Come on! This discussion should never have devolved into a set of arguments for or against "artistic" and "Nonlinear" filmmaking. The film is an acceptable example of neither. I saw it on DVD last night and found it unbelievably sophomoric and self-indulgent. The cinematography was cloyingly pretty and should appeal only to rabid MTV fans and greeting card photographers. The whole Adam and Eve subplot wore nothing but a trite old hat. The fact that Figgis cast that singularly vain prat Julian Sands as his past selves and put pout-on-a -stick Saffron Burrows under him should be a dead giveaway -- equivalent to putting a warning sticker on the movie: Warning: This film was made on a low budget by an impotent pre adolescent old fart to appeal to undersexed post adolescent artsy fartsies (who should know better.) Figgis's painful commentary on the DVD's extra track is a lot of jibbering on as the auteur searches vainly for something to say and is reduced to snippets of the "an actor got sick so we used my cousin bob in this scene" variety. The film works on only one level: as a graveyard for every dumb 19 year-old would-be artsy's ideas, images, politics, sexual fantasies and cheesy classical record collections.
Review of The Loss of Sexual Innocence
