Scenes of a Sexual Nature (2006)
35KScenes of a Sexual Nature: Directed by Ed Blum. With Holly Aird, Eileen Atkins, Hugh Bonneville, Tom Hardy. Sex and love. Some seek it, some need it, some spurn it, and some pay for it, but we’re all involved in it. Set on one afternoon on Hampstead Heath, London, this movie investigates the minutiae of seven couples. What makes us tick?
“A sunny afternoon on Hamstead Heath in London sees couples everywhere. Some of them are breaking up with arguments others are breaking up with affection. Some see ogling others as a betrayal, others see it as part of life. Strangers are thrown together in a temporary moment while others come together for the first time in many years. Love and sex play a part in all of it as the sun warms the day in the background.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eIt was the ensemble nature of the film that drew my attention to it despite the fact that it got mixed reviews. I didnu0026#39;t get round to it in the cinemas but when it came on television recently I managed to check it out. The mixed reviews I mentioned are perhaps understandable because the film itself is the same way in terms of content, quality and success. The u0026quot;plotu0026quot; doesnu0026#39;t really flow together because the only tangible connection between the couples is the location however as a device it has potential. The lack of a traditional narrative means that the film really relies heavily on the creation of characters and snapshots to paint a bigger picture of relationships and interactions that will come together thematically in the way that the specific characters do not. Here and there it does sort of do it but too often the scenes are just distracting as stand alone scenes, which is all well and good to some degree but it doesnu0026#39;t work as it needs to.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eI could forgive many of the specific scenes lacking meaning but, unlike some reviews, I do see the absence of a wider truth to be a bit of an issue and without this the individual scenes have a lot more weight put on them. Sadly few if any of them can really stand up to the pressure and mostly the film just comes across as fragmented and disjointed with the strongest scenes being amusing or mildly engaging while at worst they are so-so but just seem pointless and far too underdeveloped. It is a shame because the cast is impressive and they have the talent to do as much as the material could have asked of them and it is a shame that the material asks little of the majority. McGregor, Okonedo, Tate, Lester, Strong, McKee and Bonneville are the main people you will recognise but the rest of the cast are just as good (or rather, just as OK) although it is Rembauville-Nicolle that sticks in the mind for obvious reasons which is depressing when you think of the acting talent involved. It isnu0026#39;t their fault and I can understand why so many of them worked on the film for little money but the idea doesnu0026#39;t come through and mostly they are left to try and carry scenes with their performances but little else.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eOverall then this is a distracting film that offers intermittent pleasures and interest but mostly fails to offer much in the way of honesty and cohesion. Despite the material the cast do try hard to make it more than it is but with little time on screen and seemingly nobody pulling everyone together in the editing suite Iu0026#39;m afraid it is significantly less than the sum of its many parts.”