#1
Posted: 11/22/04 at 12:04am
I just returned from my first screening of the film. Sorry folks... I'm not one of the many who "wish they loved this film more."
Because I loved it as much as it's possible to love a film. This is an unusual piece of art especially in relation to Classical Hollywood Cinema (Gone with the Wind, Titanic, even A Beautiful Mind). I was captivated by every minute of it. Oscar nominations should abound for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Lead Actor, Best Supporting Actress (Laura Linney, who could really go lead and legitimately win at this point), Best Supporting Actor (Peter Sarsgaard), Best Supporting Actor (John Lithgow), Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Original Score, Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction and Best Editing for a total of twelve nominations.
A second viewing is definitely in order because I'm a little confused about how Kinsey went from studying insects to studying human sexuality. It happened so quickly in the film, but I'm grateful for that because Kinsey's research on human sexuality is ultimately more interesting to me and probably most other people who had been long anticipating this film. There were at least a hundred things I loved and admired about it, but its biggest accomplishment is not belaboring the "scandalous" issues in the same way that mainstream films do. For instance, after Kinsey begins an affair with one of his research assistants, we don't get the typical scenes of his wife discovering it and all hell breaking loose. Bill Condon's screenplay and direction move us right from the start of the affair and into the conversation that he and his wife have about it. This is probably something that makes Kinsey an incredibly valuable contribution to the New Queer Cinema; it tells the spectator to accept things that Classical Hollywood Cinema would discourage them from accepting. It's a film that answers a question posed by so many people who lead "unconventional sex lives" -- why do conservative people care so much what I do with my life? -- by visually saying that the unconventional should be accepted or at least seriously evaluated apart from the social taboos attached to it.
The film also has a great sense of humor in addressing so many "controversial" issues. Seldom is a biopic laugh-a-minute but this one comes close; the best scenes involve Linney, Neeson and Sarsgaard interacting with one another. The characters are so blunt that I found myself amused yet very refreshed by their honesty. Knowing that educated people were willing to speak so frankly about sexuality in the first half of the twentieth century sort of made me want to give my 93-year-old great-aunt a phone call so that we can talk dirty. Really, this film is like Hedonism III except set in academia between the 1920s and the 1950s. An important point of note: During one interview [conducted on a balcony by Dr. Kinsey and his assistant played by Chris O'Donnell], the film risks moral judgment that breaks from the otherwise very "accepting" message. And that's okay because Kinsey is not a film that's attempting to say that all social taboos about sexuality are absurd. Rather, it's asking us to reconsider the extent to which those taboos have been accepted but never reasoned.
And what if all the rogues and libertines of England had come to this country instead of the Puritans? :)
This film was by far a more thought-provoking film, for me at least, than anything else I've seen this year in a cineplex. I would rank it #1 on my list of most compelling 2004 films, with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Fahrenheit 9/11 just behind it. Kinsey is certainly a film that I could see getting nominated for many awards by voting bodies that want to recognize innovative filmmaking in much the same way that they did with Citizen Kane, Do the Right Thing, Far From Heaven and other films that represent risk-taking on the part of their creative teams. This is one film that people will probably be able to watch again ten years from now and understand why it was so critically-acclaimed when it was first released.
4/4 stars.
P.S. Lynn Redgrave impressed me, especially by contorting her face to convey the anguish that so many lesbigay people feel about burying their sexual orientation. Her performance was truly compelling and realistic, but too brief for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination. She deserves some recognition, however. Maybe she'll usher Kinsey to a SAG ensemble award? And as for Sarsgaard's nudity, which I'd bet is a big reason why many people want to see the film now: It didn't disappoint at all -- so long as you like guys who don't have their rib cages poking out. And if you do like guys who have their rib cages poking out, then you'll be happy to know that Neeson spends quite a bit of time shirtless too. But with or without his clothes on, Sarsgaard charms you into watching him and only him. He is like Kate Winslet except eternally cast in supporting roles. I doubt that will be the case for long, unless that's where he truly feels comfortable.
