Kinsey’s sexual philosophy — if not practice — is a virtual mirror of my own. I do not believe there is any such thing as sexual deviance. I believe all desires are normal, and all actions acceptable as long as everyone involved is consenting. And I believe knowledge about the self and respect for the other is enormously important. For this reason, Kinsey’s work is, in my opinion, invaluable.

Society wasn’t ready for his work then, and I don’t think it’s ready for Bill Condon’s interpretation of his life now, either. It’s very upsetting how conservative and judgmental American society, at least, remains on these issues. People are condemned for feelings and needs they cannot control — and why should they, if they could? The idea that there is such a thing as ‘normal’ sexual behavior, or moral and immoral acts, is obscene to me. I imagine many people will walk out of this film thirty minutes in consumed by righteous anger. How much really has changed, from Kinsey to Condon?

What I like most about Kinsey is his unqualified belief in the diversity of human sexuality. That there is a continuum between heterosexual and homosexual, asexual and hypersexual, where the extremes are natural but the middle is the norm. The variety of human experience is infinite when you study people individually. I respect him enormously for refusing to take the position that some sex, or a certain kind of sex, is necessary for all people. At this point in my life, at least, I am very happy without sexual relationships; I know many people who are happy without sexual stimulation of any kind. We are all ‘normal.’

Condon’s talent as a writer and director is bringing out the humanity in real-life people as well as his actors. His films are extraordinarily personal and character-driven; his treatment of real lives is sensitive and moving. The effectiveness of his work does not rest on innovative direction but rather conventional close-ups and natural dialogue that allow the audience to understand and identify with very human characters.

The entire cast is quite good, but Liam Neeson delivers a tour-de-force performance, capturing the spirit of a strong-willed, increasingly obsessive man empowered by the real connections he makes with people all over the country. It is without a doubt the best work I’ve seen Neeson do, and he is my pick for Best Lead Actor in 2004 so far. Lynn Redgrave’s cameo is also very powerful and heartfelt; the entire film filled me with emotion, but it was her appearance that finally allowed me to weep.

I consider this not only a very well-made film, but one of immense importance. Acceptance and knowledge of all facets of human life are so essential. Kinsey’s work may still be ahead of its time, but I’m terrified to think what society would be without it.

There is no end to the love and respect I feel for Miranda Richardson. I think she is without question among the three or four finest actors working today. But why, why would she sign on to this film? Oh man, she had cred, she had class; she turned down Fatal Attraction because it was beneath her; she said she picked roles based on the challenge they posed her creatively. Here she doesn’t even have a large enough role to steal the show; it’s just demeaning.

And if I have to watch one more film in which she is the only actor who bothers to speak in a proper accent (cf. The Phantom of the Opera), I shall… well, complain about it a whole lot more here. Oh, even hers sounds vaguely German from time to time, but the rest of the Royal Family is decidedly and lazily British, and just, uggh, one or the other, all or nothing — this is quickly becoming a big pet peeve of mine.

Oh, I didn’t expect much from this movie, of course not. I realize I’ve long since past the point of being able to enjoy a mindless flick on its own terms. But this one really stands out among a tired, cliche genre…

I’m sure I’m going to tire of reliving this movie before I exhaust every possible way to mock it, but oh, just a few more:

All right, the Danish prince is so bored and desperate to see “girls gone wild” scenes live that he flies to America and enrolls at the University of Wisconsin. Okay. Let’s think for a moment which of the two cultures might be more sexually repressive. Wisconsin. Denmark. Wisconsin. Denmark. Paralyzing fear of a woman’s bare breast. Legal prostitution. Perhaps you’d have done better to stay at home, buddy.

Ugh, I lived in the Netherlands for five months, in an apartment with a Dane. I’m not asking a bubblegum Cinderella story to serve a dual function as a documentary on Danish culture, but dear lord, their monarchy doesn’t have that kind of power in government, people do not lack personal freedom… Fine, it’s a fantasy, but this is now all half the film’s audience know about Denmark. Nice.

The king is terminally ill with some unspoken malady, to the point where he must give up the crown, but he walks around, dances, conducts business &c like a spring chicken for the duration of the film. Hmm, and not really in defense of my argument, but learned in the course of writing this paragraph — James Fox completely does not look like he was born in 1939. Whatever.

And oh, oh, you know that horribly over-used device in which a couple first touches and gets flirty while one teaches the other how to properly wield a golf club or similar? Yeah, that’s in here, only with a meat slicer.

I can’t go on. Afraid I have exhausted all of Miranda’s agreeable AND accessible films. All that awaits me now is Snow White and The Evening Star. If anyone wanted proof of my deep capacity to love, they would need look no further.

If forced to take a position I’m sure I’m not a purist, but certainly the inaccuracies about Kate’s life bothered me to some extent. No, she and Hughes weren’t together for six or seven years, as the film suggests. No, she didn’t end their relationship over Spencer Tracy. And no, I don’t believe she was ever the glamorous, preening, press-obsessed person the film makes her out to be.

And as for Cate’s Kate, because if I’m honest, that’s the main appeal the film had for me. Blanchett essentially does a good impression of Hepburn, but fails to capture her spirit. She seems always to be trying too hard, putting in far too many mannerisms and reciting far too many stock phrases (Logan’s fault, actually) for the performance to feel natural. Still, it is an exceptional performance, and deserves the Oscar nomination she will probably receive. I admire her performance in the same way I do Nicole Kidman’s in The Hours: neither really portrayed the real woman, but both did a hell of a job playing a part.

But on some level you have to get over the fact that this isn’t exactly Katharine Hepburn, and this isn’t exactly Howard Hughes’ life, because really, how could it be? and meet the movie on its own terms. Logan’s script is just average, full of snappy lines ready to be plugged in to trailers and advertisements. But Scorsese and DiCaprio craft out of it an intense and often uncomfortable character study of an obsessive man with the money and power to shape the world according to his own narrow vision.

Right now, it edges out Sideways for my favorite film of 2004 with a shot at a Best Picture nomination. If the Oscar goes to Scorsese as an apologetic lifetime-achievement honor, I think it’s still well-deserved. DiCaprio, by no means a personal favorite, turns in probably the finest performance of his career thus far. It’s a beautiful film and I was strongly affected by it, even if it is only a version of the truth.