Followed this one up the next night, coincidentally, with a PBS documentary about Kinsey. Despite the fact that Neeson is a much more handsome man than the real doc, it's a compelling story. Especially compelling as a biopic that sells the idea that personal obsession can still lead to great science.
Of course when we see an obsessed physicist, or an obsessed mathematician, we just want to make plush dolls out of them, but when one's obsession is sex--albeit in an academic (as well as personal, so the movie suggests) fashion, our culture tends to react in quite a different way.
But the research had to be done. It's hard for us, post-sexual revolution people to imagine, but the repression about sex was tremendous. To get an idea of just how bad it was. Not only where there very few facts to be had, but the facts that were available were severely flawed. Abstinence-only education was the norm, and the painful scene of the Kinsey's on their wedding night was the norm, I'd suggest.
Of course, though, I'm one of those people who believes that good factual information is the key to being an adult and living an adult life. If you repress sex--especially by means of repressing information-- you end up with a lot of ignorant pregnant teenagers. You end up with a higher rate of abortion. You end up with a lot worse. Like this story reported today about a rape victim who could find no one to fill her prescription for emergency contraception.
Most telling, of course, is that denial of sexual information is almost unilaterally aimed at girls, and repression of sexual information always comes hand-in-hand with repression of women (take a look at fundamentalist muslim populations, or fundamentalist christian populations that put the burden of sexuality on the woman by saying that if she doesn't cover herself, then the men will be inflamed by her callous action). Boys are a lot more simple, and if a boy is ignorant he can't get himself pregnant, taking away his choice in the matter of whether or not he wants to be a parent. Some people would call that a good thing--a little fear, repression, guilt and reliance on god's will--I call it the dark ages. But, at least the opponents to nearly everything are consistent: they would ban all science, including sex research.
My sister and brother-in-law once went to a church where the preacher, leading a value-driven sermon, said "There are four problems in the world today: 1. Secular Humanism, 2. Darwinism, 3. Homosexuality and 4. Science." They got the hell out of there as fast as the politely could, but it was my 9 year old nephew who summed it up nicely when he was told why they wouldn't be going back to that particular church. "Science?" he said. "They don't believe in science? Without science we'd all be living in elephant-hide tents!"
Where we saw it: DVD | We deign to rate it: 78 outta 100I think Kinsey's one of those films that the advertising department mangled. I remember seeing ads for it way before it came out -- ones with Neeson as Kinsey conducting his interviews and asking questions about sex -- and it looked like the film was going to make quite a splash when it came out. But they pushed the, "Look, it's about sex and controversial!" button instead of the "Look, it's a pretty good film button," and got screwed. Because the film wasn't controversial; because it was a good Hollywood biopic. I think it deserved a greater audience than it got.
Posted by: Pacze Moj at November 1, 2005 04:16 PM