Ever an arbiter of the widening cultural-political divide, today's New York Post has an article, by Lou Lemenick, on the sexual "shock and awe" driving many of the films that screened this year at Sundance:

Sundance screens were awash in semen, and all other kinds of bodily fluids, as audiences were treated to graphic scenes of rape, castration, dismemberment and sex acts that crossed the threshold of almost every imaginable taboo - sometimes by performers who will be too young to attend these movies when (or if) they make it into theaters.

Lemenick goes on to rail against some of the Festival's most highly praised films - The Aristocrats, The Squid and The Whale, The Dying Gaul, Mysterious Skin - and even condemns the Grand Jury Prize winner, 40 Shades of Blue, for "revel[ing] in forbidden relationships."

What do you think? Does this year's Sundance lineup seem more overtly "dirty" than in years past? And that aside, if one wants to argue in defense of sexual conservatism, does speaking of "screens … awash in semen" qualify as part of the problem, or part of the solution?

categories Cinematical