Escenas de naturaleza sexual

A sunny afternoon on Hamstead Heath in London sees couples everywhere. Some of them are breaking up with arguments others are breaking up with affection. Some see ogling others as a betrayal, others see it as part of life. Strangers are thrown together in a temporary moment while others come together for the first time in many years. Love and sex play a part in all of it as the sun warms the day in the background.

It was the ensemble nature of the film that drew my attention to it despite the fact that it got mixed reviews. I didn't get round to it in the cinemas but when it came on television recently I managed to check it out. The mixed reviews I mentioned are perhaps understandable because the film itself is the same way in terms of content, quality and success. The "plot" doesn't really flow together because the only tangible connection between the couples is the location however as a device it has potential. The lack of a traditional narrative means that the film really relies heavily on the creation of characters and snapshots to paint a bigger picture of relationships and interactions that will come together thematically in the way that the specific characters do not. Here and there it does sort of do it but too often the scenes are just distracting as stand alone scenes, which is all well and good to some degree but it doesn't work as it needs to.

I could forgive many of the specific scenes lacking meaning but, unlike some reviews, I do see the absence of a wider truth to be a bit of an issue and without this the individual scenes have a lot more weight put on them. Sadly few if any of them can really stand up to the pressure and mostly the film just comes across as fragmented and disjointed with the strongest scenes being amusing or mildly engaging while at worst they are so-so but just seem pointless and far too underdeveloped. It is a shame because the cast is impressive and they have the talent to do as much as the material could have asked of them and it is a shame that the material asks little of the majority. McGregor, Okonedo, Tate, Lester, Strong, McKee and Bonneville are the main people you will recognise but the rest of the cast are just as good (or rather, just as OK) although it is Rembauville-Nicolle that sticks in the mind for obvious reasons – which is depressing when you think of the acting talent involved. It isn't their fault and I can understand why so many of them worked on the film for little money but the idea doesn't come through and mostly they are left to try and carry scenes with their performances but little else.

Overall then this is a distracting film that offers intermittent pleasures and interest but mostly fails to offer much in the way of honesty and cohesion. Despite the material the cast do try hard to make it more than it is but with little time on screen and seemingly nobody pulling everyone together in the editing suite I'm afraid it is significantly less than the sum of its many parts.

There is nothing mean spirited or evil about this movie. It's just terribly dull. Dull is the photography--- the film stock appears old and faded and washed-out. Maybe it was even 16mm blown up to 35mm, dunno. Dull is the script, which is tedious and 'Jules Pfeiffer'-ish. That is, kind of 1960s bossa-nova cocktail party cool. Like our beatnik grandparents might have spoken if they were trying to appear really straight. The 'slice-of-life' characters were mostly annoying. True, they were real to life, but hey, if I wanted to see truly ordinary people doing really mundane and ordinary things, I'd just watch myself. I wouldn't trapse all the way down to a cinema and blow five quid, and an evening, watching someone else do it.

I expected a funny, bright rom-com. What I got was more like what two intelligent and moderately talented 19 or 20 year-olds might have produced on their first day with a new video camera.

I gave this a 4 out 10, because it appears that someone tried, at least.

Scenes of a Sexual Nature; a film that breaks away from your more typical story telling processes and yet remains a film that you oddly feel as if you've already seen. True, the idea that you place a load of different characters of different age, ethnic background, gender and sexuality in one massive boiling pot of conversation and intrigue certainly sounds like an interesting one and yet the whole experience left me feeling a little short-changed. Here is a film that doesn't rely on heroes and villains; that doesn't rely on any gimmicks or special effects but then again doesn't rely on anything new or spectacular. The camera remains static for most of the film; the location of Hampstead Heath which a large open park isn't utilised or made to look glamorous suggesting this could've taken place in a town, city or even on public transport and the film suffers from its amount of characters.

Credit where credit is due to filmmakers Ed Blum and writer Aschlin Ditta for attempting to make this film. We hear about major Hollywood projects going through 'development hell' due to one thing or another and yet Blum and Ditta have knuckled under and raised the money and time needed to shoot this quirky little independent film that has a touch of the 'guerrilla' about it. Scenes of a Sexual Nature is a film that covers a lot of ground in the sense it deals with issues such as: marriage; love; homosexuality; break-ups; divorce and even gay adoption with plenty of characters varying between young couples; elder would-be couples and single people of the young and middle aged variety so there is certainly something for everyone to map onto depending on any audience members current situation when dealing with the issue of love, something the film hints at when it says: ".....but we're all involved in it." at the very end of its tagline.

