Tiernas primas

"Tendres Cousines" has generally been placed into two categories in the past: sex comedy and those kinds of movies which are mainly about artsy cinematography. However, if it belongs in the first category, it is mostly boring, pretentious, dreary, and painfully unfunny (French movies usually fail to distinguish between cute and funny). If it belongs in the latter category, than the cinematography is a grainy mix of shots which resemble traditional paintings and also of downright ugly shots which could probably be attributed to the film´s low production values. However, the movie is notable for a different reason. While it only has about 9 sex scenes, about 4 involve Julien, the film´s 14 year old hero who actually looks 14 if not younger ! These tend to be relatively explicit, chock full of nudity and even hint at incest. Of course, the movie is probably intended to show a case of what can happen during puberty and what can lead adult or almost adult women (the women in the movie, by the way, are gorgeous) to have sex with a boy that young. Or, it could just be an attempt at a teenage "Emmanuelle". Nevertheless, it surprises me that this movie was not banned in the U.S. as child porn - not that it necessarily should be but Americans tend to be extremely sensitive to the problem of teen exploitation . All in all, "Tendres Cousines" is a weird and somewhat twisted little movie. Pedophiles and people who think that French people can do no wrong should love it.

The third movie photographer David Hamilton made might have been his best one yet. It is livelier and more interesting than "Bilitis" and "Laura", and also has a more convincing sense of time and place. You can actually believe that the characters and locale in the movie are real, and that they go on existing in between shots, and outside of them.

However, probably nobody watched a David Hamilton movie for the mise-en-scene. His movies were like artful softcore pornography. "Tendres cousines" actually seems to have less nudity than the previous two flicks. "Bilitis" and "Laura" both had lengthy communal shower scenes with young women frolicking naked. I didn't see any of that here, though there is of course still nudity.

What always struck me about this flick - and the only thing I remembered about it from watching it years ago - is that the male lead, a fourteen year old boy, is more strikingly beautiful than any of the women in the movie. At first, he detracts from the beauty of the female lead, because she is nowhere near as striking as he is, and you wonder why he is interested in her. Then later, when you get a better look at her, you realise she is beautiful too.

The plot features the same theme Hamilton used in his previous two movies: that of unrequited love. Poune (what a name) is in love with her cousin Julien, who is in love with his cousin Julia. His sister Claire is engaged to Charles, but he's got his eye on Julia. A maid at the house tries to seduce Julien and take his virginity, but is caught and fired after she strips naked and lies with him and gets his shirt off. He makes up for it later, though, bagging himself a couple of other girls. He doesn't even look like he's in puberty yet.

I enjoyed this flick more than the others. I just felt like it was more professionally done.

The only thing i can think about when watching a David Hamilton movie is that he wanted to put his teenage fantasies on film 30 years after his teenage years were over.

This movie has an extremely forgettable story and characters with the only purpose of showing some semi good half nude scenes. Thats it, thats the entire purpose of the film. Of course everything is drowned in a blur filter that adds no artistic value whatsoever. I've seen low budget gore movies with a better cinematographie and art style.

The far bigger.problem of this movie is that it lacks any form eroticism. Theres no tension and fire, just a collection of semi nude scenes that are wierdly paced so it feels more like enduring them than being able to enjoy them. There is 0 chemistry between the different characters and some scenes have a rapey vibe.

And the "big reveal" at the end is a joke that has 0 to do with the rest of the story and seems like an attempt to add depth to a movie that lacks any form of depth.

The only reason i give 3 stars instead of 1 is that there are 3 scenes that managed to make me laugh but overall it was a serious waste of time.

Film is still young enough for there to be credible arguments about just what it is.

Its entirely possible for someone to believe it is about what photography is, what the majority of us think photography is.

Here's a photographer, and he believes that. His photographs evoke remembrances of an innocent sexuality, false memories certainly but sweet smelling. There's a deliberate unreality in the photos, with girls in nearly surreal poses with the lens gauzed as if there were a barrier of sorts between our reality and that we see — or is it imagine?

There's all sorts of implied narrative in these still photos. They are so, so very rich in what they imply.

Now to film. I've seem "Laura," which was successful in a minor way because the artist dreaming about the new woman was placed in the story explicitly. Oh and he has vision problems, and he needs to translate his story by shifting senses (to touch) just as we do from photo to movie.

This is his next project. I really don't know what he was thinking. Before he had sexual imaginings, here he simply has sex. Before he focused on a wonderful symmetry: our imaginations of a young girl balanced with her imaginings of an older man. I guess he thought he could work a similar symmetry here with a young boy instead of the older artist. But it fails in an extraordinarily large way.

I think that is because in this case he invested too much in the story, the power of the story to carry the thing, and he drifted too far away from where he has power, the image. I think "Walkabout" successfully does what this attempts. Go there instead.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

As others have mentioned, all the women that go nude in this film are mostly absolutely gorgeous. The plot very ably shows the hypocrisy of the female libido. When men are around they want to be pursued, but when no "men" are around, they become the pursuers of a 14 year old boy. And the boy becomes a man really fast (we should all be so lucky at this age!). He then gets up the courage to pursue his true love.