KINSEY (contains spoilers)

[EvelynNesbit1906]

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.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 11/22/04 at 12:19am

Thanks for the review! I can't wait to see this film.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/22/04 at 2:40am

Since you're predicting or saying who YOU would nominate for the Oscars, do you you see any potential nominations for Garden State? I have a feeling it has a better change at the Golden Globes.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/22/04 at 2:49am

Well, Harvey Weinstein at Miramax called Garden State his "baby" and said that he was going to push it hard. It really is getting some great FYC (For Your Consideration) ads, including for Braff and Portman nominations. Then there are academy screeners to keep the film in voters' memories.

Against it are the fact that Portman's performance in Closer is already the more acclaimed and high profile of the two. I don't think she'll be getting a double nomination. I also don't think that any amount of screenings will convince voters to choose a summer film like Garden State over late fall and winter releases such as The Aviator, Finding Neverland, and Ray. It's best hope at the Oscars is probably Original Screenplay... but even that category's wide open since so many of the biopics aren't clearly based on a book or stage show. Alexander, The Aviator, Kinsey and Ray all qualify for Original Screenplay. Updated On: 11/22/04 at 02:49 AM

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 11/22/04 at 2:51am

Why does it seem like I'm stalking Munku......crap.



Not that anyone asked for my 2c, but because I live for awards season, I'll toss it in anyway. I could see Garden State being nominated at the Oscars for Best Original Screenplay, but that's pretty much it. Natalie Portman was lauded, but I think her efforts in Closer will likely get more hype (and maybe even a nod, although I think she's a long shot).

I haven't seen Kinsey, but I can see Oscar voters steering away from Kinsey because of it's overt sexual themes (look at how Mulholland Drive and Eyes Wide Shut got screwed - the latter, probably because it was a crappy movie, but anyway...). The foreign press might be kinder to it. Do you see a nod for Liam in the cards?

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/22/04 at 2:55am

Yea, I wasn't expecting any acting nominess from it. I too adore award season and used to have a lot of faith in them. But lately, both the Oscars and Tonys have disappointed me to no end recently. Especially the Tony Awards, like this years award for best actress. For me, the award was automatically between Tonya Pinkins and Donna Murphy, absolutely no questions asked. I would have given the award to Pinkins, but I was certain it would be one of them. When Idina won for her mediocre performance in Wicked I was appalled and completely shocked. SO, that's basically why I do'nt have faith in awards anymore.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 11/22/04 at 3:02am

The Oscars and the Golden Globes are pretty much purchased by the studios and the producers, even though the Academy has put restrictions on gifts, press kits, screeners, etc. Occasionally a gem squeezes by (what was that Castle girl's name from Whale Rider?) but then they get next to no coverage and you wind up forgetting about them a year later. ^^ Case in point.

I think the Golden Globes are slightly better in this regard than the Oscars, and I like the SAG awards as well. I wish the GG or the Oscars would start hanging out Ensemble awards.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/22/04 at 3:20am

You know, I think the big problem many people have with Eyes Wide Shut and Mulholland Drive is that they can't tell what either film is about! On MD, Ann Miller was even quoted as saying something to the effect of, "I don't know what the hell that movie was about and I'm in it." Kinsey is much, much more accessible than either EWS or MD. It's comparable to A Beautiful Mind except this time the issue is sexuality and not schizophrenia. The theater was packed, and this is a suburb of Chicago on Sunday evening during limited release.

I don't think that a great number of Oscar voters will steer away from Kinsey due to its overt sexual themes. The voting body is really changing; nominating and awarding Charlize Theron for a movie as sex-heavy as Monster was a pretty big deal. Then again, that's lesbian sex and historically, this country hasn't been as cool with affection between men as they are with affection between women. And then again (again), Theron was an "ugly, masculine" woman having sex. I guess precedents for Kinsey would be difficult to identify. Far From Heaven's four nominations could be interpreted as a good sign, but that film didn't get any wins and Dennis Quaid wasn't even nominated for his portrayal of a gay man married to a woman. On the other hand, Kinsey -- apart from being a film about sexuality -- is also a film about the middle-class. Maybe class values will trump the concerns about sexuality, or more voters than you'd think will admire (even love) the frankness with which the film addresses human sexuality? With all of the political backlash against gays and lesbians, nominating Kinsey for a ton of awards could be a statement from Hollywood's left.

