Alfred Kinsey was a paradox. He was a fearless, groundbreaking researcher who shone a floodlight on the sexual practices of ordinary Americans for the first time in the nation's history, liberating many, horrifying some, and disgusting others. At the same time, he was completely blind to the context of his work: the emotions of sex and the societal value of sexual constraints. This biopic captures Kinsey's contradictions and touches on the maelstrom he and his work created.
It's clear that Kinsey's had three motivations to investigate American's sexual mechanics: a desire to serve mankind by educating it, an obsession with classifying things (he'd already classified a *million* gall wasp specimens before pursing his sex surveys), and a rebellion against a mean and priggish father. The movie communicates Kinsey's desire to lift up people by enlightening them. His disgust with the tripe written about sex within marriage, his non-judgmental interview methods that he used and drilled into his research assistants, and the sheer number of personal sex histories he recorded attest to his good intent as well as his scientific rigor.
But by focusing on the clinical aspects of sexuality, he totally ignored the impact of sexuality. He saw nothing amiss about having his male research assistants have sex with some of the female subjects in order to make accurate observations regarding female arousal. He encouraged polyamory among the families of his research staff while expecting that they stay emotionally detached. He couldn't understand why his wife cried when he disclosed to her his sexual experiments with naïve candor. And he was completely mystified by the size and intensity of the public criticism that accompanied his work. Only after some of the emotional damage he fostered in his own circle hit home did he begin to understand that limits on sexuality might not be such a bad thing.
Liam Neeson does a masterful job portraying Kinsey as a good, complicated, conflicted, and flawed man on a mission. Laura Linney, though limited in her screen time as Kinsey's wife, creates a three-dimensional character. (The scene where she turns the tables on her husband polyamorous philosophy is a subtle delight.)
Where the movie stumbled was in just barely touching on the lives of the people Kinsey influenced, for better or worse. I would have liked to have seen more about the lives of his researchers' families, and seen more scenes of Kinsey himself dealing with the public and their reactions to the book, rather than just a few exchanges with the press corps while running to funding meeting. This produced a clinical feel about the entire film that mirrored Kinsey's own character. As a result, I admired Kinsey's intellect and grit, and I appreciated the service he did for America with his work in a detached sort of way. I never felt any of the menace that the real Kinsey must have as conservatives attacked his work and its results as morally repugnant. More importantly, I never felt more than twinges of sympathy for Kinsey when the darker side of his work and attitudes came home to roost.
Nevertheless, the movie packs a solid intellectual and political punch, arriving in 2004. As late as twenty years ago, the majority attitude towards sexuality was at least tolerant, and in some cases, expansive. Now, America is swinging back to its historically prudish standards of sexuality, as protests around the time of the film's release attest. (Do a Google search on "Kinsey film protest").
It's clear that Kinsey's had three motivations to investigate American's sexual mechanics: a desire to serve mankind by educating it, an obsession with classifying things (he'd already classified a *million* gall wasp specimens before pursing his sex surveys), and a rebellion against a mean and priggish father. The movie communicates Kinsey's desire to lift up people by enlightening them. His disgust with the tripe written about sex within marriage, his non-judgmental interview methods that he used and drilled into his research assistants, and the sheer number of personal sex histories he recorded attest to his good intent as well as his scientific rigor.
But by focusing on the clinical aspects of sexuality, he totally ignored the impact of sexuality. He saw nothing amiss about having his male research assistants have sex with some of the female subjects in order to make accurate observations regarding female arousal. He encouraged polyamory among the families of his research staff while expecting that they stay emotionally detached. He couldn't understand why his wife cried when he disclosed to her his sexual experiments with naïve candor. And he was completely mystified by the size and intensity of the public criticism that accompanied his work. Only after some of the emotional damage he fostered in his own circle hit home did he begin to understand that limits on sexuality might not be such a bad thing.
Liam Neeson does a masterful job portraying Kinsey as a good, complicated, conflicted, and flawed man on a mission. Laura Linney, though limited in her screen time as Kinsey's wife, creates a three-dimensional character. (The scene where she turns the tables on her husband polyamorous philosophy is a subtle delight.)
Where the movie stumbled was in just barely touching on the lives of the people Kinsey influenced, for better or worse. I would have liked to have seen more about the lives of his researchers' families, and seen more scenes of Kinsey himself dealing with the public and their reactions to the book, rather than just a few exchanges with the press corps while running to funding meeting. This produced a clinical feel about the entire film that mirrored Kinsey's own character. As a result, I admired Kinsey's intellect and grit, and I appreciated the service he did for America with his work in a detached sort of way. I never felt any of the menace that the real Kinsey must have as conservatives attacked his work and its results as morally repugnant. More importantly, I never felt more than twinges of sympathy for Kinsey when the darker side of his work and attitudes came home to roost.
Nevertheless, the movie packs a solid intellectual and political punch, arriving in 2004. As late as twenty years ago, the majority attitude towards sexuality was at least tolerant, and in some cases, expansive. Now, America is swinging back to its historically prudish standards of sexuality, as protests around the time of the film's release attest. (Do a Google search on "Kinsey film protest").