"Intimacy" tells of a divorced man and a married woman who have weekly loveless sex while each knows little of the other. The film explores the "why" of their peculiar relationship and follows the pair of protags to their inevitable conclusion. Whatever you know, think, or read about this film, it does break new ground as it pushes legitimate cinema one small measure toward its destiny by illuminating that dark corner of human behavior currently occupied only by pornography. Be prepared for graphic sex/nudity and some intensely personal scenes in a stark, austere, somewhat depressing but very courageous drama. Not for prudes, "Intimacy" will be most enjoyed by mature drama enthusiasts. (B)
83 Reviews
Indirect Yet Compelling
bix17125 March 2004
Like most films either adapted from Hanif Kureishi's fiction or having screenplays written by him (`My Beautiful Laundrette', `Sammy And Rosie Get Laid' as well as this film, which lists Kureishi as a co-writer along with Anne-Louise Trividic and director Patrice Chereau), `Intimacy' circles its subject in an indirect manner, never declaring what it's truly about but leaving a distinct impression. This can make for difficult viewing, requiring an inordinate amount of concentration to keep up (and which wears you down after a while) and it only sinks in long after it's over. But that's the film's strong point: the writers prefer to have you draw your own conclusions, with dialogue that forces you to read between the lines of an affair in which both participants seem to be using it to address their individual demons. Chereau and Kureishi are more interested in their characters' circumstances than their actions but it's precisely their circumstances that make their actions compelling. Mark Rylance and Kerry Fox are the lovers (and they're excellent, even though the fact their trysts are presented in explicit detail may overshadow their performances), with Rylance as a bitter bartender who has spontaneously abandoned his family and Fox as a drama teacher stifled in her marriage to a cabbie (Mike Leigh favorite Timothy Spall, also very fine) whom Rylance befriends in an attempt to understand her; it's the tensions that build around the trio that drives the narrative. It's an unhappy yet sensitive film that may distance some audiences and push others into uncomfortable areas they may not want to visit, yet there's no denying its inquisitive, intelligent presence.
Speechless Love.
rmax30482319 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
A worthy movie for adults. The plot is a bit like "Last Tango in Paris," with a man and woman accidentally meeting, then showing up one afternoon a week for some rabid sex, neither telling the other anything about themselves. The guy (Mark Rylance) decides to follow the woman (Kerry Fox), discovers she's married and works in a shabby theater, and is married to a not-overly-bright man who has too many chins and a puffy lower lip like Alfred Hitchcock's. Both of the men want her and she decides to stay with her husband and children. End of plot.
This is about as deglamorized a movie as has recently appeared. At first, both Rylance and Fox look like the kind of people who are right up there in the first rank of the third rate. He runs a bar. He's balding, skinny, always needs a shave, and lives alone in some seedy dump that looks like a Soviet-era zheloy dom. She first appears with her hair up, working-class style, glumly groomed. And the two of them are photographed -- dressed or otherwise -- in a way that makes their skin seem to emit a pale sickly blue. Your first thought is liable to be a red flag: This is going to be one depressing flick.
Then as the plot develops -- hard as it is to follow in its details -- we come to know them surprisingly well, the two of them. Rylance takes on a certain pathetic charm with his scarred eyebrow and occasional stutter. And Kerry Fox lets her hair down, literally, and we can see the self-knowledge and the desire in her big blue New Zealand eyes. They become likable.
In many ways the most admirable person important to the story is Timothy Spall as Kerry's husband, the Hitchcockian cab driver. He's not particularly bright and he trusts people a bit too much. And, man, he looks unprepossessing. But he's gregarious, generous, good-natured, and as harmless as a child. When he discovers that Rylance and Fox have been boffing each other, what does he do? Does he pick up a gun and spray lead. Does he do a plastic-surgery number on Rylance's face? Nope. He goes round to Rylance's bar, has a beer, and tells Rylance that he loves his wife. And that every day he loves her more. Later, when Fox prompts him to ventilate his anger over her affair, all he can come up with is something like, "I don't care about that s***! What really bothers me is that you're a lousy actress and will never be anything else!" When he's done shouting, she replies, "You don't even know how to hurt me." There are other characters in the story too -- children, an ex-wife, somebody named Victor with a Scots accent, and a gay French bartender who philosophizes a lot. (I wonder if the writers had a particular model in mind.) Next to Kerry's husband, the French guy is about the most articulate of the bunch.
