Anatomie de l'enfer (2004)

Director:

Catherine Breillat

Writer:

Catherine Breillat (novel)

Release Date:

28 January 2004 (France)

Genre:

Adult | Drama

Plot:

A woman employs a gay man to spend four nights at her house to watch her when she's "unwatchable".

Plot Keywords:

Gay | Suicide Attempt | Mouse | Urine | Exhibitionism

Awards:

1 win

Cast

Amira Casar	...	The woman
Rocco Siffredi	...	The man
Alexandre Belin	...	Blow-job lover 1
Manuel Taglang	...	Blow-job lover 2
Jacques Monge	...	Man in bar
Claudio Carvalho	...	Boy with bird
Carolina Lopes	...	Little girl playing doctor
Diego Rodrigues	...	Little boy playing doctor
João Marques	...	Little boy playing doctor
Bruno Fernandes	...	Little boy playing doctor
Maria Edite Moreira	...	Pharmacist 1
Maria João Santos	...	Pharmacist 2
Pauline Hunt	...	Amira Casar's stand-in
Catherine Breillat	...	Narrator (voice)

Also Known As:

Anatomy of Hell (Australia) (International: English title) (festival title) (USA) (literal English title)
Anatomia do Inferno (Brazil) (festival title) [pt]
Cehennemin anatomisi - Romans 2 (Turkey: Turkish title) (video title) [tr]
Himon anatomia (Finland) [fi]
Pornocrazia (Italy) [it]

Runtime:

77 min | Canada:87 min (Toronto International Film Festival)

Country:

France

Language:

French

Color:

Color

Sound Mix:

Dolby

Certification:

Taiwan:R-18 | South Korea:Limited | Australia:R | Canada:R (Ontario) | Czech Republic:18 | Finland:K-15 | France:-16 | Italy:VM18 | New Zealand:R18 | UK:18 | USA:Unrated

Filming Locations:

Ericeira, Portugal

Company:

CB Films

Trivia:

Director Catherine Breillat wrote 'the man' especially for Rocco Siffredi.

Movie Connections:

Featured in Indie Sex: Extremes (2007) (TV)

Not just flesh for the sake of it.

Some contributors to the message board for this film have labelled it 'pornography' and (therefore) dismissed it. It would be wrong to write this film off, though, because it is not simply flesh for the sake of it. (As to whether it would be right to dismiss a film merely because it's pornography, well that's another debate.)

If you crave action movies of the sort routinely churned out in Hollywood this is probably not for you.

If you enjoy the self-conscious, 'sea-side postcard' sex comedies of the sort favoured by British filmmakers this will probably not be your cup of tea.

If conventional, hard core porn films are your bag then this is probably one to avoid.

But if you want to have some of your assumptions challenged, hear some provocative ideas and see some highly provocative images, this just might be worth renting.

Some of the philosophical discussions went over my head (though it's clear from some of the reviews that scholars of philosophy will pick them up), and a few of the graphic images left me cold. But Catherine Breillat is a highly intelligent writer and director with interesting, controversial ideas that deserve to be heard.

Comparisons have been made with 'Salo' - mainly in the context of determining which is more offensive or appalling. This is an interesting angle. I haven't seen 'Salo', but I've just finished reading 'The 120 Days of Sodom' by the Marquis de Sade, on which it's based. I have to say that this was the most repulsive novel I've ever read, and I wouldn't describe myself as squeamish. I know that 'Salo' is set in the mid 20th century (ie almost 200 years after de Sade wrote the book), with Nazis in place of the four 'heroes', but I gather that in lots of ways it's faithful to the novel. If it's anything like the novel it really is far more repulsive than Anatomie de l'enfer. Some of the scenes in the latter offend our sensibilities because we've adopted certain cultural norms; there's nothing intrinsically horrible about them. (Here I'm not referring to the misuse of the garden tool, as there's definitely something repellent about violating a sleeping woman.) But the strongest scenes in 'Salo' depict practices that are objectively disgusting and offend people of all cultures and upbringings. There's no redemption in de Sade's novel; the 'heroes' don't leave the château more enlightened than they were when they entered.

So I can understand why parallels would be drawn but cannot help thinking that these two films are in very different categories.