Runtime: 1 hour, 35 minutes
Rating: R
Director: Ben Lewin
Quick Impressions:
The Sessions is a film by writer/director Ben Lewin about a highly disabled man (John Hawkes) who wants to experience sexual intimacy for the first time before he dies and does so with the blessing of his priest (William H. Macy) and the guidance of a sex surrogate (Helen Hunt).
Like many people, my mother had never heard of the film. Since (again like many people) she knows John Hawkes only from his previously Oscar nominated supporting role in Winter’s Bone, I explained that the leading role in the film was played by “the guy who played the missing uncle in Winter’s Bone.” Unfortunately, this tidbit gave her the erroneous (but highly entertaining) impression that The Sessions is the sequel to Winter’s Bone, and that Uncle Teardrop had (unbeknownst to Jennifer Lawrence’s character) actually contracted polio and run off to California with Helen Hunt. What a movie that would have been!
In all honesty, I chose to see The Sessions this week instead of the far more popular Skyfall because I’m trying to see as many films generating serious Oscar buzz as I can without going completely broke and taking advantage of my mother’s willingness to babysit my three-year-old daughter. (Plus the upcoming holidays may afford us another opportunity to see Skyfall, but I’m never going to convince visiting relatives to see The Sessions.)
John Hawkes’s leading performance has long been one of the Oscar buzziest of the year, so that’s basically why I wanted to see the movie. Going in, I honestly wasn’t sure if I would enjoy the film. But I did.
I have to say that there were times while watching The Sessions that I felt uncomfortable and beyond skeptical about where things were going. The film ended beautifully, however, and I came away satisfied and oddly uplifted. I must say, this is one of the most faith-affirming, religion-positive films I have seen in a long, long time. Catholicism, Judaism, Vague Spirituality—this movie is very faith affirming and life affirming, respectful of the human soul and in reverent awe of the love (of all kinds) that binds us all to one another.
Not only is The Sessions a beautiful film, but it’s also based on a true story. Mark O’Brien was a real person, left so weakened by the polio he contracted as a child that he spent most of his time in an iron lung and was (functionally) paralyzed from the neck down. (In the movie, his character explains that he has full sensation. He’s just not able to use his muscles.) Despite such adversity, he managed to earn multiple degrees from Berkeley and make a living as a poet and journalist. (I presume the poetry Hawkes occasionally reads in the movie is O’Brien’s actual work. Some of it is quite lovely.) The film’s story is based in large part on an article O’Brien wrote about his experiences with a sex surrogate. Although the screenplay by director Ben Lewin (himself a polio survivor) fictionalizes some details, Cheryl Greene (the surrogate played by Helen Hunt) is a real person who has written and spoken about what her interactions with the late O’Brien have meant to her.
The Good:
With a premise that could easily tug on the heart (and the for-your-consideration) strings, The Sessions could have been a shallow, manipulative, contrived mess. But it’s not. It’s a warm and surprisingly uplifting story with genuine heart. It’s not our pity for the disabled protagonist that keeps us invested in the story. It’s our empathy for the lovable, witty, kind and very human protagonist. Hawkes’s Mark O’Brien comes across as a funny, sweet, pious man with a wicked sense of humor and a more positive outlook on life than I often have. He’s a very likable guy, and he’s capable of amazing honesty—probably because he has nothing to lose, nothing to gain by self-deception.
It’s also very refreshing to see religion and religious figures portrayed in a positive light. The spiritual guides in this movie seem truly to care about those they shepherd, body and soul. Much of the film has a familiar but pleasant, “I’m okay, you’re okay,” kind of sensibility, which is fine, but gains much more oomph when punctuated with the powerful addendum, “And God loves you.” Not only that, but God wants to help you to love yourself.
Even though one of the characters with the most screen time is a priest, The Sessions is not a preachy movie at all. In fact, some people would probably be horrified by the humanity of this permissive, enabling priest who gives such accommodating sex advice. I call the movie faith-affirming (as I believe it is), but there are probably going to be people of faith who take exception to much of what happens.
The film focuses more on what’s being done than what’s being said, and it’s interested in the very, very specific, not in abstract, theoretical notions of morality. Still, The Sessions puts forward a very clear idea of God, and that God is a loving God, whose servants also try to act in love working to help one another. Catholicism and Judaism both come off enormously well. It’s almost like you get the idea of why so many people practice these religions in the first place. The way some films depict religious people, you start to wonder why on earth anyone would sign up for such emotional torture. (Sadly, the crazy, unappealing religious characters who more often appear in movies are not just the fever dreams of a sick Hollywood. There’s plenty of inspiration for those kinds of characters in real life. But in real life, there are also incredibly helpful and loving people of faith, and those are the kind you too rarely see depicted in film.)