But that's the problem with the movie. I was frankly lost at times. I honestly don't know how Spall's character found out about his wife's affair. Evidently she confirmed suspicions he already had, but since the scene doesn't appear on screen we have to guess. In fact, if the love scenes are speechless, the rest of the script isn't much better. More than once a character says to another, "I can't understand a word you're saying." Sometimes I couldn't either. "We shouldn't be gay because someone died." "Nobody died." "I died once. It was the only day I could tell the whole truth." I think we're in "Last Year at Marienbad" territory here. A shouting match between Rylance and Kerry in the basement theater made no sense to me at all. It reminded me of my marriage.
I recommend it though. It's a rare movie made for adults. It's a challenging drama about lives that are either half empty or half full, depending on how you look at them. The ending is sad, but we are at least left with the hope that these characters can mend their tattered lives and get on with things.
This is about as deglamorized a movie as has recently appeared. At first, both Rylance and Fox look like the kind of people who are right up there in the first rank of the third rate. He runs a bar. He's balding, skinny, always needs a shave, and lives alone in some seedy dump that looks like a Soviet-era zheloy dom. She first appears with her hair up, working-class style, glumly groomed. And the two of them are photographed -- dressed or otherwise -- in a way that makes their skin seem to emit a pale sickly blue. Your first thought is liable to be a red flag: This is going to be one depressing flick.
Then as the plot develops -- hard as it is to follow in its details -- we come to know them surprisingly well, the two of them. Rylance takes on a certain pathetic charm with his scarred eyebrow and occasional stutter. And Kerry Fox lets her hair down, literally, and we can see the self-knowledge and the desire in her big blue New Zealand eyes. They become likable.
In many ways the most admirable person important to the story is Timothy Spall as Kerry's husband, the Hitchcockian cab driver. He's not particularly bright and he trusts people a bit too much. And, man, he looks unprepossessing. But he's gregarious, generous, good-natured, and as harmless as a child. When he discovers that Rylance and Fox have been boffing each other, what does he do? Does he pick up a gun and spray lead. Does he do a plastic-surgery number on Rylance's face? Nope. He goes round to Rylance's bar, has a beer, and tells Rylance that he loves his wife. And that every day he loves her more. Later, when Fox prompts him to ventilate his anger over her affair, all he can come up with is something like, "I don't care about that s***! What really bothers me is that you're a lousy actress and will never be anything else!" When he's done shouting, she replies, "You don't even know how to hurt me." There are other characters in the story too -- children, an ex-wife, somebody named Victor with a Scots accent, and a gay French bartender who philosophizes a lot. (I wonder if the writers had a particular model in mind.) Next to Kerry's husband, the French guy is about the most articulate of the bunch.
But that's the problem with the movie. I was frankly lost at times. I honestly don't know how Spall's character found out about his wife's affair. Evidently she confirmed suspicions he already had, but since the scene doesn't appear on screen we have to guess. In fact, if the love scenes are speechless, the rest of the script isn't much better. More than once a character says to another, "I can't understand a word you're saying." Sometimes I couldn't either. "We shouldn't be gay because someone died." "Nobody died." "I died once. It was the only day I could tell the whole truth." I think we're in "Last Year at Marienbad" territory here. A shouting match between Rylance and Kerry in the basement theater made no sense to me at all. It reminded me of my marriage.
I recommend it though. It's a rare movie made for adults. It's a challenging drama about lives that are either half empty or half full, depending on how you look at them. The ending is sad, but we are at least left with the hope that these characters can mend their tattered lives and get on with things.
Intimacy (the unrated version)
Red-1251 January 2017
Intimacy (2001) was co-written and directed by Patrice Chéreau. The movie stars Mark Rylance as Jay, the head barman at a club. Somehow, he has met Claire, played by Kerry Fox. To Jay's surprise, Claire reappears every Wednesday at his apartment to have sex with him. (That's the only way to phrase it. They don't talk, and there's no foreplay. They just tear their clothes off and go at it.) There's plenty of nude scenes of both Fox and Rylance. However, it's not really erotic, because the apartment is so dirty and unkempt that all I could think of was "it's disgusting."
Matters would have apparently continued along in this way, except that Jay wants to know more about Claire. He manages to track her down to a pub/theater, where she's starring in "The Glass Menagerie." This brings him into contact with Andy, Claire's husband, played brilliantly by Timothy Spall.
The plot really begins at this point, and I will carefully avoid explaining what happens next. I won't avoid saying that the plot appeared contrived and, basically, ridiculous. I wasn't familiar with the work of Kerry Fox, but she's an excellent actor. Rylance and Spall are great actors. It's hard to understand just what went wrong with this film. Some reviewers have suggested that director could have made a better movie in France than in England. Maybe we in the English-speaking world think that this bizarre plots works better if the actors are smoking Gauloises and drinking wine, rather than smoking Mayfairs and drinking ale.
