its strange that a film is defined by its tittilation - the director has created a film for men with the emphasis on sex to meke money. He made it 3 hours long so that he could disguise his real intentions by calling it an Art film, "commercial" films are never that long unless the director is trying to deflect the real reason for the sex going through the film. The actresses have said they felt humiliated, debased and Seydoux sais she felt like a prostitute - is that the normal response to a successful film from its lead actors. My poiint is that the film is pointless as the actresses performed sex for a male audience withy commercial undertones - the nonsense interviews in Cannes have been shown up to be the farce they were. The actresses hated making the film and obviously feel hurt and anger at the director, that is why they have condemned him after Cannes and their trophies. The critics are saying that it is a beautifull film and the sex scenes didnt need to be performed by lesbians. I wonder if they would feel the same way if it was a film with straight men having to have intercourse and pretend to be gay. I suspect not - makes my point that this is a film for men to titillate and make money in the guise of Art.
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Login to choose your subscriptions!
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation