Kinsey

Sexual intercourse was something that was perfunctory for purposes of procreation, and was left intact under those circumstances until a person named Sigmund Freud came along. Freud's rudimentary experimentation with psycho-analytical behavior relevant to sex, as well as other intense emotions, brought on copious mores of conscious thoughts pertinent to the individual's taboo elements of their constitution such as the libido and the id!! By the late 1920's in America, Freud's elementary findings on sexual behavior motivated Alfred Kinsey to initiate research that purported the yearnings of many people nationwide about exposing their intimate desires concerning sex!! The revelation of such proclivities made Kinsey a phenomenon in sexual research after World War II!! Many people were mesmerized and intrigued by the Kinsey Report!!! Alfred Kinsey, a biologist by trade, was determined in his desire to attain a grass roots recognition of the myriad of actions that were predicated on impetuousness!! This movie's basic plot revealed Kinsey's desire for the exposure of the lewd endeavors and double entendre habits which afflicted many "different" people!! Such a depiction of this individual known as Alfred Kinsey sparked a milestone in sexual knowledge to the mainstream American public!!

Liam Neeson did a tremendous job of acting as the role of Kinsey!! The entire film evoked a candid admission concerning lustful desires. If there were no such thing as desires about sex with so many people, Kinsey's research would not have been considered a breakthrough!! The film also points out that Kinsey's ideological binges with his research were often times halted by a lack of funding!!! Much of Kinsey's findings resonated to hedonistic wishes, much of them also translated to blatant intimacy!! Novice excursions with sexual deviancy made Kinsey and his wife educationally curious!! Attaining knowledge through various experimentation that both Kinsey and his wife engaged in, transcended infidelity and callous fruition, and relegated the two of them to the precarious plight of the ultimate guinea pigs!! These were emotions that were not sanctioned by love, rather, they were motivated by capricious lust!! Intellectual rumination on the motives of socially adverse carnality invoked a plethora of academic findings for Kinsey!! The end result of such research made Kinsey an unmitigated madman for the acquisition of perverted information!!

I found this movie to be very consciously significant...It was very socially sensitizing, especially in terms of the comprehension of the dogged tenacity Kinsey had to expose the perplexing facts about sex!!! A critical component to unearthing facts about an issue such as sex was merely to talk about the issue of sex!! This film depicts Kinsey's determination to attain knowledge about the historical importance of research and development germane to human sexual behavior which altered the lifestyle patterns of American living!! The cinema accommodated provision to the movie audience for Kinsey's findings that were in fact revolutionary floodgates that opened the formulation of the attitudes people have today!! The introductory dialog to this film is outstanding, and excellent performances by Liam Neeson and Chris O'Donnell make this film worth watching over and over again!! Bottom line, See this movie at least once!!

"We've got a couple of hours before dinner; time for a couple of sex surveys. Who wants to go first?"

This line from KINSEY is a great representation of the movie. It illustrates the film's offhanded sense of humor and shows that the otherwise taboo topic of sex is tossed about in a way that can be seen as being either casually shocking or mundanely trivial. And, logically enough, numerous scenes do happen at the dining table: sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, as played by Liam Neeson, chatters about sexual statistics over family backyard cookouts with his teenaged children, regales guests with graphic details of sexual minutiae at elegant affairs and ultimately ends up becoming a crashing bore at dinner parties as his compulsion to ramble on about all things sexual dominates his every conversation and waking thought.

What begins as a healthy interest and a professional curiosity becomes a tiresome obsession. In a way, Kinsey becomes a sex addict, but in a scholarly, detached sort of way. He's like a sports nut who's neither a player nor a spectator, but loves to collect the memorabilia and obsessively keep track of trivial statistics. He measures his sexual conquests less by the number of his bed partners than by how many people he seduces into answering his probing sex surveys. Research itself becomes a sexual fetish.