A nod for Neeson isn't a given thanks to competition from Kevin Bacon (The Woodsman), Jamie Foxx (Ray), Johnny Depp (Finding Neverland), Don Cheadle (Hotel Rwanda), Javier Bardem (Mar Adentro), Leonardo DiCaprio (The Aviator), and even Gael Garcia Bernal (Bad Education, which isn't eligible for Foreign Film because Mar Adentro is the Spanish contender this year). However, I wouldn't be surprised if he were nominated. I'd easily vote for him over Depp -- who is the It Boy at the moment but doesn't have as challenging a role in Finding Neverland as Neeson does in Kinsey. Read: JM Barrie doesn't have to cry buckets or even frown, really. Neeson has several "Oscar clip" type scenes, especially when his world starts to fall apart. The guy bleeds, collapses, and goes from laughing hysterically to crying in seconds flat. Updated On: 11/22/04 at 03:20 AM

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/22/04 at 3:30am

Oh, and I doubt Kinsey will be a Golden Globes darling. The Foreign Press is practically more mainstream in its interests than the Academy. The Golden Globes were certainly as predictable as the Oscars last time. What DIDN'T Renee Zellweger win for Cold Mountain?

As for Idina Menzel winning the Tony... well, I think a lot of voters tend to take into account the commercial success of the film/musical/play in which a nominee stars and also whether the nominee has won the award before. There was no doubt in my mind that Donna Murphy and Kristen Chenoweth's performances (acting, singing and all) were superior to Menzel's, but I still would've voted for Menzel just to make her happy. She seemed like she would have taken the loss harder than the other women. And somehow, I imagine that more than a few Tony voters had the same logic as me.

Tiff, you should follow the critics awards; they're probably more likely to acknowledge films that "offend." Of course, this is coming from someone who fully supported all of the Oscar wins for Chicago and Titanic...

I think the worse thing was Roberto Benigni (Life is Beautiful) beating Ian McKellen (Gods and Monsters) for Best Actor in 1999. Updated On: 11/22/04 at 03:30 AM

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 11/22/04 at 3:39am

Agreed on Roberto Benigni. McKellen was robbed and to this day, I'm still PISSED that he didn't get proper recognition for one of his best works! Oh Lord, you supported Titanic? 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.

I read the results of the critics awards when it's available. I would contribute more but this caffeine high is dying and I'm still distracted about listing my top 3 Broadway songs. However I'm a huge film freak so we'll continue this discussion tomorrow, si?

PS. I don't think Leonardo will be recognized for The Aviator. I know it's gotten good buzz. It's just a hunch. I think this is Johnny's year (although FN was hardly his best role)...I hope Kevin Bacon gets a nod even though I haven't seen Woodsman, because he's so underrated, but I think the fact that he's not taken "seriously" as an actor will hurt his chances (and this disturbing role isn't as flashy or publicized as Charlize --> Monster).

Ugh, temples throbbing from the caffeine. Will think and talk tmrw.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/22/04 at 3:40am

I actually agreed with that one. The biggest oscar upset for me was Requiem for a Dream not being nominated for best picture, and Ellen Burstyn loosing the oscar to Julia Roberts. Criminal.

I see your logic with the Tony awards, but the award isn't "Most Sensitive Non-Winner In the Past," or "Most Commercial," it's "Best Performance." There should be absolutely nothing else involved, just raw performance. Tonya Pinkins still wins in my book, as does Antonio Banderas the year before after Harvey pranced away with it, and I was infuriated when Jane Krakowski won over Mary Stuart Masterson in NINE. What's really criminal is that Sunday in the Park with George lost to La Cage, and Into the Woods lost of Phantom for the best musical awards in the 1980's. I do not understand.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 11/22/04 at 4:19am

McKellen was robbed and to this day, I'm still PISSED that he didn't get proper recognition for one of his best works!

I also agree. And the fact that he was robbed still boils my blood. McKellen has beeb deserving of several Oscars by now. I dearly hope tthat he Academy finally acknowledges him as the phenomenal actor he is.

(I was also pissed that Gods And Monsters didn't receive a Best Picture nomination, even though it was clearly one of the best films that year. And I'm also annoyed that Judi Dench won over Lynn Redgrave for 10 minutes of screen time. I love Dench, but even she knew it was rediculous.)

