Anatomy of Hell (2004)

You won't be disappointed!

Highly Overrated But Still Good

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

I think this movie is in fact an article or an essay on sexuality in the film maker's point of view. It all seems what was turned into a dialog by force was in fact parts of an essay she should have written , or she has and then chopped it up into chunks and fed it into the mouths of the lead/only characters. There are no emotions , except when the female lead tries to look sad (when she's not sleeping while being penetrated).I just don't know why , instead of writing that article she has made this film? Why do the lifeless words have to be accompanied by such images? Oh and if we do have to watch these images and they don't have to be credible or plausible in any way , then why is this not pornography? Surely it's as/more offensive? Why does this kind of movie get labeled as ART and then pornography is obscene? I'd much rather have watched porn.

There are some films you watch to get a message and this is one of the most surprising. The director sees a dichotomy in men's views of women which some women internalize. Paglia talks about the same thing, without focusing on the 'infernal' part that dominates this film. What is similar in Paglia and Breillat's views is that men admire tidiness, completeness, finality; they see the world in an almost binary way. They see women as complicated by the potential to create life and abhor the mechanisms that support that creation. Paglia calls it the Apollonian vs Dionysian. Breillat doesn't use those terms, but might think of it as Apollonian vs Cthonian. I personally don't have this view, but I've heard about it long enough to assume it's widespread among men.Breillat relieves us men of the overgeneralization by using a sexually ambiguous character to act as the "watcher of the unwatchable." Our heroine is ambiguous, too, in that she wants the opposite of what she claims and has chosen a difficult path to get it. I am conflicted in how to rate this film. It is simple on the surface, and deals with a lot of imagery that will be intolerable to some viewers (other reviews on IMDb reflect that). As the launching point of discussion between men and women, this film serves its purpose. But I do not see this as a film that a man and a woman should watch together, because their respective reactions may color and diminish the other's experience.

Although the confrontational images in this film only make it suitable for a select audience, I recommend it for armchair philosophers and those interested in gender politics.Amira Casar plays a young woman who pays a gay man (played by real life hetero porn star Rocco Siffredi) to watch her for four days. Over that time, he confronts his own revulsion at the intimacies of the female body.You will probably have heard of the various extreme images in this film (a garden rake being inserted into the woman's vagina, for example) but surprisingly, the film does not titillate. Every action is designed to develop the characters and reveal a deeper truth.On one level, Anatomy of Hell blasts the misogynistic attitude towards women that can still exist. What is most interesting about this film is the man's journey towards accepting women, and his feminine side, revealed through the use of a female voice-over for his character.By confronting taboos, for example the taboo against menstruation, Breillat's characters become closer to each other, all the more telling because the man is gay and has no basic need for women. Yet, this film is not simply a rant against men, because the male character is the only one that is fully realised. He develops throughout the film, whereas the woman remains static and is more of an archetype of female power rather than a human being.I found Anatomy of Hell fascinating and far less shocking than I anticipated. In Australia, the film was banned until the decision was overturned. I agree with the latter decision, there is a a second of footage featuring a naked young girl in sexual play that should be removed from the film. Some taboos exist for a purpose and that is one of them.

First film I ever saw of made by Cathrine so far. The director is famous already(that has something to do with what your next plot/movie is to talk about) and that influenced the film to some extent.Content is very raw material. The director tries to fill that up with philosophical dialogs. In her interview she says it was an encounter between the FIRST two adults. But actually they are not Adam and eve in the story. They are two fully grown-up adults who have passed many years of sexual life from adolescent period. Both the adults enter into the film with some set of preconceived notions/experiences in sex life (for e.g. he is having same-sex orientation). Whatever they react and discuss would be influenced primarily by their past sexual life. Hence this film could not be considered as a discussion/analysis/view of misogyny or a general view of how men see women. Oversimplification of misogyny. Every human is mixed with both masculine and feminine characters; If Cathrine just treats the one who penetrates and overpowering is always man and one who always waits patiently and looks fragile is female then she could be wrong there.She repeats a dialog 'watch me where I am unwatchable'. What is 'unwatchable'? Nothing in the film is unwatchable (there is no mass massacre/brutality/genocide is there; all that is discussed is about perception of personal intimacy). By that 'unwatchable' word I derive that there is some exaggeration/mystification stressed on the point of female orgasm. Christine is known as a feminist. The flash-back shots of young female, looks like a biased point of view of men (and the young doctors); This could be considered as the female point of view of that character itself; then the film would not reach the philosophical heights as it claims in the dialogs.But still this is a complete honest work of art. It touches the core of realism by the acting and the direction. I watched the film only once. I never felt like watching a pornography throughout the movie. If there are more scenes dealing the nuances of the situation it would have added strength to the discussions. Watch it alone with your partner (perhaps your partner might be able to throw some light while watching the film).