A History of Sex

Not a documentary about sex, but rather a documentary on controversial New York photographer Andres Serrano, this independent film follows the contentious artist around as he fixes photo shoots for a sex-themed exhibition. The film also divulges Serrano's background, particularly the stir he caused by shooting a crucifix in a tank of urine in the 1980s. Serrano does not talk much to the camera but through interviews with his associates, the fascination that some have with his work comes across. One associate memorably pegs it is as "being seduced by something one doesn't want to look at". Whether Serrano is just controversial for the sake of it or whether he has something to say is debatable, but something he mentions about disliking contradictions such as a "church that faces a bunch of brothels" resonates. For all its intriguing content, the documentary is nevertheless compromised by lots of grainy video footage. Scenes also tend to linger on Serrano setting shots up while mumbling to his assistants - something that affects the film's pacing. There are, however, sufficient truly unexpected images throughout to keep one transfixed. A lot of drive comes from wondering what shocking thing he will do next; e.g. what appears to simply be a shoot of a mother breastfeeding her baby in a dilapidated church soon turns out to be more. The equally controversial John Waters also has a fun meeting with Serrano late in the piece. Nick Broomfield's amazing 'Fetishes' this documentary is not, but there is something curious about it, fragmented and patchy as it may be.

This is just about some photo shoots done in Amsterdam by photographer Andres Serrano famous for his controversial Piss Christ photo of a christ figurine in a tank of urine. The photos he shoots in this documentary are far less "creative" and less interesting than the piss Christ one.

Mostly we overhear pieces of discussions about setting up or on their way to shoots in Amsterdam. Only pieces. We never really get much context about what is being said. We get to see a few photo shoots but again only pieces & never see from the photographer's viewpoint. We don't see the most extreme photo shoots at all. There are several explicit scenes totally unrelated to the documentary taken inside a sex & fetish club although they are almost too dark to recognize anything. Some images & video shown are hardcore sex, fetish or morbid/death.

Whatever video camera they used has too small a sensor as there's almost never enough light for a good image so there's a lot of dark and/or snowy scenes. Very amateurish.

Occasionally are people talking about his past photos or looking at a book of his pictures. I guess he hadn't done anything of value in 15 years, 1987. At least one person looking at his past photos says they're not impressed. I wasn't impressed either.

One interview with a man but because of poor audio quality, his accent & poor English I couldn't understand half of what he said. There are other scenes where even when Serrano or others are speaking to the camera the audio quality is so poor (plus music almost as loud as him) I can't understand them. Again, very amateurish. Most of what is said in this documentary isn't worth listening to anyway.

Neither the photographer or this documentary impressed me at all. A lot of his photos are no different than fetish or porn photos that have been done by others for decades. Nothing new. I recommend skipping this pathetic documentary.