Because I loved it as much as it's possible to love a film. This is an unusual piece of art especially in relation to Classical Hollywood Cinema (Gone with the Wind, Titanic, even A Beautiful Mind). I was captivated by every minute of it. Oscar nominations should abound for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Lead Actor, Best Supporting Actress (Laura Linney, who could really go lead and legitimately win at this point), Best Supporting Actor (Peter Sarsgaard), Best Supporting Actor (John Lithgow), Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Original Score, Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction and Best Editing for a total of twelve nominations.
A second viewing is definitely in order because I'm a little confused about how Kinsey went from studying insects to studying human sexuality. It happened so quickly in the film, but I'm grateful for that because Kinsey's research on human sexuality is ultimately more interesting to me and probably most other people who had been long anticipating this film. There were at least a hundred things I loved and admired about it, but its biggest accomplishment is not belaboring the "scandalous" issues in the same way that mainstream films do. For instance, after Kinsey begins an affair with one of his research assistants, we don't get the typical scenes of his wife discovering it and all hell breaking loose. Bill Condon's screenplay and direction move us right from the start of the affair and into the conversation that he and his wife have about it. This is probably something that makes Kinsey an incredibly valuable contribution to the New Queer Cinema; it tells the spectator to accept things that Classical Hollywood Cinema would discourage them from accepting. It's a film that answers a question posed by so many people who lead "unconventional sex lives" -- why do conservative people care so much what I do with my life? -- by visually saying that the unconventional should be accepted or at least seriously evaluated apart from the social taboos attached to it.
The film also has a great sense of humor in addressing so many "controversial" issues. Seldom is a biopic laugh-a-minute but this one comes close; the best scenes involve Linney, Neeson and Sarsgaard interacting with one another. The characters are so blunt that I found myself amused yet very refreshed by their honesty. Knowing that educated people were willing to speak so frankly about sexuality in the first half of the twentieth century sort of made me want to give my 93-year-old great-aunt a phone call so that we can talk dirty. Really, this film is like Hedonism III except set in academia between the 1920s and the 1950s. An important point of note: During one interview [conducted on a balcony by Dr. Kinsey and his assistant played by Chris O'Donnell], the film risks moral judgment that breaks from the otherwise very "accepting" message. And that's okay because Kinsey is not a film that's attempting to say that all social taboos about sexuality are absurd. Rather, it's asking us to reconsider the extent to which those taboos have been accepted but never reasoned.
And what if all the rogues and libertines of England had come to this country instead of the Puritans? :)
This film was by far a more thought-provoking film, for me at least, than anything else I've seen this year in a cineplex. I would rank it #1 on my list of most compelling 2004 films, with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Fahrenheit 9/11 just behind it. Kinsey is certainly a film that I could see getting nominated for many awards by voting bodies that want to recognize innovative filmmaking in much the same way that they did with Citizen Kane, Do the Right Thing, Far From Heaven and other films that represent risk-taking on the part of their creative teams. This is one film that people will probably be able to watch again ten years from now and understand why it was so critically-acclaimed when it was first released.
4/4 stars.
P.S. Lynn Redgrave impressed me, especially by contorting her face to convey the anguish that so many lesbigay people feel about burying their sexual orientation. Her performance was truly compelling and realistic, but too brief for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination. She deserves some recognition, however. Maybe she'll usher Kinsey to a SAG ensemble award? And as for Sarsgaard's nudity, which I'd bet is a big reason why many people want to see the film now: It didn't disappoint at all -- so long as you like guys who don't have their rib cages poking out. And if you do like guys who have their rib cages poking out, then you'll be happy to know that Neeson spends quite a bit of time shirtless too. But with or without his clothes on, Sarsgaard charms you into watching him and only him. He is like Kate Winslet except eternally cast in supporting roles. I doubt that will be the case for long, unless that's where he truly feels comfortable.
It's okay, I won't judge. I watched it 3 times in theatres, and then joined the pack in hating on it later. Ba-a-a. 
