Nine 1/2 Weeks (1986)

Calificación de los usuarios:

5.3/10   

Director:

Adrian Lyne

Escritores:

Sarah Kernochan (writer)
Zalman King (writer)

Fecha de Lanzamiento:

21 febrero 1986 (USA)

Género:

Drama | Romance

Frase comercial:

They Broke Every Rule

Plot:

An erotic story about a woman, the assistant of an art gallery, who gets involved in an impersonal affair with a man...

Plot Keywords:

Erotic | Sex Game | Art Gallery | Sex | Balloon

Premios:

3 nominations

Comentarios de los usuarios:

Curious but entertaining

Reparto

Mickey Rourke	...	John
Kim Basinger	...	Elizabeth
Margaret Whitton	...	Molly
David Margulies	...	Harvey
Christine Baranski	...	Thea
Karen Young	...	Sue
William De Acutis	...	Ted (as William DeAcutis)
Dwight Weist	...	Farnsworth
Roderick Cook	...	Sinclair - the Critic
Victor Truro	...	Gallery Client
Justine Johnston	...	Bedding Saleswoman
Cintia Cruz	...	Whore
Kim Chan	...	Chinatown Butcher
Lee Lai Sing	...	Angry Chinese Customer
Rudolph Willrich	...	Chinatown Shopper

También conocida como:

9 ½ Weeks (USA) (alternative spelling)
9 1/2 Weeks (USA) (alternative spelling)
9-1/2 Weeks (USA) (alternative spelling)
Nine ½ Weeks (USA) (alternative spelling)
Nueve semanas y media (Spain) [es]

Duración:

112 min | Argentina:102 min

País:

USA

Idioma:

Inglés

Color:

Color (Technicolor)

Relación de Aspecto:

1.85 : 1

Sonido:

Dolby

Clasificación:

Italy:VM14 | Iceland:16 | Germany:16 (re-rating) | West Germany:18 (original rating) | Argentina:18 | Australia:R | Chile:18 | Finland:K-16 | France:-12 | Norway:15 | Norway:16 (1986) | Portugal:M/18 | Singapore:R21 | South Korea:18 | Sweden:15 | UK:18 | USA:R | Philippines:R-18

Locaciones de Filmación:

Chelsea Hotel - 222 West 23rd Street, Chelsea, Manhattan, New York City, New York, USA

Compañía:

Galactic Films

Trivialidades:

In May of 1984, Oscar-winning production designer and former studio head, Richard Sylbert was asked to come to New York for 6 weeks to oversee the production design of this film.

Errores:

Continuidad: Before the waterfront scene Elizabeth does some shopping and has a shopping bag. But when they reach the waterfront the bag and her items are gone.

Citas:

Elizabeth: How did you know? How did you know I'd respond to you the way I have?
John: I saw myself in you.

Conexiones de Película:

Spoofed in The Seven Deadly Sins: Gluttony (2001) (V)

Banda de Sonido:

Love and Happiness

Curious but entertaining

I find it interesting that people can get so many different feelings and experiences from one movie, but then; this is exactly the type of movie that would cause such disparity. The question really is, are you watching the movie for entertainment, or to critique it? There are wondrous scenes of erotic intimacy here (unfortunately not as fully developed as they could be) - and glimpses into just what two people "in lust" will allow themselves to be led into... The sensuousness of the relationship is the key - not the believability of the surroundings or the rest of the 'plot'. Is it believable? It certainly is conceivable... Liz (Kim Basinger) studying slides at work, so distracted by her thoughts of intimacy with a man she hardly knows that she can't keep her hands off herself... John so taken with her that he will spend exorbitantly for a gift - to give a woman he doesn't know - but feels that he must meet. The passion and need for these two lonely people that lets them open doors to their inner selves and allow another in BEFORE thinking of the consequences (there are ALWAYS consequences, in film and life; for opening "those" doors). Is it believable that they would win the fight with the street thugs? No. Is it believable that the adrenaline rush, the release of the flight impulse and fear, the closeness found in 'defeating a common enemy'; could possibly lead to the intensity of sexual closeness and climax in a semi-secluded spot (under falling water at that)? Yes. Are the other scenes believable? It's entertainment, not a psychology class... They are conceivable, certainly. Ever been really mad at your partner, and that anger leads to words then breaking dishes then apologies then hugging then closeness then sex? How about anger leading directly to sex? It can happen, and it does. It is not so much a rape as it is a purging of desire. The scene with Liz blindfolded, and the whore coming in to the room - you share the tenseness Liz feels. Will she be stimulated? Of course. Will she let John know it turns her on? He already knows it does. He wants HER to know that he knows it will.

This movie is a glimpse of what manipulators people are. The efforts made to manipulate another person into 'making them want what you want'. So much so, that it becomes their desire, not yours. So much so that the desire is to see if you can manipulate the other becomes more consuming than the original goal. Seeing if she WILL crawl across the floor becomes more important than seeing her actually doing so. And her feeling the depth of her self in what she will do - and finding she is doing it because SHE wants to, not because he wants it. Liz takes her pleasure from John, too. What appears to be a "rape in progress" as John pushes Liz back on the table, ends with her crying because she was excited enough by it to climax. That is perhaps the 'real' rape; her discovery that even if she is initially violated, in her mind she realizes it arouses her enough to let it continue; and as it continues she finds herself clutching at her 'attacker'; and attaining orgasm. The rape as much of her mind as it is her body. It is her discovery of what she learns of herself. When she finally leaves the relationship, he finds he can't live without her. Who manipulated who?

This movie, dated as it is, is still fresh because it is enough like life to be real. No, we may not be that rich or that attractive or that selfish or that spoiled. But we also may wish at times that we were...