It has gotten a lot of bad reviews; accusing writer-director Catherine Breillat for made a movie which is pretentious, perverse and ridiculous.
Breillat adapts her own novel “Pornocracy”, kicks things off with the in-your-face symbolism of a beautiful Girl (Amira Casar) standing alone and ignored in the middle of a gay nightclub. Instead of going home she does the next best thing-she trots upstairs to the bathroom and slashes her wrists. As the bright red blood drips prettily onto her pure white outfit, she is rescued and patched up by the Guy (Rocco Siffredi), a gay with a pronounced revulsion for all things feminine and female. In gratitude, she offers him a deal, she will pay him to come to her isolated beachside home over the course of four nights and she placed the idea and deal, “watch me where I’m unwatchable”. Offering detailed critiques of the “obscenity” of the female form and modify or reinvent his perception. The rest of the film is dedicated to the four meetings, a battle of the sexes in which words are the primary weapons. The Guy talks about how the female body inspires only “disgust or brutality” or how the sight of a woman’s genitalia reminds him of a particularly ugly frog. And in reciprocal note the Girl offers such insights as “Man can’t give life. He takes it” while flashing back to traumatic memories of her childhood. Of course, invoking the situation the mere words are not always enough and that is when they climbing up to deploying such items as “lipsticks”(most acclaimed and favorite tool of women) and “gardening tools” in wildly unanticipated ways. According to one dialogue again the Girl offers such insight that women are suppressed, not get their freedom because man locks all their holes. After first meeting the Guy indulges in oral sex with the girl, second night in anal sex then third night in straight sex when she having her Menstrual period. Causing her released bloods and his penis stained with these bloods. Although this blood not coming from his penis, its more of an assimilation of two body, the girl proclaim this way in her statement after having straight penetration in to her in her Menstrual period and before the penetration they both drink Menstrual blood as token of mutual deal.
In scientifically nothing wrong in having sex on menstrual period of woman but mostly it’s a taboo on sociological or religious grounds. In interview Catherine Breillat said that she having problem while shooting this film because some of her crew were catholic and they does not feel comfortable on shooting. Actually portrayal of this scene does not mean any assimilation or solidarity (in very diplomatically). Here women can feel deep in psychologically that they abandoned in these 3days from society, love, and children and from this earth also. Abandoned and thrown so sense of insecurity, loneliness and losing purity that enjoyed by children and men. And they feel disgusted too so in balance claimed that “Man can’t give life. He takes it” so woman does that ability to create. But those philosophical, symbolic interpretations are complete contrast to nature and law of evolution.
If we taken here film “In the Realm of the Senses” where Nagisa Oshima tried to build up a harmony, searching for symphony between man and woman while Catherine Breillat invoked conflict and contrast in her film.
This symbolic interpretation for repression is not only ignorance of natural law of physical science but a self made imposition which nothing but lack of knowledge of socioeconomic background or proper historical materialism.
Again in one statement the girl said that when intercourse can’t do on period those 3 days are only period for woman. Of course freedom of woman does not differ from socioeconomic background or ignoring it causes dangerous diversion from reality of life in any form of art. And exercising it, ignoring facts is just a luxury. For which any claimed film craft can floating on fake air without any firmly rooted on soil.
As director herself a woman this film is very much self mockery on woman. Later part of film is like some lesson to male domain how to know more of them. After giving those lessons when male protagonist is awaked about woman, he found she is lost, even he does not know her name. But he ultimately feels with her and end of this realization she vanished mysteriously. More then self mockery this is little ridicules or can be said that imposing alien status on woman and they mean to be always mysterious.
“Anatomy of Hell” is not for everyone and even the majority of those brave enough to seek it out are likely to walk away filled with either disgust or boredom. If you have “18+ and above” certificate of age, this does not enough for entering to theatre and watching this film. This film doesn’t suitable for who may 40 above also. “Adults only” is not sufficient criterion for this film or this genre. It not possible to expecting all audience should be medical student with objective look as they observe and study a human body part or genitals of human. It is more like battle within, facing own moral ethics that governed by society. Same time in the globalization context, in the era far capitalist activities, most intimate acts and relationship of human are already industrialized, exposed and became commodity so obviously a war within own self with morality and ethics which may depend and varies different local to local or culture to culture.
This is not another bad review about this film, but appreciation to Catherine Breillat for her firm belief in this new genre of film making. The film is completely objective, raw and honest on its motif and vision. It’s her brave attitude to portray a woman completely in different perspective. As long as women most commonly used as commodity for many purpose, even male directors put some care on woman character, Breillat tried to deliver a different message and disclosed a new chapter of womanhood.
0 Earthling’s comments:
Post a Comment