An erotic story about a woman, the assistant of an art gallery, who gets involved in an impersonal affair with a man. She barely knows about his life, only about the sex games they play, so... See full summary »
An erotic story about a woman, the assistant of an art gallery, who gets involved in an impersonal affair with a man. She barely knows about his life, only about the sex games they play, so the relationship begins to get complicated. Written by
Michel Rudoy <email@example.com>
Director Adrian Lyne used emotionally manipulative tactics on Kim Basinger during the shooting to elicit the performance he wanted from the actress, which Basinger later criticized harshly. For example, Lyne did not allow Mickey Rourke and Basinger to talk to each other off-set. The two were kept isolated from each other and Lyne would tell Basinger rumors about how Rourke intended to make her like or dislike him so that she would carry that attitude into the scene. Lyne would also offer Rourke performance notes, but Basinger none, in order to unnerve her. In a very unusual and expensive move along these lines, Lyne shot the film sequentially, so that Basinger's actual emotional breakdown over time would be effectively translated to the screen. See more »
When Elizabeth is sitting on the floor of the gallery arranging how to hang artwork, she is not wearing her white gloves. As she laughs at the man hanging the artwork, she has her hand to her face and she is now wearing the white glove. In the next scene she corrects the man and again, the glove is not on. She then gets up to receive her flower delivery and the gloves are back on. See more »
Every time I see you, you're buying a chicken.
Every time I see you, you're smiling at me.
See more »
Except perhaps in Paris where, until recently, it played in a cinema just off the Champs Elysee. This film has been condemned from just about every possible, so I will not try and defend it blow by blow. There is much to appreciate here, particularly when the film is looked at in the context of it being the '80's "Last Tango In Paris" - perhaps even self consciously so. The opening shot of "Nine 1/2 Weeks" echoes the famous opening of "Last Tango In Paris" and there are many parallels, but never to the point of it becoming overt.
If one accepts that form is to mirror content and apply that here it becomes clear that efforts were made to do so. The visual 'look' of both films not only mirror their content (for 'Tango': a muted color pallette, yet somehow lush, there is a layer over everything) but also their era. Both films deal with similar subject matter, in the context of the time in which they were made.
"Nine 1/2 Weeks" IS the '80's in much the way that "Last Tango..." is the '70's - the obsessions of an era are embodied in the struggle of two human bodies. Motions, touches are imbued with something beyond what is happening in the here and now. Very much in question here is the internal landscape of the characters involved - something one, as a filmmaker, would rather expose in a visual way as opposed to having characters pontificate about it (though Brando TALKS in "Last Tango..." it is very often what he doesn't say, the silence between two lines of dialogue, that SAY more) - in "Nine 1/2 Weeks" there are many visual cues/pointers as to the characters' states of mind, i.e. their apartments, the manner in which they are decorated stark, all straight lines (John) vs. cluttered and dusty (Liz). Elements like that make a film work.
The only moments of relief that Liz experiences in the film are when she is away from the city, away from John, amidst nature with the painter - in fact, one almost never sees John outside, just like Paul in "Last Tango..."
all these little cues about character should raise the questions in the
viewer's mind - what sort of person would?...
20 of 25 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?