Overcoming the effects the opposition between nature and God has not just on the concept feminine, but on women, constitutes the reason for Catherine Breillat's film Anatomy of Hell. Her short interview with Sight and Sound demonstrates this to an extent. However, it is David Durnell's Woman’s Body as an Anatomy of Hell: Nihilism, Recursion and Tragedy in Breillat’s Anatomy of Hell that really gives insight into her intense and extreme creation. My only criticism of Durnell's analysis of the film is that he mitigates and reduces Breillat's take on male homosexuality. He is correct when he observes that she hold the presupposition "that gay men 'do not like women,'" and that she "is less concerned with the feelings of the homosexual male than she is with the repressed and fragmented 'self' of the female, and the how that female views men –and thus views herself." He is just plain wrong, veering off into the politically and academically correct, which Breillat rejects at every turn, that the way she depicts "homosexuality is figurative" and that "the man in her film [is] more an Image of [an] alpha-male, religious chauvinism than he is overtly 'gay'." This is a move that introduces a false distinction into the film, one not made by the author/director. While it may seem a small thing, it disorients her work and compromises the recovery she attempts by way of implication, whether directly intended or not. As a result of making this film, she was denounced as a homophobe. Before we can discuss something intelligently we have to be honest about what we see and judge it accordingly. While still not entirely accurate, it is more honest to denounce her as a homophobe than to make the move Durnell makes; both are ideological moves, but Durnell's is artificial, that is, something tacked on afterwards.Veni Sancti Spiritus, veni per Mariam.