Kinsey

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-01-09 05:51pm

Well, I saw it last night, and i have to say it was probably the best non-scifi movie I have ever seen. It was well filmed, acting and dialogue were great and it didnt whitwash the actual susbstance of dr. Kinsey's research.

ANd it includes full frontal nudity, and probably should have actually had an Nc-17 rating

Comments, question, flames?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-01-09 06:03pm

Puff peice or what?

Marksist · Post by **Marksist** » 2005-01-09 06:20pm

Comments, question, flames?

I thought it was pretty good, saw it a couple weeks ago. Didn't think it was on the greatness level you have it at, but, I would put it in my top 15 or so films of the year 2004.

probably should have actually had an Nc-17 rating

That's what I thought when I saw it, I leaned over to my GF when he showed the slides of the genitalia to his class and said; "shouldn't this be NC-17?"

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2005-01-09 06:53pm

Leftist, Hollywood Elitist, Homosexual Agenda Promoting, Feminism inducing propaganda that has no place in a Godly, Christian country.

In other words, I really need to see it.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-01-09 08:34pm

Stormbringer wrote:Puff peice or what?

Puff?

Post by **RogueIce** » 2005-01-09 09:31pm

What kind of nudity are we talking here?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-01-09 09:44pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:Puff peice or what?
Puff?

What I'm asking is does it actually cover him and his work reasonably accurately or does it clean up the less pleasant aspects of his life?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-01-09 10:14pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:Puff peice or what?
Puff?
What I'm asking is does it actually cover him and his work reasonably accurately or does it clean up the less pleasant aspects of his life?

It covers him very well in my honest opinion.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2005-01-10 05:46am

RogueIce wrote:What kind of nudity are we talking here?

The human one.

Bertie Wooster · Post by **Bertie Wooster** » 2005-01-10 09:33am

RogueIce wrote:What kind of nudity are we talking here?

First, there's b&w medical slides showing close-ups of male and female genitalia, b&w films showing sexual intercourse and one of scene showing Peter Saarsgaard naked, and soon shows him and Liam Neeson going at it.

I really enjoyed the movie, not because the story was that particularly interesting and Kinsey's character really bothered me for some reason, but it had an excellent historical quality and very clearly illustratrated the problems with American society in the 1950s.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-01-10 04:34pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote: Puff?
What I'm asking is does it actually cover him and his work reasonably accurately or does it clean up the less pleasant aspects of his life?
It covers him very well in my honest opinion.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say it probably way a whitewash then.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-01-10 04:39pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Stormbringer wrote: What I'm asking is does it actually cover him and his work reasonably accurately or does it clean up the less pleasant aspects of his life?
It covers him very well in my honest opinion.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say it probably way a whitewash then.

You will never know unless you see it

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-01-10 05:10pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:You will never know unless you see it

I have no real interest in seeing it, accurate or not, and even less so if it is a whitewash. Neither version is worth the ten or more bucks to go to see it.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2005-01-10 08:34pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Well, I saw it last night, and i have to say it was probably the best non-scifi movie I have ever seen. It was well filmed, acting and dialogue were great and it didnt whitwash the actual susbstance of dr. Kinsey's research.

ANd it includes full frontal nudity, and probably should have actually had an Nc-17 rating

Comments, question, flames?

I liked it, and though my girlfriend spotted a few inaccuracies she enjoyed it too (she's in nuero-science, and hence knows a lot about psychology).

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2005-01-10 08:35pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:Puff peice or what?
Puff?
What I'm asking is does it actually cover him and his work reasonably accurately or does it clean up the less pleasant aspects of his life?

It does clean up a lot, and attributes a few things to him that other people did, but on the whole it was a lot better than we should ever expect Hollywood to do.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-01-10 08:50pm

Symmetry wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote: Puff?
What I'm asking is does it actually cover him and his work reasonably accurately or does it clean up the less pleasant aspects of his life?
It does clean up a lot, and attributes a few things to him that other people did, but on the whole it was a lot better than we should ever expect Hollywood to do.

