We may be one of the most advanced nations in the world, but when it comes to sex, we're still awfully puritanical, prudish. It still remains incredibly taboo because, for some inexplicable reason, many Americans still view sex as something that shouldn't be discussed frankly and openly among consenting adults. And that it's still dirty.
Janet Jackson flashes a breast on TV for less than a split-second and pundits go berserk, decrying it as the end of civilization as we know it. A president lies about an extra-marital affair and we spend millions of dollars and countless hours of news trying to gather every sordid detail. But when a president wages an unjust war under false pretenses, a decision that, so far, has cost the lives of more than one thousand brave Americans and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, there's barely a rattle. The media blindly buy the administration's view with little or no critical review and much of the public, aided by some jingoistic networks, considers dissent unpatriotic.
Clearly, violence is fine. Sex is bad.
This is evident even with our movies. The two "Charlie's Angels" movies with their over-blown violence get PG-13 ratings from the MPAA. But a coming-of-age film such as "I Capture the Castle" (2003) gets an R rating because Tara Fitzgerald briefly bares her breasts in one scene. If more nudity is shown, as in "Henry and June" (1990), the MPAA prigs slap an NC-17.
Parents have no qualms about their teen-age children seeing violent movies or playing video games, but if a film happens to show slight nudity, all hell breaks loose. Now, we have TV networks blurring nude buttocks on cartoon figures for fear of facing the wrath of the FCC!
Let's not even discuss homosexuality. After all, it wasn't until a couple of years ago that the U.S. Supreme Court, in a not-unanimous decision, struck down an asinine Texas law that governed what consenting gay men did sexually in the confines of their homes. Why is it that rabid conservatives clamor for less government and regulations, except when it comes to privacy issues? Then they want the government to find out and regulate what consenting adults do in their bedrooms and what books we take out of our public libraries.
What does all this have to do with Bill Condon's film, "Kinsey?" Well, we may be in the 21st century, but this nation's attitudes about sexual issues apparently haven't changed much since Dr. Alfred Kinsey began his work. In fact, these days, under this administration, it seems we're taking giant steps backward. It's just that we know more about sex now and one of the biggest reasons for that is because of Kinsey's work.
Condon's film, which he also wrote, captures the essence of the man exceedingly well, thanks to a commanding performance by Irishman Liam Neeson. He makes Kinsey likable, even lovable, a man who tries to understand the biological nature of man with little understanding of human nature. His unemotional tactics certainly created problems.
Kinsey zealously storms his way in the name of science without paying attention to human foibles such as jealousy, compassion or hurt feelings. Neeson does a superb job at keeping Kinsey detached from the humanity around him. It's a fascinating portrait, really, and Neeson is aided immeasurably by two brilliant supporting performances - Laura Linney as Kinsey's wife, Clara, and Peter Sarsgard as Kinsey's right hand and occasional lover, Clyde Martin.
Linney gives the film much needed dignity, strength and, above all, humor. Clara understands and forgives Kinsey's approach to life and sex. She's also smart enough to try Kinsey at his own game. In one scene, she delivers the film's funniest line, one that cuts right through Kinsey's analytical mind, tests his convictions and makes him confront basic human nature.
Sarsgard, again, delivers a gem of a performance. I've yet to see him deliver a bad, or even sub par, performance in a film.
Condon's flaw is he tries to cut too wide a swath with this biopic. As well-written and acted as "Kinsey" is, Condon tries to shoehorn too much of the man's life into the film. There are superfluous scenes - a boy scout moment on a riverbank, for instance - and characters who seem like caricatures, too easy targets to be poked fun of, such as Kinsey's rigid father, played by John Lithgow.
Frankly, I would have liked to see more of the information gathering, a crucial element that's reduced to an interesting montage by Condon. Surely, the questions would have come as a shock to many Americans being interviewed and their reactions and understanding of the process would have made for fascinating storytelling.
Instead, Condon takes a rather prosaic, almost timid approach, to that aspect of the story. He could certainly have been more daring. We occasionally get snippets of the interviews, but they're played more for humor than anything else. He gets it right in one scene, when Kinsey and a colleague interview a smarmy sex offender played frighteningly well by William Sadler.
"Kinsey" is well researched, well crafted and good-looking. The performances are uniformly excellent - even the usually bland Chris O'Donnell seems good. But for a film about a man who revolutionized sex in this country, "Kinsey" isn't nearly brave enough. It's almost a bit too staid, a bit too clinical in its approach. As Clara might say, "a little churchy."
Then again, maybe mainstream U.S. audiences even today aren't ready for a movie in which someone openly discusses sexual behavior. When Kinsey shows his class slides of the male and female genitalia, not only were their gasps from his students on screen, but also in the movie theater, from the audience. Almost six decades after the publication of Kinsey's controversial bestseller about men's sexual habits, it seems we still have a long way to go.
