Pornocracy

by Catherine Breillat, Chris Kraus (Introduction)

As celebrated as it is reviled, internationally acclaimed filmmaker Catherine Breillat's novel Pornocracy viscerally enacts the dramatic confluence of mystery, desire, and shame that lies at the heart of sexuality. In Pornocracy, a beautiful woman wanders through a gay disco and engages a man, confident that he will follow her. Perversely and dispassionately, she offers her body as the ground of a ritualistic game in which, over the course of three evenings, the two will explore the numbing mechanics of sexual brutality. What follows is an exchange between a man and a woman that is both frankly sexual and deeply philosophical. Adapted and directed for film in France by Breillat as Anatomy of Hell (2004), Pornocracy leads the reader through an undulating and atmospheric exploration of the criminal and the erotic, finally climaxing in a place well beyond more familiar moral terrain. Although Breillat's films—most recently Fat Girl (2001) and Romance (1999)—are well known to international audiences, this publication marks her literary debut in America. It will demonstrate that Breillat's famous films are but one aspect of her strikingly original poetic and philosophical vision.

Genres: Fiction, Erotica, Sexuality, France, Contemporary, Film, Queer

136 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2001

About the author

Breillat was born in Bressuire, Deux-Sèvres, but grew up in Niort. She decided to become a writer and director at the age of 12 after watching Ingmar Bergman's Gycklarnas afton, believing she had found her "'fictional body'" in Harriet Andersson's character, Anna. She started her career after studying acting at Yves Furet "Studio d'Entraînement de l'Acteur" in Paris together with her sister, actress Marie-Hélène Breillat (born 2 June 1947) in 1967. At the age of 17, she had her novel, l'Homme facile, (Easy Man) published. Ironically the French government banned it for readers under 18 years old.
Breillat is known for films focusing on sexuality, intimacy, gender conflict and sibling rivalry. Breillat has been the subject of controversy for her explicit depictions of sexuality and violence. She cast the pornstar Rocco Siffredi in her films Romance (Romance X, 1999) and Anatomie de l'enfer (Anatomy of Hell, 2004). Her novels have been best-sellers.
Her work has been associated with the New French Extremity tendency.
In an interview with Senses of Cinema, she described David Cronenberg as another filmmaker she considers to have a similar approach to sexuality in film.
Though Breillat spends most of her time behind the camera, she has been in a handful of movies, making her film debut in 1972 as Mouchette in Bernardo Bertolucci's Last Tango in Paris.
In 2004, Breillat suffered a stroke.
A friend of hers, Christophe Rocancourt, a con artist, was to play a role in the upcoming film "Bad Love". However, in 2009 she accused him of taking advantage of her handicap by embezzling €650,000. Breillat documented the incident in her book, published in 2009, called "Abus de faiblesse" (Abuse of Weakness).
As of 2010, Breillat is almost fully recovered from her stroke and still intends to film Bad Love with Naomi Campbell in a lead role. Departing from her native French, Breillat plans for the dialogue in the movie to be in both English and Chinese. In September 2010, Breillat's second fairy-tale based film, Sleeping Beauty (La belle endormie), will open in the Orizzonti sidebar in the 67th Venice Film Festival.

Reviews

[Jamespc · Rating 4 out of 5]

The introduction, text, and post-text interview with Breillat are brilliant, some of the best writing on male/female relationships I've ever come across. The Afterword by Peter Sotos, however, taints the book and is a perfect example of why American scholarship is currently worthless, and why American writers are having such a hard time being taken seriously.

[Jon Y. · Rating 1 out of 5]

This beyond pretentious pile has me wanting to avoid anything emblazoned with Breillat's name for some time. Reads like the journals of a first year Women's Studies major shooting for "transgressive" but lands somewhere between eye-rolling and infuriating. With an afterword by Peter Sotos, doing his best to match Ms. Breillat's impenetrable prose-style but from a "masculine" (if one's definition of 'masculine' is to not be able to see one's own penis in the shower and beating off to Toddlers & Tiaras) perspective. Always wished for a translation of "A Real Young Girl", but having read this, "be careful what you wish for" comes to mind.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

While it is considered a novel, really Pornacracy functions as a book of sexual philosophy, as propounded by a character, who is somewhere between the voice of the author and the general world. There is the semblance of a plot, and there are, in fact two characters (a third, I suppose, if you count the absentee fiance at the novel's start), but the main interest in the book is not in the story, but in the strange theoretical ways the book talks about sex and the interplay of genders.
For instance, there is a long passage explaining how men have an urge to be violent towards women because they are enraged by the fact that no matter how large their penis is, it can never fully fill the void of woman, as the vagina is prepared to stretch enough to give birth to an entire child, and therefore men are jealous of their own children. Do I think that this theory is true? I don't know, but it's something to think about in relation to sexual experience.
I feel this way about a lot of Breillat's work, both as a filmmaker and a writer; the ideas and stories that are found in her work ae not necessarily things that I want to believe can be valid, but but do not seem as ridiculous as I wish they did.
However, the ending of the novel is sort of disappointing, and I could not not accept it as the only rational way for the novel to end, as expressed in the forward. Also, the afterward essay (?) is one of the strangest things I have read in a while. I could not quite piece together what the author was going for with it. But, I always like a good Andrea Dworkin quote thrown into the mix.

[a · Rating 4 out of 5]

I can understand why this novel received so much criticism as essentialist from feminists. It does call the vagina a void, a door to infinity. As a possessor of a vagina I have never felt there was much infinity in my loins, but at the same time I am sometimes inclined, perhaps egotistically, to think women have access to certain states of being that men do not. (And the same would I suppose apply for men.) Yet whether or not women can be said to contain some infinity, the point seems inarguable that men have historically interpreted vaginas as voids/infinities to be feared. So personally I can't decide whether my hackles should rise at Breillat's affirmation of the feminine void. Is she playing into a pernicious stereotype or simply affirming some fundamental truth about men's and women's fears of each other?

What interests me more is the depiction of homosexuality in the novel, whose protagonist wanders into a gay club and offers to pay one of the gay men contained therein to come home with her and simply "look" at her. They end up having sex several times and in several ways. I won't go into details but a pitchfork is involved. Initially the man knows only to interact with the female sex through degradation and hatred. The woman eventually coaxes him into another, less vengeful, mode of sex.

Breillat's protagonist chooses a gay man as her prostitute for two main reasons: 1. Her problem in life is that the world operates not unlike a gay disco - men on TV and in positions of power mainly interact with each other, refusing to see women. And 2. Hypothetically, the gay man should be better able to "see" the girl because he will look at her dispassionately rather than through the fog of desire.

Yet it turns out that the man does not look at her very dispassionately after all, as he initiates all the sex they have.

It would be easy to extract from Breillat's novel some straw-man hypothesis, according to which Breillat problematically conflates misogyny and male homosexuality. I don't think that's what (or all that) Breillat is doing. As I said, it would be a straw-man argument. But there is much food for discussion there.

Altogether a hypnotic read. I was never bored or confused during the text itself. Chris Kraus' introduction is quite good. The interview is so-so -- Breillat ignores many of the questions. I did find Peter Sotos' afterword completely impenetrable and infuriating, but I only bothered to read it once so perhaps the more persistent reader would have gotten more out of it.

[Solange te parle · Rating 3 out of 5]

Court récit qui donne l'impression d'avoir été écrit en vitesse, voire en transe. Des maladresses grandiloquentes qui font parfois le charme de Breillat. Elle vacille sans arrêt entre lyrisme de communiante et haine de soi limite misogyne, comme pour expier on ne sait quoi qui la ronge. J'ai pu me reconnaître dans ce postulat en forme de fantasme naïf : moi femme, je ferai bander un homo. Une lecture plutôt stimulante malgré et/ou à cause de son style exalté et brouillon.

[Barry Paul Clark · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is like if the Crossroads where I meet the Devil was actually a three way, uncontrolled intersection of Hyper-Intellectual, Extremely Hornt, and Tragically Poetic.

