KAMA SUTRA
A film review by Steve Rhodes
Copyright 1997 Steve Rhodes
RATING (0 TO ****): *
Let's be honest. There are some movies that don't need to be made. With movies able to show almost any sexual behavior known, is there any longer any reason for one of those pseudo-instructional films on sex? In the 1960s that was a popular way to get sex and nudity past the censors, but today our movies are quite explicit, too explicit some will undoubtedly argue.
Respected director Mira Nair (SALAAM BOMBAY! and MISSISSIPPI MASALA) takes us back to sixteenth century India for a fictionalized tale using the "Kama Sutra of Vatsayana" as the guidebook. In one of the most pedantic shows in some time, characters read from the instructions on sex and love with complete seriousness and devotion, but it is dry as reading the phone book. Okay, maybe as lively as the dictionary.
Looking something like an aerobics class, the teachers in KAMA SUTRA read to groups of women students the precise way to caress the toes. (There is precious little actual sex or nudity in the movie although there is some. Just like in the old risque pictures, more is promised than delivered. The script titillates while insulting the audience's intelligence.)
Because the last Indian film I saw, JAYA GANGA, was such an unexpected delight, I naively went to KAMA SUTRA with positive expectations. Within 15 minutes of arrival, however, I was already checking my watch.
KAMA SUTRA's rich sets by Mark Friedberg, gorgeous cinematography by Declan Quinn, and elegant red and gold costumes by Eduardo Castro are the only reasons to see the picture. But, as people rarely buy Playboy to read the articles, the only possible reason people would stay to see all of KAMA SUTRA is to wait for another brief glimpse of flesh. (Well, there are those of us who are critics who feel compelled to stay, but the temptation to leave is almost irresistible with this class, I mean picture.)
To the extent that this pointless story has a plot it can be summarized thus. The King (Naveen Andrews) marries a woman named Tara (Sarita Choudhury). Having a wandering eye, he first has an affair with Maya (Indira Varma), who is in Tara's entourage. Maya, in turn, falls for the stone mason Jai (Ramon Tikaram). You can guess whom Jai will end up sculpting and what trouble this will cause.
The actresses are all lovely lasses who look like their last job was a photo shoot for Vogue. The men are hunks who look like they have been posing for the covers of those romance novels known as bodice-rippers. No genuine acting is in evidence.
The dialog by Helena Kriel and Mira Nair sounds as if it could have been written on a lark by a bunch of freshmen taking their first college English class. ("One day you are your father's property," says the king to his new queen. "One day you are your husband's property. It must be difficult.")
As I sat trying to endure the film, I tried to pass the time by figuring out which film KAMA SUTRA most reminded me of. The first that came to mind was I AM CURIOUS (YELLOW) from 1967. Finally, I decided KAMA SUTRA was closest to EVITA. Both KAMA SUTRA and EVITA are lovely for the eyes to behold but have few other redeeming qualities.
If you want an erotic film, KAMA SUTRA isn't it. If you are searching for a meaningful experience at the cinema, KAMA SUTRA will not supply it. If you want a movie with depth, this isn't it. If you want romance, try THE ENGLISH PATIENT. The only possible motivation for paying your hard earned cash to see this picture is if you like being teased and hearing someone reading passages from obscure and didactic manuals on sexuality.
"Some things don't make sense immediately," cautions the Kama Sutra teacher in the film to her eager female pupils. And then some movies never do. Whatever your reason for going to this film, I suspect you will leave disappointed and perhaps angry that this filmmaker has wasted your time with such drivel.
KAMA SUTRA runs an incredibly long 2:00. It is in English. It is rated R for full frontal nudity, sex, drug usage, and gratuitous violence. I see no reason for your teenagers to see this movie, but if they do, they should be mature. I recommend you avoid this meaningless film. I give it a single * only for the technical aspects of the production.
**** = A must see film. *** = Excellent show. Look for it. ** = Average movie. Kind of enjoyable. * = Poor show. Don't waste your money. 0 = Totally and painfully unbearable picture.
REVIEW WRITTEN ON: February 26, 1997
Opinions expressed are mine and not meant to reflect my employer's.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews