Desejo Proibido

A trilogy wrapped into one movie that covers the difficulties of lesbianism over a space of three generations. It begins with an older couple in the 60's having to deal with loss and the pain of keeping a secret for too long. Then the story brings us to a group of lesbian feminists in the 70's who fight so hard for what they believe in that they forget the point of being themselves. Finally, we're led it a problem of the new millennium that can only be solved outside of nature.

I saw the film after someone recommended it. Now that I've seen it, I'll recommend it too. The movie was good based on the fact that homosexuality is often based on the idea of sex alone, and it's not true. It's who you love. And being homosexual does have its disadvantages that hetero-couples might have. This film portrayed this idea very well.

The most poignant of these was Edith, who (after her lover died) had no ownership over their house, had no lawful right to her late-lover's property, and was even treated as if she were a mere impersonal object of her late-lover's life.

The second was the hardest to get, especially since it's in the middle of the sexual-freedom revolution. Girl meets girl, girl is a feminist, other girl is butch, girl's friends make fun of the butch girl because she doesn't fit the form of their own personal society. It might be historically accurate, but it fits vaguely with what the world is today and how women treat each other as less of a battle of male vs. female attitude.

Three is definitely the most fun, showing a couple's struggle with trying to become pregnant. It's not sad in the least, but it's still an issue that has its prevalence in the world. Becoming a mom when you're a lesbian isn't easy.

Overall, this movie was entertaining, funny, and moving. Anyone who would rent this movie if they want to have a good time and kill an evening.

I must say that this film was a complete surprise to me. I started watching it intending to watch the first segment because Vanessa Redgrave never fails to move me. And, needless to say, her performance in this film is exceptional and a masterpiece of acting. I kept watching, however, because of the clever device which weaves all three stories together, and was soon mesmerised by Chloe Sevigny. All three segments were very well done and the performances are all superb. Excellent all around and highly recommended!

I have to admit that I approached the viewing of this movie with some apprehension. But as it turned out, I enjoyed it very much.

The film consists of three separate stories dealing with lesbianism set at different times and featuring characters from three distinct age groups.

The first, set in 1961, and the best of the three, features an outstanding performance by the marvellous Vanessa Redgrave as a retired school teacher who suddenly loses her lifelong companion. She suddenly finds that all of the things she has taken for granted are suddenly gone, including the roof over her head. The vignette shows how lesbianism was never talked about in public in the 60s as evidenced in the hospital scenes where Redgrave attempts to find out what has happened to her "friend". Paul Giamatti plays the deceased's nephew who has to tell Redgrave that she no longer can remain in her home of 30 years. Elizabeth Perkins effectively plays his scavenging wife.

The second story, set in 1972, deals with the relationship between a college co-ed (Michelle Williams) and a girl who likes dress in macho male attire (Chloe Sevigny). I found myself actually hoping that they would live happily ever after.

The last story concerns the often humorous efforts of two mature companions (Ellen DeGeneres, Sharon Stone)to "have a baby".

Although not for everyone, I found that this movie was tastefully done and very well acted.

I see this movie as an attempt to help conservative people to see gay life (male or female) as something natural, or normal (which I think is very OK). The three segments represents three steps for that recognition : 1961 : Hide it! 1972 : It is shown as some kind of feminist fashion and shows intolerance between the lesbians. 2000 : acceptance. The problem is that the three segments are very unequal. We all accept that the first part is very moving, with a very very fine performance from the great Vanessa Redgrave. The second part is O.K. But the third is very weak. Despite these little defaults, this is a very fine movie, with honorable good intentions. I say bravo to everyone involved in it and also say bravo to every viewer who accepts it. But for a little superior movies on the same subject, I suggest two Canadian films : When the night is falling, and Revoir Julie. I wonder what would be the reaction if there was a similar film with men... You know the story : lesbians are more cute...

A lovely movie. Forget comments about the (apparently) "overt" love/sex scenes. If this was a movie featuring straight/heterosexual love scenes, such comments would not be made.

An interesting symmetry with the original . . . Anne Heche appeared (as actress) in the third story of "If These Walls Could Talk", and here directs and writes the third story of "ITWCT 2".

Michelle Williams (so very different than in "Dawson's Creek"!), Chloe Sevigny (always excellent), Sharon Stone, Ellen Degeneres, and (most importantly) Vanessa Redgrave give excellent performances.

A lovely, lyrical examination of lesbian love - and indeed love and life in general - throughout three very different decades.

Highly recommended.

You'll laugh . . . you'll cry . . . you'll love this movie.