Dr. Kinsey

My thoughts of "Kinsey" are completely summed up in the summary.

It is shallow in that it is almost completely devoid of any analysis, subtlety, or development of its characters; meaningless in that it presents nothing that isn't already known or couldn't be surmised from a documentary; and destined to be the most overrated film of the year in that most critics praise the film, almost blindly, ignoring the stilted dialogue, the almost nauseating depiction of human behavior - devoid of analytical follow-ups, and the very, VERY standard performances. The film includes a below average turn by Liam Neeson, who, despite perhaps giving a good impression of Kinsey, never manages to conceal his accent, and CANNOT handle any drama that needed to be conveyed. His dramatic scenes reminded me of those of Cary Elwes' in "Saw", and if you seen those scenes, you know what I mean.

"Kinsey" was utterly pointless as a movie. It featured a lot of depicted fact, a lot of graphic sex talk, and lot of graphic images that curiously managed to "sneak" past the MPAA's pocketbooks, I mean, ratings system. It never once attempted to show why "Kinsey" was fascinated by sex, why his constituents were so easily enveloped into his sexually lax world, or why Linney stayed with him. They never developed these characters at all. Their gross actions were never discussed or examined by the director.

There is a scene in "Kinsey" that sums up my opinion of the film. In it, a man being interviewed by Kinsey claims he has slept with basically everything. I mean EVERYTHING. Think of something, hes slept with it. He goes into graphic detail about his sex life and demonstrates his ability to obtain an erection and a subsequent self-administered orgasm in 10 seconds, all the while Kinsey just watches sternly, and his partner squirms, and eventually leaves in disgust. Later, the same partner is seen having sex with a much older woman for the purpose of the study, smiling raunchily while watching the grainy video of the deed. Why? Who knows? Is it in is character to be both disgusted by the actions of one man, and obviously enthralled by his own actions? No it isn't. And it seems that the director does not care to elaborate.

For sure, Condon manages to shock with his film. But by the end, the sex has become so repulsively clinical, that its shock value is lost, and the film really takes on no meaning, becoming just plain boring.

It tries to slap on a metaphor about men and trees at the end, but its just too quick and dirty to make up for the film's lack of analysis about its subject, or about America.

Why do critics and film patrons hail the film? It shows what most films aren't allowed to show. Any film that non-chalantly features graphic female and male nudity, frequently, and can still be featured with an R rating at any movie theatre most be an edgy great movie, right? Wrong. (And may I just note that an increasing amount of male nudity has found its way into major theaters through indie, artsy films like "Kinsey" and "Sideways". Its interesting to note that two of the most well-reviewed films of the year both break R-rated bounds frequently within their running times).

With such a high pedigree in its creative team, it seems almost impossible for the film to be anything other than superb. But for this moviegoer, it, no pun intended, sucked the big one.

I read some of the reviews on IMDb before I went to see the movie. And I was struck by some of the negative comments it received. Even in this day and age, there is a double-standard on "moral values".

Hypocrisy vs. common sense. The movie cleverly reveals that Kinsey helped us along the way, to become open about such a basic but non-the-less extremely vital part of our existence. True, some of his subjects were pedophiles or engaged in sex practices that most people would find offensive. However, the knowledge that he as a scientist derived from his studies, is immeasurable - it enables intimate insight into the human psyche, and with that, possible treatments for those that are sexually victimizing others.

And this is the key point: the law should protect life, the innocent (under-aged and animals) and of course, the non-consenting. Other than that, sex is something between consenting adults and no-one should have the right to outlaw what you do in the bedroom. If you listen closely, the movie will give you the same message.

My only complaint is perhaps that on the subject of "perversion" they barely scratched the surface on Kinsey's personal response. It was clear that as a scientist, he would continue on the path of knowledge, however dark it may have been. I would probably agree that the movie version of his life and work was toned down to a "pill small enough to swallow" - still, I feel it shows the audience enough to get a picture of who this man was.

Don't expect "adult entertainment" when going to this movie. There is little that will cause an open-minded, sexually in touch with him-/herself adult embarrassment or even excitement. It's more like a documentary.

The acting was superb on everybody's part, and Academy Award Nominations will be forth-coming - no doubt. Hopefully they will take some wins home.

One of the mid-20th century sexologists, Alfred C. Kinsey, is brought to life through a stellar performance by Liam Neeson. Screenplay writer & director, Bill Condon, who should have won an Oscar for "Gods and Monsters," uses an enticing technique of switching between B&W scenes & color ones. In the former, Kinsey is depicted as a subject, in a clinical setting, responding to his own sex survey questions. In the latter, Condon takes us through flashbacks of choice intimate events during Kinsey's younger life. This combination of screenplay & direction movement between the past in color & the present in B&W seems contradictory. However, it is quite effective to draw out the importance of how significant, if not 'colorful', Kinsey's upbringing was while living in his father-preacher's (John Lithgow) anti-sexual & puritanical home.

Kinsey's sexology includes so many open-ended questions that they leave room for respondents to elaborate upon their true sexual experiences. Their thousands of responses included in Kinsey's research {published as "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) & "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953)} are anything but black & white! It is to Kinsey's credit, his passion, the effectiveness of his research techniques, that sexology discovered US respondents were eager to speak about sex. Since Kinsey's findings are not what the US public expected to learn, his research became controversial. For instance, the first book found males had many more same-gender sexual experiences than anyone imagined. The second book really rocked the world when Kinsey's research showed that females shared the same sexual desires as males! From the start of the film to the end it is loaded with sexological words: in other words, the clinical names for genital body parts & sexual activities. Sexual activities are spoken of scientifically & sometimes depicted. This is not by any means a pornographic motion picture. It is about the science of sexology. But, most especially, it is a fine film that aptly portrays both the research & intimate passions of the world famous US sexologist, Kinsey.

It's not necessarily an adults-only film; depending upon how well prepared & educated teens are in studies of human sexual behavior. I feel Condon masters the topics of sexology & sexualities.

Liam Neeson is a terrific actor, and Dr. Alfred Kinsey is his character. After seeing "Kinsey" I can't imagine anyone else better for the role. People usually say that, I know, but you couldn't possibly imagine anyone else playing the part, ever. I think Neeson has a strong chance at winning an Oscar this year; as does Laura Linney, playing Kinsey's wife, a terrifically kind, warm woman trying to keep up with Kinsey's life, which moves along pretty fast. Too fast for her at times. These two performances are awesome, two of the actors' best, the Academy, and every other awards show, would have to be insane not to mention them.

Unfortunately, I don't think the rest of the movie is really up to par with the performances. Not to say it's bad, just that it fails to really interest us when Neeson or Linney aren't on screen (which, fortunately, doesn't happen much). The movie is about Alfred Kinsey, who pioneered the research on human sexuality. Neeson shows him as a strong man, but one with as many flaws as the gall wasps he collected, all buried deep beneath his drive and focus.

Kinsey's studies proved some things, and let a lot of homosexuality and other deviances from the norm at the time out into the open. I'd just like to say that I agree with some of his studies, I like that he unlocked the way uptight supposed "morality" of the masses think that any sexual behavior other than the missionary position is both unhealthy and immoral. How they thought that I don't know, but I admire Kinsey for proving them wrong. Other things I do not agree with, like Kinsey's studies on the time it takes really young children to reach orgasm…and Kinsey's way of thinking that sex on its basic level should have no emotional attachment; I think I can say that these things are ethically wrong without feeling ignorant.

But I won't be biased against the quality of the film because of this. I will speak of the technique of how it was made: the writing, the directing, etc. I liked how the movie began: with a black and white practice interview between Kinsey, his wife Clara, and their students. It is inter-cut with scenes from Kinsey's youth: Kinsey facing temptation with masturbation, and having trouble with his insanely strict father (John Lithgow).

Lithgow's first scene, where he speaks of the temptation and evil caused by zippers, electricity and ice cream parlors is the film's first problem. It doesn't show both sides of Kinsey's argument, it merely dismisses Lithgow – and those like him – as a laughing stock, instead of considering any validity in points that they're making.