If you really want to see this movie, you'll have to decide whether you want to see all the sex (unrated version) or just the suggestion of sex (R-rated version). The movie has no real outdoor scenes, so it will work as well on DVD (which is how we saw it) as it will on the large screen. This isn't a great movie for anyone. If you want porn, buy porn. If you want narrative drama, buy narrative drama. Intimacy promises both, and gives you neither.
Matters would have apparently continued along in this way, except that Jay wants to know more about Claire. He manages to track her down to a pub/theater, where she's starring in "The Glass Menagerie." This brings him into contact with Andy, Claire's husband, played brilliantly by Timothy Spall.
The plot really begins at this point, and I will carefully avoid explaining what happens next. I won't avoid saying that the plot appeared contrived and, basically, ridiculous. I wasn't familiar with the work of Kerry Fox, but she's an excellent actor. Rylance and Spall are great actors. It's hard to understand just what went wrong with this film. Some reviewers have suggested that director could have made a better movie in France than in England. Maybe we in the English-speaking world think that this bizarre plots works better if the actors are smoking Gauloises and drinking wine, rather than smoking Mayfairs and drinking ale.
If you really want to see this movie, you'll have to decide whether you want to see all the sex (unrated version) or just the suggestion of sex (R-rated version). The movie has no real outdoor scenes, so it will work as well on DVD (which is how we saw it) as it will on the large screen. This isn't a great movie for anyone. If you want porn, buy porn. If you want narrative drama, buy narrative drama. Intimacy promises both, and gives you neither.
Feelings
kosmasp4 May 2021
This was not the first nor the last movie that used hardcore sex as a mainstream movie. Could it have worked without us seeing all the nudity and the explicit sex? I think yes, but it does make a point in how disconnected sex and feelings can be. Hence the title we get. This is a drama, so it is not totally there to be a viewing pleasure (no pun intended) or just plain arouse the viewer.
We get relationships and issues within - how sex is a substitute ... but also something we seek! Sometimes knowing it won't actually bring us more than a quick satisfaction - quite literally. How can it be sustained? The acting is really good and you probably will care for them, which of course is a good thing. I never came around watching this until now - I thought the sex was just there to shock us into watching it, but there is more here than that.
We get relationships and issues within - how sex is a substitute ... but also something we seek! Sometimes knowing it won't actually bring us more than a quick satisfaction - quite literally. How can it be sustained? The acting is really good and you probably will care for them, which of course is a good thing. I never came around watching this until now - I thought the sex was just there to shock us into watching it, but there is more here than that.
Sex attraction vs. Love
rainking_es9 June 2006
A man and a woman, they barely know each other, they don't even know their names, and they're connected only for one reason: each Wednesday she visits him and they have an intense session of sex. That's it: 100% animal attraction... but he wants to know something else about her, and things will become complicated. At the same time we'll gradually discover some details about the lives of the main characters: their disappointing in love, their fears, their doubts...
I'm sure that most of the people that watched "Intimacy" pointed out the fact that the scenes with sexual content are quite explicit (pornographic, to put it plainly). Now,I'm not gonna discuss about if that kind of scenes are necessary or not, that's up to the director (and to the actors), but the fact is that in this case they emphasize the powerful sexual attraction between both characters.
This is a good modern drama, with some secondary characters that look rather unnecessary. Two thumbs up for the work of the the two leading actors (you won't see Angelina Jolie or Sandra Bullock doing that kind of jobs)... and we also have the great Timothy Spall (but don't worry, you won't have to see him naked).
*My rate: 7/10
I'm sure that most of the people that watched "Intimacy" pointed out the fact that the scenes with sexual content are quite explicit (pornographic, to put it plainly). Now,I'm not gonna discuss about if that kind of scenes are necessary or not, that's up to the director (and to the actors), but the fact is that in this case they emphasize the powerful sexual attraction between both characters.
This is a good modern drama, with some secondary characters that look rather unnecessary. Two thumbs up for the work of the the two leading actors (you won't see Angelina Jolie or Sandra Bullock doing that kind of jobs)... and we also have the great Timothy Spall (but don't worry, you won't have to see him naked).
*My rate: 7/10
Slow, depressing and at times confusing
tishco27 September 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Expectations were high for this movie but it soon becomes clear that none of the characters are likable, all are broken and you can't relate to any of them.
This movie is dark, disjointed moments in the lives of the two main characters and those in their lives.
Do we still understand why the guy leaves his wife and two kids, even though he does seem to really miss them? Do we understand why everything is so dirty and so old and the weather is always so miserable?
