Bliss (1997) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski) |
We split strongly on this film. One thumb way, way ,
way down from Scoop, but a thumb up for selected target
audiences from Tuna. "Bliss" has the appearance of a docudrama, or maybe an ABC Afterschool Special for adults. It describes the relationship of a couple with a severe sexual dysfunction. The wife (Sheryl Lee) admits in a therapy session that she has never had an orgasm with her husband. This leads them down a long path toward her sexual rebirth, aided by a sex therapist named Balthazar (Terence Stamp). |
The therapist first gives the wife a good schtupping. Then he teaches the husband how to schtup. The dialogue from this sexual education is pretty much identical to Finch's study of tantric sex in American Pie 2, except in this case the screenwriter lacked the realization that these sincere discussions often leave a whiff of bullshit in the air. "This is a little thing we like to call the nurturing position" Could anyone but Terence Stamp deliver a line like that without cracking up? Maybe Harry Shearer, but Shearer would understand the underlying irony. |
|
Finally, after the couple learns how to do the deed
properly, it turns out that the wife can't stand the sight of her
husband anyway, because her newly discovered pleasure in sex brings
back a suppressed childhood memory. It reminds her of how much she
used to like sex with her father, and then reminds her the guilt she
felt when she later found out that that pleasure was evil. She can't
separate her father and her husband in her mind.
If you are about 14, or have no concept of the relationship between tenderness and sex, are in a sexually dysfunctional marriage, or are married to a non-orgasmic woman, you may find this movie somewhat educational. If you don't watch movies for education, you should avoid it. It is boring, the characterizations are lifeless and artificial, the lead actor is barely alive, and the film has no entertainment value at all. It is basically an "educational " three character stage play. In the rare instances where additional characters are introduced (the wife's parents, the husband's friend), we don't really have a good sense of who they are or why the scene took place at all. The biggest problem with the script is that all the earnest sexual training, which comprised 80% of the story, turned out to be irrelevant. Their sexual dysfunction turned out to have been generated by her childhood incest experiences, and had nothing to do with their previously "faulty" sexual technique. If the husband had taken all the tantric training before their marriage, and had known more about pleasing a woman than a combination of the Terence Stamp guru and Casanova himself, they would still have had the exact same problem until the wife confronted her repressed childhood memories. On the other hand, the filmmaker's attitude toward sex is completely mature and sensitive, which is surprising in a contemporary movie ... and probably explains why the film had no commercial audience, and virtually no audience at all. Sincerity has its places. I'm not convinced that a movie screen is among them, unless there is no consideration for making a profit or reaching a mass audience. If you read about all the sex scenes and go to this film expecting titillation, you will have about the same feeling as if you go to a "party" expecting a wild time and are immediately beset by people asking you to accept Jesus as your personal savior. |
|||||
|
The actual sexual advice dispensed herein may or may
not be useful to you, but at worst it is harmless, although it often
smacks of scientific irrelevance and new-age whiffiness.
I did learn one important thing. You must masturbate several times a day. If you don't learn to make love to yourself, how can you expect to make love to someone else? Based upon this lesson, I am unable to complete this article. |
||||
|
|||||
|
Return to the Movie House home page