Pornography?
I was rather disappointed while reading more than a dozen American reviews of this film penned by professional film critics. Only one reviewer seemed to be knowledgeable about the author and the position she occupies in world literature. Even two of the most respected film critics, Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, seem to have missed the point of the film altogether, and dismissed it lightly. The majority of the film critics concentrated somewhat obsessively on the sexual scenes (which I must admit are rather explicit), to the exclusion of the other themes, and pronounced it soft-core pornography. Since the running time of the film is 111 minutes, and only eight percent of it (a total of nine minutes) shows the two protagonists in explicitly sexual situations, including four and one half of actual lovemaking, I personally think the film hardly qualifies as soft-porn. In my opinion, these movie reviews are the result of the genetic, generic puritan attitude that prevails in the American society. Or maybe the reviewers were asleep during most of the film and only woke up for the "good parts?"
Let's put to bed (no pun intended) the question that this film is somehow pornographic. Pornography is made solely to appeal to the prurient interest of the viewer. Its sexual content is the only reason for its being made. "The Lover" depicts an intense passion, where, of course, sex plays an integral role. Annaud had no choice but to include this aspect of the story, and he did it in a meaningful and artistic way.
This film is much more than merely the rendering of two people meeting for "quickies." It presents us with two very different and complex characters thrown together in a mad, doomed love affair, mad and doomed because of the reality of the society in which they live.