has made this film to be highly graphic in vision and in intellect. Breillat seems to be suggesting that all males are mysogynists, and that male/female relationships would perservere a whole lot better if this fact was just faced.
Being so Confronting and impactful, and with negative hype shying away movie goers, this film didnt get the acclaim it deserved. I recommend this film.

This is a highly flawed film. Indeed, judged by its lofty aims, it is a failure. But the critical reaction to it was largely unfair, especially when it comes to the film's co-star, Rocco Siffredi.

Like most/all of Breillat's work, AoH is a film about the conflict between men and women, and it is delivered in uncompromising fashion. Breillat is a feminist director, but that term should not serve to minimize or constrain her work. Her films make social statements about the consequences of male desire and the subjugation of women, but they are too sophisticated intellectually and emotionally to be limited by labels.

The problem with her work is when the words of her characters do not live up to her intended message, and when she is unable to create onscreen actions which justify the grandiose statements the film and its characters make.

Here, Breillat's message seems to be that the very nature of femininity, indeed the vagina itself, is viewed with a natural disgust by men. The universality of her statement is what prevents it from working. While it may indeed be possible that SOME men view the sex organ with disgust, it seems that many, if not most, instead view it with a combination of curiosity, desire and admiration. Try as she might, her full screen shots of vaginas do not arouse disgust in this viewer, and I most verily possess that pesky Y chromosome.

Breillat attempts to create a mythic quality with the film, making the two characters "the man" and "the woman." But in attempting to create this iconic duality, their desires and responses seem overwrought and unbelievable. The more extreme the behavior (and there's plenty of extreme behavior in this film), the less likely the behavior can be ascribed as the outgrowth of universal desires or predilections. All men and women simply do not feel or think the way these two characters do.

The film is essentially a chamber piece, about a woman (Amira Casar) who recruits a man (Rocco Siffredi) to "watch her where she's unwatchable." They soon embark on a sexual journey in which Siffredi resurrects the juvenile combination of curiosity and cruelty that often shape young boy's behavior.

But the basis of his behavior is at its root unbelievable. While some men may view women as insects, men as compassionate and sensitive and Siffredi's character do not. And as the dialogue becomes more elaborate and vicious, the basic unlikelihood of the character's motivations weighs the film down and makes the dialogue tedious.

But there are real strengths to this film. With every picture, Breillat becomes more and more masterful in her technique. The film is quite beautiful, and Breillat's use of tracking shots create a wonderfully dreamlike quality in the exterior scenes. The scenes of the raging ocean, in particular, are hauntingly beautiful.

And silly dialogue was not enough to ruin Siffredi's performance. Siffredi is a noted pornstar/porn auteur, and not surprisingly he doesn't hesitate to show his genitals throughout the picture. But the real vulnerability that an actor has to show is emotional, not physical. And what a revelation it was to see this porn titan display such tender vulnerability on screen! His performance has received little acclaim, with most critics dismissing it as the kind of stiff acting one would expect from a porn actor. But there is real humanity in his acting, and a graceful presence on screen. Siffredi is a promising actor who will likely never get an opportunity to show it outside of Breillat films. It's a shame.

This film is a must for Breillat fans, but overall it is one of her less cohesive efforts. For a film that better blended great acting with believable dialogue, check out Brief Crossing.

My grade: C+, or 2.5 stars out of 5.

Do you know what you get when you combine porn with art? Lousy porn and even lousier art. Curiosity and some rapturous reviews brought me to Catherine Breillart's films, which I find so dismal I usually wouldn't bother to write about them. But I find the intellectual acrobatics involved in elevating this type of fetishistic dreck into something someone finds profound most interesting and symptomatic of the exhaustion of both the art and the intellectualism that explains it.

Breillart's claim to fame is this marriage of full frontal, hard core porn with her particular intellectual conceits. Here we have another demented Frenchwoman working out her "issues" while having her own very special vagina monologues with a gay man as the camera practically inserts itself in every orifice. Wonderful.

I suppose everything worth doing has been done in art. That is the only explanation for this bankrupt and disheartening work. It isn't that anything is taboo or that the subject matter is off-limits. The male/female dichotomy and sexual relations have always been the subject of art. It is in the execution. The films I've seen so far just aren't very good.

The use of shocking and graphic images here is not insightful, nor does it represent anything revolutionary. They make no statement. They don't breathe life into film, they breathe decay and decline. This is the art of exhaustion and despair. This is the graphic image for its own sake.

Breillart represents nothing more than the celebration of the mediocre. The elevation of mundane rubbish to supposed high art. The never ending contest to out-sensationalize. You could throw a fistful of crap against a wall, and someone would consider it brilliant. Some of us, however, still see it as crap-on-the-wall. A monkey can play with his dung, but he can't write a symphony or a sonnet, and if we exhalt the one, it must be to the detriment of the other.

