Kinsey

Kinsey (Director: Bill Condon)

Bill Condon's breakthrough film was the James Whale biopic, Gods And Monsters, which was indeed a good film but was a little overrated in my opinion. He's also, surprisingly, the director of the sequel to Candyman, Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh!

And here's another biopic, based on the life of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey and the studies he undertook to write The Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and The Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Back in the forties, of course, this was an extremely uncomfortable subject to a culture still holding on to strict Puritanical beliefs and propaganda, and it was even subject to a McCarthy-like investigation into possible ties with communism.

Now, biopics are immediately under fire for inaccuracy. I just read a review from a family magazine called Citizen which points out that Kinsey was accessory to the abuse of children in his research, and that the movie skirts the topic, along with demonizing those with a moral view of sexuality. Although I am instantly suspicious of one extreme side's view of a man such as Kinsey, there are undoubted omissions of a man's life caused by one's own personal agenda (Condon is homosexual, and Gods And Monsters was another "Lighten up, America!" view of homosexuality) and there's also the surviving members of a family to consider, not wanting to piss them off. I've never really looked at a video cover of a biopic to see if the video has the word, "Fiction" anywhere, but I believe a filmmaker hides behind the "Based on" phrase, "Based on a true story" or "real events" really just gives that person license to change and omit certain things.

Ultimately, when I watch a movie, I ask, "Is it good?" One habitual thing that always circles around in my head during the viewing of a biopic is, "I'd like to see what really happened." The basic spirit of the story is there, but the truth never seems to arrive. In the other biopics this year that I've seen, Ray, The Aviator, and The Motorcycle Diaries, and while we're at it, Monster from last year, there's always been an element of truth missing. Even my favorite biopics of all time, The Insider and Malcolm X make me question. The truth element is a factor that does not affect my thoughts on a film. Is it good? That's important.

And like most biopics, Kinsey has great performances, but it's not a great movie. Liam Neeson plays Kinsey, and he's likely to be nominated for an Oscar here. I think he's very, very good. But would I give him the Oscar nod over Paul Giamatti in Sideways? Time will tell if it comes to that, but in a year filled with Oscar-worthy performances, you have to weed out some, and Neeson, who I thought should have won for Schindler's List in 1993, might get weeded out on my list. I just can't imagine looking back at this film and saying, "Man, Neeson was so great in that film, so memorable," because it's not that kind of performance. The character of Kinsey here is just about the dullest sort. By rule, that makes him the best kind of researcher for a potentially titillating study into sex, because he takes the clinical route at all times. So does the movie, and that's dull.

You know who's the best in this film? Not current up-and-coming fave Peter Sarsgaard (playing Clyde Martin), who's character turns from interesting to flat over the course of the film. Not Laura Linney (playing Clara Kinsey, Alfred's wife), who bothers me most of the time (You Can Count on Me is the exception), although she does a killer John Lithgow in this film at one point, which reminds me, Lithgow gets stuck playing Kinsey's stuffy preacher father--and he deserves a better role than that, and it's not Timothy Hutton (playing Paul Gebhard), who plays probably the most interesting of Kinsey's researchers but the film never ventures to develop his character much. It's freaking CHRIS O'DONNELL who comes out the best, as his character Wardell Pomeroy has a different kind of liberal view, the kind of liberal view that I believe liberals should have: OK, so, people have sex, and they do lots of different things than we think, but that doesn't mean some people can't have a line or a view that some things are wrong. He walks out during an interview with a child molester, who proudly numbers the boys and girls he's abused, and whispers to Kinsey, "Fuck this," before walking out.

This is where I believe the Citizen review sort of makes its own one-sided attempt at denouncing the film, because here is Pomeroy, who knows sex can be emotional and usually doesn't adhere to the view that sex is just sex. Kinsey's son in the movie walks away from the dinner table when the talk is all geared towards one topic, involving his sisters no less, and the movie doesn't seem to take a damning view of the young man. It does have an exaggerated view of moralistic people for the most part, but it does have a few examples of characters who come off heroic when they decide to stay behind the line.

Even in Gods And Monsters, Brendan Fraser's character Clayton Boone isn't exactly a guy who changes his views completely just because he knows and respects James Whale (Ian McKellen). I thought it was the most truthful part of the film, and here in Kinsey, O'Donnell pulls off the same feat.

I know, I know. A serious critic would take a look at this review and say, "What, you thought Chris O-freaking-Donnell was the best part of this film?" No, the featured players are the best part of this film. But no one has a better perspective, I feel, than Pomeroy (who does take part in activities that he feels, at the time, are within the spirit of the research, but by the end of the film, changes), and Chris O'Donnell does a great job of portraying that person, limited as it is. I guess, ultimately, I'm saying he's the best supporting actor in the film.

So, yeah, not a great movie. Good performances. If you want to study acting, watch this.