I like movies that make me work at understanding them, I like to be challenged by characters who are unlikable.
The ending is inevitable, no one gets what they want, content in their disconnection from life.
This movie left me feeling dirty, depressed and hopeless.
Was that the intent of the director?
This movie is dark, disjointed moments in the lives of the two main characters and those in their lives.
Do we still understand why the guy leaves his wife and two kids, even though he does seem to really miss them? Do we understand why everything is so dirty and so old and the weather is always so miserable?
I like movies that make me work at understanding them, I like to be challenged by characters who are unlikable.
The ending is inevitable, no one gets what they want, content in their disconnection from life.
This movie left me feeling dirty, depressed and hopeless.
Was that the intent of the director?
Well Acted Drama
dromasca28 June 2003
'Intimacy' is a very well acted drama, set in London. Jay has left his wife and son a year ago, and lives a disordered life, working as a barman, and carrying some ambiguous relationships with a couple of friends. He meets weekly a woman, Claire, with which he has a pure sexual affair, without any communication, a la 'Last Tango in Paris'. Things start to go wrong in this affair, when apparently involved he follows and finds out the background of the woman, and befriends her husband and young son.
The film is not easy, and sometimes the border between complexity and confusion is crossed. However, the acting is so good that the characters are just alive. Life is confusing as well many times, after all.
The film has many explicit sex scenes, and they have their place in the story line. This film is to a big extend about communication, and sex is the main way of communication between Jay and Claire for much of the film. Will this be enough to sustain their relationship? Well, go and see the movie and you will find out.
8/10 on my personal scale.
The film is not easy, and sometimes the border between complexity and confusion is crossed. However, the acting is so good that the characters are just alive. Life is confusing as well many times, after all.
The film has many explicit sex scenes, and they have their place in the story line. This film is to a big extend about communication, and sex is the main way of communication between Jay and Claire for much of the film. Will this be enough to sustain their relationship? Well, go and see the movie and you will find out.
8/10 on my personal scale.
Good movie worth watch
naveen-227359 January 2022
More depressing than sexy
aeg-1121 July 2007
My husband is currently watching this film which we rented, which he seems to be enjoying. Maybe it's just my mood tonight, but I found this film unwatchable. Literally. I had to leave the room -- something I NEVER do when my husband and I are watching a film together. I found it irritating. The characters were so unsympathetic, dysfunctional and frankly boring, I couldn't work up enough interest to care about them, even in a literary sense. As I was watching the sex scenes I thought "I SHOULD be finding this erotic" but I wasn't -- probably because I didn't these like or care about them. (I guess that's the difference between "women's porn" and "men's porn.") I thought the entire mood of the movie was dark, depressing and that the characters had sex just to reassure themselves they were alive. To me, that's sad and pathetic and depressing, not erotic. Hey, call me a romantic.
To each his/her own, I guess.
Watch it for the sex scenes if you like, but for me, there wasn't much else in terms of interesting plot lines or character. I think it's boring and frequently painful to watch.
PS The movie is over. I asked my husband if HE liked it, since he watched it to the end. His answer was NO. He read this review, and he agrees. A waste of time.
To each his/her own, I guess.
Watch it for the sex scenes if you like, but for me, there wasn't much else in terms of interesting plot lines or character. I think it's boring and frequently painful to watch.
PS The movie is over. I asked my husband if HE liked it, since he watched it to the end. His answer was NO. He read this review, and he agrees. A waste of time.
Naturalism not hypocrisy
bobocii3 December 2001
I've seen this film in USA and the taste that I felt is quite bitter; not because it was a lousy film, per contra, but because of the way that a man and a woman try desperately to escape from a lonely and abortive life, is so vivid and so authentic. I was tempted to catalogue the sex scenes, too daring but let's face it, this is the reality. Like probably Zola would say "naturalism not hypocrisy". If you want to see this film it's better to leave home all your prejudices about how life should be.
An interesting albeit flawed erotic drama
varunv-5727710 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
An interesting albeit flawed erotic drama that feels like a cross between Last Tango in Paris & Brief Encounter, but with none of the intensity of the former & none of the emotional resonance of the latter. The title is misleading as this film is more about a hollow & completely unemotional no strings attached sexual relationship between two lonely individuals. This then ultimately leads to one of the parties trying to seek something more than just quick sweaty sex & forge a more emotional connection with the other person. This as expected leads to further complications, the ramifications of which would go on to impact both their lives.
