That said, I love that Spielberg (and the whole jury) has repeatedly emphasized "love story". Not "lesbian love story" but "love story". And that is quite a compliment by him.
It's interesting to note that Spielberg took a lot of heat for the lesbian love/sex scene in The Color Purple - very mild by today's standards, but still shocking to mainstream viewers in the mid 80s. Some felt that was one of the reasons TCP didn't win any Oscars, after being nominated across the board.
So a lengthy discussion in NYTimes about what constitutes a good sex scene brought on by the controversy related to Blue is the Warmest Color and Manohla Dargis' subsequent review. Armond White also chimes in
LOL, only two out of the six people discussing this have seen the film, and only one of them managed to place the scenes (Jordan Mintzer, when he says "Yet the beauty and verisimilitude of “Blue’s” sex scenes would be worthless without their meaning within the greater context of the story". What he says next is reaching, by the way).
People have to understand that these are not love scenes, but lust scenes. The two are lovers, but they are not in love yet, not the kind of love a relationship, given time, grows into.
I'm going to see La Vie d'Adele in two weeks! Can't wait to see what all the talk is about!
From what I've read they have already cut out some graphic shots. I hope it's not true. We will see.
1. The film removes the worst aspects of the book*. The film feels real.
2. What stays with the viewers is not the sex scenes but .
3. How Adele being closeted to some people in her life is an issue but it is handled as a subtle instead of heavyhanded manner.
As far as the sex scenes, no one seems to have a problem with them. It is seen as critical to the story and well done. Which is what I expected considering Kechiche.
Thought this was pretty dead on (well I certainly don't revere Dargis** but the rest).
http://www.sbs.com.au/films/movie/15...warmest-colourAh, but what was that sensibility? Much of the criticism centred upon the proposition that, as a heterosexual male, Kechiche had no ‘right’ to tell this particular story—and furthermore, that his treatment was inevitably deformed by his own prurient interests. “The film,” said the New York Times’ Manohla Dargis (a critic I revere, and a friend), “feels more about Mr. Kechiche’s desires than anything else.”
Really? Apart from the obvious qualification—to see the film as only being ‘about’ sexuality, is to overlook both its perceptive analysis of class, and its forensic dissection of relationship-dynamics—I’d point out that there are, and should be, no rules governing what one can and cannot write about. Anyone can tell any story they please: the question, ultimately, is how well, or not, they do it. It’s an aesthetic judgment, not a moral truth. And to suggest otherwise is to swallow the kind of bullshit exclusionism that (to take one local example) saw David Marr once claim that only homosexual men could really understand the novels of Patrick White.
I’m extremely intolerant of this kind of FUBU group-think—which not only tries to limit the work under scrutiny to some pious notion of the Ideal Reader, but also confines said works to a kind of rarefied ghetto, a smug little island of Us, solely writing for and talking to others like Us. Art—real art—is bigger than that, by definition.
*The book apparently features several tropes that do not exist in the movie -
**That said I have not lost complete respect for her as I have with Taubin after her "ridiculously, flawlessly beautiful" comment.
Last edited by ldw; 06-18-2013 at 12:45 AM.
for example has gotten more focus than the sex scenes. There are several pages upon pages discussing the last 30 minutes or so. There are only few posts talking about the sex which is judged as realistic and passionate (and critical) but not the parts which will overwhelm the viewer. In fact, when sex is brought up, the general reactions by these lesbian posters are close to Aurelius and Erik Dean. They say that there is so much more than just sex with an almost exasperated tone.
*One of the interesting things is they see Adele as a realistic portrayal of a typical semi-closeted lesbian. Heavy focus that she is not out at work which is red flag territory (some would say run the other way territory). That said there seems to be far more empathy for Adele from the posters and seems to be things the lesbian posters are discussing that I haven't seen focused on in reviews.
Last edited by ldw; 06-18-2013 at 04:23 PM.
, and maybe even straight, is actually one of the things that made her relationship and desire for Emma all the more fascinating for me.
I imagine a big reason why this film is so universally loved is because it is ambiguous and anything but dogmatic in its exploration of the two girls' sexuality, but is so packed full of substance, and there is so much that make this a relatable and emotional experience for people of any demographic. Oh, Lord, I'm getting even more emotional about this film!
I love that last post, especially the spoilered part. Excellent analysis. The ambiguity is indeed the film's strong suit, or perhaps it's more the 'who cares that they are two women' attitude. I strongly believe that Adèle is deeply in love with Emma, even after , but the film doesn't emphasize the 'OMG Lesbians!' aspect when they are together at all. That is why the controversy over the sex scenes is so stupid. These are two people in love, and they happen to be two women. And they have sex. Big deal. Is Adèle a lesbian? Is she bisexual? Does it really matter for their relationship? I don't think it does. The handling of the relationship would have been just as strong if they were a heterosexual couple, because that doesn't make a difference when it comes to how people interact in a relationship. The only thing exclusively 'lesbian' is the social stigma's put upon them by some of the other characters (exclusively 'same sex relationship' is better, probably). Not the sex, that's basically two people lusting for each other, nothing sexual orientation specific about that.