Sirènes

It is not the bosoms, really. No, there is an earnest quality here that is dependent on performances and landscapes and an essential moral tale than on the bounteousness of bums and bosoms frolicking in Australia. Neil is always good, Tara Fitzgerland is fine, and that often one-note Hugh Grant works perfectly as a priggish English priest who opens up ever so slightly when all is said and done. And much is said and some is done. There is some absolutley wonderful photography and some perfectly awful and obvious photography that would make Hallmark blush. Pretty good script with the story wandering about more than a bit. Shorter would have been better and the blue shots of nude statuary of indifferent quality by this nice but hardly profound Australian artist(on whose life and an episode therein, is it based)could have been a one-shot affair for my money. But I liked it for the performances.

"Sirens" seems to have touched a nerve here. Some reviewers dismiss it as derivative soft-core drivel. Others love it. It probably helps to know that there's little derivative about the story-it's based on real people and a real incident. Sam Neill's character--Norman Lindsay--was real. Lindsay, a prolific artist and novelist, was also a libertine living a Hugh Hefner lifestyle when the rest of the world was awakening from the Victorian Age. "Sirens" was filmed at the Lindsay home and gallery, a 40-acre estate now run by the Australian National Trust. The artworks are all Lindsay's. And the storyline is based on an incident in which the Anglican Church dispatched a cleric to convey concerns about "The Crucifixion of Venus." As for the plot, it's simply a humorous retelling of what might have been--with lots of voluptuous nudes and erotic symbolism tossed in for good measure. Yes, it's all quite predictable. You know five minutes into the film that the Converters will become the Converted. But it's a fun ride getting to that inevitable destination. `Sirens' is not for everyone. If full-frontal male and female nudity offends, you will be offended. If ridiculing the Church or its values offends, you will be offended. And if the notion that the cure for a boring marriage is a little extra-marital dalliance offends, you will truly be offended. Otherwise, it's a little erotic gem and a great way to start an even better evening. :)

Having lived through similar experiences while in my late 20's, early 30's I found the movie both entertaining as well as sensitive. I suppose there could have been more graphic scenes for those of a more shallow nature needing to see some models naked and doing more, but that was not necessary for my wife and I to enjoy it- having been there, we knew what was not pictured.

Men, like the Preacher, often fail to see the sensuous side of women, either that or it frightens them. They see "sex" when they should be seeing loving and caring. The movie illustrates that nicely. The two townsmen who come to visit the models are a clear example of sex versus loving and sensuality. The clueless type is the Preacher.

I never heard of this film until the director for our theater company mentioned it as a possible project to adapt to live theater. I have to say when I first viewed the film I was a bit shocked for personal reasons. We have a fairly small group and if taken directly it would mean I would be playing one of the nude models. After studying the film's critiques and background I slowly came around to appreciate the film's merits, if not completely comfortable with the nudity. The point is that the nudity is not suppose to be comfortable from the audience point of view. The story takes place in an almost mystical world untarnished by outside influences and taboos. It is indeed a wonderful Eden. As an actress I had to be comfortable within the Eden created on stage, despite being uncomfortable in front of fellow "actors" and the audience. This has become one of my favorite films for helping me grow as an actress and as a member of the audience.

While this film is often not taken seriously because of its explicit nudity, it is in fact one of the most thought-provoking commentaries on religious values I have ever seen on the screen. This film provides us with the stark contrast of the repressed preacher from London and the artist's three models in rural Australia, a throwback to Shakespeare's "Green World." The fulcrum of this contrast is the preacher's wife, being pulled in both the oppressive, "moral" direction by her upbringing and her husband and the free and expressive direction of the artist. The breathtaking cinematography and stunning visual symbolism of this film contribute to make it into a powerful attack on the Christian moral code that dominates western thinking. I have been scoffed at on more than one occasion for praising Sirens, but I left the theater questioning my own views about what is and is not moral. The fact that this film's sexual content seems to invalidate it as art in many people's eyes merely underscores the value of its message. Along with Sling Blade, Sirens to me stands as the most provocative film about morality made in the 1990's. A solid 8 on a scale of 1 to 10.