Romance

First and foremost, there has been some comment regarding the final explicit scene regarding oral sex whereas the man's penis is shown to be in the woman's hand not in her mouth. This is a framing device that matches a scene at the beginning of the film whereas we quite clearly and unquestionably see the penis in her mouth (the first so-called "shocker" of the film). Since we can guess that both scenes were shot at the same time we can easily deduce that there was no attempt to fool the audience, what the director wanted us to see is quite literally what we see, and what the actors and director chose to show us. We have determined from the first scene that neither the actor nor the actress mind performing this scene in front of the camera (be mindful, even though her mouth is on the man's penis, there is no actual sex). Quite clearly the FINAL scene was NOT an oral sex scene but merely an erotic stroking of her chin upon the man's penis (a common technique in sensual massage, which tells us that those commenting have had much less experience during their lives than the actors did while filming this movie!). This is an important detail however because it tells us much which happens between these two scenes...and literally the moral of the story. At the beginning of the film we meet Marie, she wants sex, lusts for it, and her mate is unable to match her desire. Her mate seems quite satisfied with the sensual contact, but for one reason or another (never quite clear) sex is something that is not on his agenda. The shock of the audience seeing her pull his penis out and provide oral massage is merely because we have not seen this type of explicit scene in mainstream cinema. In comparison to other scenes in the film it is really quite nothing, and a similar scene at the end would have proven anticlimactic. She spends the rest of the film searching to quench her sexual desires, yet sensuality is something that is not on HER agenda. So she has meaningless sex considering herself just a "hole" until by the end of the film she has experienced all that she is going to experience for a while, returns to her mate, and meets him on his terms, for a night of sensual pleasure...namely the final scene as described above (with penis seen in her hand--yes you were suppose to see it there!)

Do we need to see all the graphic sex scenes that appear throughout the film...including the actors literally having sex (loose definition here...more correctly, penetration)? Maybe the point here is like what Lenny Bruce said about racist and swear words...the more they are used, the less meaning they have. Sex has nothing to do with love and is often violent. I've always thought it strange that in cinema a man can put his mouth on a woman's nipple, but a woman cannot put her mouth on a man's penis. Given the nature and frankness of films during the past thirty years this does not seem such a big deal. I would think if the actors were prepared to do nude love scenes this would not be that much of a stretch. Also, I should make it quite clear this is not a porn film. While the actors are going through the motions there is no indication that any male actor ejaculates into any actress (mouth or otherwise). One of the men Marie meets on her journey is in real life a porn star. He is quite good as an actor and I would not have known he was a porn star based on this film. One of the reasons he was used apparently was because he could hold an erection during a particular scene where Marie helps him put on a condom. Given all the efforts over the past decade to educate about safe sex it is curious this type of scene has not been more popular in other films. It certainly would be an acceptable excuse for directors wishing to add a little sizzle to their film. In this particular case the scene is quite straight forward (no pun intended). Naked man sitting in bed next to naked woman, puts on a condom. They talk a little about condoms and she helps him to smooth out the latex with her hand in a way that is not sensual or lewd, but obviously caring. It is a very nice scene and works quite well. By this time we are not shocked at a woman touching a man's penis (let alone with latex separating skin from skin). Yes, you will see penetrating going on but not much sex. The version I rented had a split second scene of an extra pleasuring himself onto what appeared to be another person and that's about it. There is a scene after the condom scene where the two actors seem to be doing it...but we don't see anything, so I doubt they would go through all that trouble and not show it. Even if they had, it would merely be penetration. Perhaps another reason to hire a porn star is that he could control himself during penetration...and if the actress playing Marie could not, what partner would mind? The question I had was how the actor playing Marie's mate was able NOT to get excited. The actress looking quite lovely in the nude, it would be difficult for most men to control themselves laying so close to her in bed, let alone being pleasured by her (I wish there were out-takes of this film, I'm sure a lot more happened then what was shown on screen). There are some disturbing scenes of violent and experimental sex that make this unsuitable for children, but I would suggest the condom scene be used in sex education classes in high school. Hopefully this will open the door for other films to show sex in healthy and realistic ways.

