Intimate Affairs

Directors need to learn that audiences watch a film for the characters, and they need to understand the characters. "Investigating Sex" illustrates characters that are so narcississtic the audience is annoyed from first frame to last. I saw the film at a screening with Alan Rudolph with a discussion afterwards, and he didn't even really appear to know what the film was about either. He just used the phrase "sexually compelling" a bunch of times. I didn't care about the characters, I frankly didn't the film had any characters to offer. Just a lot of actors spreading paint on themselves and turning into donkeys and mules in order to say something profound about sexual relations and sexual attraction. Robin Tunney is great as usual, and the other actors do what they can. If you want to try to beat the meaning out of a movie and read into things that aren't there, this movie is for you. If you actually want to learn something or see a great film, don't watch "Investigating Sex." Because it certainly isn't entertaining. It's really pretty ridiculous.

It sure felt like a privilege to watch a film like that... Nothing like the average, fully predictable recipe-based product of the rather decaying modern American movie business. Unlike many recent films this one was actually based on real characters, let alone on real persons... I feel the objections expressed round here are exactly because of that: real people are not predictable, their "lines" are sometimes "blurring" the "clear" picture an average viewer -like myself- is used (or rather has been taught) to expect. Characters based on reality often make us feel a bit awkward form time to time. This, I think, is just because real persons are like that too...

I give credit to the director for choosing an eternal question as his theme, and to most of the actors for achieving to convince me, not just act very well. It somehow feels natural to watch the characters, some almost bizarre, just being themselves. The power of confession -through experience, sharing and expression- is, I think, what could turn a sinner (even a puritan) to a saint.

As for the desired equation (love=sex=eros?) it is not conclusively expressed, but then again, is there any human research that ever comes to a finite end?

In my opinion, the above qualities form something of a rarity, a sheer luxury, so seldom permitted by showbiz moneymaking machine nowadays.

Anyone who had the pleasure of seeing this film doesn't know the meaning of the word "pleasure." What an inept piece of pompous trash! It is like Plato's Symposium for morons. Poor Julie Delpy looks like she hasn't a clue as to what she should do, and I take this as a sign of her intelligence. It's a great big piece of empty posturing.Tuesday Weld's accent is all over the place, but I guess we're supposed to think she's just an empty old bag with no substance. Or how about the trembling Neve Campbell who does one shtick throughout but we're somehow supposed to think she's wiser at the end. And then there's Dermot Mulr9ony with deep problems with his dad. Give me a break. What's amazing is that this kind of stuff is supposed to be sexy! Good God, hasn't anyone out there met anyone and had something happen between you?

Alan Rudolph is a poor man's Robert Altman with a Henry Jaglom production value–and yet he manages to entice excellent talent to his projects. His films have never fared well at the box office, and only two (Mrs. Parker and the follow-up Afterglow) received much critical acclaim. So how he managed to spend eight million dollars on this mess is anyone's guess. It was obviously shot (predominantly) in a single location, and the wardrobe and set decoration is hardly extravagant to have merited high budgeting. While likely scripted, it has all the discipline of a free community improv class. It's perhaps apt that a movie about masturbation should prove so masturbatory in its inception: the cast are allowed free reign to over-reach in almost every scene. There is no sense that the characters are true to the time frame portrayed on screen, and yet it is not completely pointless. Some of the improvisations work, and most don't, but there is some comedy to be had in the less over-wrought interactions. When it tries, it fails, but when it fails it sometimes triumphs. I only wish there had been more happy accidents–like the camera being in the right place to capitalize on the focus of the scene. It is sadly rarely so.

For a much better take on a similar subject see Joaquin Oristrell's Unconscious, instead. For a better use of an ensemble cast in a barely scripted acting exercise, see Nicholas Roeg's Insignificance. The only honest performance is Neve Campbell's, and the only subtlety is that of Terrence Howard. Nick Nolte seems like he's acting in two different movies, Alan Cumming deserves more camera time, and Jeremy Davies is completely against type.

Rudolph's greatest success is that this film released in 2002 looks like a 1970s European skin flic. I am probably over-crediting him, here. But the film has its moments. It's probably best to run in the background while you do something else and cross it off your list.

I had the pleasure of seeing this film recently at a film festival. The crowd loved the film and gave it a standing ovation. I may be bias though, because I'm a huge Neve Campbell fan, and this is surely her sexiest role yet- even more so than Wild Things. Robin Tunny gives a great performance as well, she is an actress that I've been following ever since The Craft. Terrence Howard, also an amazing actor (did you see Hustle & Flow?!?)has a great role in this film. I also believe that Nick Nolte gives the performance of his career! Combining sex, mystery, excellent actors- this film is definitely a MUST SEE, just look at the incredible cast.. you can't go wrong!