Janet Jackson flashes a breast on TV for less than a split-second and pundits go berserk, decrying it as the end of civilization as we know it. A president lies about an extra-marital affair and we spend millions of dollars and countless hours of news trying to gather every sordid detail. But when a president wages an unjust war under false pretenses, a decision that, so far, has cost the lives of more than one thousand brave Americans and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, there's barely a rattle. The media blindly buy the administration's view with little or no critical review and much of the public, aided by some jingoistic networks, considers dissent unpatriotic.
Clearly, violence is fine. Sex is bad.
This is evident even with our movies. The two "Charlie's Angels" movies with their over-blown violence get PG-13 ratings from the MPAA. But a coming-of-age film such as "I Capture the Castle" (2003) gets an R rating because Tara Fitzgerald briefly bares her breasts in one scene. If more nudity is shown, as in "Henry and June" (1990), the MPAA prigs slap an NC-17.
Parents have no qualms about their teen-age children seeing violent movies or playing video games, but if a film happens to show slight nudity, all hell breaks loose. Now, we have TV networks blurring nude buttocks on cartoon figures for fear of facing the wrath of the FCC!
Let's not even discuss homosexuality. After all, it wasn't until a couple of years ago that the U.S. Supreme Court, in a not-unanimous decision, struck down an asinine Texas law that governed what consenting gay men did sexually in the confines of their homes. Why is it that rabid conservatives clamor for less government and regulations, except when it comes to privacy issues? Then they want the government to find out and regulate what consenting adults do in their bedrooms and what books we take out of our public libraries.
What does all this have to do with Bill Condon's film, "Kinsey?" Well, we may be in the 21st century, but this nation's attitudes about sexual issues apparently haven't changed much since Dr. Alfred Kinsey began his work. In fact, these days, under this administration, it seems we're taking giant steps backward. It's just that we know more about sex now and one of the biggest reasons for that is because of Kinsey's work.
Condon's film, which he also wrote, captures the essence of the man exceedingly well, thanks to a commanding performance by Irishman Liam Neeson. He makes Kinsey likable, even lovable, a man who tries to understand the biological nature of man with little understanding of human nature. His unemotional tactics certainly created problems.
Kinsey zealously storms his way in the name of science without paying attention to human foibles such as jealousy, compassion or hurt feelings. Neeson does a superb job at keeping Kinsey detached from the humanity around him. It's a fascinating portrait, really, and Neeson is aided immeasurably by two brilliant supporting performances - Laura Linney as Kinsey's wife, Clara, and Peter Sarsgard as Kinsey's right hand and occasional lover, Clyde Martin.
Linney gives the film much needed dignity, strength and, above all, humor. Clara understands and forgives Kinsey's approach to life and sex. She's also smart enough to try Kinsey at his own game. In one scene, she delivers the film's funniest line, one that cuts right through Kinsey's analytical mind, tests his convictions and makes him confront basic human nature.
Sarsgard, again, delivers a gem of a performance. I've yet to see him deliver a bad, or even sub par, performance in a film.
Condon's flaw is he tries to cut too wide a swath with this biopic. As well-written and acted as "Kinsey" is, Condon tries to shoehorn too much of the man's life into the film. There are superfluous scenes - a boy scout moment on a riverbank, for instance - and characters who seem like caricatures, too easy targets to be poked fun of, such as Kinsey's rigid father, played by John Lithgow.
Frankly, I would have liked to see more of the information gathering, a crucial element that's reduced to an interesting montage by Condon. Surely, the questions would have come as a shock to many Americans being interviewed and their reactions and understanding of the process would have made for fascinating storytelling.
Instead, Condon takes a rather prosaic, almost timid approach, to that aspect of the story. He could certainly have been more daring. We occasionally get snippets of the interviews, but they're played more for humor than anything else. He gets it right in one scene, when Kinsey and a colleague interview a smarmy sex offender played frighteningly well by William Sadler.
"Kinsey" is well researched, well crafted and good-looking. The performances are uniformly excellent - even the usually bland Chris O'Donnell seems good. But for a film about a man who revolutionized sex in this country, "Kinsey" isn't nearly brave enough. It's almost a bit too staid, a bit too clinical in its approach. As Clara might say, "a little churchy."
Then again, maybe mainstream U.S. audiences even today aren't ready for a movie in which someone openly discusses sexual behavior. When Kinsey shows his class slides of the male and female genitalia, not only were their gasps from his students on screen, but also in the movie theater, from the audience. Almost six decades after the publication of Kinsey's controversial bestseller about men's sexual habits, it seems we still have a long way to go.