The main problem I had with Scenes of a Sexual Nature was not its pacing or its script or its situations but its number of characters and its overall tone. The film starts off in a very innocent if somewhat comic fashion what with a male and his partner having a picnic before she catches him staring at another girl's underwear that has accidentally become visible. What follows is an embarrassing situation where he is exploited and the couple storm off home. Compare this to the next scene in which a very tearful and edgy girl breaks up with her partner; the film changes tone very quickly and we are to feel sorry for the girl but wait; comic relief is just around the corner as Noel (Hardy) (park local anti-sociable) tries to cheer her up. This scene feels like is was supposed to be played out for laughs but it felt very disturbing in the sense Noel (like most people he is trying to portray) is really just after easy sex so there is a disturbing undercurrent to the whole scene. This is the point: the film cuts from the funny to the tragic to the heart-warming to the mere straightforward displacing a consistent feeling or a consistent mood.

The characters also play a large role in the film but often for the worse. The couple I mentioned at the very beginning are, unfortunately, never seen again which is a shame because their situation and overall short narrative was interesting, unpredictable and amusing. The elderly couple have an interesting and thought provoking meeting and their scenes work well but everyone else's are flat and un-involving since there is just nothing there in terms of depth: hearing two people talk about certain ways they'd hate to die or what have you were typical and routine that did nothing for me. This is linked to the other flaw I had with the characters: what they say. Often (especially evident in the 'first date' scene) the character will be on hand to say just the right thing at just the right time with other times, characters almost deliberately saying dumb things just to spark a reaction – the racism debate the first daters have is an example when she assumes the shop clerk would be 'Asian'. I'm all for characters in films to have clever and smart conversations breaking away from the films main goal but only when its established exactly who they are and how clever they actually are – getting two people to sit down and say exactly what's required when it's required isn't particularly convincing; the answer is cut the number of other characters.

I mentioned the film as a 'guerrilla' piece of film-making since it uses actors who are relatively unknown with some quite possibly possessing little or no acting experience. This suggests a neo-realistic approach and the low budget supports that theory but I was a little aware of the way the film would have the homosexuals cordoned off in a separate area of the park: away from everyone else as they inhabit they're own private 'ghetto' near the lake – is there a reason they're not allowed to be in the main park? Also, the representation of the French girl in the opening scene as she allows the male one more glimpse of her underwear was a little out of place. However, with debates about gay adoption which actually takes up an entire scene in this film as well as issues of divorce and break up worming their way into the 'narrative', Scenes of a Sexual Nature will come across as smarter than normal to some viewers – not to be mistaken as pornography given its title, Scenes of a Sexual Nature is often engaging and entertaining with whatever flaws it has easily erasable.

Scenes of a Sexual Nature is a very intelligent and subtle film. It is skilfully crafted, beautifully shot and with superb acting. Only the most jaded and cynical could fail to appreciate this film – the best film I have seen so far this year.

It is film that has many twists and turns, some more obvious than others, but even the obvious twists are still enjoyable. Not a lot happens in the film, the pace is slow and meandering but not so slow that ones interest is lost and it never becomes dull. The film examines the minutia of various relationships with great tenderness and wit and like they say the Devil is in the detail. It is the small things that give meaning – relationships are more often damned or celebrated because of the minutia rather than the big gestures. It is the day-to-day content that either holds relationships together or tares them apart.

This film, which in turn is offers us charm, humour, sadness and pathos, offers no great thrills, shocks or drama (one can't help wondering how many people did not see this film at the cinema because of the title or in deed how many went because of the title and were disappointed not to find what they thought they would) nor any great love story, it is not a film that paints large – more like a small water colour but like some water colours it is non-the-less beautifully painted.

All who took part are to be commended.

This is a beautifully made film, the style is original, simple, and very easy to watch. It's a short film about life and love set on Hampstead Heath, and is without a doubt one of the sweetest films made in a number of years. It has no complex plot, but is interesting and filled with many amusing anecdotes, and will make you laugh out loud at times. Filled with a very talented cast, and many familiar faces (Andrew Lincoln, and Hugh Bonneville being a few of my favourites) this movie is far from dull, and particularly easy to relate to. I have watched it numerous times, with numerous people, and have yet to find someone (male or female) who does not share my high opinion of this film. I highly recommend it to anyone.