despite a strong reluctance to challenge edward o'neill's thoughtful comments on the thematics of BREAKING THE WAVES {BTW} i've got to take issue with one point . . . i don't know whether BTW is art, or entertainment, or kitsch, or just high brow porn [and i'm even somewhat unclear on how one makes those distinctions--but let's save that for some other time] . . . but it seems to me that the claim that the film exploits its ostensible "seriousness" simply as a way of providing a guilt free occassion for the tittilations of nudity and sex is, on the face of it, hard to credit . . . for while BTW sure offers enough sex and [equal opportunity] nudity, these are presented --both through the quality of the image and through the structure of the narration-- in such a way as to make them distinctly UN-erotic for the viewer . . . all the structures that operateto make porn [of whatever core] enticing are assiduously deconstructed here, so that instead of having the thrill of the peep show we have the self-consciousness that can occur when we chance on people we know and care about making love . . . indeed it seems to me one of the triumphs of the film that it so successfully de-eroticizes sex [for the viewer, that is] that we are forced to respond to the CHARACTERS' sexual experiences rather than reconfigure them for our own arousal and interest . . . that, of course, doesn't make BTW a "good" film, any more than a similar strategy is enough to make BLUE VELVET a good film -- but i don't think it makes any sense to condemn the film for pandering mike frank ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]