Kinsey (2004)

[hengcs]

Hmmm ... no one has watched?
Too controversial to talk about?
;PPP

Okay, let's discuss the movie amicably simply from a movie goer point of view.

What is good?
----------------
- The performance of Liam Neeson and Laura Linney.
- Unlike the bashings I have heard, the movie did NOT glorify the main protagonist at all. The entire movie let you think about the issues and decide for yourself.
- There is both humor and sadness in the movie.

What may be better?
-----------------------
- Since it is based on a real person, maybe there should be an epilogue about Kinsey, and/or some of the events.

Conclusion:
- Go watch and decide for yourself!
;)

[hengcs]

I forget to add:

- Do NOT leave the theater when the credits start rolling. There is a video clip from Kinsey Institute archives.
;)

[hengcs]

Hmmm ...

Has Chris, Howard, arsaib4, pmw, Johann, HorseradishTree, etc watch the movie?

I am just eager to read your comments or reviews.
;)

[HorseradishTree]

I'm seeing it in a few hours. I'll get back to you soon.

[HorseradishTree]

Ok, it's about time I got back to you.

I found Kinsey an enjoyable experience, with a powerful performance by Liam Neeson leading the way.

I certainly agree with you on the objectivity of the film, though there appeared to be moments at which one was supposed to sympathize with Kinsey and realize his struggles.

One thing I didn't like was the music, which happened to be a thing I didn't like in Gods and Monsters either. It didn't seem to carry the story along whatsoever and just kind of showed up whenever it wanted.

All in all, I'd recommend it to anyone.

[oscar jubis]

Hard to find anything wrong with this film, which celebrates a scientist's struggle against the hypocritical forces of puritanism. It provides quite a history lesson about post-war American society. Wish Condon had found a way to bring the polemic into the present the way Trier did during the final credits of Dogville.

From my narrow perspective (Miami liberal born 5 years after Kinsey's death), I cannot find anything "controversial" (hengcs) in either form or content. Decidedly middlebrow, I'd say. Easy to recommend to anyone except social conservatives. I found the revelations regarding the tragic upbringing of Kinsey's dad quite moving. I bet every tight-assed prude's got a similar story to tell.

[hengcs]

Originally posted by oscar jubis
I cannot find anything "controversial" (hengcs) in either form or content.

I LIKE the movie a lot. Otherwise, I would not have recommended it. ;)
However, I am also mindful about people who might not be as willing to watch anything that I watch on the movie screen ... hiaks hiaks

e.g.
-- I like the movie The Sea Inside, but there are many people who may find the movie "sick" or "immoral" (quoting my friends).
-- I like the movie Alexander (though not a 9/10 or 10/10, but I do NOT hate it like critics 1/10, 2/10), yet my friend who went with me find the dialogues bewteen Jared and Colin too "weird" (i.e., beyond acceptance).
-- I like the movie CLOSER, but there are many who curse at it. They find the movie totally immoral.
(Hmmm ... I do not know why this Nov/Dec, these 4 movies are so "controversial", but a surf of IMDB or other boards will tell you that NOT everyone is willing to accept the content).

Why did I mention possible controversy in Kinsey?
A surf of the web will tell you there are many people who are scolding (or even swearing at the movie). Those posts can be found in many boards (e.g., IMDB), and during its opening, several news and talk shows ...

* SPOILERS *

What may be controversy?
-- Some people feel strongly that the movie glorifies Kinsey. Instead, they feel that he is a ... whatever ...
-- Some people feel strongly that his methods are flawed, as he interviewed gays, convicts, etc ...
-- Some people still find the topic of s** taboo ...
-- Some people are very against gay ...
-- Some people are very against a professor having s** with his own student(s) ...
-- Some people are very against a student sleeping NOT only with HIS professor BUT ALSO the professor's wife ...
-- Some people still refuse to buy the research done on women ...
etc etc etc

The list goes on ... maybe others can type ...

[bix171]

(SPOILERS HEREIN.)

I think I agree with Oscar on this one. Worth watching (though it'd be just as effective on your TV screen) with decent performances. It seemed almost conservative in its approach, as if it were a film being made in the time it depicts. It was good, linear storytelling with only a topic that would've never been covered in Hollywood at the time to differentiate it.

