What is the flesh hiding? There are several reasons why the film “Knowing the flesh” can be attributed to the top ten films on the topic of sex. First, it is of interest from a purely historical point of view. By the early 1970s, the so-called “sexual” revolution was well known in America, in connection with which the relationship between men and women began to be radically revised. Freed from the shackles of puritanical morality, the conservative 50s ancestors of Adam and Eve desperately indulged in violent sexual joys, only later noticing that somehow you need to adapt to each other and spiritually. Perhaps in the rest of history, up to the present day, there has never been such a large-scale, grandiose and prepared expedition into the realm of existential and sexuality. In this field, the American director Mike Nichols very successfully expressed himself, who released in 1967 a frank and honest sexual comedy “The Graduate”, and four years later decided to look even deeper into the depths of the problem, filming an existential drama about the fateful tragedy (which turned into the horrors of AIDS and the collapse of the family) of a generation with his close friend, the newly minted screen star Jack Nicholson.
By the way, Nicholson is the second, but equally important reason to watch this film. Many viewers, little familiar with cinema before the 1980s, know the actor for roles in Blockbusters like “The Departed”, “Wolf” or “Batman”, meanwhile, he earned the status of the main artist of the 70s for a reason. For this picture, as well as a number of other cult tapes, it is Nicholson who is the main rod on which everything else is strung. Ultimately, the film’s philosophy is based not so much on the plot (which, as we shall see, is also worthy of individual praises), but on the existential labyrinth, single-handedly designed and erected by the great artist of the last century. The main character of the film Jonathan had all the theoretical prerequisites to acquire the status of “cult” like his blood brothers Randall McMurphy or George Hanson. After all, it is not just a vivid individuality, but a collective image, absorbed in itself the pain and disappointment of the unbearable ease of being the freest generation of the freest country in history. Notably, long before Reagan's eighties, Nichols's film prophetically predicts an inevitable return to family hearth and conservative values. A few scenes of Nicholson, played in the characteristic of the actor overexpressive manner, literally knock the spirit out of this film. However, on the other hand, Jack’s irrepressible energy is reasonably limited by the restrained rhythm of the narrative, as well as the original directorial style, which is the third incentive to watch this film.
Nichols, like many other directors of the early seventies, spent most of his time in cinemas watching foreign European classics - Antonioni, Fellini, Bergman and other giants. Naturally, their manner of shooting radically influenced his style, which is especially emphasized in the Antonionev-Bergman manner of this film (which is not surprising given the track record of operator Giuseppe Rotunno). Fortunately, Nichols uses the developments of colleagues so skillfully that there is often a desire to rank the film among the masterpieces of at least American filmmaking. Today, almost no one dares to shoot this manner of shooting, due to large labor costs, at the same time it was considered commonplace and spending an extra day for the sake of a good two-minute “mastershot” was something taken for granted. Today’s viewer, accustomed to crazy editing, at least rest, as much as possible will receive an amazing and new aesthetic pleasure from the longest episodes shot in one take, as well as super-major plans of artists acting on the limit. The remarkable visual component is reinforced by a measured soundtrack consisting of former jazz hits and blues of the first half of the twentieth century. A measured, unhurried melody seems to calm the passionate hurricane of the sexual life of the heroes, taking them away from the shores of “peaceful” existence. However much they may wish to unravel the last riddle of their drive, whatever the ultimate mystery of sexuality they seem to have uncovered, each time they find themselves confronted with the next, even stranger and incomprehensible false truth, the path they have chosen is endless, of which they themselves are certainly aware. Here we come across a fourth reason, in connection with which the film can at least be called outstanding – extremely deep, completely honest with the viewer, in many ways heavy, but very bold script Jules Feifer.
To say that the discourse of the film makes you think – almost nothing to say. In fact, Nichols, Fifer, and Nicholson decided to make a kind of attempt at a group psychoanalytic session with the participation of the public. That’s why so many close-ups are filmed with actors directly addressing the camera, that’s why there are direct parallels between Nicholson’s sex life and the entire American population who see the actor as a reflection of themselves. Behind the seemingly unremarkable texture of the standard love triangle (in which the typical opposites of the passionate and sentimental principle cannot agree on the essence of the third party - the eternal mystery of the changing femininity from mother to mistress) lies a beautiful formula about the eternal search and amazing worship of the secret truth of the "other" (in this case, a woman), which can lead to holiness or ecstasy, or perhaps to death and madness. The very sexuality in the film is also a kind of labyrinth, someone finds a treasure in it and bows before it in mute amazement and endless reverence, and someone, like Nicholson’s hero, is doomed to forever wander around him in pursuit of new pleasures, which eventually lead the poor wanderer into the trap of male impotence.
Finally, the last and perhaps most important advantage of the painting is its cognitive function. Willy-nilly, we have to compare the methods of sexual education undertaken by Nichols in a purely artistic form and their complete absence at the moment in our homeland. Needless to say, for example, the distance from our painting “Intimate Places” to “Knowing the Flesh”, as from the Earth to the Sun. Against the background of our paintings, barely breaking through the strongholds of Puritan morality, engaged in the confiscation of films with bare female breasts, while in reality formal depravity is created, “Knowledge of the Flesh” is certainly a kind of revelation. Along with a number of other European films that managed to distill the best of the sexual revolution, Nichols's film is fresh, candid and honest, especially today, almost half a century later. Alas, today, the topic of sex is deliberately ignored - on the one hand it is too hyperbolized as it was in "Nymphomaniac". Trier, on the other hand, is undervalued to the level of flat jokes about losing virginity and so on. At the same time, no one dares to look openly at the problem of compatibility of all forms of physical intimacy with complete emotional alienation. There is a problem, but talking about it becomes unprofitable, boring and difficult. As practice shows, modern filmmakers cannot master it, only real masters of the middle of the last century, nurtured by the golden era of Hollywood, inspired by the New Wave and supported by major film studios that have not yet lost their artistic conscience, were able to cope with it. And Nichols's film is a prime example of that.