Most Oscar Worthy Moment (John Hawkes):
John Hawkes might have a solid shot at winning Best Actor. I mean, he hasn’t gone out of his way to insult the Academy this year (like Joaquin Phoenix), and his win wouldn’t mean anything staggeringly monumental. If Denzel Washington wins, he will join Jack Nicholson as the only male actor to have two Oscars for Best Actor and one for Best Supporting Actor. (Meryl Streep also has two Oscars for lead and one for supporting). If Daniel Day-Lewis wins, he will become the only man in history to win three Best Actor Oscars.) (Katharine Hepburn, of course, won four Oscars for Best Actress, a feat nobody else has even come close to equaling.) John Hawkes would be just another previously nominated actor winning for the first time.
He does give a genuinely magnificent performance. Within five minutes of the movie’s opening, he manages to win over the audience almost totally. He makes Mark O’Brien feel so real. (And yes, I’m aware that Mark O’Brien was a real person, but so was just about every character in Oliver Stone’s Alexander, and I promise you, when watching that movie I sometimes felt like I was spying on animated extras from Looney Tunes.) (Keep in mind that I admire practically every actor in that film, but those performances were not their best work.)
The thing is, throughout the entire movie, Hawkes only moves his face. Though the supporting cast is charming, his is most definitely the character that keeps us glued to the story, and that character does nothing but lie motionless (often in an iron lung) and talk. The level of difficulty there is staggering. He has to make us love that character using only (limited movements of) his face and his voice. It’s not like we’re going to stay with him because he’s John Hawkes. He’s not a big enough star to command that kind of attention. All of the onus is on his performance, and he totally delivers. Plus even for viewers who have only ever seen him in Winter’s Bone, Hawkes shows stunning versatility. This character is completely different from Teardrop Dolly.
Another thing working to Hawkes’s advantage with Academy voters—he also appears in Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln, and though I haven’t seen the movie yet, I’m assuming he doesn’t play a paralyzed polio survivor who hires a sex surrogate.
Hawkes shines throughout the film, so it’s hard to single out just one moment. I do think his early marriage proposal scene is useful to consider in conjunction with the way he interacts with Susan at the end of the movie. You can definitely see how the character has grown.
Most Oscar Worthy Moment (Helen Hunt):
Helen Hunt is naked for most of this movie. That may be a slight overstatement, but she does do full frontal nudity, and her breasts are exposed during many of her most important scenes. I mention that for two reasons.
1) Hollywood seems to consider nudity brave (if you’re a woman. If you’re a man, George Clooney makes good-natured jokes about your penis and everybody ignores your performance.)
2) Helen Hunt looks fantastic. I kept saying to my husband, “Can you believe she’s almost sixty!” He couldn’t. That’s because she’s 49. (I think I kept increasing her age in my mind because it’s been so long since she’s played the lead in a substantial film. If she’d held out for another year, I probably would have made her 80.) Still, she looks good for any age.
As portrayed by Hunt, sex surrogate Cheryl is also naked emotionally (eventually), which is far more important as far as Oscar consideration is concerned. Hunt has always been a very good actress, and there’s a strange dearth of Best Actress possibilities this year. (Actually, that may be an illusion created by the fact that most likely contenders will star in films that haven’t opened yet.) Hunt’s character is very likable as well (eventually), so that should help her chances, I think.
If I were putting together a “for your consideration” video clip for her, I’d choose either the final encounter in the motel (once they’re mostly dressed) or the crying part in the car just afterward (though the part where she’s going through the trash is pretty good, too).
Most Oscar Worthy Moment (Ben Lewin as screenwriter):
The scene with Rhea Perlman is by far my favorite in the movie. For me, in fact, that scene made the movie. It provided such a lovely finish for Cheryl’s story. Her desire to give others validation and healing was noble and kind, though often (as she reported herself) misunderstood. It was amazingly satisfying to see her receive (by surprise) the same kind of validation herself (and from a very unexpected source, from her point of view). That we also learn what happened with the mirror at that point (to make sure we get the connection) is just good writing because it manages to show us a profound connection without using the awkward device of obnoxious narration to beat us over the head with the point.
