Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with the first review to hit the net of Bill Condon's newest directorial effort, KINSEY. Anybody who has been reading this site for any length of time should know that all of the main contributors are huge fans of Condon's GODS AND MONSTERS, so it'll come as no surprise that we're all giddy to see his newest film, especially after reading the below review. Sounds like it succeeds in the same way that GOD'S AND MONSTERS did, which makes me a happy panda! Here's the review!!!
Hi y'all
A few weeks back I had the chance to see KINSEY - Bill Condon's new film, his first as director since GODS AND MONSTERS.
It seemed to be a complete, finished print - opening and end credits, score, and not the kind of film requiring special effects... so I thought I'd send in a quick review. I won't pretend to suggest that I'm an expert in the life of Kinsey - I have no idea what elements in the film - if any - are fictional - I can really only comment on the movie.
I thought it was pretty darn terrific. It's rare to watch a film from the USA (at least one from a major studio) that deals with sex and sexuality in a frank and intelligent fashion.
The movie is very much the life 'story' of Kinsey - the film follows his childhood under a domineering, zealot of a father (John Lithgow), where his curiosity on matters scientific, and thirst for knowledge in general, drives him from home to college and university, where he excels and stays on to research and eventually teach.
Despite being a reasonably awkward guy, with somewhat poor social skills, the young adult Kinsey (now played by Liam Neeson) makes a connection with another student (the always excellent Laura Linney) who goes on to marry and work with him.
I was really impressed how believable the two actors were, in the early university scenes, able to play probably 15-20 years younger. Compared to the ludicrous attempt of Geoffrey Rush to play a 25 year old Peter Sellers in THE LIFE AND DEATH OF PETER SELLERS, Neeson and Linney completely capture the awkwardness of young people beginning their first sexual relationships and their chemistry is great. Anyone who saw them on stage together in New York a few years back on Broadway in THE CRUCIBLE will know what I mean.
Back to the story... Kinsey's research is initially confined to the animal/insect world, but in the conservative (50's?) environment of academia begins to realise that there is a distinct lack of published research into human sexual behaviour - he becomes convinced that it's an area that could be of benefit to the community, and bring him the recognition of academia that he's desperate to achieve.
The bulk of the film centres on his research - consisting of thousands of interviews across the country with men of all ages - where he and his staffers question subjects about their sexual histories/experiences/proclivities/fantasies. The eventual publication of his findings causes a sensation, and becomes notorious for the revelation of the (apparently) significant section of the general public participating in non-heterosexual activities.
Flushed with the attention and recognition, Kinsey also begins a study on women, but is forced to confront the resistance of not only the moral majority and a conservative media but the backlash from the funding bodies who are discomforted by his increasingly 'scandalous' revelations.
If this sounds kind of dry and educational-dull, the film certainly isn't. There's a lot of humor in the movie.. the interviews are often hilarious, and while there's a certain 'worthiness' to Kinsey's pursuit, I was completely absorbed.
KINSEY doesn't glorify the man. He's quite clearly stubborn, selfish and arrogant in many respects, and his own sexual history - including the relatively public affair he engages in with one of his male assistants (played by the phenomenal Peter Saarsgard) - is not shied away from.
But I would really be disappointed if the film is categorised or perceived as a 'gay' film. While there's definitely queer content, if there's anything shocking or controversial in the film it will probably be the pretty detailed closeups (albeit photographic stills) of female anatomy. One of the best moments in the film is when Kinsey runs his a slide-show to a hall packed full of young, naïve students who aren't quite prepared for the first lesson he's about to give them...
Condon manages to avoid the feel of a strict 'biopic' even though the narrative is pretty much that. All the performances are spot on - Neeson has never been better. I really think it's the best work on film he's ever done - including that little Spielberg movie. Linney certainly is in the 'wife' role but does an excellent job playing the person that the audience most identifies with, as she observes her husband's work with a mix of wonder, love and frustration. She adores her husband but is still wounded terribly when his own sexual experimentation comes 'home' so confrontingly.
Saarsgard also gives a sensational supporting performance as a bisexual young man completely comfortable with his desires, although like Kinsey, not so aware or caring of how his actions affect others emotionally. Saarsgard also deserves chops for being one of the few actors brave enough to go full frontal, even if it's only for a couple of seconds, and in a relatively non-sexual moment. Anyone who might have been hoping that Neeson would reveal his rumoured-to-be-substantial schlong will, sadly, leave disappointed...
The only slightly off-note in the film comes from the appearance of Chris O'Donnell as one of Kinsey's other researchers. I was a big fan of his early films (particularly the under appreciated Jessica Lange film MEN DON'T LEAVE) but the problem here is that he has absolutely nothing to do other than appear earnest and polite in the same way he did in SCENT OF A WOMAN. If O'Donnell was hoping this film would reignite his career I fear he'll be disappointed, but it's only because it's a pretty minor/inconsequential part. I wonder if there was something that was cut out, because I have no idea why he took it. Perhaps it might have just been the chance to work with everyone else - which I can understand.
O'Donnell does appear in possibly the film's most crucial scene - towards the end he and Kinsey take the sexual history of a man who has not only assaulted for gratification, but abused children, and gleefully delights in his conquests. O'Donnell's character is disgusted, but Kinsey sits through the study, appearing ever objective and non-judgemental - despite the horror of it all. It underlies one of the film's main questions. What is normal? What is acceptable? What is aberrant? Kinsey's studies certainly reveal a lot to the world, but how does that world then deal with the information?
After the screening ended, the person next to me said "By the end of it I really hated him". I didn't have that reaction at all. I don't know whether science looks back upon the work that Kinsey did as being as pioneering and important as Condon does, but the film certainly makes you think about how bold and fearless he must have been, to do what he did under the face of such scrutiny - even if the methodology isn't really explained. It made me want to learn more about him and his work.
Will KINSEY be a hit? With specialised audiences, I'd like to think so. The teaser trailer that's out at the moment does a good job at titillating, which I guess the studio figures is their best bet at getting people in the door. The film, however, is the opposite of exploitative - it's a really beautiful and affecting story that (for the most part) manages to avoid the earnestness that plagues most films about teachers and scientists. KINSEY sure does confirm that Condon is one of the better directors working at the moment, and I'd highly recommend it to anyone at AICN who likes challenging and thought-provoking cinema.
over and out
Cowboy Pete.
