Herald Sun, Monday, July 5, 2004

A highly explicit film that contains a scene of children playing confronting sexual games will probably be banned by Australian censors this week.

The R-rated Anatomy of Hell is screening at Lumiere Cinemas in Melbourne and theatre owner-manager Paul Coulter expects the film to be taken from the screens because of the graphic scene.

“The biggest concern is the depiction of child sexuality in the flashback scene,” Coulter says. “Even though it’s a minor scene and relevant to the story, I expect the film will be banned on that basis.”

The scene is a full-frontal nude shot of a girl playing “doctor” with three boys.

A review of the R-rating by the censors’ Classification Board on Wednesday is expected to result in a ban on the film.

Anatomy of Hell, directed by acclaimed French filmmaker Catherine Breillat, drew complaints from the Australian Family Association and a senior South Australian politician.

Coulter says the ban is also more likely because the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) decision to give the film an R-rating was not unanimous.

Some of the Anatomy of Hell’s more graphic scenes include depictions of heterosexual and homosexual sex.

The film is described as a psycho-sexual drama examining the nature of misogyny. If it is banned, it will be the second of Breillat’s films to be refused classification.

In 2000, the OFLC refused a classification for her film romance, which also screened at the Lumiere, because of concerns about its sexually graphic nature, but the review board later overturned that decision.

Anatomy of Hell was referred to the review board by Australian Attorney-General, Michael Atkinson. He was backed by the Australian Family Association (AFA).

AFA National Vice-President Mill Muehlenberg says, the OFLC stretched the limits by giving Anatomy of Hell an R-rating.

“There is nothing socially redeeming about this film,” Muehlenberg says, though he admits he has not seen it.

“I don’t need to see it to know what it’s about. It won’t be the end of democracy as we know it if it’s banned.”

Herald Sun film critic Leigh Paatsch does not agree the film should be banned, because the R-rating prevents anyone under the age of 18 from seeing the 80 minute feature.

Paatch, who gave the film no stars in his review, says: “It’s not a question of the quality of the piece, because the film is shoddy, over-pretentious tripe.”

“But the R-rating is a prohibitive one, so people can make their own choice about whether to see it. Minors cannot see it. For that reason I don’t see the need for a ban.”

Paatch says the film’s sole purpose is to shock and confront. “I see it being rated somewhere between R and X. It contains a huge slab of amateur psychology, but this is just smoke and mirrors. The main aim is to shock and discomfort, but it fails miserably on this front as well.”