The film is quite drab in terms of it's settings playing out completely in shoddy looking flats, dull underground theaters & unappealing bars which is quite intentional given that the film is trying to be an anti romance. The characters look tired & drained out & even the sex is as unerotic as possible. The first hour sets the stage for intriguing things to come & I was curious to see where the film would head once our lead decides to get to know more about his fuck buddy. But the film takes a detour into somewhat bland & predictable territory once that happens. Still it is quite commendable that the sex is portrayed as realistically & authentically as possible. This is not titillation or provocative art porn but an honest look at depersonalized sex that does not seek to arouse.
Mark Rylance seems a bit miscast here in my opinion. He is a terrific actor but he seems somewhat too posh sounding for what is essentially a working class character. Someone like a Gary Oldman or a David Thewlis would have been perfect for this role instead. Kerry Fox fares better especially in the theater scenes, though her accent does slip into her NZ twang at times. Timothy Spall (Peter Pettigrew from the HP movies) is pretty much the highlight here as the cheated husband. His character pretty much plays to his strengths as an actor & he portrays it perfectly. The taxi scene in particular is a perfect demonstration of his skills.
I just wish that this film had more to deliver than what it did. The supporting characters which include a French bartender & a Scottish bum are amusing but completely superfluous to the movie & rather underdeveloped. I did not understand their role or significance here. Neither are some of the events as rationally played out as one might expect. One revelation in particular is not even shown or conveyed to the audience until it is just mentioned in passing.
To sum it up, this is a perfectly serviceable film but it does not break any new ground that had been mostly set by the 2 aforementioned movies it clearly seems to be influenced by.
The film is quite drab in terms of it's settings playing out completely in shoddy looking flats, dull underground theaters & unappealing bars which is quite intentional given that the film is trying to be an anti romance. The characters look tired & drained out & even the sex is as unerotic as possible. The first hour sets the stage for intriguing things to come & I was curious to see where the film would head once our lead decides to get to know more about his fuck buddy. But the film takes a detour into somewhat bland & predictable territory once that happens. Still it is quite commendable that the sex is portrayed as realistically & authentically as possible. This is not titillation or provocative art porn but an honest look at depersonalized sex that does not seek to arouse.
Mark Rylance seems a bit miscast here in my opinion. He is a terrific actor but he seems somewhat too posh sounding for what is essentially a working class character. Someone like a Gary Oldman or a David Thewlis would have been perfect for this role instead. Kerry Fox fares better especially in the theater scenes, though her accent does slip into her NZ twang at times. Timothy Spall (Peter Pettigrew from the HP movies) is pretty much the highlight here as the cheated husband. His character pretty much plays to his strengths as an actor & he portrays it perfectly. The taxi scene in particular is a perfect demonstration of his skills.
I just wish that this film had more to deliver than what it did. The supporting characters which include a French bartender & a Scottish bum are amusing but completely superfluous to the movie & rather underdeveloped. I did not understand their role or significance here. Neither are some of the events as rationally played out as one might expect. One revelation in particular is not even shown or conveyed to the audience until it is just mentioned in passing.
To sum it up, this is a perfectly serviceable film but it does not break any new ground that had been mostly set by the 2 aforementioned movies it clearly seems to be influenced by.
Intrigueing story falls short emotionally
rosscinema21 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
With it's premise of anonymous sex and emotionally distant characters this in some ways resembles a cross between "Last Tango in Paris" and the recent "Closer" but the manner in which the material is handled fails to come even remotely close to those superior films. Story is about Jay (Mark Rylance) who's a divorced father of two boys and now is head bartender in a popular English pub. Every Wednesday afternoon he meets Claire (Kerry Fox) and the two of them have sex but do not discuss with each other who the other person is.
*****SPOILER ALERT***** Claire stops coming by on Wednesdays and Jay starts to follow her around and discovers that she's an amateur actress working in a play in the back of a pub. Jay enters the establishment and views the play and actually meets Claire's husband Andy (Timothy Spall) and starts a friendship with him but after a few visits it becomes apparent to Andy what is going on between them.
Patrice Chereau is an actor/director/writer and has worked a good deal in the theater and there are several scenes that take place with the actors that appear could have fit well in a stage production. The story takes an angry approach to it's characters as their portrayed as people who just cannot commit completely emotionally and while as interesting as that is it's hard to feel one way or another for those involved. In "Closer" we don't feel remorse but we do understand (and feel) their pain and anger but here the story tries so hard for the viewer to know how distant these people are that it ultimately becomes impossible to have one feeling or another. Spliced into this film are some pretty good performances and while Rylance shows he can carry a picture it's the always reliable Fox that is easier to identify with. Arguably the best performance comes from Spall (Secrets and Lies) who shows us a character that has good instincts but after all the years of marriage finds out that his wife is terribly unhappy. Chereau presents us with characters that had real potential but the script fails in terms of allowing the viewer to be interested in their struggles.