I don't want to belabor this and ruminate too long on something that is, after all, only a movie that few people will watch, and fewer still will rhapsodize over. I believe that this type of stuff wears itself out and is fairly quickly forgotten. There are only so many ways to shock and sensationalize. Watching Breillart work out her fetishes on screen is recommended soley for the seriously bored.

The ugly, sordid, scatological, and perverse abounds in this life, and it doesn't take a lot of imagination to exhibit it. The capture of elusive and ephemeral beauty, ah, now there's a trick.

I have to agree fully with Alexiel's fine review of this film; there's no point in repeating what's been said so eloquently already. It's worth finding and reading. I will add, however, that after seeing this as well as her earlier stuff,it's beyond painfully obvious that Breillat has an agenda and it doesn't include liking men. Her female character's sweeping statements about all men in general are insulting and unintelligent, and having a gay man speak for all men about how they view women is naturally, a bit skewed from the git-go. The sex isn't erotic in the least, and the shock value is so obviously there to shock, it just ends up as cinematic sludge.
This is simply not an artistic film, but a dry and fairly pointless one. The ending in particular borders on inane.

While I was watching the flick, "Anatomy of Hell",
words kept popping into my brain. Here they are:

Deep
Erotic
Compelling
Profound
Adult
Intellectual
Intriguing
Exquisite

...and that was just the first 20 minutes!!!

Directed by Frenchwoman Catherine Breillat, this film
is definitely "one of a kind". It makes "9 1/2 Weeks"
look like "Bambi".

Anatomy of Hell is candid, cruel, cold, warm and
stunning. There is nothing predictable about it.
From one scene (let alone sentence) to another you
haven't a clue as to what is going to transpire next.


The script is sobering and blunt. Here's a sample"

"That's what men can't stand.
It's why they've tried to lock women up, in all eras,
all places, under every latitude.
To protect us from ourselves, they say.
To break the spell of women.
In fact...they're afraid women don't belong to them.
They don't believe in basic freedom.
They threaten us with belts, padlocks, their concept
of chastity, their foolish morals, since they always
need reassurances.
Yet they know one can't ask for proof.
Or else love has no meaning."

Anatomy of Hell has no boundaries. It is shocking,
riveting and stunning. It's the story of a man
discovering what women are made of. It is not for the
faint or weak. It is a no-holds-barred drama that is
borderline "X", but is tasteful and romantic to the
point where it should likely be a double "R" or an
NC-17. I recommend it to all loving couples...single
or married.

I was impressed. Ms. Breillat has caught the male
species with his pants down in this one. She hits it
(them) right on the head.

If you like movies that unfold relationships from
ground zero to the sky is the limit, this one is for
you. It's a solid 10 in this genre...nothing short of
brilliance. Who said women can't direct? This one is
one of the finest foreign films I have ever seen.
Don't miss it (if you can find it).

Anatomy Of Hell is a very twisted and disturbing sexual "thriller" that is specifically suitable for alternative film lovers, and it can be rather overwhelming for the mainstream viewers. The last movie that is similar to this film that I had seen was Irreversible(Monica Belluci), which was more engrossing and distasteful than Anatomy of Hell. In this conversational erotic film, the two leads explore many issues revolving body parts, sexual desires and politics. Don't expect the sex and nudity to be stimulating, because it's rather shocking and the sexual activities are hardcore, not simulated.

It's quite a surprise to see that Rocco Siffredi(legendary straight porn star) could pull of Frenching kissing a guy in a gay bar in the opening scene. He was cruised by Amira Casar and when he saw her cutting her wrist in the bathroom, he took her to the doctor. Then they went for a walk together, and later she orally served him on the street. She persuaded him to go home with her and would pay him a big chunk of cash if he would stay and watch her where she's unwatchable. He was curious and agreed with the deal.

In the following four days, they talk about sex and she allowed him to "scrutinize" her body while she was sleeping. He reluctantly indulged himself to play around with her body parts. She gets penetrated by him with fingers and his (...) and the handle of a gardening tool.....

She seemed to enjoy the domination and humilation on him. He breaks down into massive tears after having the first sexual act, because he was so revolted. More shockingly of all, is the scene when he made out with her while she was having her period. It was visually disturbing to watch his blood soaked (...) and his reaction to what he had done. Even more shocking was when she puts her blood-soaked tampon into a glass of water, and they both drank half of it!

What really bothered me was the unsafe sexual intercourse and the drinking of the "period water". I don't know how the director could film such scenes. It's so hardcore and engrossing. I am surprised that Rocco Siffredi is quite good at delivering long dialogues and he excelled in the emotional scenes as well as the sex scenes.

Warning - this movie is not for the faint hearted. It is the most explicit unrated movie I've seen. Very sexual, but not really in a titilating way. Some scenes are very disturbing. Only recommended if you like arthouse movies that push the boundries of modern film making.