There's an article in today's New York Times in which Stephen Holden expresses some dissapointment over the anti-climax surrounding the release of Michael Winterbottom's sex-and-indie-rock mini-opus, 9 Songs. "Popular culture has become so inundated with pornography and pseudo-pornography that everyday sex, when you finally see it on the screen, looks banal." he writes. "What might once have seemed thrilling and liberating produces a ho-hum response: Is that all there is?"

But isn't that the point of a movie like this? I'm seeing the film for the first time tonight, but it seems clear to me that the goal of making a narrative feature film that tells the story of a relationship through sex scenes to re-orient the viewer away from the various automatic "thrills" that sexual imagery can provide, and towards a more varied library of responses, up to and including boredom.  Real sex is so rarely about being thrilled *or* liberated - and that's unfortunate, but it seems absurd to expect, as Holden puts it, that "the earth should move" when filmmakers start to put it on screen.

What do you think?