Body
of Evidence was a rather notorious event in the history of
90`s-cinema, as well as in Madonna`s career. She starred as
an accused sex killer, but her most notable moments were when
she starred in frequently kinky sex scenes, all of which were
enough to make the critics and the audience jeer at her foolishness
and stay away in droves. The film was only one in a series
of controversial moves by the star, which included her Sex,
a book of erotic photos, and her Erotica album. Her justification
for all of these works was to make people open their eyes
and minds to sexuality, and to realize that it is okay to
express such forbidden desires. While I can`t speak for the
book and the album, I can say that the irony involving Body
of Evidence is that it`s ultimate message justifies the prejudices
which Madonna claims to attack.
Madonna`s
character is accused of killing her older, wealthy lover with
an unusual weapon - her unbridled sexuality. The man suffered
a heart attack due to the excitement (insert uncontrollable
laughter here). It is up to lawyer William Defoe to defend
her and her ideas about sexuality, which include sadomasochistic
pleasures such as handcuffs and nipple clamps. He, however,
gets a bit distracted, and decides to moonlight as her lover
as well as her defender. During the trial, all sorts of apparently
shocking bits occur, such as the claim by the old man`s secretary
that Madonna is a drug fiend, the claim by the old man`s doctor
that Madonna became interested in the old guy due to the money,
and the claim that she has tried to kill other old wealthy
men in exactly the same way.
As
with most sex thrillers, this movie has a patently offensive
storyline. The only reason this story can exist is because
of the prejudices the creators and perhaps the audience has
against sexually aggressive women. The prosecuting attorney`s
opening remarks emphasize the body as a weapon, and the overall
belief that Madonna`s character is not normal. If the genders
were reversed, I know that there would be no talk of the body
as weapon. During the affair, we are supposed to be both fearful
and excited at Madonna`s sex games, because of the possibility
that this is murderous behavior. While Madonna makes many
bombastic (yet potentially insightful) speeches on how people
are hypocritical about sex, and how people just don`t want
to understand the many different ways in which people can
make love to each other, these speeches are merely red herrings.
The final blow is the ending, which is so swift, so cynical,
that it borders on the offensive. The message: if a girl is
not a prim and proper housewife, she must be a crazy killer!!!
Crazy
killer or not, Madonna is not my idea of a fun time. Not because
she dabbles in bondage and candle wax (although it`s silly),
but because she doesn`t look joyous doing the dabbling. She
appears aloof, distanced, evasive, which may be the point:
a woman who does this stuff clearly has an ulterior motive.
And she`s definitely little interested in the sex. I`m thinking
of the sex scene involving Julianne Moore, before she was
famous, and Defoe, and I can tell you that Julianne displays
more true enjoyment and happiness in thirty seconds of allegedly
"boring" sex, than Madonna does in six or seven miniutes of
"experimental" and "wild" sex.
The
acting is terrible. Madonna doesn`t act, she preaches. Her
speeches are laughable, not chilling or convincing, especially
when she talks about animals having sex, and when she tells
Defoe "I fuck. That`s what I do." She`s a real comedian. Joe
Mantegna, as the prosecutor, is also terrible. He is supposed
to sound menacing, a slick and arrogant bastard. Instead,
he tries way too hard, and sounds like a bad joke. William
Defoe is just a moron, especially since he actually has an
affair with his boring client instead of staying home with
Julianne. She and Anne Archer, as the secretary, are used
merely as token women, whom we get to see naked at least once,
and while beautiful women are certainly a good thing in the
world, it`s unfair to use actual actors, with actual talent,
only as sex objects, especially in such an anti-woman film.
Overall, this film is a waste of talent, and should be seen
only for those wanting to see a bad film, or for those wanting
to know if the fear of women, an element which goes back to
The Bible, still exists in some form.
David
Macdonald
David
Macdonald's Movie Reviews
|