*****SPOILER ALERT***** Claire stops coming by on Wednesdays and Jay starts to follow her around and discovers that she's an amateur actress working in a play in the back of a pub. Jay enters the establishment and views the play and actually meets Claire's husband Andy (Timothy Spall) and starts a friendship with him but after a few visits it becomes apparent to Andy what is going on between them.
Patrice Chereau is an actor/director/writer and has worked a good deal in the theater and there are several scenes that take place with the actors that appear could have fit well in a stage production. The story takes an angry approach to it's characters as their portrayed as people who just cannot commit completely emotionally and while as interesting as that is it's hard to feel one way or another for those involved. In "Closer" we don't feel remorse but we do understand (and feel) their pain and anger but here the story tries so hard for the viewer to know how distant these people are that it ultimately becomes impossible to have one feeling or another. Spliced into this film are some pretty good performances and while Rylance shows he can carry a picture it's the always reliable Fox that is easier to identify with. Arguably the best performance comes from Spall (Secrets and Lies) who shows us a character that has good instincts but after all the years of marriage finds out that his wife is terribly unhappy. Chereau presents us with characters that had real potential but the script fails in terms of allowing the viewer to be interested in their struggles.
Worthwhile exploration of wordless love and loveless words
Geofbob6 August 2001
Though it may not achieve all its aims, Patrice Chereau's would-be existentialist drama, adapted from stories by Hanif Kureishi, makes a welcome change from the recent run of London-based thrillers and comedies. Intriguing while it focuses on the obsessive sexual relationship between non-committal Claire (Kerry Fox) and embittered, divorced Jay (Mark Rylance), the film tends to lose its way as more characters and situations are introduced. Shot, with a lot of hand-held camera, in Jay's untidy flat, in crowded bars, and in busy South London streets, about the only visually beautiful frames are those showing Claire's and Jay's intertwined naked bodies, relaxing after their frenzied love-making.
Meeting once a week, and hardly speaking to each other, both Claire and Jay seem to be satisfied with little more than sex; but his curiosity takes over, he begins to follow her, and is resentful and envious when faced with the realisation that she has a life of her own and may simply be using him. The movie explores questions such as - how far can sex alone can take a relationship; and do words add to or detract from love? Another theme is that of role playing, on the stage and in life.
Both Fox and Rylance are superb in their scenes together; and Timothy Spall is excellent as Claire's talkative, down-to-earth husband. But I confess to finding Claire's friend Betty (Marianne Faithfull) a baffling character. Some sequences, particularly those involving Jay's friend Victor (Alastair Galbraith) and gay French barman Ian (Philippe Calvario), seem simply to be padding. Possibly, Chereau felt the need to insert personalities and scenes from Kureishi's books, even though these were not relevant to the central Claire-Jay situation. Finally, yes, the over-hyped explicit sex is necessary for the movie to work.
Meeting once a week, and hardly speaking to each other, both Claire and Jay seem to be satisfied with little more than sex; but his curiosity takes over, he begins to follow her, and is resentful and envious when faced with the realisation that she has a life of her own and may simply be using him. The movie explores questions such as - how far can sex alone can take a relationship; and do words add to or detract from love? Another theme is that of role playing, on the stage and in life.
Both Fox and Rylance are superb in their scenes together; and Timothy Spall is excellent as Claire's talkative, down-to-earth husband. But I confess to finding Claire's friend Betty (Marianne Faithfull) a baffling character. Some sequences, particularly those involving Jay's friend Victor (Alastair Galbraith) and gay French barman Ian (Philippe Calvario), seem simply to be padding. Possibly, Chereau felt the need to insert personalities and scenes from Kureishi's books, even though these were not relevant to the central Claire-Jay situation. Finally, yes, the over-hyped explicit sex is necessary for the movie to work.
Watchable
SB10017 June 2021
This film was controversial when it first appeared because of the fairly frank sexual scenes, although thy are mostly not real (apart from what seems to be actual oral sex at one point). But there is absolutely nothing erotic or unusual about them; they chiefly resemble farm animals mating in a mucky stable. Their coldness is deliberate, and an intrinsic part of this story about emotional chasms. Intimacy is what is missing from the character's lives. The overall milieu, which might be characterised as 'tatty-London' helps this a lot; the whole film is quite depressing in that sense. The least successful part of the film is the depiction of the relationship between Claire and her drama class student, which becomes tedious. The film is immeasurably helped by Timothy Spall's lugubrious taxi driver husband, at once knowing but also in denial.
depressing but intriguing
cherold16 April 2005
Intimacy's title is an ironic joke; this is a movie about the lack of intimacy. Intimacy is supplied entirely through sex by characters who are unable to deal with it in their regular lives. Intelligent and absorbing, Intimacy is also quite depressing. Not sad, not tragic, just dispiriting. Jay is a bitter man who is doing his best to hold the world at arms length, yet his desire for something more than his superficial existence is what propels the actions of the movie. He is unable to connect with other people, but then, that seems to be true of almost everyone in the film, and the movie reeks of desperation.