[Joey Shapiro · Rating 4 out of 5]

Was on the fence about some of this on account of the ambiguous homophobia and definitely unambiguous gender essentialism of the premise (please guys I am begging you not to ask Catherine Breillat what she thinks about trans people please don’t ruin this for me), but the ending and the interview included afterwards really convinced me to like it. This reads as a highbrow SCUM manifesto, and despite the (very difficult, very intellectual) vocabulary at Cathy’s disposal this has all the crudeness and shock value of the actual SCUM manifesto.

Sometimes that’s called for though! The most infamous scene from this and the movie she made out of it is the one where the woman takes out her tampon and puts in a glass of water and asks the man to take a sip of it, and, nauseating as that may be, Catherine makes a good point in the interview that men looove blood, blood is regal, blood is a symbol of battle and victory and courage, but menstrual blood is seen as repulsive and soiled and Different out of this ingrained cultural misogyny baked into masculinity. Catherine says men are taught to love cis women as objects of possession and domination but in a literal sense are afraid of them because they don’t understand them or their bodies, and because they know deep down that heterosexual penetrative sex is not about male domination but about women consuming/engulfing men. Is that a stupid/shallow observation she’s making? Are French intellectuals all just edgelords? Maybe! I don’t know! But I love her for at least pushing buttons and going further than any other living artist in questioning the dynamics of hegemonic masculinity and heterosexuality. Weirdly… this would make an interesting companion piece with bell hooks’ The Will to Change! Different and more unhinged approach to the same ideas.

[Ana Hein · Rating 2 out of 5]

Essentialist in its gender, too abstracted to be legible, and also up its own ass to boot.

[Elevate Difference · Rating 2 out of 5]

A beautiful woman enters a gay discotheque where she encounters a curious man who will follow her and spend three evenings exploring sexual brutality. Sounds like the plot of an erotic thriller guaranteed to tease and please, but was instead the story behind French filmmaker Catherine Breillat’s novel, Pornocracy. Adapted from her controversial 2004 film Anatomy of Hell, it was one of her first novels to be published in English. Despite the steamy tale and intentions of exploring female sexuality, Pornocracy barely simmers, and rather than empowering, only leaves readers confused and bitterly wanting more.

Breillat is no stranger to revealing human sexuality in a different light. Accused of being a “porno auteuriste” in her native Paris, she’s written and directed films that explore the power of sex and how it can forever impact a woman. Some of her most popular films include 2001’s Fat Girl, where a 13-year-old witnesses her older sister having painful anal sex with an older Italian student. Six years later, The Last Mistress wowed audiences when an engaged suitor makes a final visit to his Spanish lover. Consequently, their ten years of lovemaking stirs gossip in Paris, only proving that old habits die hard. In Anatomy of Hell, a woman attempts suicide at a gay nightclub where she’s discovered by a male patron. She then asks the man to watch her for four days, during which she shares her views on sexuality. The novel’s version seems more enticing, but is sadly nothing more than a bore that only delights at the end. Although it’s shocking that such an accomplished and inspiring filmmaker could greatly disappoint, the first few pages easily explain why.

As a director, Breillat’s role is to show her audience a message through the usage of characters that all serve a distinct purpose. Pornocracy does the one thing that few writers accomplish: show too much without telling enough. Her language is strikingly poetic, almost wanting her readers to ignore this major flaw. In describing the sensual night, she states, “The teeth through those lips, those lips slightly moistened, glistening with saliva that, like the spider’s thread, can stretch as clear filament, filled with bubbles.” Breillat brilliantly takes a bodily fluid often ignored, or viewed as revolting, and makes an intimate characteristic of sexuality that can be seen in either gender.