See, I never studied his life, only his research. But you really do need to put tings in perspoective when dealing with a hollywood film. They didnt take as much artistic liscence as they usually do, and any whitwashing was, in all likelyhood, in order to keep an R rating, which they probably only barely did by the skin of their teeth

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-01-10 09:05pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:Puff peice or what?
Puff?
What I'm asking is does it actually cover him and his work reasonably accurately or does it clean up the less pleasant aspects of his life?

Ah yes, this would be the "it's wrong to do a film about a man's groumdbreaking professional accomplishments if there is personal sexual deviance you can luridly focus on instead" mentality. Very common among knee-jerk right-wingers.

I suppose if you saw a documentary about Albert Einstein, you would sit there with arms crossed during all the talk about relativity and ask why they aren't paying more attention to his rumoured personal hygiene issues

By all means, if a man did something monstrous that overshadows what he accomplished, that should not be covered up (key example: Christopher Columbus). I suppose one must ask why people would think Kinsey falls into such a category.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-01-11 09:09pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey

Kinsey has been accused of partaking in unusual sexual practices. In James H. Jones's biography Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life, Kinsey is said to have been a bisexual masochist. He reportedly seduced his graduate students and his staff, inserted a toothbrush into his urethra, tied rope around his testicles and pulled, and once gave himself an unanesthetized circumcision. He is also reported to have encouraged group sex among his staff and to have coerced his wife, his staff, and his staff's wives into making pornographic films in the family attic. Jones states that Kinsey's wife had sex with other men, but that the couple remained married for 35 years, in a relationship that remained sexual until Kinsey became ill near the end of his life. None of these accounts of Kinsey's own sex life are supported by official statements from the Kinsey Institute. While a few of them have been confirmed by other biographers, such as Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy, others are of doubtful veracity.

Not taking either side, just posting what I found.

In any case, the filmmaker, Bill Condon, certainly did not whitewash his subject in his other biographical movie, Gods and Monsters.

J · Post by J » 2005-01-12 12:16am

Joe wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey

Kinsey has been accused of partaking in unusual sexual practices. In James H. Jones's biography Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life, Kinsey is said to have been a bisexual masochist. He reportedly seduced his graduate students and his staff, inserted a toothbrush into his urethra, tied rope around his testicles and pulled, and once gave himself an unanesthetized circumcision.

How? How the hell did he fit a toothbrush up there? A toothbrush??!!

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-01-12 12:28am

Darth Wong wrote:Ah yes, this would be the "it's wrong to do a film about a man's groumdbreaking professional accomplishments if there is personal sexual deviance you can luridly focus on instead" mentality. Very common among knee-jerk right-wingers.

Actually, I was talking about how his personal proclivities (homo- and bi-sexuality and adultry) affected his research. He broke ground but he also broke a fair amount of professional ethics. If it's supposed to be about his work I'd rather see what it really was, not some white washed version to make him some saint.

It's like a Beautiful Mind making Russel Crowe character into a brilliant but tortured scientist with a wife he loved when in fact he was an unmitigated asshole accussed of beating her. And lets not even begin to cover the fact that the movie gives him sole credit for a good deal of other people's work.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-01-12 12:31am

They do cover thehomo and bisexuality(even shoing it) and adultury(showing it) they also show how be violated professional ethics

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-01-12 12:40am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:They do cover thehomo and bisexuality(even shoing it) and adultury(showing it) they also show how be violated professional ethics

Oh really? That must be why it's not out anywhere. I must say, I think I underestimated this movie. I might have to give it a watch somehow.

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2005-01-12 01:29am

Stormbringer wrote:Oh really? That must be why it's not out anywhere.

What are you talking about? It's still showing here, and it's nearly two months since it's been released.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-01-12 01:35am

Robert Treder wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:Oh really? That must be why it's not out anywhere.
What are you talking about? It's still showing here, and it's nearly two months since it's been released.

I haven't seen it in a lot of theaters around here; only in art house places. Of course it spent a lot of that time in limited release so that might be why.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-01-12 03:59pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Robert Treder wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:Oh really? That must be why it's not out anywhere.
What are you talking about? It's still showing here, and it's nearly two months since it's been released.
I haven't seen it in a lot of theaters around here; only in art house places. Of course it spent a lot of that time in limited release so that might be why.

Well, it only shows at like 10:30 at night here

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Kinsey

Kinsey

Re: Kinsey