That doesn't sound like any fun at all, and Intimacy is not a good time movie. And it's not a weepy tragedy either, it's a cold, clinical film about existential loneliness. It is hard going but worth it.
That doesn't sound like any fun at all, and Intimacy is not a good time movie. And it's not a weepy tragedy either, it's a cold, clinical film about existential loneliness. It is hard going but worth it.
Depressive drama
Homer-215 June 2001
Intellectual drama with terrific acting and consistent mood. I think the explicit sex scenes fit very well into the movie, they support the authenticity and the dirty look of the entire set. The movie has some remarkable scenes, especially those with 2 of the 3 main characters (him, her and her husband).
Unfortunately for me it's a little bit too depressive. I had problems to understand most of the actions and reactions of the characters in the movie so I couldn't identify with anybody or any of their problems. Perhaps I'm not flexible enough ... or I'm just too happy with my life! If somebody has similar problems with the movie I can recommend 'Une liaison pornographique' by Frédéric Fonteyne - it has a related topic and is far more comprehensible.
6/10
Unfortunately for me it's a little bit too depressive. I had problems to understand most of the actions and reactions of the characters in the movie so I couldn't identify with anybody or any of their problems. Perhaps I'm not flexible enough ... or I'm just too happy with my life! If somebody has similar problems with the movie I can recommend 'Une liaison pornographique' by Frédéric Fonteyne - it has a related topic and is far more comprehensible.
6/10
A depressing film about negative, creepy losers
vyto342 September 2003
Pathetic losers abound. Even Marianne Faithfull, whom I expected to be classy, gets to play a frumpy character not too different from a bag lady. The males are all notably unattractive, while none of the female characters is developed enough to care about. Kerry Fox is reasonably attractive, though. Lots of sex scenes; totally unerotic, they seem to suggest that people should have sex because they dislike each other or have no use for each other.
Refreshingly candid insight into the complexity of human relationships
gnovik11 February 2003
Once in a while you run across a movie that breaks boundaries. This film does that in many ways. If you remember seeing an old David Lean movie called "Brief Encounter", "Intimacy" may remind you of it only this film takes you much farther into the actual affair than many films dare to go. Whoever trains British actors gets my undying admiration. Mark Rylance gives an understated performance that simply thrills a person with its reality. Anyone who knows the work of Mike Leigh (Secrets and Lies) will want to see this movie. All of the actors give performances that rate highly with me. Imagine a scene where actors have to pretend that they are in an actors training session and they are supposedly doing improvisation. How would you script this? Could you script this? It's marvelous to watch.
As the plot advances the dialogue is spare. A sign of great film making in my view. The camera work and editing provide the clues as to what is transpiring. At the heart of the movie, the tables turn in an unexpected way that leaves the viewer breathless. You almost have to stop watching to consider all of the implications of what has happened.
Sure there are some strange inexplicable events, but that's life isn't it? So based on boldness, superb acting, amazing realization or direction this film will shock and satisfy, puzzle and pique your interest. One of the greats to emerge from the new realist school of European film making. Along with Romance and Blais Moi. Finally film making that looks at sexuality in an adult way and doesn't get coy when the actual act of sex is depicted. I delight in seeing films that are brave enough to illuminate the act of sex, after all it's what most humans are designed to do.
As the plot advances the dialogue is spare. A sign of great film making in my view. The camera work and editing provide the clues as to what is transpiring. At the heart of the movie, the tables turn in an unexpected way that leaves the viewer breathless. You almost have to stop watching to consider all of the implications of what has happened.
Sure there are some strange inexplicable events, but that's life isn't it? So based on boldness, superb acting, amazing realization or direction this film will shock and satisfy, puzzle and pique your interest. One of the greats to emerge from the new realist school of European film making. Along with Romance and Blais Moi. Finally film making that looks at sexuality in an adult way and doesn't get coy when the actual act of sex is depicted. I delight in seeing films that are brave enough to illuminate the act of sex, after all it's what most humans are designed to do.