A disturbing, or at least revealing, aspect of the film is the implication that Kinsey seemed to blur the line separating the personal and professional in his pursuit of carnal knowledge. There is a scene where Kinsey and his assistant Clyde Martin (Peter Sarsgaard) go to a gay bar to round up people to interview and various men treat his request to answer questions as a joke, assuming that the survey is really a cheesy come on. And they might not be entirely wrong. Watching the film, one gets the feeling that Kinsey had a substantial sexual appetite, both physically and intellectually. The film suggests more than it reveals, but it hints that the lingering concerns over Kinsey's moral and ethical behavior might reflect more than just a germ of suspicion.

Though the film tries to memorialize Kinsey as a social pioneer, it doesn't shy away from (nor does it condemn) his dubious breaches of ethical standards, such as encouraging intramural sexual activities among his staff and their wives. At one point, Kinsey interviews a creepy subject played by William Sadler who has maintained a detailed record of all of the thousands of people he has had sex with (including children) and the implication is clear that he and Kinsey are two sides of the same coin -- both justifying their amoral pursuits in the name of intellectual enrichment.

Throughout the movie all things sexual are treated comically and seriously, trivially and ponderously, casually and obsessively. But only fleetingly is sex treated erotically. The film is graphic about sex, but in a textbook sort of way, not a pornographic way. Even the few sexual scenes involving Kinsey and his wife (Laura Linney) seem designed to illustrate an academic point, coming off as being more like classroom visual aids rather than moments of passion. The film delves into the good doctor's bisexuality, but gingerly treats it with equal reticence. Indeed, though a bit of full frontal nudity is supplied by Sarsgaard, he ends up putting his pajamas on before sharing an intimate kiss with Neeson. Perhaps the film's only moment of real sexual tension comes from two Boy Scouts discussing the sins of self gratification. (And they end up praying!)

The film is mostly all X-rated talk, with only a bit of PG-13 action. And the talk isn't even all that graphic, it just seems that way compared to the traditional -- skittish -- way films always approach the subject. If the film has any point it is that even though we have come a long way in dealing with sexuality, we still haven't gone all that far: political correctness having joined religious piety as a form of censorship. Kinsey worked to bring the most private of all human endeavors into public discourse, not realizing, or caring, that most people would still rather have it continue being -- literally -- private intercourse. As such, KINSEY still carries a certain shock value and the ability to milk much of its humor from its often embarrassingly blunt approach.

And humor may be the film's saving grace. Though, towards the end, the story takes on the usual air of self-importance that plagues most film biographies, writer-director Bill Condon refuses to let the film become too heavy-handed. Some of the humor is a bit obvious, such as picking John Lithgow to play Kinsey's pompous father, a fundamentalist preacher, in a performance that echoes the actor's similar role in FOOTLOOSE. But, for the most part the humor humanize the characters and doesn't present them as crusading icons or symbols of enlightenment. Like most film biographies, the honesty of KINSEY as history is debatable, as are the doctor's contribution to the health and welfare of the society. But as a film, KINSEY is like good sex, a briefly satisfying mix of passion and amusement.

Liam Neeson is a terrific actor, and Dr. Alfred Kinsey is his character. After seeing "Kinsey" I can't imagine anyone else better for the role. People usually say that, I know, but you couldn't possibly imagine anyone else playing the part, ever. I think Neeson has a strong chance at winning an Oscar this year; as does Laura Linney, playing Kinsey's wife, a terrifically kind, warm woman trying to keep up with Kinsey's life, which moves along pretty fast. Too fast for her at times. These two performances are awesome, two of the actors' best, the Academy, and every other awards show, would have to be insane not to mention them.

Unfortunately, I don't think the rest of the movie is really up to par with the performances. Not to say it's bad, just that it fails to really interest us when Neeson or Linney aren't on screen (which, fortunately, doesn't happen much). The movie is about Alfred Kinsey, who pioneered the research on human sexuality. Neeson shows him as a strong man, but one with as many flaws as the gall wasps he collected, all buried deep beneath his drive and focus.

