There's a very fine bit of acting in this. it is a clever idea to frame the thing as an interview with him, to introduce him as an interviewer. Its going to take more than the Ron Howard school of film-making to make us fly into sexual insights. She shows us all that she knows we're fooling ourselves about this, and that wisdom and insight is deadly elusive. She gets it because she conveys to us the simple tolerance of her man and all that surrounds him, including the film crew and we the audience. There's been negative progress, both because Kinsey was off, but also because people like those behind this film actually thought that was the good fight. What underscores this is that the opposing forces here religious moralists, pontificating politicians are stronger and more numerous today when it comes to matters sexual than more than 50 years ago. And it is mighty hard to weave that entanglement if it was never there, and the nature of the thing takes you in the wrong direction. So in real life, this is more of a "Tucker" story than a John Nash one.
#Alfred kinsey full#
Kinsey was the first and blindly so, in fact he would appear to a full scientist just as Tim Curry's character is to him here. Then there is the business of spinning abstractions, models, theories then insight and understanding. There is the business of noting what is there, but that is the secretarial work of science. Ordinary audiences think of science as a single notion. And part of the reason is the nature of the man himself. The two have to merge in a way that when we see and understand him, we find ourselves incidentally in the clouds of the thing he represents. The first is that if the character is to bring us to the topic, he has to be fully entangled. So what makes more sense to us, who wish to understand it, than a story about a man who dedicated his life to understanding it? Well, there are two problems, long before you get to the skill of the thing.
One of the big things that entices and scars us is sex, and particularly its incomprehensible but overwhelming nature. I had a school teacher that (twice!) showed us "Johnny Tremain" as our main lesson on the Revolutionary War. Sometimes the connection is daft as we equate certain people as surrogates for trends.
And it has to be a particular way so that the engagement with the humans on the screen leads us somehow to those sweeps. So the dramatist has to invent or find situations that have humans, human behavior and these grandsweeps entangled in some way. But the tools we have to display these things are humans, usually. Things that people love or make them suffer. You want to deal with big issues, great disembodied, cosmic sweeps of things.
0 kommentar(er)
