Desejo Proibido

Three tales of lesbian couples having different struggles across three different time periods. In the sixties a lifelong lesbian couple who have never come out find the difficulties that occur due to them having no legal connection to one another. In the seventies a university student who is a feminist faces her friends' disapproval when she falls for a stereotypical `butch john' lesbian. In the nineties an openly gay couple decide to try for child and start looking for sperm.

I first heard of this film because I always have time for anything that Nia Long does. This caught my eye on her CV and when it came on TV I watched it. I wasn't sure what to expect but most of it works quite well. As the stories are pretty distinct (the only connection being the house) so I'll deal with them so. The first is easily the best and is the most emotionally involving. It is a little too happy and unreal at the start but the tragic situation that Edith finds herself in because of her love is very moving. The second story is a little less real to me as it deals with a problem within the lesbian community (of which I have no experience to speak of). It is less moving and also a little more explicit and may satisfy those who are only interested in lesbians in terms of male arousal! I don't think it is very sexual or overly done but I didn't think there was too much need for it - regardless of the participants sexuality I didn't think it really added to the subject. However the story again is pretty good and is interesting as it is not an issue I was aware of.

The final story is the most optimistic but also the weakest. The `issue' is a lot less serious and the film treats it as such with the whole segment being very light-hearted and bright. It doesn't really add anything to the film and doesn't fit with the first two segments. The cast are pretty much all good. In the first part Redgrave is excellent and her plight is made very real by the strength of her performance. In the second film Sevingy steals the show easily with a good performance. In the third DeGeneres happily underplays and isn't `zany' or `wacky', she is funny but not in an annoying way. Stone is weak because her character simply doesn't fit with her body - far too youthful and carefree to suit Stone. The support add to the feel that this is full of `stars' with Perkins, Giamatti, Long, King and others all doing OK in support.

Overall this film starts strong but gets progressively weaker as it goes, with the final section being quite frivolous compared to the emotion of the opening. It is an interesting film but it doesn't quite work as well as it should have done.

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 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 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...

I love the first segment of this movie. The first segment took place in 1960's. It described how 2 elderly women live and love each other for many years and suddenly, one of them dies of stroke, the other one is only being recognized as the best friend, not family member. Vanessa Redgrave was marvelous in this role. She could only moan for her lost partner in dark and hide all the sorrow to herself. The scene that she felt the need to separate her stuff apart from her partner's right before her partner's nephew arrival certainly reflects how lesbians are practically nonexistent at that time. It is so sad and upsetting that some distant relatives could just walk in there and take away everything (furnitures, bird collections with all sentimental meanings) she had shared with her partner for years. She eventually got kicked out of her own house by some distant relative of her partner's. This is how same sex couples were being treated. It is a very touching, tender segment. It will make you cry.

In the 2nd segment, although Chole Sevigny and Mitchell William were great, something is missing in the message they tried to convey. It doesn't go into much details on how 1970's perceive lesbians.

The 3rd segment is kind of funny. Ellen Degeneres and Sharon Stone were great. This segment is a big contrast to the very first one. In 2000, gay and lesbians are getting more recognitions and fighting for civil rights. Although there is still a lot of work to do, compared to 1960's, there has been a lot of improvements and more freedom.

Overall, it is a wonderful movie. Highly recommended.