Psychopathia Sexualis

I expected mere titillation for the sake of exploitation ...which is partly why Krafft-Ebing challenges his readers to understand... he coined the term "masochism" and explains how exploitation, or the feeling of being exploited satisfies one's desires, however these selfish desires and their abstractions---not just coitus for procreation---but the odd fetishes; weird and irrational things that humans combine with touch, taste and their associations with pleasure, is what Krafft-Ebing explored. But in Krafft-Ebing's time the patriarchal model of thinking dominated every-body's behaviors, and the idea of Men and Women with different needs was completely new territory. Krafft-Ebing sought to understand these things, like his first pupil, Sigmund Freud and so should you.

About the movie, a few things stand out for me---besides Wood---the marionette and old-tyme, rotating diorama scene performed by Rob Nixon. If one only listens to the narrator, one will be repulsed, but Nixon's puppetry made it a lovely scene ...until you focus on the narrator again. Such delightful revulsion. Such a brilliant contrast. Speaking of weird contrasts, the scene shot on the train was technically abominable... whites blown-out and actors look green. What happened? Most other scenes are really well done, lighting, set and decent editing. I really enjoyed how the camera work made me feel like a voyeur on these people's lives.

Basically, the writer/director, Bret Wood takes an artful Victorian approach to exposing hidden recesses within the minds Kraft-Ebbing considered deviant. Most every quirk gets screen time, but blood-lust was the primary fluid of compulsion. I avoided focusing on this by counting how many behaviors were abnormal in the Victorian Age, and by comparison acceptable in modern times. It must have been a demanding task for Wood to sort through all the kinks from the book.

His book, a precursor to Kinsey's reports and the DSM, Krafft-Ebing explored various psychologies and how they deal with sexuality and desires. And I appreciate how Wood tied stories together with themes. Most interesting for the "people-watcher" or scientist. Voyeuristic; in a very mythical way, and its interesting to see people's motivations to satisfy desires. Honest portrayals of people's perversions, bawdy lusts and vile corporal behaviors---all the more condemnable because of the time period. Yet, I found a few actors unconvincing in their performances. Blah. But on the whole, scenes carried well from subject to subject, and in the end, there is some clear explanations about people's sexuality. This was good drama with an academic arch of learning. The ending was unexpected and left me with more questions than answers.

A brilliant feminist author, Camille Paglia once said in "The Joy of Presbyterian Sex--Sex, Art, and American Cutlure, Essays", published Vintage Books, 1992, p.32 she wrote "Life without guilt or shame would be found only in sociopaths and the lobotomized."

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.

bought this film through an independent film distributor as i had seen the trailer on their website and was intrigued to see more. i don't remember too much of this film as i found myself being bored early on into the plot. the production was beautifully shot and lit but that was about it. the only aspect of the film that had me remotely interested was the focus on homosexuality for both men and women. the mini story line about a governess, lydia, who was developing a strong attraction to her charge, annabel was intriguing while it lasted. the love scene was tastefully done and it didn't end tragically. unfortunately that's all i can recall.

I saw this movie when I was young, 14 or so. I have never forgotten it, and I've never really seen anything remotely like it. But it is certainly not for everyone. I've read in these reviews "expecting a fictional drama" and "decidedly unsexy," both of which are clearly out the window by the opening sequence, and I would say in the synopsis as well. It is not meant to be sexy. It uses titillation, which is very different when against the grotesque. The acting is sometimes wooden. Usually this works, especially in the sequences which are clear love letters to silent films The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and The Tale of Prince Achmed. This is one of those low budget films of a film geek, which are not uncommon but again are not for everybody. But as I often say with niche or B-movies, it's an hour and a half of your life, and if you see something you've never seen before it was probably worth it. There are definitely several of those here. And lastly, what balls! To adapt in expressionist vignettes the accounts of a Victorian textbook of psychological and sexual deviancy. Bravo, Bret Wood. I love your movie.

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.