9 orgasmos

Saw this 16-09-2004 at the TIFF... While I am an admitted fan of mainstream films that feature explicit sexuality, I was disappointed in this film -- as it stands now. I say "as it stands now" because, although I may be wrong, the film has the feel of an unfinished work. Clocking in at a mere hour and five minutes, however, it still manages to feel long somehow -- essentially, we are watching either one of four types of scene: The lead actor reminiscing about the now-ended affair (from his walking trip of... Antarctica!), the couple attending concerts (always, apparently, at the same venue), the couple cooking and eating, or the couple having sex. There is relatively little dialog. The film feels fragmentary, as the scenes tend to repeat without much of a contextual base; perhaps these scenes are intended to represent the lead characters' memories, implying that we only remember those things that were most important to us from a relationship. The actors are game in their roles, although Ms. Stilley -- who has the long-limbed, small-chested appearance of a runway model -- comes off a bit weaker next to Mr. O'Brien (indeed, this appears to be her first film). I give both actors a lot of credit for baring themselves so unabashedly to the material, but am a bit disappointed that, even though Ms. Stilley has supposedly been offered another role in Mr. Winterbottom's next film, she is said to be "distancing herself" from this picture, apparently especially after her mother in North Carolina was alerted to its graphic nature.

I came to this Michael Winterbottom film from one of his previous efforts starring Samantha Morton and Tim Robbins. I had never heard of him as a director and when Sight and Sound (the house magazine of the BFI) did an article on him I thought he was worthy of attention.

Another reason for seeing this film was the promise of being able to watch a couple having actual sex and no merely faked orgasms and suggested oral sex either and no pornography. I quite wanted to be reminded of the reasons why two people can get together because of what they have in common.

Winterbottom's film is not pornography at all. It is merely a study of a relationship seen through the context of real sex (what nearly all of us have experienced once we are a certain age (18+ usually) and are not bound by religious considerations ie the Catholic priesthood) and popular music. That's all. And the cast are two everyday folk. They are not artificially enhanced porn actors or glossed up dolls for the benefit of the viewer. It is a very much warts and all film, although I have much admiration for Winterbottom to persuade any actor to show the camera (and thus the audience) his real erection and later orgasm.

Once the novelty of watching real adult sex wears off, however, there is little else left and that's the real disappointment of this film. Nevertheless it is an adult movie and some may enjoy it.

In the (admittedly unlikely) eventuality that someone wandered into a cinema expecting this to be a musical, a rude shock would ensue, since this is the most sexually explicit mainstream film ever exhibited in Britain. Indeed the only mainstream movie I've previously seen to compare in explicitness was the 1976 Japanese work "Ai No Corrida" ("In the Realm Of The Senses"), but this work goes further with a scene of ejaculation, as well as fellatio, cunnilingus and penetrative sex. Since this is the work of accomplished British director Michael Winterbottom ("In This World"), one cannot possibly regard this is as pornography - besides anything else, porn features far more voluptuous women and portrays the sex from an exclusively male point of view, whereas the sex here is realistic (as well as real) and as female-oriented as much as male.

The problem is that the film appears to be utterly meaningless. A British research geologist Matt (Kieran O'Brien) goes to London gigs and has sex with American student Lisa (Margot Stilley), but there is no characterisation or plot or even a script (the dialogue was improvised and is banal). Even the music seems to bear no relationship to the lovers and - except for some haunting work from Michael Nyman - is dreary gunge. Shot on low budget digital video, the picture is as grey as the subject matter and the only light-hearted aspect is the rather unsubtle joke of the (mercifully short) running time (69 minutes). Come again? No chance.

i disagree with the negative comments on nine songs.....spotted a review on the film back in October and put it in my brain diary as one to watch!....it popped up at the Jameson film festival and so an opportunity arose to see what all the fuss was about.......thoroughly enjoyed all 65 minutes!......thought the film was beautiful at times,sad at others but basically real....was blown away by the piano pieces....yeah the film did begin and end with zero character development but so what, that wasn't the aim of the film...it just lets u wonder ...(and want to go to the antarctic!!).......an artistic film well worth a watch in my opinion....enjoy!

When I saw Scorsese's "Last Waltz," I thought that I would never again see a concert film as true. And I haven't, until now.

The Band were the last popular musicians to tell stories, have nearly all those stories be in the third person and tell them without irony. To do this is impossible today, or at least non- commercial. Scorsese is a flawed filmmaker, his flaw being that he is overly invested in character-driven storytelling. The two: Band and Marty, were a perfect mix: cinematic rock. Pure, without that nightmare stew of MTV videos.

Now along comes Winterbottom. Nearly all viewers will be unable to accept a movie with sex in it as anything but a movie about sex. Shame on them. Confront it folks. That's his point: why is it so difficult to accept the difference?

But the hangups of the viewing public are less interesting to me than the way he constructed this experiment. It is a rock concert (with a Nyman interlude). Nine songs, with us participating in the songs themselves, participating in the going to the concerts to listen to the songs, and participating in the experience that the songs are about: namely obsessive sex. And also, remembering (or even inventing the memory of) the sex, drugs and rock and roll we've seen. This latter is done by our hero in Antarctica. He serves as narrator, by the way.

Thankfully, this intense sex avoids the theatrics of "Damage," and works to be as genuine as possible emotionally.

Is it a good movie? Could it change your life? Will it change cinema forever?

Probably yes.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.