The lack of dialogue makes the story less entertaining and more of a psychological analysis of a woman attempting to seduce a gay man. Many of her points are valid, but prove too overbearing and tiresome for a novel. She later writes, “…whatever their love or their hate, as their penises cannot fill the woman’s sex, which is made to expand for giving birth. No member can hope to reach the size of the son it begets. Thus their claim to fury is vain…” Breillat’s theory on how men tirelessly attempt to overpower women with their penises, but never achieve their highest expectations is intriguing. However, does this analysis fit in a sexuality textbook rather than a novel? If so, should a work of fiction solely entertain or stir an unexpected emotion from the reader, rather than attempt to educate? Either way, Pornocracy reads like a never-ending poem that looses its meaning after a few pages.

Breillat may be an excellent director who can tell stories of females’ roles when it comes to sex, but her novel didn’t serve its purpose in telling why a woman would pursue a gay man just to have a brutal affair. The scenery could only be guessed, dialogue was lacking, the characters seem more like a stream of consciousness than real people, and the story wasn’t believable. If given the opportunity, readers may want to vote on Breillat trying again with another novel that doesn’t read like a screenplay.

Review by Stephanie Nolasco

[Bethany · Rating 3 out of 5]

i have conflicting thoughts on this book. it is grotesque. like it is disgusting and its merit lies in the honesty it takes to talk about sex the way catherine breillat does. she says in an afterword interview that she isn’t interested in politics or sociology or psychology but in fables which i think explains away some of the heavy handed writing. I like the trance of the book — the trance of the author who wrote it and the trance of reading it.

[erin · Rating 3 out of 5]

alright so i actually read this twice. the first time was split by each night of their rendezvous, ultimately hoping for smth more racy n interesting. tbh i wanted this book to be arousing w like in yr face nasty but gorgeous language yet still not totally mindless. hard thing to accomplish ik. my search continues

it wasn’t that at all.

right now im trynna get into breillat, think she’s so wacky, fucked in the head n interesting. i wanted to read this before i started watching her films. it is a nice companion bc shortly after the second read, i watched anatomy of hell.

the first read, i think going into it blind made me miss some of the main arguments abt attraction n desire. it solidified itself more in my mind once i wasn’t reading at the beach or sneaking out to the roof for ten minute breaks n a cigarette during work.

honestly, it rly started to click when i cracked it open sitting on my couch during a lightning strike thinking "yeah im not going out in that." let’s get hot n bothered instead ig

one thing i got from this.. is that this philosophical porn was frustrating but also quite laughable at times too. the whole concept is illogical, but i get the vision. babe, hate to break it to u.. but he’s bisexual ! the social experiment did not work :/

one thing madame catherine wanted to drill into our brains was that it’s a man’s world anyway so it doesn’t matter if it was set up in a gay club in clichy initially. but wow she’s j like me wanting to sl*t my wrists when not being acknowledged ! jkjk i cannot make this joke, it is distasteful. but she answers to it by saying she tried to k*ll herself simply bc she was a woman. goodness girl go to another club then babe !

another thing she often blurs the lines on is that she takes the concept of "divine femininity" or whatever n completely throws it across the room, spits on it n goes "nvm u are beautiful n unique“ over n over lol. that’s so interesting n smth u don’t see so often w female writers. we love a woman who’s self aware n contradicts herself every other page. mmm mutable

what’s so controversh abt her stance is that instead of glorifying pussy she actually calls it an abysmal void filled wound that begs itself to be mutilated. NICE ! she was like "yeah it’s hole but like lemme dress that up a bit for the intellectuals in this house." another thing, she described that it’s demonic for women to be able to be completely split in half if u were to tie each leg to a racing stallion. even the entrails would be a perfect half. she asks.. lol why we built like that ? satan obvi

essentially what she gets at are men will never understand the trials n tribulations of being a woman yada yada feminist dribble drabble n also never feel orgasms the same way. since they cannot understand, they either envy or hate. girlie says FUCK love that ain’t reallll

until she does towards the end n im like "girl which is it ?" ahh yes the "pornocracy of it all."

the first funny point she makes is that men will always be better at sucking cock n even the worst is better than a woman lmaooo i mean yeah prolly. kinda like how women eat pussy better usually but to each their own. physiologically makes sense. but the way she justifies it, is the "fragility of women" doesn’t get in the way. then she goes on abt what that is n that pissed me off bc she said smth dumb n contradicting once again. she said that to be weak, u need a reason. well same thing can be said abt strength.. so that wasn’t great.