The Sessions definitely deserves a nod for Best Adapted Screenplay.
Best Scene:
For me, the Rhea Perlman scene was best, but that’s more about Cheryl’s journey than Mark’s. Another incredibly strong scene happens when Mark’s friend Carmen (Jennifer Kumiyama) forgets that he’s coming over. Watching Mark go through a range of emotions and Vera (Moon Bloodgood) and Cheryl (Hunt) come up with a solution because they care about him is somehow very satisfying.
So many moments in this movie could end in disaster because Mark (made physically vulnerable by his condition) has the courage to make himself so emotionally vulnerable as well.
Both scenes involving intercourse are quite moving and very well done also.
Funniest Scene/Best Joke:
I don’t want to give away the jokes, but I will say that despite its very serious subject matter, this film is replete with humor. Mark is very funny (usually intentionally). Not surprisingly given his extreme challenges, his humor is sometimes dark, but even when he’s depressed, he never seems as bitter as he could be. The reactions of William H. Macy (and the other parishioners) to his confessions also contain a lot of humor, and I loved the ongoing not-quite-romantic relationship between Vera (Moon Bloodgood) and the motel front desk manager (Ming Lo). Mark’s early interview with Carmen is another comic highlight (of sorts).
The Negatives:
For a long time this movie made me incredibly uncomfortable, not because of Mark’s disability, not because of the idea of using a sex surrogate, and not because of the nudity. None of that bothered me at all. (In fact, to Hawkes’s credit, you really think of Mark as a regular, relatable person, even though he’s obviously severely disabled.)
No, I was disturbed about Cheryl’s potential lack of professionalism. For quite a while there, I got the idea that her husband (Adam Arkin) wasn’t meeting her needs and that she was falling pretty hard for Mark. Because this is a movie, I was really, really worried that Cheryl might behave in a selfish, despicable, irresponsible, and unprofessional manner.
Had she done so, I was completely prepared to complain about all her “failings” (as I perceived them). For example, she’s a therapist who refuses to communicate with her husband about her own feelings even when he directly asked her. Also, she’s a huge control freak who seems to resent any initiative taken by her husband, yet she finds herself falling for a man who is completely paralyzed and who trusts her like a child and has acquired all his sexual experience from her. Things could have gotten so ugly. Fortunately, they went a different (and more realistic) way, and the conclusion of the movie turned out to be beautiful and moving. But I was on my guard for a long, long time because I’ve seen the way Hollywood “improves” a true story before.
I also found myself wondering about the exact details of how sex surrogacy works. Specifically, Cheryl and Mark never seem to use condoms. (He wouldn’t, I guess. He’s Catholic.) But I mean, how does that work? Do those seeking sex surrogacy agree to undergo various blood tests beforehand? I realize that he had never had sex before, but when I was a virgin back in 1988, I was taught that that’s what they all say.
Surely not everyone she has sex with has never had any kind of sexual encounter. What about people who are uncomfortable with sex and need help because they were molested? (I’m not implying that I lost my virginity in 1989, by the way. It’s just that the movie takes place in 1988, when AIDS was pretty much at the forefront of everyone’s mind.)
I thought that the movie would have been better had it focused on Cheryl’s character either more or less. The Sessions is really Mark’s story. He’s the one baring all. But as that happens, Cheryl ends up baring quite a lot, too. I never really got how her family dynamic worked. I appreciated the closure we got about her experiences with organized religion, and I felt like I understood the professional part of who she was and why she’d chosen that career pretty well. But her professional life and her personal life seemed so disconnected. I wish we’d seen either more or less of the character so I didn’t have so many unanswered questions about her. (And don’t even get me started on her husband!)
I’m also curious about the priest character. Is he as real as Mark and Cheryl? Or is he a composite?
Oh, and I wish we’d gotten to hear more of Mark’s poetry. I liked it.
Overall:
The Sessions is a much more heartwarming and entertaining film than I expected. It’s also surprisingly genuine. Writer/director Ben Lewin is a polio survivor himself, and clearly he intends the movie to say something more than, “Please give me an Oscar.” But speaking of Oscars, John Hawkes gives an Academy Award worthy performance as a character whose disability never distracts us from his humanity. Helen Hunt is very good, too, and William H. Macy makes a very likable (if somewhat unorthodox) priest.