{.}

I’m a little baffled at my reaction to Orgasm Inc. It’s specifically about the creation of the medical condition “Female Sexual Dysfunction,” a.k.a. FSD, and the pharmaceutical quest for the “female Viagra” to treat it. (This theoretical elixir — or snake oil, if you prefer — would enable women to climax without clitoral stimulation.) More generally it’s about the process of defining conditions which must be treated with drugs: who does the defining, and who stands to benefit from convincing us we’re all sick?

Both the general issue and this specific instance of it enrage me (there’s a particularly appalling Vagina Monologues kinda moment in this film when you learn that one of the victims of medical attempts to “cure” her non-orgasmic condition only has trouble achieving orgasm during penetrative sex).

So why did Orgasm Inc. leave me lukewarm? I think partly because it follows the “standard” documentary rules, and partly because despite its sensitive subject, it keeps the viewer at an odd emotional remove. There are a few informed pontificating heads, several interviews with “sufferers” of FSD, title cards at the end that tell us what happened to some of the participants presumably after principal shooting wrapped. Director Liz Canner brings a personal dimension to the film — she actually started out working for the bad guys, and came to gradual awareness that she was on the wrong team. But the audience doesn’t really get to know Canner, or any of the other experimental subjects. Another thing that rubbed me the wrong way about this film was the recurring use of computer animation of assorted FSD treatments in a footrace toward FDA approval. It looks expensive, but the only information it really conveys is the date when clinical trials of a given product forced it out of the potential marketplace.

Posted in film. You may comment on this entry.