This problem is carried throughout the movie, and Lithgow is seen as such a monster that we feel no sympathy for his character in a later scene showing his inner weakness and tragic past, the scene feels thrown in and very foreign to the rest of the movie.

I think the opening scenes, with Kinsey and Clara first falling for each other, and his proposal and collection of gall wasps, are the movie's best, I believe. Once Kinsey starts his research on sex I think the movie becomes a bit conventional. We get the usual scenes such as Kinsey alienated from his family, Kinsey receiving trouble from his financial backers, Clara feeling alienated from Kinsey, and so on. Of course, most of the time we watch eagerly, because Neeson and Linney are awesome, but we still have that itching feeling that the film isn't as special as Ebert says.

What I mean is, after decades of biopics, especially this year; a biopic has to be more than conventional. Unless the lead character is amazing and extremely watchable, like in "Ray", the film needs to show us something new. I mean, when you see a biopic, you pretty much know the lead is going be alienated from his family, obsessed with his work and full of inner demons. So give us something else, please.

Problems also arise with the introduction of Kinsey's staff, including bisexual Clyde Martin (Peter Sarsgaard), Wardell Pomeroy (Chris O'Donnell) and Paul Gebhart (Timothy Hutton). The problem is, we hardly know any of these characters, so we are bored when they get into arguments because we don't feel that we know anything about them. When we find out that Martin is bisexual it comes as a surprise, but we react with a shrug. Sarsgaard's performance is surprisingly flat; that he's getting any buzz for awards surprises me.

I'm giving the movie a seven simply because of the professionalism Neeson and Linney display on screen. They are the acting pros; they wash the floor with the rest of the cast. The Academy voters will all be struck by lightning if either isn't mentioned. So see it for them, and about the rest, well, shrug.

7/10

Here's a major problem in drama. You want to deal with big issues, great disembodied, cosmic sweeps of things. Things that people love or make them suffer. This is why people come.

But the tools we have to display these things are humans, usually. So the dramatist has to invent or find situations that have humans, human behavior and these grandsweeps entangled in some way. And it has to be a particular way so that the engagement with the humans on the screen leads us somehow to those sweeps.

Sometimes the connection is daft as we equate certain people as surrogates for trends. I had a school teacher that (twice!) showed us "Johnny Tremain" as our main lesson on the Revolutionary War.

Okay. One of the big things that entices and scars us is sex, and particularly its incomprehensible but overwhelming nature. So what makes more sense to us, who wish to understand it, than a story about a man who dedicated his life to understanding it?

Well, there are two problems, long before you get to the skill of the thing. The first is that if the character is to bring us to the topic, he has to be fully entangled. The two have to merge in a way that when we see and understand him, we find ourselves incidentally in the clouds of the thing he represents. It doesn't happen.

And part of the reason is the nature of the man himself. Ordinary audiences think of science as a single notion. But it is not. There is the business of noting what is there, but that is the secretarial work of science. Mere accounting. Then there is the business of spinning abstractions, models, theories then insight and understanding. Kinsey was the first and blindly so, in fact he would appear to a full scientist just as Tim Curry's character is to him here.

Counting is not comprehension. So in real life, this is more of a "Tucker" story than a John Nash one. And it is mighty hard to weave that entanglement if it was never there, and the nature of the thing takes you in the wrong direction.

What underscores this is that the opposing forces here — religious moralists, pontificating politicians — are stronger and more numerous today when it comes to matters sexual than more than 50 years ago. There's been negative progress, both because Kinsey was off, but also because people like those behind this film actually thought that was the good fight.

Linney gets it. She's a pleasure in any project. She gets it because she conveys to us the simple tolerance of her man and all that surrounds him, including the film crew and we the audience. She shows us all that she knows we're fooling ourselves about this, and that wisdom and insight is deadly elusive.

Its going to take more than the Ron Howard school of film-making to make us fly into sexual insights. it is a clever idea to frame the thing as an interview with him, to introduce him as an interviewer. Just not enough.

There's a very fine bit of acting in this. Almost at the end, in less than three minutes, Lynn Redgrave is an interviewee who tells Kinsey he saved her life. Watch it and believe. Here is an example of how that entanglement can work.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.