Men hate it. Probably because it's not quite the pornography its detractors accuse it of. Women love it. Because it restores a woman's voice to the erotic? It also offers insultingly implausible solutions to genuine traumas; lacks the empathetic courage to embrace the dreamlike possibilities of its heroine's quest; and suggests motherhood as a woman's most fulfilling role. The film only becomes dull in the second half, and is more amusing than you might think, but the dreary visuals, trite metaphors, unimaginative use of voiceover and dialogue, and self-pitying acting soon become enervating.

Romance achieved a lot of attention in Australia as it was initially banned. Now it's available from any decent video store so every adult can see what the fuss was all about. I think few of them will be able understand why the censors had so much problem with it. Basically you have several hard-ons and a bit of bondage in the middle of a talky French art-house movie. The fundamental problem with Romance is we can never understand what Marie sees in Paul. It's as simple as that. If we COULD understand then perhaps we'd have a provocative and thought-provoking examination of love, sex, loyalty and betrayal. But we don't. It's not to say the movie isn't worth watching, just don't expect too much. Last Tango In Paris was much braver and confronting (albeit less explicit) nearly thirty years ago. Closer to home, Breaking The Waves shares some similar themes and situations, and is a much more successful and emotionally involving experience.

I watched "Romance" for the wrong reason. I expected an entertaining brainless soft core sex movie. Instead, I got a drama with the necessary sex scenes and a clever plot.

Caroline Ducey is great in her starring role. She's sweet, tender, but very sexy. Her sex scenes are not very pleasant to watch mainly because of her identity problem (specially the infamous doggy style sex scene) but still accomplishes the movie's objective.

"Romance" could fit into the art category. Watch it if you like these kind of movies and for the beautiful and sexy Caroline Ducey. This woman is like no other because of her petite structure, thin, but with a hot body. Not to mention her angel face.

Before I comment on this film two introductory remarks are necessary. (1) I recommend anyone who is aware of the way in which it was panned by the critics ("puerile self conscious euro-trash", etc) to forget these reviews. I believe it is an unusually rewarding work to see. (2) The title is very misleading, just reading it one cannot be aware of the irony with which it must have been chosen, and anyone expecting to see the film equivalent of a Harlequin novel needs to be warned in advance.

The story is of a young women who loves her very unresponsive husband, but finds the dissatisfaction she feels from her rare and unfulfilling copulation with him drives her into a series of increasingly destructive extra-marital relationships. These are very graphically portrayed, although she struggles to keep her marriage intact. To me this is perhaps the most unsatisfying aspect of the film - today I would have expected that such a marriage would have broken up very quickly and the woman involved would have felt free to look for a more fulfilling relationship. However many films and novels are based on the theme of women who accept either indifference or a great deal of both physical and mental abuse from partners that they love, and I must accept that this is an important theme for a film.

Although the story is far from new, it is handled here with unusual sensitivity and understanding. Some of the sex scenes would normally only be seen in a hardcore porn film and this appears to be what has upset most of the critics, but I cannot go along with this as a valid criticism. Why should films exploiting torture, death and destruction be accepted as mainstream, whilst those dealing with the personal relationships so vital to living a fulfilling life become subject to censorship? However it is important to warn anyone considering viewing this film that although it contains a great deal of graphic sexual activity it is never erotic.These scenes (even those between the young woman and her husband with whom she is certainly in love) uniformly show cold mechanical and meaningless relationships which are ultimately self destructive. They concentrate on the emotions of the woman concerned and, since she is largely passive in most of them, and can often only convey the story through her facial expressions, such scenes require both a very fine actress and a very sensitive director in order to succeed. In my opinion this film provides both. It could probably only have been directed by a woman, and one can sense the determination of both the director and the lead actress to draw viewers of both sex into the story so that they are not merely voyeurs, but are forced to consider its relevance both to their own lives and to those of their friends.

Ultimately the ending of a film of this type can make or mar it. Both a happy and a totally tragic ending for what is intended to be a look at the lives of quiet desperation lived by many women would be inappropriate. Instead the director has taken our understanding of her main character further forward by showing us that for many such women their ultimate satisfaction comes from their children rather than from their life partner.

It is a mark of a successful film when graphic images from it keep coming back to mind long afterwards, particularly when these images force one to consider whether there are lessons in it applicable to ones own life. I believe this would be the experience of most of those who see this film Although I would NOT recommended it as either a skin flick or an erotic film for a couple to watch together in the bedroom, I have no hesitation in recommending it strongly to all those who adequately appreciate what they can expect from it.