the best line by faaaaar n away is that "a stray dog must bite the hand of their owner to remain a stray dog.“ idk i dig that. moving on.

the next fucking hilarious thing that had me in tears ngl is after she pays the gay club man to stay w her at the villa, she falls asleep n he fucks her in the ass n immediately starts crying afterwards, she wakes up n goes "it’s alright it’s only the first night." i couldn’t CONTAIN my laughter holy shit. LIKE WHAT IS COMFORTING ABT THAT WHATSOEVER

but the lipstick on both sets of lips.. bro that was funny too. but many times i would be like "catherine shut up. no catherine, i fucking hate this“ bc she’d say dumb shit like the gardening tool handle he shoved up her was like "neptune‘s trident“ fuck offff. don’t even get me started abt the bird hatchling n maggot story jfc.

but the most batshit hilarious thing was the TAMPON RANT. the concept of keeping period blood contained is NOT just to appease men. idk underwear is fucking expensive n cute. j a point to add. but lorddd the "drinking the blood of yr enemies" part. i was like "yeah catherine is gonna go there ain’t she"

then they actually had sex while she was on her period n she had to say shit abt mixing red n white n i was like "yeah girl no“ but she had the perfect opportunity to throw blue in there too bc of the ocean outside which she referenced super heavy w getting wet. she also called that the void like pussy too but i kept getting distracted w a capsule memory of my friend drew at the beach, peaking during our acid trip constantly going to the ocean being like "you know it’s rly like a void out there. the void is staring back at me“ then my ex pushing him into the water bc drew is kinda an idiot. good times.

aaaanyway, it then so happens that he kinda falls for her but doesn’t remember murdering her n pushing her off the balcony into the water which is supposed to represent how men go through women or whatever. the bar rant was clever tho.

when i read it the second time… it was so obvious that he was gonna kill her. can’t believe i missed it.

but hmmm ahh yes.. lemme swish n raise my lukewarm corona lite bottle to the pornocracy of it all pt 2

[Sarah · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read for everyone 25 and older...

[Lance Grabmiller · Rating 3 out of 5]

Like a strange intersection between Duras and Sotos with occasional dashes of Genet.

[Elle VanGilder · Rating 3 out of 5]

do NAWT show this philosophical porn to the men in my theory reading group 🙅‍♀️ i just know they’ll be weird (derogatory) about it !!!!

compelling enough (giving bataille if he was phoning it in) but you cannot pay me enough money in the world to reread that fuckass afterward

[Ben Romero]

girl same

[Christian Prince · Rating 4 out of 5]

So very French, a whole philosophy on the tragedy of heterosexual sex disguised as a slim novel. Brutally accurate as if recorded from the other side of life, occasionally silly, a blood-soaked gem.

[Aidan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Like Marilyn Frye as written by Erika Kohut. Very French…. but I love Breillat….

[Jessy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Written like poetry, radical and expressive.

[Yureka Eric Johnson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've never read the Chris intro and I never will do

[Lex · Rating 4 out of 5]

just as weird and upsetting as I thought it was going to be, 10/10 no notes

[Victor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Difficile d'être porté par l'histoire mais une écriture remarquable.

[Camille · Rating 1 out of 5]

Breillat décortique la langue comme elle décortique les corps. L'érotisme devenu anatomie, atteint-il vraiment la pornographie...
Je n'ai pas trouvé, dans Pornocratie, la réflexion que j'attendais. J'ai lu laborieusement, c'est que l'écriture était si laborieuse aussi, si travaillée, si étudiée - qu'elle ne me donnait pas l'impression de vivre ma lecture.

[Steph · Rating 3 out of 5]

explores sexuality and the dynamics in a very blunt & unpleasant way. a lot of interesting discourse though, and looks at intimacy in a completely different (possibly offensive) lens to most media which avoid being so brutally honest with its feminist rhetoric.

[Esther Lustig · Rating 3 out of 5]

The translation is WEIRD.