Posted on 12/02/2004 11:39:14 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
“Never make judgments.” That’s what scientist Alfred Kinsey tells his research assistant very early in the new film about his life. Kinsey, as you know, was all about nonjudgmentalism. Throughout his career researching the sexual habits of Americans, his goal was to free society from the constraints of what the movie calls “morality disguised as fact.” And like its subject, the film attempts to be nonjudgmental—or, at least, that’s the ploy.
Three scenes exemplify the supposed nonjudgmentalism. In the first, Kinsey tells his wife, nicknamed “Mac,” that he’s had sex with one of his male researchers. Though she’s devastated, he explains that it’s only “social restraints” that prevent people from acting on their attractions. She retorts that maybe social restraints are necessary to keep people from getting hurt. It’s a moment of rare honesty and insight—which doesn’t last long. The next thing we know, Kinsey is giving the same researcher permission to have sex with Mac, and this, apparently, makes everything okay.
In the second scene, Kinsey and a colleague interview a man, Kenneth Braun, who has had sex with an astonishing number of partners of various genders, ages, and species. When he starts to discuss his pedophilic experiences, Kinsey’s fellow researcher storms out. Braun says that he thought Kinsey’s researchers would be impartial, to which Kinsey enigmatically replies, “Sometimes it’s difficult.” But he adds that “no one should ever be hurt” by sex, leading Braun to call him a “square.”
In the third scene, Kinsey is so distraught over a loss of research funding that he ends up in the bathroom mutilating himself. When Mac discovers him, he shows her letters from people who have written to beg him for help and laments that now he can’t help them. For such a hard-boiled movie, the scene is surprisingly maudlin. And its message is clear: Kinsey is a martyr to the cause of truth and compassion.
Now the facts: Kinsey, as his biographers report, had been mutilating himself for years as a result of a sexual appetite so voracious and uncontrollable that it led him into ever more bizarre practices.
And the real Kinsey didn’t seem to care who got hurt by his own activities or those of others. The prototype for Braun was a pedophile named Rex King, one of several pedophiles whose “research” Kinsey used. Kinsey’s defenders rationalize that just because Kinsey used such data, it does not mean he condoned the activity. None of them that I know of have ever explained why Kinsey wrote to King, “I congratulate you on the research spirit which has led you to collect data over these many years.”
From this repulsive data was born the pervasive myth that children are sexual beings from infancy. (It’s worth noting, as well, that Kinsey’s research methods were flawed in many other ways, another fact that his supporters gloss over as much as possible.)
This is the man that Hollywood has chosen to honor? And make no mistake, the film honors Kinsey. Now, I doubt many of you will be seeing the film—good. But your neighbors and friends are seeing it and are discussing it. And you need to help set them straight. Kinsey does not deserve to be anyone’s hero.
Dead but his work is still enshrined at Indiana University and subsidized by taxpayers.
I could be wrong, but I thought that Leni Riefenstahl actually did "good" work prior to 1933. Again I could be wrong, but I recall reading, seeing on TV(?) something to that effect.
In any case, Michael Moore couldn't hold her purse. Regardless of her product during Adolph's reign, she was at least talented and a 'true artist'.
Wait I just found this, I was right; Leni Riefenstahl . She was an artist long before her involvement with the Nazis.
Oh' you can bet your last dollar on that. Hollyweird will have to find some nomination for it.
How about "Most absurd fictional nonfiction movie"
No, wait F- 9/11 would win that hands down
Leni remained unwilling to apologize for her past. She just claimed that she was misunderstood and distant during those years.
Fritz Lang could have had her job. He fled to America instead. Everyone has choices.
Leni Riefenstahl was honored by the Academy at the Oscars when they showed her picture among those who had died in the previous year.
Satan's Children at "Play"
Kinsey was a Pedophile.
The pedophiles helped the Gays get power, now the Gays will help the Pedophiles.
Kinsey Crimes & Consequences, by Judith A. Reisman
Refenstahl is extremely influential on the way movies look. You can't avoid her. To not consider her an important film artist is to put one's head in the sand. Same with Eisenstein.
"Is this actor, Liam, very left? Why would he do this part? Who in their right mind would do this part?"
Liam is married to one of Vanessa Redgrave's daughters. Vanessa has been a screaming lib all her adult life:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1289656/posts
Should actors only play virtuous characters? There have been films about Hitler and Stalin too.
Although I've known who Kensey was for decades, I had never known about some of the information in this Colsen commentary. When seeing some of the trailers for this film, I surmised that information the likes of what Colsen revealed here was probably involved. I'm glad to see that confirmed.
The moral relativist overtones of this movie are unmistakable. IMO, this movie is going to advance a lot more than male/female relations. I doubt any of us thinks this had any impact on Hollywierd's decision to herald the life of Kensey. Nah, not a chance...
Several years ago, around the time of Bill Clinton's impeachment, Liam Neeson told an interviewer that he regarded Clinton as a hero. Portraying Kinsey as a great man isn't much of a stretch for a guy like that.
"According to a recent John Leo column, this "research" includes the detailed notes of a pedophile who sexualy manipulated a child for 24 hours."
Many children were molested, referred to by some as "The Children of Table 34":
http://www.rsvpamerica.org/TABLE34.htm
If Kinsey had only had AIDS and a male lover, Neeson would be a lock.
I think I'm the only one here who has seen the film and Kinsey is not portrayed as an angel by any means. The child molestor he interviews is portrayed exactly as such...a very loathsome character who repels Kinsey's assistant into leaving the room. Kinsey remains and interviews him through gritted teeth 'in the interest of science'.
Ping.
Mutilating yourself is a pretty over the top mental illness, and common sense tells us that a legitimate researcher into sex is not busy sharing research assistants with his wife.
I would support Kinsey collecting information on child molestors because such information could be useful to society. But one gets the strong impression that Kinsey was a pervert first and a serious researcher second. I think this movie will have the opposite effect to the one intended.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.