Stick with it ...
j-a-julian4 August 2020
Starts slow and boring .... moves to trite .... has a deep ending.
I never bail on a film ... if I chose to watch I watch the entire thing. Character development: excellent. Direction: average. Screen play: hmmm it makes you wait.
Worth watching.
I never bail on a film ... if I chose to watch I watch the entire thing. Character development: excellent. Direction: average. Screen play: hmmm it makes you wait.
Worth watching.
Avoid This Film
P-McDonald1 May 2005
This film received a tremendous amount of attention when it was released in the UK. All this was due to the sex scenes. Four years later and seeing the film for the first time, I do think there is cause for alarm at the film but not for the reasons given by the original moral critics. The film is simply dreadful. For a tale so concerned with the appearances given by people, all three leads (Rylance, Fox and Spall) frequently give appalling performances. Then there is the general unevenness of the film. It sways uncontrollably from the quiet 'intimate' scenes, which are probably the best bits of the two hours, to the moments of dramatic confrontation that lack focus, sense or drama. The director simply cannot handle straightforward dramatic duologues. There is a character called Victor, and every time he turns up there is a huge question-mark hanging over the film saying - where is this going? Avoid this film. Last Tango in Paris was bad enough. This is considerably worse.
Harrowing but well worth watching
rickgordonuk11 April 2001
I just saw this film in Paris, mainly attracted to it by Mark Rylance and Kerry Fox, who are consistently terrific actors.
Looking at the other comments issued so far, I guess that most of the attention given the film will be on the graphic sex scenes, but in general they contributed well to the overall story of lost people looking for some connection in their lives, which in a city like London (as it is filmed) seems impossible. Still, I have no idea how a sexually repressed country like Britain will pass this film without cuts. It will be intriguing to see the infantile controversy that this film will ignite in the media when it plays here.
I wouldn't recommend this film for those who are used to fast-paced stories and quick-fire dialogue. I never found the pacing too slow but you have to watch everything carefully to feel the full impact of the movie.
If you have ever had a passionate but ultimately painful affair, this film will throw up all those feelings that you thought you had forgotten.
Looking at the other comments issued so far, I guess that most of the attention given the film will be on the graphic sex scenes, but in general they contributed well to the overall story of lost people looking for some connection in their lives, which in a city like London (as it is filmed) seems impossible. Still, I have no idea how a sexually repressed country like Britain will pass this film without cuts. It will be intriguing to see the infantile controversy that this film will ignite in the media when it plays here.
I wouldn't recommend this film for those who are used to fast-paced stories and quick-fire dialogue. I never found the pacing too slow but you have to watch everything carefully to feel the full impact of the movie.
If you have ever had a passionate but ultimately painful affair, this film will throw up all those feelings that you thought you had forgotten.
Some will be shocked
SamRag15 August 2002
Here is a film which will evoke strong feelings from anyone watching. I'm sure many will be shocked or even angry when they view this film, but one thing is for sure that you will be emotionally moved in one way or another. Sadly, I can't say it makes this film therefore good. Intimacy is about Jay and his strange Wednesday relationship with Claire. He is having problem in evaluating or understanding the relationship, especially due to the fact that Claire does not request anything from him other then sex. The story takes place in London, and in some ways reminded me of the film Naked, which happens also in London and is about people without direction and poor life standards. But Intimacy is nowhere as good as Naked was. The film is trying to be confusing in an artistic way, desperately not giving away too much of the story line, keeping the film full of holes. And even though this sometimes works, I feel that here it just makes you spent too much time wondering what on earth is going on. Many will concentrate on the very explicit sex scenes in the film, which at times was on the verge of being pornographic. The strange thing though is that this was the best part of the film, and was defiantly required to give you an appreciation of the dilemma Jay finds himself in. All together I was glad that I saw this film, but sad in regards of how little it left behind. 6/10
Gawd
docmorbius1 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This was a story devoid of interest or excitement, a never-ending soap opera made into a movie. Was there ever any ending? The movie just stops and I was so glad it was over that I don't care whether they stay together or not.
This encapsulates the whole thing: A pointless story; a pointless love affair (who would have thought that a love affair could be made so unexciting); vapid and uninspired sex scenes (Do they ever entertain the idea of oral sex or grooming their bushy private parts?); and actors who appear miserable to appear in and wander through such a sordid tale of ennui.
This encapsulates the whole thing: A pointless story; a pointless love affair (who would have thought that a love affair could be made so unexciting); vapid and uninspired sex scenes (Do they ever entertain the idea of oral sex or grooming their bushy private parts?); and actors who appear miserable to appear in and wander through such a sordid tale of ennui.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