Updated On: 11/22/04 at 04:19 AM

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 11/22/04 at 4:26am

And while we're on the topic of people who've been robbed, can I just say that Ryan Gosling in The Believer didn't get nearly as much credit as he should? I know because it was shown on cable first, it was ineligible for Oscar consideration, but this is one of the THE BEST performances from an up and comer I've EVER seen and he got nada, other than props in an EW article. And now he's best known as That Guy In The Notebook.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/22/04 at 5:28am

1998 was the year when I started seeing some movies alone because I just couldn't wait for anyone else to accompany me. Life is Beautiful was one. Shakespeare in Love was another. I enjoyed both but Shakespeare in Love was ultimately the only one that I would bother watching years later. As much as I hate to say it, I think that some of the comedy in Life is Beautiful is offensive. You can probably only take comedy set in a concentration camp so far anyway. But now I hear that Benigni is making a comedy about Iraq during the American invasion. Must this man make light of all things serious?

I did support Titanic! I have no shame in admitting it. :) In fact, I'm an afficianado. I saw it in theaters four times and ultimately amassed a Titanic collection worth over $2,000. I own six copies of the film - one DVD that doesn't work well, another that does, the widescreen VHS, the full-screen VHS, the collector's box set, and the network television version. Admittedly, most of what I own has nothing to do with the film, but that's the beauty of it for me -- it turned me into a history buff. I had already taken an interest in Titanic due to the cameo in Ghostbusters II and my fanaticism was emerging when Catherine Zeta-Jones starred in the CBS miniseries in 1996, but I wasn't hooked until the James Cameron film came out and a wonderful A&E documentary called "Titanic: Death of a Dream" began airing multiple times a week. Nowadays I tend to think about RAGTIME a bit more, but the interest in Titanic is still there. I watch it everytime it airs on NBC and occasionally slip in the DVD just to watch the part where the ship splits in half. I'm also a member of the Titanic Historical Society, so I get magazines [containing esoteric information] in the mail every three months.

The Woodsman is flying under the radar. That could be a good excuse for voters not to consider Bacon, aside from him not being taken very seriously as an actor. I don't think Leonardo DiCaprio will be a tough sell if voters are dead set upon nominating The Aviator in other major categories. Can you imagine the film winning Best Picture without the star nominated? That would be bogus!

I had written a longer post (unfortunately?) but some of it was lost when I first tried posting the message. Everything before this is what I had copied. Anyway, to make a long story short, I think the AIDS symbolism in Into the Woods made it win over Phantom if nothing else. I've never seen either show. McKellen is due a Lifetime Achievement Oscar. If he continues to be cast films like X-Men, he may stand a little chance of winning one for his acting in a specific film. (ah, the pitfalls of aging in Hollywood!) I'll have to check out The Believer. Updated On: 11/22/04 at 05:28 AM

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 11/22/04 at 6:35am

Nowadays I tend to think about RAGTIME a bit more, but the interest in Titanic is still there.

Interesting, because it's the same time period. I guess you have an interest in pre-WW America/Britain!

I still stand by my enjoyment of Titanic. Despite a cliche-ridden script, the film is well-made, inventive and surprisingly historically accurate. It's a sweeping, Old Hollywood movie with modern production values. I think people just jumped on the hate bandwagon because the movie became rediculously popular.

I can't wait for McKellen's next film (I think it's called "Asylum"). I was lucky enough to catch his recent performance in the obscure Canadian indie film, "Emile," which he did while staying in Vancouver. He's brilliant in it, as usual.

Updated On: 11/22/04 at 06:35 AM

[Plum]

Posted: 11/22/04 at 9:36am

Oh, and I doubt Kinsey will be a Golden Globes darling. The Foreign Press is practically more mainstream in its interests than the Academy.

So true. With few exceptions, the only times they vary from the Oscars is when they go for something fluffier.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/23/04 at 12:06am

I'm definitely big on turn-of-the-century America and Britain. Soon to be adapted as a major motion picture is the book "1906," which is a historical fiction novel about the San Francisco Earthquake and includes opera singer Enrico Caruso and actor John Barrymore as major characters. I can't wait! I would love for Evelyn Nesbit to be incorporated into it in some way since Barrymore was her boyfriend and, allegedly, the first man to get her pregnant...

I think a lot of people legitimately dislike Titanic. However, there's no doubt that quite a few of the naysayers include people who have never seen it but have only read about it. Oh well, cliches aside, they're missing out on some great action sequences. One has to wonder if the film would have received so much backlash had that damn propeller guy just been edited out!

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 11/23/04 at 12:27am

Hee...the propeller guy made me laugh out loud. And that little spin his body had after he made contact...Good times, gooood times.