Kinsey's studies proved some things, and let a lot of homosexuality and other deviances from the norm at the time out into the open. I'd just like to say that I agree with some of his studies, I like that he unlocked the way uptight supposed "morality" of the masses think that any sexual behavior other than the missionary position is both unhealthy and immoral. How they thought that I don't know, but I admire Kinsey for proving them wrong. Other things I do not agree with, like Kinsey's studies on the time it takes really young children to reach orgasm…and Kinsey's way of thinking that sex on its basic level should have no emotional attachment; I think I can say that these things are ethically wrong without feeling ignorant.

But I won't be biased against the quality of the film because of this. I will speak of the technique of how it was made: the writing, the directing, etc. I liked how the movie began: with a black and white practice interview between Kinsey, his wife Clara, and their students. It is inter-cut with scenes from Kinsey's youth: Kinsey facing temptation with masturbation, and having trouble with his insanely strict father (John Lithgow).

Lithgow's first scene, where he speaks of the temptation and evil caused by zippers, electricity and ice cream parlors is the film's first problem. It doesn't show both sides of Kinsey's argument, it merely dismisses Lithgow – and those like him – as a laughing stock, instead of considering any validity in points that they're making.

This problem is carried throughout the movie, and Lithgow is seen as such a monster that we feel no sympathy for his character in a later scene showing his inner weakness and tragic past, the scene feels thrown in and very foreign to the rest of the movie.

I think the opening scenes, with Kinsey and Clara first falling for each other, and his proposal and collection of gall wasps, are the movie's best, I believe. Once Kinsey starts his research on sex I think the movie becomes a bit conventional. We get the usual scenes such as Kinsey alienated from his family, Kinsey receiving trouble from his financial backers, Clara feeling alienated from Kinsey, and so on. Of course, most of the time we watch eagerly, because Neeson and Linney are awesome, but we still have that itching feeling that the film isn't as special as Ebert says.

What I mean is, after decades of biopics, especially this year; a biopic has to be more than conventional. Unless the lead character is amazing and extremely watchable, like in "Ray", the film needs to show us something new. I mean, when you see a biopic, you pretty much know the lead is going be alienated from his family, obsessed with his work and full of inner demons. So give us something else, please.

Problems also arise with the introduction of Kinsey's staff, including bisexual Clyde Martin (Peter Sarsgaard), Wardell Pomeroy (Chris O'Donnell) and Paul Gebhart (Timothy Hutton). The problem is, we hardly know any of these characters, so we are bored when they get into arguments because we don't feel that we know anything about them. When we find out that Martin is bisexual it comes as a surprise, but we react with a shrug. Sarsgaard's performance is surprisingly flat; that he's getting any buzz for awards surprises me.

I'm giving the movie a seven simply because of the professionalism Neeson and Linney display on screen. They are the acting pros; they wash the floor with the rest of the cast. The Academy voters will all be struck by lightning if either isn't mentioned. So see it for them, and about the rest, well, shrug.

7/10

Here's a major problem in drama. You want to deal with big issues, great disembodied, cosmic sweeps of things. Things that people love or make them suffer. This is why people come.

But the tools we have to display these things are humans, usually. So the dramatist has to invent or find situations that have humans, human behavior and these grandsweeps entangled in some way. And it has to be a particular way so that the engagement with the humans on the screen leads us somehow to those sweeps.

Sometimes the connection is daft as we equate certain people as surrogates for trends. I had a school teacher that (twice!) showed us "Johnny Tremain" as our main lesson on the Revolutionary War.

Okay. One of the big things that entices and scars us is sex, and particularly its incomprehensible but overwhelming nature. So what makes more sense to us, who wish to understand it, than a story about a man who dedicated his life to understanding it?

Well, there are two problems, long before you get to the skill of the thing. The first is that if the character is to bring us to the topic, he has to be fully entangled. The two have to merge in a way that when we see and understand him, we find ourselves incidentally in the clouds of the thing he represents. It doesn't happen.

And part of the reason is the nature of the man himself. Ordinary audiences think of science as a single notion. But it is not. There is the business of noting what is there, but that is the secretarial work of science. Mere accounting. Then there is the business of spinning abstractions, models, theories then insight and understanding. Kinsey was the first and blindly so, in fact he would appear to a full scientist just as Tim Curry's character is to him here.