What I thought was odd was in the conclusions I felt the film reached through the interaction of the characters, namely that good old heterosexual monogamy was the way to go--the biological imperative, if you will. Peter Sarsgaard gets tired of homosexual romps, he gets tired of infidelity. Fights break out between researchers who've been messing with each others' spouses. A habitual abuser is seen as the pervert he is. Yes, yes, I know Lynn Redgrave's lesbian is a refutation of all that but she's seen as such a benign character (she's monogamous as well) that she's little more than a personification and validation of Kinsey's research.

More of a minor piece than I think was intended and something far from incendiary. In fact, something a little confused. (And no, I haven't seen "Gods And Monsters" and yes, I'm pretty sure Bill Condon's gay.)

[hengcs]

Originally posted by bix171
I think I agree with Oscar on this one. ... (edited)... It seemed almost conservative in its approach, as if it were a film being made in the time it depicts. ...

I agree with you and Oscar too.
;)
I did NOT find anything big hoo haa ...

However, the movie critic in Kron4 (Jan Wahl) received lots of hate mails when she highly recommended the film. A surf of the web (e.g., IMDB) will tell you how "anti" the film some people are, and how disgusted some people are.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0362269/

Well, The world just has people who tend to be more conservative than others.
;)



Originally posted by bix171
(SPOILERS HEREIN.)
What I thought was odd was in the conclusions I felt the film reached through the interaction of the characters, namely that good old heterosexual monogamy was the way to go--the biological imperative, if you will. ...

This happens in several movies. Here are some recent e.g.,s,

(1) Many wonder if "A Beautiful Mind" would have won the Best Picture if the "gay scandals" were included in the movie and if the divorce from the wife was depicted (albeit she stayed with him).

(2) "Finding Neverland" has simplified the relationship of Barrie and the kids too (even though there was a line that suggested rumors are going around ...). But who knows, maybe it is really that simple.

(3) I have also read from some reviews that "The Aviator" ignored the rumors about possible affair between Howard and two male actors (if any).

I guess that's life ...

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by bix171
It seemed almost conservative in its approach, as if it were a film being made in the time it depicts.

Bill Condon on Kinsey:
"It could be much more confrontational. What I wanted to do was to create something that was more gentle and done in a classical Hollywood style, which would be true to the period in which it's taking place".

I know Lynn Redgrave's lesbian is a refutation of all that but she's seen as such a benign character (she's monogamous as well) that she's little more than a personification and validation of Kinsey's research.

Condon admits that this character is completely fictional. He states the character was created to underline the importance of Kinsey's work (and that of his successors) to society.

[bix171]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by oscar jubis

Bill Condon on Kinsey:
"It could be much more confrontational. What I wanted to do was to create something that was more gentle and done in a classical Hollywood style, which would be true to the period in which it's taking place".

In which case, he has succeeded admirably. I'm not sure that makes it a better film, though. I am, however, glad that he was true to his intent.

[arsaib4]

After watching the film, I was interested in exploring the part of the film where Alfred Kinsey's research becomes a bit more intense, and I came across this article written by an activist named Beverly LaHaye at the CWA's website where she examines the answers provided by Dr. John Bancroft, Director of the Kinsey Institute, and then proceeds to offer the "truth."

(http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=876&department=CWA&categoryid=education).

While I certainly hold Dr. Kinsey in very high regard for his work, if any of what's written is infact true then I'll have to reassess my judgment. I'll certainly not be willing to go along with the people who might claim that even if few had to suffer, it was beneficial for the rest of us--especially if the research involved children.

As for the film, it's decidedly middlebrow, and I agree with bix171's thoughts on that. What stands out here are the performances from Liam Neeson (his best work since Schindler's List) and Laura Linney. But the surprise package is Peter Sarsgaard who has done some great work in recent years, mostly in supporting roles. He has some difficult scenes both with Neeson and Linney and he doesn't disappoint.

So, I also recommend the film, but with better films out there it wouldn't be a bad idea to wait for it on home video.