Anatomy of Hell (Catherine Breillat, 2004)
Even the basic premise of Anatomy of
Hell, Catherine Breillat’s aptly named new study of the female form, is as
likely to incite audiences as it is to invoke derisive laughter from them. In a
shocking statement that transcends easy labels like “feminist”, she suggests
women, at their core, possess a fundamental loathing of their loins, rooted in
the self-hate that is formed when frustrated men discriminate against them for
possessing such frustratingly unconquerable orifices. It’s a daring, absurd,
and possibly foolhardy material for a movie, since it clearly oversimplifies the
point of view of a filmmaker who has consistently proven herself to be an
intelligent and perceptive storyteller. It is a lot easier to comprehend her use
of such a proclamation as a rhetorical provocation, functioning in the same way
that the director has used explicit nudity in this and her past work. Because
Breillat so deftly combines the silly with transcendent here, though, the gambit
works.
Breillat never has shied away from using
shock tactics to jolt her audience’s complacency. Anatomy of Hell,
challenging as it is, fits into her oeuvre quite nicely. In previous movies,
she’s transformed rather commonplace scenarios into startlingly intimate,
voyeuristic encounters by opting for perspectives not commonly chosen and
frankness almost never allowed. This time out, she works on a less literal,
almost philosophical, plane. Essentially a two-character film, Anatomy of
Hell would be undeniably reduced as a work of art if it were not for its
sheer explicitness. Body fluids that are usually considered taboo show up
regularly in the film, and they ground the highbrow ideas in the inescapable
facts of our biological lives. That being said, in this tale of a suicidal woman
(Amira Casar) and the gay man (Rocco Siffredi) who she pays to examine her
vagina, semen on a lip can stand in for tears and vaginal secretion can inspire
intense self-reflection. The body is never disconnected from the mind, and in
that fact, Breillat finds her drama.
Although motivations, especially those
of Casar’s character, remain sketchy throughout Anatomy of Hell, it
seems that at the end of the film the entire ordeal was engineered by the woman
in an attempt to make her gay savior aware of the burden that she carries
between her legs (and it’s only when this becomes apparent that certain formal
decisions – such as having one voice speak both characters’ interior
monologues - make sense). To Cesar’s suicidal female, even the consolation
that her vagina can bring forth new life is not enough to counteract the feeling
that the space between her legs has is a metaphorical void. Nor can such
knowledge offset her feelings when she observes the effect that the
organ has on men, who she claims feel “the body of women calls for
mutilation.” Blood is a constant presence in the movie, reminding
the viewer of that statement, and always there’s the threat of violence
looming over their bed. One jaw-dropping scene involving a gardening scythe is
shot in a manner that recalls a slasher film, and the night-by-night structure
of the script never fails to build to some greater bodily horror than the night
before. Still, Anatomy of Hell feels like a horror movie most of all in
the way that it readily reduces human beings to meat, although here things are
done to humans that I would never consider doing, even to low-grade ground
chuck.
Because Breillat secludes her actors
visually, the film achieves an airtight environment in which society’s
distaste for such forthright exploration of others is not present. The
director’s pessimism to me feels more like an audacious lack of politeness,
brought about by her setting’s newfound freedom. She refuses to dress up her
characters’ emotional responses with manners, searching for primal, completely
unguarded responses. Because Siffredi’s character thinks so little of
Casar’s, he’s free to speak her mind without concern about her feelings. She
dresses up for him, apparently seeking his approval, while she leads him toward
psychic ruin, making it clear in retrospect that her ties to society have been
severed and her suicide attempt has only been delayed a while. The vagina
ultimately defeats any masculine fantasies attached to Siffredi’s penis here,
but there’s no sense of triumph in that victory. Ultimately Breillat deserves
credit for not compromising her unadorned examination of the gender politics
with the learned behavior she’s gone to such extremes to strip away. Although Anatomy
of Hell might not be a film that can be taken too literally, that doesn't
mean it shouldn't be taken seriously. There are
kernels of truth in even its most outrageous statements. After all, the
disclaimer at the start of the film, which defensively makes it clear that the
lead actress used a body double for her character’s vaginal close-ups, is all the proof one
needs to see that even in the most liberated context, we place stigmas on the
offending body part.
71
10-16-04
Jeremy Heilman