Psychopathia Sexualis

Start with the good; beautiful film. However, with all the opportunity this subject had for intensity of raw, hormonal stimulation, this treatment of the otherwise forensic book, was at least true to its academic headiness, though at the expense of entertainment.

The casting is much to blame as I can't imagine the director had no better choices available. Atlanta has talent and it is difficult to tell what part was lack of talent by the actors or what part was the painful micromanagement of performances by the director, but there was not a moment of honest human emotion nor sexual heat. It was as if Wood's goal was to sterilize the subject to the point of his earlier epic Highway Safety film. I could not have been more turned off by his method or the choice of seriously unattractive actors, or so he made it seem that way.

What a wasted opportunity! The man has an eye for classical beauty, but by the time he gets done with it, it might as well be a commercial for a perfume.

US 102m, Colour Director: Brett Wood; Cast: Jane Bass, Bryan Davis, Veronika Duerr, Sandra L. Hughes, Ted Manson, Daniel May, Rob Nixon, Lisa Paulsen, Daniel Pettrow, Rachel Sorsa

Named after Richard von Krafft-Ebing's infamous 1886 "medical text" of the same name, Psychopathia Sexualis is a documentary-style narrated period re-enactment based on hundreds of late nineteenth century case studies of sexual behaviour. Once considered authoritative, these clinical writings are interwoven into a number of vignettes which obliquely suggest that some of the doctors should have also looked at their motivations. Potentially more interesting than entertaining, this Victorian sexual history unfortunately lacks direction and an overall sense of purpose, and largely misses much of the real story – the treatment and mistreatment of the patients documented in these writings (Klaus Ming September 2013).

Before seeing this movie, I was expecting a fictional drama based loosely on ideas from the book; instead, it's the book, interrupted with dramatic scenes illustrating the different "illnesses." That didn't bother me much, but it hindered my enjoyment of the film. One story or even two or three long stories with excerpts from the book interspersed through the movie would have been preferable, in my opinion. If you're going to base a movie on a psychology text, you've got to find a more interesting (and preferably accurate) text than this one. The film drags during parts where it's little more than a video encyclopedia of 19th century sexual psychology and would be utterly intolerable if it weren't sexual in nature (because "sex = interesting" for most of us, even me). Luckily, there are several stories with actual character development that pull us in.

But, disappointingly, Krafft-Ebing's theories of sexuality went unchallenged, for the most part. I was hoping it would use stories to show how the imperfections of his archaic view of psychology which is still held by many to this day.

So, in the end, what do you have? A detailed catalog of a few fetishes and orientations, with some mildly interesting stories showing the trials and tribulations of a few "sexual deviants" before they are cured. For most of the film, the film moves with the crawling speed (and mood) of a wake. And, as an obviously low budget film, the cinematography and acting are not exactly top tier. Although I *was* pleased with the music, costume and interior design.

I felt this film's subject was right up my alley, and I still feel it's a below average film. It deserves a 3/10; a 4/10 if I were feeling extremely generous. I can't imagine anyone enjoying this if they didn't already have an interest in sexual fetishism.

This movie is a dramatization/recreation of several case studies from a late-19th century medical text by Richard von Kraft-Ebing called "Psychopathia Sexualis." Basically a catalog of various sexually deviant behaviors, there's not much of a plot to speak of and the movie presents these as intertwined, but unrelated vignettes. It also has a lot of voice-over, which makes it feel like one of those History Channel specials except that it's sexually explicit (rather tame, actually). Rather than being titillating, it's mostly stiff and boring. Still there were some nice artistic touches, like filming the whole movie in this chiaroscuro/Masterpiece Theater style which lent it an expressionistic quality not unlike some 1920's German silent films. The score was pleasant and grating in almost equal measure, with maybe one or two classical selections. Back to the material actually presented, there really is no position taken on the rather antiquated attitudes toward sexuality, but a lot of the pseudo-scientific babble gets pretty hard to take (seriously, or otherwise) after a while, especially when many conservatives hold viewpoints not that different from what is presented here. Some of that includes the notions that homosexual attraction is just a form of hysteria that can be treated through hypnosis, and there are some painfully outdated, Victorian views on women's roles. However, the whole movie is set during the Victorian era, so it makes sense in that regard. Maybe I went into this expecting something a little more arousing, but I was ultimately disappointed. It's not very sexy or explicit, and frequently boring to watch. My advice: just skip it and watch something else if you're in the mood for softcore.

A cinematic adaptation of the studies of sexual deviancy by Richard von Krafft-Ebing, Sigmund Freud's mentor and the major precursor to Kinsey's studies. The film is structured after the silent documentary Häxan (aka Witchcraft Through the Ages), and kind of mimics the visual styles of silent horror films and German Expressionist films, albeit in vibrant color cinematography. Most viewers seem to have found the film dull, but I really liked it. It's fascinating to be transported to Victorian times, and the film doesn't do too much winking to demonstrate that it's own mores are modern. It mostly feels worn and dated. The one thing that I think will pull most people out of the film is the acting, but I don't think it ought to. It's mediocre, to be sure, but with cinematic recreations like these, I think the performers' woodenness works in the film's favor. It reminds me a lot of Guy Maddin, and perhaps is influenced by his work. The two elements that should be especially praised are the art direction and the musical score. It looks beautiful, and sounds beautiful. I think director Bret Wood, if he's given more chances after this fascinating experiment, might turn out to be somebody really special.