Counting is not comprehension. So in real life, this is more of a "Tucker" story than a John Nash one. And it is mighty hard to weave that entanglement if it was never there, and the nature of the thing takes you in the wrong direction.

What underscores this is that the opposing forces here — religious moralists, pontificating politicians — are stronger and more numerous today when it comes to matters sexual than more than 50 years ago. There's been negative progress, both because Kinsey was off, but also because people like those behind this film actually thought that was the good fight.

Linney gets it. She's a pleasure in any project. She gets it because she conveys to us the simple tolerance of her man and all that surrounds him, including the film crew and we the audience. She shows us all that she knows we're fooling ourselves about this, and that wisdom and insight is deadly elusive.

Its going to take more than the Ron Howard school of film-making to make us fly into sexual insights. it is a clever idea to frame the thing as an interview with him, to introduce him as an interviewer. Just not enough.

There's a very fine bit of acting in this. Almost at the end, in less than three minutes, Lynn Redgrave is an interviewee who tells Kinsey he saved her life. Watch it and believe. Here is an example of how that entanglement can work.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

My thoughts of "Kinsey" are completely summed up in the summary.

It is shallow in that it is almost completely devoid of any analysis, subtlety, or development of its characters; meaningless in that it presents nothing that isn't already known or couldn't be surmised from a documentary; and destined to be the most overrated film of the year in that most critics praise the film, almost blindly, ignoring the stilted dialogue, the almost nauseating depiction of human behavior - devoid of analytical follow-ups, and the very, VERY standard performances. The film includes a below average turn by Liam Neeson, who, despite perhaps giving a good impression of Kinsey, never manages to conceal his accent, and CANNOT handle any drama that needed to be conveyed. His dramatic scenes reminded me of those of Cary Elwes' in "Saw", and if you seen those scenes, you know what I mean.

"Kinsey" was utterly pointless as a movie. It featured a lot of depicted fact, a lot of graphic sex talk, and lot of graphic images that curiously managed to "sneak" past the MPAA's pocketbooks, I mean, ratings system. It never once attempted to show why "Kinsey" was fascinated by sex, why his constituents were so easily enveloped into his sexually lax world, or why Linney stayed with him. They never developed these characters at all. Their gross actions were never discussed or examined by the director.

There is a scene in "Kinsey" that sums up my opinion of the film. In it, a man being interviewed by Kinsey claims he has slept with basically everything. I mean EVERYTHING. Think of something, hes slept with it. He goes into graphic detail about his sex life and demonstrates his ability to obtain an erection and a subsequent self-administered orgasm in 10 seconds, all the while Kinsey just watches sternly, and his partner squirms, and eventually leaves in disgust. Later, the same partner is seen having sex with a much older woman for the purpose of the study, smiling raunchily while watching the grainy video of the deed. Why? Who knows? Is it in is character to be both disgusted by the actions of one man, and obviously enthralled by his own actions? No it isn't. And it seems that the director does not care to elaborate.

For sure, Condon manages to shock with his film. But by the end, the sex has become so repulsively clinical, that its shock value is lost, and the film really takes on no meaning, becoming just plain boring.

It tries to slap on a metaphor about men and trees at the end, but its just too quick and dirty to make up for the film's lack of analysis about its subject, or about America.

Why do critics and film patrons hail the film? It shows what most films aren't allowed to show. Any film that non-chalantly features graphic female and male nudity, frequently, and can still be featured with an R rating at any movie theatre most be an edgy great movie, right? Wrong. (And may I just note that an increasing amount of male nudity has found its way into major theaters through indie, artsy films like "Kinsey" and "Sideways". Its interesting to note that two of the most well-reviewed films of the year both break R-rated bounds frequently within their running times).

With such a high pedigree in its creative team, it seems almost impossible for the film to be anything other than superb. But for this moviegoer, it, no pun intended, sucked the big one.