|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alfred Kinsey was a biologist who used the scientific methods he learned while studying insects to research sexual practices in mid-20th century America. Although this reviewer does not know enough to say that the survey methods and conclusions shown in this movie are accurate representations of the real-life Kinsey's work, I recommend "Kinsey" for promoting a scientific approach to sexuality. That is, if I want to know how people behave sexually, it's not good enough to listen to my preacher or extrapolate from my own experience or read the fiction in Cosmo or Playboy; I have to do more research, probably by asking people about their sex lives like Kinsey did.
"Kinsey" is to be commended for making this basic point--taking a scientific approach to humyn sexuality and society--in an entertaining manner. It's not a textbook on survey sampling, but then no movie should strive to be a textbook. Instead, movies should challenge the audience to question long-held incorrect or outright reactionary ideas. They should also promote a basic worldview or ideology. Of course MIM would prefer movies that promote proletarian ideology, but until we have our own films playing on more than 100 screens for over seven weeks we'll settle for "Kinsey" putting science ahead of clerical cant and old wives' tales.
On a substantive level, MIM agrees with several points raised in "Kinsey." For example, Kinsey begins a sex-ed lecture for college students saying that in a healthy society, most of what he was about to cover would be known to any twelve-year old. Several characters--including Kinsey and his wife early in their marriage and another womyn who attempts suicide--suffer unnecessarily because they did not know the basic mechanics of sex or think homosexuality is a sin. MIM's platform calls for mandatory sex education by age eleven to avoid exactly those problems.
"Kinsey" is not a perfect movie--in typical Hollywood fashion it spends too much time on Kinsey's persynal life. The portrayals of Kinsey's early relationship with his father and later relationship with his son are little more than cliched gossip.
More importantly, the movie does not clearly address the gendered power structure that continues to influence sexual relationships that have been "liberated" from clerical repression. There are hints throughout the movie that Kinsey hasn't grasped this point, for example when his assistants have a jealous row over a consensual affair. But the movie doesn't take a clear position; at most it criticizes Kinsey for ignoring the link between romantic love and sex. This may have been a conscious decision on the part of the filmmakers: in his time and place Kinsey may have been the best thing going; the principal enemy may have been the religious bigots and charlatans as opposed to the modern pornography industry that oppresses wimmin under the banner of "liberating" sex; MacKinnon and MIM weren't around yet. Still, the movie was made for today's audience, and while its good pro-science anti-churchy mumbo jumbo line is sadly still relevant in Amerika, we would have liked a sharper critique of the power relations underlying supposedly "free" sexual relationships.